Sponsor

Is Your Transport Data Holding You Back?

​

​

Public transport data is messy, fragmented, and incomplete, but what if it wasn't?

​
At Intermoda (formerly netBI and Bridj), we challenge transport agencies and operators to ask: Are you making decisions based on data you can truly trust?

​
Discover what it takes to get 'data fit' and why it matters for the future of public transport.

​

Strategy

Why Carrots Aren't Enough: The Hard Truth About Reducing Car Use

When it comes to deciding how to improve our transport systems, incentivising change through sticks (e.g., increased driving costs or reduced road capacity) is politically more challenging, so most politicians prefer to use carrots, which make non-car travel options more attractive. But do they work? A new piece of research has reviewed the evidence.

Key Takeaways

• The paper focuses on three (partly overlapping) groups of policies, namely:
  • Improvements to non-auto modes (public transport, walking, cycling).
  • Policies that affect land use and urban form (e.g. increased density and diversity of population, jobs and services).
  • “Soft measures” (measures aiming to change travel behaviour by providing information or influencing attitudes and norms).
• A common misunderstanding is that replacing short car trips with walking and cycling would make a large difference to total car traffic volumes, since a large share of car trips are only a few kilometres. Precisely because short trips are short, they make up only a small share of total vehicle kilometres.
• The types of car trips which are (arguably) easiest to shift to other modes because they are the most concentrated in time and space – work trips, short trips, trips within metropolitan areas – are a relatively small share of aggregate Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKT).
• A significant share of car traffic is comprised of long leisure trips outside urban areas, made by non-metropolitan residents.
• On an aggregate level, it is difficult to compensate for increased driving costs by reducing generalised travel costs by public transport, simply because these represent a much smaller fraction of total generalised travel costs. For example, if driving costs increased by a third, all public transport would need to be free and instantaneous to keep aggregate generalised travel costs constant.
• The most positive results come from specific travel contexts: repeated trips such as work trips, urban environments, respondents who are motivated but lack knowledge about other modes and so on.
• Most of the new travel on public transport that arises after an improvement will be newly generated travel (or diverted from slow modes) rather than diverted car trips.
• Increased cycling is diverted from public transport more than from cars.
• Denser cities tend to have shorter average trip distances and lower car shares.
• Transit-oriented development tends to increase transit usage, while the effect on car usage is mixed; some studies find some effects, some none.
• Improving long-distance public transport (such as commuter trains) makes peripheral locations more attractive. Since car shares and trip distances are higher in peripheral locations, the net effect of improved long-distance transit can be an increase in aggregate VKT because more people choose to live in peripheral locations.
• Planning paradigms such as “jobs-to-housing balance” or “the 15 min city” may result in increased trip distances and higher car shares compared to monocentric structures, if destinations are heterogeneous.
• The empirical evidence paints a rather bleak picture regarding the potential to reduce aggregate VKT through the use of carrots substantially.

Comment

This is a paper packed full of insights. The overall message is clear: carrots alone are not going to get us to see a significant mode shift away from cars. We need to do a lot more thinking on how to make 'stick' policies more politically viable and therefore easier to adopt.

What Next?

Do you have 'stick' as well as 'carrot' policies to achieve your transport objectives?

Planning

Beyond Silos: The Evidence on Coordinated Land Use and Transport Planning

The UK's Department of Transport has published a 'rapid evidence assessment' on the impacts of integrating land-use and transport planning.

Key Takeaways

• There is limited empirical evidence on the impact of integrated land use and transport planning.
• Integrated land use and transport planning can lead to reduced journey lengths, increased active travel, enhanced public transport performance, and economic gains from improved productivity and urban regeneration.
• A coordinated set of actions is far more likely to produce meaningful improvements in economic, environmental and social outcomes.
• Integrating transport and land use planning can lead to trade-offs. For example, densification can lower overall greenhouse gas emissions and support active travel, yet it may also lead to higher concentrations of air pollutants in urban cores.
• Proximity to transit hubs within a mixed-use environment can drive economic gains. However, this can also exacerbate housing affordability issues and elevate crime rates.
• Robust governance frameworks are critical for successful integration to overcome a range of barriers to effective integration, such as fragmented decision-making.
• The creation of compact, mixed-use areas can foster shorter journeys, higher rates of active travel, increased public transport usage and less congestion when they are supported by strategic transport investments.
• Integrated planning that co-locates residences, workplaces and essential services can substantially influence travel behaviour and transport outcomes.
• Well-connected urban forms promote active travel. Increased residential and commercial density, along with mixed land use, significantly boost walking and cycling.
• Short-term actions policymakers can take:
  • Setting out the specific outcomes that each scheme is targeting and considering how these outcomes will be monitored and evaluated.
  • Developing awareness of potential unintended consequences via short scoping studies and implementing mitigating actions.
  • Ensuring effective governance processes are put in place.
  • Seek to develop an integrated strategy that goes beyond individual decisions and sets out a larger programme of work.

Comment

It is disappointing that there is a lack of empirical evidence on such an important topic.

However, the evidence we do have suggests significant benefits in a range of areas, not just transport.

In my experience, the biggest challenge is governance, as many projects involve different levels of government, multiple government agencies (with different cultures and working practices), the private sector and multiple political decision-makers.

What next?

How well are you integrating transport and land use? How can you improve it?

Active Transport

Looking Beyond Copenhagen for Active Transport Inspiration

Copenhagen is often chosen as the best exemplar for active transport. However, there are plenty of other places to learn from. This report from UCLA looked at success stories elsewhere.

Key Takeaways

• Higher petrol prices encourage people to walk and cycle, suggesting that a broader set of price incentives (such as tolls and parking charges) can lead to shifts in travel away from cars and towards walking and cycling.
• Most cities lack data on how often and how far people walk or cycle, let alone the effectiveness of specific policies or infrastructure designs.
• For the Global South, there is little information on active transport planning in their peer cities, and best practices based on northern European experience may be of limited relevance.
• The report's findings point to specific steps for cities wanting to increase walking and cycling:

1. Redesign streets. Sidewalks, safe crossings, and physically protected bicycle lanes give people the confidence to walk and cycle.
2. Increase densities. Walking and biking are fueled by density, which brings destinations closer together.
3. Put safety first. Globally, more than one million people die each year from road traffic crashes. Pedestrians and cyclists are among the most vulnerable road users.
4. Focus on walking. While all types of active travel bring health and environmental benefits, walking accounts for more than twice as much travel as cycling.
5. Look beyond Copenhagen (and Amsterdam). Mayors and other policymakers may find more context-appropriate inspiration in their region.
6. Climate is no excuse. Some of the highest rates of active travel are found in the snow of Montreal and Copenhagen, and in the heat and humidity of Kolkata and Dhaka.
7. Seek support from above. Cities can seek funding for street redesigns and other active travel infrastructure from national governments, development banks and other international organisations.
8. Cost doesn’t need to be prohibitive. While walking and biking infrastructure can be expensive, it doesn’t need to be.
9. Temporary initiatives can encourage active travel. On certain days, weeks, or months, cities can dedicate major roads for exclusive use by pedestrians and bicycles.

• In addition to Denmark and the Netherlands, countries such as Afghanistan, Belgium, Bangladesh, and Sweden also have high shares of travel by bicycle.
• At the city level, northern European cities tend to have the most cycling, but clusters of high-cycling cities are also evident in Latin America, Japan, Bangladesh, and Morocco.
• Countries with high shares of travel on foot, particularly Haiti, Afghanistan, Senegal, Slovakia, Serbia, and Ukraine, are less well known for their transport planning and street design efforts.
• The report includes 'vignettes' of other good case studies, including Montreal (Canada), Hoboken (United States), Buenos Aires (Argentina), London (UK), Leiden (Netherlands), Konstanz (Germany), Nairobi (Kenya) and Osaka (Japan).

Comment

When it comes to transport, local context and cultures are important. Having a wide range of cities to emulate helps tailor implementation to your context.

Whilst there is a lot of technical guidance on promoting walking and cycling, there is a lot less guidance on how to navigate the political challenges.

What Next?

Have you looked beyond Copenhagen to see what cities in similar contexts as your own have done to increase walking and cycling?

Quick Adventures in Transport Wonderland

Here is what else I came across this week:

• ​​Turning trains into trams​
• ​Shifting Gears: Transitioning to a Car-Light New York City​
• ​Integrated transport: The size of the prize for mayors​
• There was also a lot of chatter about road user charging this week from the UK, the City of Oxford and New Zealand.

Blog

High Speed Rail In Australia - Does the Emperor Have Any Clothes?

This week, in my blog, I discussed whether high-speed rail in Australia is a good idea. Spoiler alert - I am not convinced.

Innovation

Bikes on Disused Rail Lines

I love a good rail trail, but I had never thought about putting a bike on the actual rail. See here.