Another look at how we define and measure Another look at how we define and measure ‘success’ in tackling transport impacts: ‘success’ in tackling transport impacts:

beyond that ‘oh so tempting’ tailpipe focusbeyond that ‘oh so tempting’ tailpipe focus Background and motivationBackground and motivation

Tendency to focus on impacts per Tendency to focus on impacts per vehicle kmvehicle km

… … but huge growth in trafficbut huge growth in traffic Therefore many are pushing to go Therefore many are pushing to go

beyond tailpipes (eg the push for beyond tailpipes (eg the push for more focus on A & S in ASIF)more focus on A & S in ASIF)

… … but enthusiasm for restraining but enthusiasm for restraining growth in A seems to be especially growth in A seems to be especially difficult to musterdifficult to muster

Research in progress on ‘mission Research in progress on ‘mission and measurement’ in urban transport and measurement’ in urban transport – so comments and debate welcome– so comments and debate welcome

Dr Paul A. Barter, LKY School of Public PolicyDr Paul A. Barter, LKY School of Public Policy

National University of Singapore National University of Singapore

All photos copyright

Paul Barter

System perspectives on what is System perspectives on what is ‘good’ urban transport‘good’ urban transport

Three perspectives on defining success in urban Three perspectives on defining success in urban transport transport (based on Litman’s framework)(based on Litman’s framework):: ‘‘Traffic’:Traffic’: vehicle movement and speed beneficial; vehicle movement and speed beneficial;

congestion as the problem; traffic reduction seems crazycongestion as the problem; traffic reduction seems crazy

‘‘Mobility’: Mobility’: movement of people and goods beneficial; movement of people and goods beneficial; traffic reduction OK if movement enhancedtraffic reduction OK if movement enhanced

‘‘Accessibility’:Accessibility’: ability to reach opportunities is ability to reach opportunities is beneficial; may be enhanced while reducing beneficial; may be enhanced while reducing traffic or even traffic or even while reducing mobility (‘reducing the need to travel’)while reducing mobility (‘reducing the need to travel’)

With the accessibility perspective, traffic and mobility With the accessibility perspective, traffic and mobility are still important but are means not endsare still important but are means not ends

Access-focused policy versus Access-focused policy versus mobility and traffic-focused policymobility and traffic-focused policy

expand traffic capacity; promote low expand traffic capacity; promote low density urban development; density urban development; ‘decongest’ urban cores; expand ‘decongest’ urban cores; expand parking space; etcparking space; etc

increasing vehicle occupancy; public increasing vehicle occupancy; public transport priority in space and budget transport priority in space and budget allocation; etcallocation; etc

restrain or slow motorisation; emphasis restrain or slow motorisation; emphasis on non-motorised transport (walking, on non-motorised transport (walking, cycling); traffic calming; charging full cycling); traffic calming; charging full costs to private transport; access-costs to private transport; access-oriented and transit-oriented urban oriented and transit-oriented urban planning; parking restraint, planning; parking restraint, telecommuting; etc.telecommuting; etc.

= traffic focus = traffic focus (danger of entrenching (danger of entrenching high traffic levels and high traffic levels and harming accessibility for harming accessibility for many)many)

= mobility focus = mobility focus (better(better – and usually – and usually

compatible with accesscompatible with access))

= access focus = access focus (best (best – – benefits in short benefits in short term ANDterm AND builds pathways builds pathways towards sustainable towards sustainable transport systemstransport systems))

‘‘Focus’ in urban transport policyFocus’ in urban transport policy Narrow versus integratedNarrow versus integrated Four levels of urban transport planning (Vuchic)Four levels of urban transport planning (Vuchic)

IV. Individual facilitiesIV. Individual facilities

III. Single mode network III. Single mode network or systemor system

II. Multimodal II. Multimodal coordinated system coordinated system

I. City-Transport I. City-Transport relationshiprelationship

Levels IV, III and II are still important … but should Levels IV, III and II are still important … but should be subordinate to Level Ibe subordinate to Level I

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000

Gross Regional Product per Capita (US$)

Priv

ate

Pas

seng

er K

m p

er C

apita USA

CAN

ANZ

WEU

HIA

MIA

LIA

MIO

LIO

Evolutionary perspectiveEvolutionary perspective Alternative development trajectories for urban transport: Alternative development trajectories for urban transport:

Rich cities but contrasting urban transport systems Rich cities but contrasting urban transport systems (high traffic/energy consuming in USA, Australia, NZ (high traffic/energy consuming in USA, Australia, NZ versusversus lower traffic/energy consuming lower traffic/energy consuming in high-income Asia, Europe)in high-income Asia, Europe)

Motorisation (especially if rapid) and related system-level changes Motorisation (especially if rapid) and related system-level changes - key drivers of unsustainable transport patterns in the long run… - key drivers of unsustainable transport patterns in the long run…

Source: Barter et al. (2003) using data from Kenworthy and Laube (2001)

System-wide ‘success’ perspectives System-wide ‘success’ perspectives in transport-related urban AQM?in transport-related urban AQM?

Awareness of these issues in the AQM community? (eg CAI Awareness of these issues in the AQM community? (eg CAI website presentations as a quick assessment)website presentations as a quick assessment)

Awareness of and/or action on: Awareness of and/or action on: ASIF framework – focus on S or A?ASIF framework – focus on S or A? defining successful transport (eg Litman framework)?defining successful transport (eg Litman framework)? narrow versus integrated focus (Vuchic)?narrow versus integrated focus (Vuchic)? evolutionary perspective and awareness of longer term evolutionary perspective and awareness of longer term

effects (e.g. on urban development patterns)?effects (e.g. on urban development patterns)? The potential for harm to accessibility (and the danger of The potential for harm to accessibility (and the danger of

locking in high-traffic development pathways) in the name locking in high-traffic development pathways) in the name of clean air? of clean air? (either in the short term or the longer term)(either in the short term or the longer term)

Accessibility perspectivesAccessibility perspectives Mentions of A in ASIF, Vuchic level I, Mentions of A in ASIF, Vuchic level I,

‘reducing need to travel’‘reducing need to travel’ Little or no explicit awareness that Little or no explicit awareness that

movement is not an end in itselfmovement is not an end in itself … … except for one or two which call for except for one or two which call for

reducing the need to travel and suggest reducing the need to travel and suggest planning approachesplanning approaches

Some calls for better land-use and Some calls for better land-use and transport integration (potentially access-transport integration (potentially access-focused if transit-oriented but not always)focused if transit-oriented but not always)

Some mentions of non-motorised vehicles Some mentions of non-motorised vehicles but pedestrians almost ignoredbut pedestrians almost ignored

Several calls for pricing approaches Several calls for pricing approaches (potentially access oriented) or TDM(potentially access oriented) or TDM

One mentions slowing motorizationOne mentions slowing motorization Overall: more vague lip service than Overall: more vague lip service than

concrete concrete proposals or policies in practiceproposals or policies in practice

Mobility perspectivesMobility perspectives Includes mentions of S in ASIF, ‘moving Includes mentions of S in ASIF, ‘moving

people & goods not vehicles’, Vuchic Level people & goods not vehicles’, Vuchic Level II, multimodal goalsII, multimodal goals Several strong appeals for focus on S in ASIFSeveral strong appeals for focus on S in ASIF Improving public transport (rail, BRT common; Improving public transport (rail, BRT common;

ordinary bus less common)ordinary bus less common) One or two NMT mentions One or two NMT mentions

use mobility argumentsuse mobility arguments Lots of ‘lip service’ to S Lots of ‘lip service’ to S

but … but …

Policies that potentially Policies that potentially harm accessibility harm accessibility

‘‘Tail-pipe’ work often apparently ‘neutral’ re accessibility Tail-pipe’ work often apparently ‘neutral’ re accessibility and system views of success… but care requiredand system views of success… but care required If work on I or F reduces costs then be aware of impact on A or SIf work on I or F reduces costs then be aware of impact on A or S Be aware of growth in A and change in S in evaluating scenariosBe aware of growth in A and change in S in evaluating scenarios

Tail-pipe or traffic-focused policies in the name of air Tail-pipe or traffic-focused policies in the name of air quality that could actually HARM accessibility (or mobility quality that could actually HARM accessibility (or mobility or both)or both) Many cite congestion as a key cause of high emissions… then Many cite congestion as a key cause of high emissions… then

some make raising traffic speeds a key AQM goal… and some some make raising traffic speeds a key AQM goal… and some suggest capacity expansion for general trafficsuggest capacity expansion for general traffic

Several cases of cleaning up public transport but at risk of service Several cases of cleaning up public transport but at risk of service levels being harmed and costs increasinglevels being harmed and costs increasing

Occasional cases of efforts to ‘decongest’ urban core areasOccasional cases of efforts to ‘decongest’ urban core areas

Why is change difficult?Why is change difficult? Traffic perspective is seductiveTraffic perspective is seductive

fast, long trips seem valuable; traffic problems local, immediate, urgent, clear to fast, long trips seem valuable; traffic problems local, immediate, urgent, clear to individuals; brown agenda may seem to suggest need for more roads; easy to individuals; brown agenda may seem to suggest need for more roads; easy to measure; traffic bias in assessment tools; powerful industrial lobbies; measure; traffic bias in assessment tools; powerful industrial lobbies; institutionalised (Levels IV and III); tail-pipe focus presents no challenge; institutionalised (Levels IV and III); tail-pipe focus presents no challenge; apparently buys space (but may waste almost as much as it ‘buys’); dangers of apparently buys space (but may waste almost as much as it ‘buys’); dangers of this focus not obvious immediately; wider systems assumed staticthis focus not obvious immediately; wider systems assumed static

Mobility perspective seems an obvious improvement but Mobility perspective seems an obvious improvement but surprisingly often still loses to traffic-based thinking surprisingly often still loses to traffic-based thinking

institutions – Level II harder than III and IV; political resistance to mobility at institutions – Level II harder than III and IV; political resistance to mobility at expense of traffic – individual versus social benefits; efficiency arguments expense of traffic – individual versus social benefits; efficiency arguments strong but seem to involve sacrifice; strong but seem to involve sacrifice;

Accessibility perspective is even harder to sellAccessibility perspective is even harder to sell humble - short, slow trips seem trivial to many; subtle, low profile, societal, humble - short, slow trips seem trivial to many; subtle, low profile, societal,

important but rarely urgent; less obvious to individuals; requires system important but rarely urgent; less obvious to individuals; requires system adaptation; vulnerable – especially to impacts of traffic focus; political adaptation; vulnerable – especially to impacts of traffic focus; political resistance to accessibility at expense of traffic; performance measures poorly resistance to accessibility at expense of traffic; performance measures poorly developed or neglected; difficult to institutionalise (Level I); non-equilibrium developed or neglected; difficult to institutionalise (Level I); non-equilibrium economics poorly developed; mechanisms less well understood; may seem to economics poorly developed; mechanisms less well understood; may seem to some like a green agenda luxury; how far to push access at expense of traffic some like a green agenda luxury; how far to push access at expense of traffic (or mobility) and the space it buys?(or mobility) and the space it buys?

Suggestions: accessibility-aware AQM Suggestions: accessibility-aware AQM

Increase awareness in AQM community of systems thinking Increase awareness in AQM community of systems thinking on ‘success’ in urban transport on ‘success’ in urban transport

Highlight win-win accessibility-focused policies that:Highlight win-win accessibility-focused policies that: Simultaneously address BOTH immediate AQM problems AND Simultaneously address BOTH immediate AQM problems AND

encourage access-efficient, urban/transport development pathsencourage access-efficient, urban/transport development paths

Enrich ASIF framework. Further decompose A factor: Enrich ASIF framework. Further decompose A factor: A = ‘activity’ = total travel in passenger km or tonne km A = ‘activity’ = total travel in passenger km or tonne km

= total trips x average trip length= total trips x average trip length Highlights benefit of restraining trip lengths or (more positively) Highlights benefit of restraining trip lengths or (more positively)

increasing proportion of trips that can be short increasing proportion of trips that can be short Highlights that restraining A is not necessarily a sacrificeHighlights that restraining A is not necessarily a sacrifice

Challenge traffic-focused policies if they harm access. Never Challenge traffic-focused policies if they harm access. Never advocate these in the name of AQM! Faster travel and more advocate these in the name of AQM! Faster travel and more travel are no benefit if accessibility has decreasedtravel are no benefit if accessibility has decreased

Accessibility-aware indicators?Accessibility-aware indicators? Impact reduction …Impact reduction …

1.1. per unit of vehicle travel? per unit of vehicle travel? (regardless of amount of traffic)(regardless of amount of traffic)

2.2. per unit of passenger or per unit of passenger or goods travel? goods travel? (could reduce impacts or (could reduce impacts or increase mobility per unit of vehicle travel)increase mobility per unit of vehicle travel)

3.3. in absolute terms?in absolute terms? (impacts must (impacts must reduce regardless of traffic, mobility or reduce regardless of traffic, mobility or accessibility)accessibility)

4.4. per unit of accessibility? per unit of accessibility? (could reduce impacts or increase access (could reduce impacts or increase access per unit of vehicle travel and per unit of per unit of vehicle travel and per unit of person/goods travel)person/goods travel)

= implicit traffic = implicit traffic focusfocus (if this is all we (if this is all we do)do)

= implicit mobility = implicit mobility focusfocus

= possible = possible accessibility accessibility focusfocus (if aware of A (if aware of A and S in long-term)and S in long-term)

= accessibility = accessibility focusfocus (but how to (but how to measure this?)measure this?)

Suggestion: trips-based indicatorsSuggestion: trips-based indicators

Trips-based indicators: ‘Trips-based indicators: ‘impact per trip’ impact per trip’ (eg CO emissions per trip)(eg CO emissions per trip)

Not quite same as ‘impact per unit accessibility’ but a step in right Not quite same as ‘impact per unit accessibility’ but a step in right direction to prompting practical people to keep access in minddirection to prompting practical people to keep access in mind

Total impacts divided by total trips (including non-polluting trips, eg Total impacts divided by total trips (including non-polluting trips, eg walking trips)walking trips)

Requires that we measure trips better (‘linked’ trips -one-trip per Requires that we measure trips better (‘linked’ trips -one-trip per ‘purpose’- and must include ALL trips by everyone, even the ‘purpose’- and must include ALL trips by everyone, even the shortest trips on foot)shortest trips on foot)

Assessing impacts of a policy with ‘impact per trip’Assessing impacts of a policy with ‘impact per trip’ Helps focus minds on reducing impacts without making vehicle Helps focus minds on reducing impacts without making vehicle

kilometres grow faster than tripskilometres grow faster than trips Highlights problem with congestion-relief as AQM policyHighlights problem with congestion-relief as AQM policy Helps focus minds on importance of low-impact trips and preserving Helps focus minds on importance of low-impact trips and preserving

or increasing their roleor increasing their role

Worthy of further investigation?Worthy of further investigation?

Dense Asian Cities risk TRAFFIC DISASTER

along the way in trying to follow this path (eg Bangkok)

Dense Asian Cities risk TRAFFIC DISASTER

along the way in trying to follow this path (eg Bangkok)

Traffic-saturated cities (eg many modest-income

Asian cities today)

Automobile dependent cities (eg

American, Australian cities)

Motorisation; very high road investment, suburbanisation

Continued rapid motorisation

Car dependence “built in”

Low mobility/low traffic movement

High mobility/high traffic movement

Low access levels High access levels

‘Balanced’ cities (eg Japanese, Korean, many

European cities, Hong Kong, Singapore, Curitiba)

Mobility management/ Restrain pace of motorisation

invest in walking and cycling facilities

Transit-oriented land-use

Invest in public transport (first bus, BRT, later others)

In a nutshell…In a nutshell…

Need clean(er) air AND a ‘good’ transport systemNeed clean(er) air AND a ‘good’ transport system Accessibility perspective offers POSITIVE Accessibility perspective offers POSITIVE

rationale for policies that look like a sacrifice from rationale for policies that look like a sacrifice from a traffic or mobility perspective a traffic or mobility perspective (eg traffic restraint)(eg traffic restraint)

Be aware of systems perspectives on ‘success’ in Be aware of systems perspectives on ‘success’ in urban transport AQM urban transport AQM

Measure progress accordinglyMeasure progress accordingly Need not (and must not) abandon reducing Need not (and must not) abandon reducing

impacts per vehicle kilometre …impacts per vehicle kilometre … but emphasise ways that complement and do not but emphasise ways that complement and do not

undermine ‘access-efficient’ development paths for undermine ‘access-efficient’ development paths for longer term sustainabilitylonger term sustainability