Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-Modal Transport Evaluation

This report describes ways to make transportation planning evaluation more comprehensive and multi-modal. Conventional transport planning is mobility-based, it assumes that the planning objective is to maximize travel speed, and evaluates transport system performance based primarily on motor vehicle travel conditions. A new paradigm recognizes that the ultimate goal of most transport activity is accessibility, which refers to people’s overall ability to reach desired services and activities. This new paradigm applies more comprehensive and multi-modal evaluation which expands the range of modes, objectives, impacts and options considered in the planning process. This is particularly important in large growing cities where increased motor vehicle traffic imposes particularly large costs, and in developing countries where a major portion of households cannot afford cars. A summary of this report was published in “Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation,” JOURNEYS, September 2013, pp. 50-58, LTA Academy, Singapore (http://app.lta.gov.sg/ltaacademy/doc/13Sep050-Litman_ComprehensiveAndMultimodal.pdf) Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation Victoria Transport Policy Institute 2 Introduction Transportation policy and planning decisions can have many economic, social and environmental impacts. It is important to consider all significant impacts when evaluating potential transport system changes. More comprehensive and multi-modal evaluation can lead to better decisions. This is a timely issue. Transport planning is undergoing a paradigm shift, a fundamental change in the way problems are defined and solutions evaluated (ADB 2009; GIZ 2011). The old paradigm assumed that transportation refers simply to mobility (physical travel), and evaluated transport system performance based on vehicle travel conditions. The new paradigm recognizes that the ultimate goal of transport is accessibility (people’s ability to reach desired services and activities), and considers a wider range of impacts, objectives and options (ADB 2009; LaPlante 2010). Table 1 compares the old and new paradigms. Table 1 Changing Transport Planning Paradigm (Litman 2013) Old Paradigm New Paradigm Definition of Transportation Mobility (physical travel) Accessibility (people’s overall ability to reach services and activities) Modes considered Mainly automobile Multi-modal: Walking, cycling, public transport, automobile, telework and delivery services Objectives Congestion reduction; roadway cost savings; vehicle cost savings; and reduced crash and emission rates per vehicle-kilometer Congestion reduction; road and parking cost savings; consumer savings and affordability; improved access for disadvantaged people; safety and security, energy consumption and emission reductions; public fitness and health; support for strategic land use objectives (reduced sprawl) Impacts considered Travel speeds and congestion delays, vehicle operating costs and fares, crash and emission rates. Various economic, social and environmental impacts, including indirect impacts Favored transport improvement options Roadway capacity expansion. Improve transport options (walking, cycling, public transit, etc.). Transportation demand management. More accessible land development. Performance indicators Vehicle traffic speeds, roadway Level-of-Service (LOS), distancebased crash and emission rates Quality of accessibility for various groups. Multimodal LOS. Various economic, social and environmental impacts. The old planning paradigm favored automobile-oriented transportation improvements. The new planning paradigm expands the range of objectives, impacts and options considered. Many current transportation economic evaluation practices (the methods used to evaluate transport problems and potential solutions) tend to be biased in ways that undervalue innovative policies and technologies, such as pricing reforms, improvements to alternative modes, and telecommunications that substitute for physical travel (Hüging, Glensor and Lah 2014). The following section discusses key concepts for more comprehensive and multi-modal evaluation which is more suitable for the new paradigm. Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation Victoria Transport Policy Institute 3 MobilityVersus Accessibility-Based Evaluation Conventional planning tends to evaluate transport system performance based primarily on mobility, measured as motor vehicle travel speed. But mobility is seldom an end in itself (excepting the small portion of travel that lacks a destination), the goal of most transport activity is accessibility, which refers to people and industry’s ability to reach desired services and activities: goods, education, jobs, recreation, resources, workers and customers. Various factors affect accessibility (Levinson 2013; Litman 2014):  Automobile travel (vehicle travel speed, affordability, safety and parking convenience).  The quality and affordability of other modes (walking, cycling and public transport).  Transport network connectivity Roadway connectivity (Figure 1) and the quality of connections between modes, such as the ease of walking and cycling to public transit, the quality of transit to airports, and the efficiency of intermodal freight terminals.  Land use accessibility (also called geographic proximity) which refers to the distances between activities, which is affected by development density and mix.  Mobility substitutes including telecommunications and delivery services that reduce the need for physical travel. Figure 1 Roadway Connectivity Impacts Well Connected Road Network (1.3 miles) Poorly Connected Network (3.6 miles) Although points A and B are approximately the same distance apart in both maps, the functional travel distance is nearly three times farther with the poorly-connected, hierarchical road network. Because it forces most trips onto major roads a hierarchical network tends to increase total traffic congestion and accident risk, particularly where vehicles turn on and off major arterials (red circles). New research improves our understanding of how such factors affect accessibility. For example, Levine, et al (2012) and Levinson (2013) found that development density tends to affect the number of jobs and services available within a given travel time much more than vehicle travel speed. Ewing and Cervero (2010) and Handy, Tal and Boarnet (2010) conclude that roadway connectivity significantly affects the travel distances required to reach destinations. Ewing and Hamidi (2014) find that each 10% increase in the compact development index reduces total journey-to-work drive time by 0.5%. Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation Victoria Transport Policy Institute 4 Comprehensive analysis is important because transport planning often involves trade-offs between these accessibility factors. For example:  Road space must often be allocated between sidewalks, bike lanes, bus lanes, general traffic lanes and parking lanes, and therefore between accessibility by different modes.  Wider roads with higher traffic speeds can increase automobile access but degrade pedestrian and bicycle access (called the barrier effect), and therefore transit access since most transit trips include walking and cycling links.  One-way streets, longer block lengths, and reduced cross-streets tend to increase traffic speeds, but increase travel distances.  Urban fringe highway locations tend to offer convenient automobile access but poor access by walking, cycling and public transit. Conversely, urban center locations tend to be more difficult to access by car but easier to access by walking, cycling and transit. Table 2 describes the degree these factors are considered in conventional evaluation and what is required for more comprehensive and multi-modal evaluation. Failing to consider these factors can result in planning decisions that improve one form of accessibility but reduce others, such as a roadway expansion that reduces walkability, or an urban fringe location that is convenient to access by automobile but difficult to reach by other modes. Table 2 Consideration of Accessibility Factors In Transport Planning Factor Consideration in Conventional Evaluation Required for Comprehensive Evaluation Automobility – motor vehicle traffic speed, congestion delays, vehicle operating costs, crash rates per mile or kilometer. Usually considered using indicators such as roadway level-of-service, average traffic speeds and congestion costs and crash rates. Impacts should be considered per capita (per capita vehicle costs and crash casualties) to take into account the amount that people travel. Quality of other modes – speed, convenience, comfort, safety and affordability of walking, cycling, public transport and other modes Considers public transit speed but not comfort. Active mode (walking and cycling) access is often ignored. Multi-modal performance indicators that account for convenience, comfort, safety, affordability and integration (Dowling, et al. 2008) Transport network connectivity – density of connections between paths, roads and modes, and therefore the directness of travel between destinations Traffic network models consider regional road and transit networks but often ignore local streets, sidewalks and paths, and intermodal connections Fine-grained analysis of path and road network connectivity, and connections between modes, such as the ease of walking and biking to transit stations Land use accessibility – development density and mix, and therefore travel distances Often ignored. Some integrated models consider some land use factors. Fine-grained analysis of how land use factors affect accessibility by various modes. Mobility substitutes – telecommunications and delivery services that reduce the need to travel Only occasionally considered in conventional transport planning. Consider these accessibility options in transport planning. Conventional planning evaluates transport system performance based primarily on regional travel speed. Additional factors must be considered for comprehensive accessibility evaluation. Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation Victoria Transport Policy Institute 5 Analysis Scope Conventional evaluation tends to focus on some economic impacts but overlooks others, as indicated in Table 3. For example, it considers roadway costs but not parking facility costs, and vehicle operating but not ownership costs. It seldom explicitly considers mobility for non-drivers and other equity objectives, strategic land use objectives such as reducing impervious surface, or public fitness and health objectives, and so undervalues walking, cycling and public transit improvements. More comprehensive evaluation considers a wider range of impacts and impacts on all modes (DeRobertis, et al. 2014). Table 3 Scope of Impacts Considered Usually Considered Often Overlooked Government expenditures on facilities and services Travel speed (congestion delays) Vehicle operating costs (fuel, tolls, tire wear) Per-mile crash risk Roadway costs Road construction environmental impacts Downstream congestion Barrier effect (delay to active travel from wider roads and increased vehicle traffic) Parking costs Vehicle ownership costs Mobility for non-drivers and other social equity objectives Indirect environmental impacts Strategic land use impacts (compact development) Public fitness and health Conventional transportation planning tends to focus on a limited set of impacts. More comprehensive analysis can help identify win-win solutions that achieve multiple objectives. Table 4 illustrates this concept. For example, expanding roadways may reduce traffic congestion, and more efficient and alternative fueled vehicles may reduce energy consumption and pollution emissions, but these strategies provide few other benefits. Transportation demand management (TDM) and smart growth strategies tend to provide a greater range of benefits, and so can be considered win-win solutions. Table 4 Comparing Strategies Planning Objective Roadway Expansion Efficient and Alt. Fuel Vehicles TDM and Smart Growth Congestion reduction   Roadway savings  Parking cost savings  Consumer savings and affordability  Traffic safety  Improved mobility options for non-drivers  Energy conservation   Pollution reduction   Physical fitness and health (exercise)  Land use objectives (more compact development)  ( = Achieve objectives.) Roadway expansion and more efficient or alternative fuel vehicles provide few benefits. Transportation demand management (TDM) and smart growth strategies provide a wider range of benefits and so can be considered win-win solutions. Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation Victoria Transport Policy Institute 6 Considering Diverse Travel Demands More comprehensive and multi-modal evaluation recognizes the diversity of travel demands and the unique and important roles that various modes in an efficient and equitable transport system. In a typical community, 20-40% of the population cannot or should not drive due to age (too young), disability, low income, or impairment (after consuming alcohol or drugs), and other modes are sometimes the most efficient option, such as neighborhood trips best made by walking and cycling, and travel on congested urban corridors most efficiently made by public transit. Table 5 summarizes various nonautomobile travel demands and consequences if they are not served. Table 5 Non-Automobile Travel Demands Type of Demand Portion of Typical Community Consequences of Failing to Meet These Demands Youths (10-22 years old) 10-20% Lack independent mobility. Must be chauffeured. Seniors (over 65 years ) 10-15% and growing Lack independent mobility. Must be chauffeured. Young males 5-10% Increased high-risk driving. Lower-income households 20-40% Lack mobility or bear unaffordable vehicle expenses. Non-driving tourists Varies Lack mobility. Must rely on taxis. Urban-peak commuters 10-40% Increased traffic and parking congestion Neighborhood trips 5-15% Reduced physical fitness, increased local traffic problems. Post-drinking or drug use Varies Reduced restaurant and bar business. High-risk driving. Various types of travelers and trips are most efficiently made by walking, cycling and public transit. Failing to serve those demands reduces non-drivers’ independence, increases drivers’ chauffeuring burdens, imposes financial burdens, and increases traffic problems. Several current issues highlight the importance of serving such demands:  Traffic safety programs that discourage high-risk driving (by inexperienced and impaired drivers) can only be effective and fair if these travelers have good alternatives.  Concern about the health risks of sedentary living justify efforts to encourage walking and cycling for recreation and utilitarian travel.  Concerns about transport inaffordability, the high financial costs of automobile travel justify improvements to affordable transport modes.  Solutions to specific transportation problems, including traffic and parking congestion and the costs of expanding roads and parking facilities, excessive energy consumption and pollution emissions, and high traffic accident rates, often involve shifting travel to more resource efficient modes.  Community economic development and livability often depend on reducing local vehicle traffic and creating more compact, walkable neighborhoods. Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation Victoria Transport Policy Institute 7 Scope of Analysis Summary Table 6 indicates the scope of accessibility factors and economic impacts considered in conventional transport evaluation, indicated by blue cells. Other factors and impacts are sometimes discussed but seldom quantified or monetized. For example, conventional planning seldom quantifies the vehicle ownership and parking cost savings that can be provided by improving alternative modes or more accessible land use development. Table 6 Accessibility Factors and Impacts Considered In Conventional Evaluation  Accessibility Factors  Automobile Transit Active Modes Road Connectivity Land Use Accessibility  I m p a c ts  Government costs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Travel speeds, delays Yes Yes No Sometimes Sometimes Safety and security Yes Yes Sometimes No No User costs & affordability Oper. costs Oper. costs No No No Mobility for non-drivers No Yes Sometimes No No User comfort No No No Not Applicable Not Applicable Parking costs No No No No No Energy consumption Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes No No Pollution emissions Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes No No Land use objectives No Sometimes No No No Public fitness and health No No Sometimes No No Conventional planning considers a limited scope of accessibility factors and economic impacts. These omissions tend to bias planning decisions in favor of roadway expansion to the detriment of other solutions and modes. This contributes to a self-reinforcing cycle of increased motor vehicle travel, reduced transport options (degraded walking and cycling conditions and reduced public transit service), and more sprawled development, as illustrated in Figure 2. The result is sometimes called “predict and provide” planning. Figure 2 Cycle of Automobile Dependency Many common planning practices contributed to a cycle of automobile dependency and sprawl. These tend to reduce the supply of affordable housing in compact, mixed, walkable and transit oriented communities. Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation Victoria Transport Policy Institute 8 Defining Transport System Efficiency Efficiency refers to the ratio of outputs (benefits) to inputs (costs). Engineers and economists often say that their goal is to increase transport system efficiency, although this can be defined and measured in several different ways:  Mobility-based planning evaluates efficiency based on the traffic speeds, using indicators such as roadway level-of-service (LOS) and the Travel Time Index (TTI), so projects that increase traffic speeds at the lowest cost are considered most efficient.  Multi-modal transport planning measures the movement of people rather than vehicles, recognizes that not everybody can drive, and that different modes are most resource efficient for different types of trips. From this perspective transport systems are most efficient if they allow system users to select the most appropriate mode for each trip, such as walking and cycling for local errands, public transit and ridesharing for travel on major corridors, and automobile travel when it is truly most efficient overall.  Accessibility-based transport planning recognizes the various factors that affect accessibility including mobility, the quality of transport options, transport network connectivity, land use accessibility, and mobility substitutes such as telecommunications and delivery services that eliminate trips. This recognizes that a lower-speed but more diverse and connected transport system may allow travelers to reach destinations faster than a system with higher speeds but longer trip distances. From this perspective, a transport system is most efficient if it optimizes these factors to maximize access.  Economic efficiency refers to the degree that a system maximizes economic value. From this perspective a transport system is most efficient if it favors higher-value trips and more efficient modes over lower-value trips and less efficient modes. This can justify priority for commercial vehicles (which tend to have high value) and public transit vehicles (which tend to be space efficient), and pricing that allows higher value or spaceefficient vehicles to outbid other vehicles for scarce road and parking space.  Planning efficiency refers to planning process integration to insure that individual, shortterm decisions support strategic, long-term goals. From this perspective transport systems are most efficient if individual planning and management decisions are integrated with economic development, social, health, and environmental planning objectives. How efficiency is defined and measured can significantly affect planning decisions. For example, conventional planning evaluates transport system efficiency based on vehicle travel using indicators such as roadway level-of-service and traffic speeds, which will only justify the conversion of a general traffic lane into a bus lane if that reduces congestion in the remaining general traffic lanes, which seldom occurs. Comprehensive, multi-modal planning evaluates system efficiency based on the movement of people rather than vehicles, and so recognizes the efficiency gains that result if bus occupant time savings offset any increase in automobile occupant travel times. It can justify other regulations that favor high occupant and commercial vehicles, and efficient road and parking pricing which tests users’ willingness-to-pay for scarce road and parking space. Similarly, accessibility-based planning may justify infill development that degrades local roadway LOS ratings if the increase in land use accessibility reduces total travel time. Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation Victoria Transport Policy Institute 9 Comprehensive and Multi-modal Planning Practices This section describes specific practices for more comprehensive and multi-modal planning. More Comprehensive Transportation Data Current planning is often biased by the greater quantity and quality of data on motor vehicle travel demand and conditions, compared with what is available for other modes and impacts. Table 7 summarizes various types of data required for effective transport planning. Comprehensive and multi-modal evaluation requires more detailed data on many factors such as the travel demands of physically, economically and socially disadvantaged people; walking, cycling and public transit travel conditions; transportation expenditures by governments and households (ABW 2014; Litman 2011). Table 7 Examples of Transport-Related Data Facilities and Services Activities Impacts Land Use Road and railroad supply and quality Parking supply and price Public transit service quality Walking and cycling facility supply and quality Port and airport size and condition Transport system connectivity Accessibility indicators Vehicle ownership (by type and user) Vehicle travel (by type, purpose and location) Freight transport Person travel (by mode, purpose and location) Mode share Active mode improvements Travel speeds and delay (congestion) Transport facility and service expenditures Transport expenditures Traffic accidents and casualties by mode Energy consumption Pollution emissions and exposure Traffic and aircraft noise Transport quality for disadvantaged groups Density and mix Various measures of accessibility Portion of land devoted to transport facilities Land valuation (as impacted by transport facilities and services) Costs and market values This table lists various types of data needed for transport policy, planning and research. Accessibility-based Transport Planning As previously discussed, comprehensive and multi-modal planning requires accessibilitybased analysis which accounts for all accessibility factors (automobile travel, alternative modes, transport network connectivity, land use accessibility and mobility substitutes), and evaluates transport system performance using indicators such as multi-modal levelsof-service, per capita travel time, and transportation affordability. Several new tools are available to help with such evaluation (Levinson 2013):  Multi-modal level-of-service indicators (Dowling, et al. 2008).  Single-mode indicators such as WalkScore and BikeScore, which measure the number of services and activities available within convenient walking and cycling distance.  Mapping systems that measure the numeber jobs available within a given commute time by various modes and job categories (Levin, et al. 2012; Levinson 2013; RPA 2014).  Surveys which measure the amount of time that residents in a community spend on travel, and the factors that affect that (Ewing and Hamidi 2014).  Integrated and comprehensive transportation and land use models (Johnston 2008). Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation Victoria Transport Policy Institute 10 Comprehensive Impact Analysis Comprehensive and multi-modal evaluation considers all significant planning objectives and impacts, as summarized in Table 8. Impacts should generally be measured per capita rather than per vehicle-mile to account for the benefits of policies and projects that reduce total vehicle travel. New modeling techniques and targeted research can help quantify and monetize the additional impacts, such as the quality of accessibility for disadvantaged people, and physical fitness (Litman 2009; NZTA 2010). Table 8 Comprehensive Impact Analysis (Litman 2014) Impact Consideration in Conventional Planning Improvements for More Comprehensive Evaluation Comfort and convenience, such as crowding, walking conditions, user information, etc. Although often recognized as important, not generally quantified or included in benefit-cost analysis. Incorporate multi-modal performance indicators that reflect convenience and comfort factors. Traffic congestion Motor vehicle delays are usually quantified but active mode travel delays are generally ignored. Incorporate multi-modal performance indicators that reflect both motorized and non-motorized travel delays. Roadway costs Generally considered. Parking costs Generally ignored. Include parking costs when evaluating options that affect vehicle ownership or trip generation rates. User costs Operating cost savings are generally recognized but vehicle ownership savings are generally ignored. Include vehicle ownership costs when evaluating policies and projects that affect vehicle ownership rates. Traffic risks Measures crash rates per vehicle-km., which ignores the additional crashes cause by induced vehicle travel. Develop comprehensive evaluation of traffic risks measured per capita. Transport options, including the quantity of accessibility, for physically and economically disadvantaged people Sometimes recognized as a planning objective but seldom quantified or included in formal economic evaluation. Develop indicators of the quality of mobility and accessibility for various user types, including physically and economically disadvantaged people. Energy consumption Measures per-mile fuel consumption, which ignores additional consumption from induced travel. Measure per capita. Pollution emissions, including air, noise and water pollution Measures emissions per vehicle-km., which ignores additional emissions cause by induced vehicle travel. Measure per capita. Public fitness and health (the amount that people exercise by walking and cycling) Increasingly recognized but not usually quantified. Measure walking and cycling activity, particularly by high risk (overweight and sedentary) groups. Land use objectives such as more compact, development, openspace preservation and community redevelopment Sometimes recognized as a planning objective but seldom quantified or included in formal economic evaluation. Develop indicators, including changes in land use accessibility and loss of openspace. This table summarizes the degree that current planning considers various impacts, and ways to better incorporate these impacts into the planning process. Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation Victoria Transport Policy Institute 11 More Nuanced Travel Time Analysis Conventional evaluation tends to apply the same travel time unit costs (cents per minute or dollars per hour) to all travel, although this value can vary significantly depending on travel conditions, with higher values for urgent errands and travel in uncomfortable conditions, for example, when walking on roads that lack sidewalks or when traveling on a crowded bus or train. Comprehensive evaluation uses more variable travel time values that account for these factors, which helps quantify the value to consumers of congestion pricing and improved travel comfort. Multi-Modal Benefit Analysis Conventional transport evaluation tends to overlook or undervalue many of the benefits of non-automobile modes, and therefore many of the benefits of policies that improve transport options, apply more multi-modal roadway design, and encourage shifts from automobile to other modes (McCann 2013). Table 9 lists various types of benefits and costs that may result from improving alternative modes, increased use of those modes, reduced automobile travel, and more compact development. Not every walking, cycling, rideshare and public transit project has all of these impacts, but most have many of them. Table 9 Non-Automobile Mode Benefits and Costs (Litman 2009) Category Improve Alternative Modes More Use of Non-Auto Modes Reduced Automobile Travel More Compact Development Indicators Service Quality (speed, reliability, comfort, safety, etc.) Transit Ridership (passenger-miles or mode share) Mode Shifts or Automobile Travel Reductions More Compact and Mixed Development Benefits  More convenience and comfort for existing users.  Equity benefits (since existing users tend to be disadvantaged).  Option value (the value of having an option for possible future use).  Improved operating efficiency (if service speed increases).  Improved security (reduced crime risk).  Mobility benefits to new users.  Increased user security, as more people walk, bike and use public transit.  Increased fare revenue.  Increased public fitness and health (from more walking or cycling trips).  Reduced traffic and parking congestion.  Road and parking facility cost savings.  Consumer savings.  Reduced chauffeuring burdens.  Increased traffic safety.  Energy conservation.  Air and noise pollution reductions.  Additional vehicle travel reductions (“leverage effects”).  Improved accessibility, particularly for nondrivers.  Reduced crime risk.  More efficient development (reduced infrastructure costs).  Farmland and habitat preservation. Costs  Increased capital and operating costs.  Land and road space.  Increased congestion and accident risk.  Crowding of sidewalks, paths and transit vehicles.  Reduced vehicle business activity.  Various problems associated with more compact development. Walking, cycling and public transport improvements can have various benefits and costs, many of which tend to be overlooked or undervalued in conventional transportation economic evaluation. Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation Victoria Transport Policy Institute 12 Multi-Modal Performance Evaluation Performance evaluation refers to a monitoring and analysis to determine how well policies, programs and projects perform relative to their intended goals and objectives. Performance indicators (also called measures of effectiveness) are specific measurable outcomes used to evaluate progress toward goals and objectives. Conventional planning evaluates transport system performance primarily based on motor vehicle traffic speeds and roadway level-of-service (DeRobertis, et al. 2014). In recent years planning organizations have developed performance indicators for other modes, as indicated in Table 10. These can be used to identify problems, evaluate trade-offs (for example, if roadway expansion reduces walkability), set targets, and measure progress. Table 10 Performance Indicators for Various Modes Mode Service Indicators Outcome Indicators Walking Sidewalk, crosswalk and path supply and conditions Universal design Pedestrian level-of-service (LOS) Walking mode share Per capita pedestrian travel Pedestrian casualty (crash and assault) rates Pedestrian satisfaction ratings Cycling Bikelane, path and bike parking supply and conditions Cycling LOS Cycling mode share Per capita cycling travel Cycling casualty rates Cyclist satisfaction ratings Automobile Road and parking supply and conditions Traffic speeds and roadway LOS Motor vehicle crash casualty rates Automobile mode share Motorist satisfaction ratings Public transit Transit service supply and conditions Transit stop and station quality Transit LOS Fare affordability Transit mode share Per capita transit travel Transit passenger casualty rates Transit user satisfaction ratings Taxi Taxi supply and conditions Average response time Taxi fare affordability Per capita taxi travel Taxi passenger casualty rates Taxi user satisfaction ratings Multi-modal connectivity Quality of transport terminals Information integration Fare integration Transport terminal use Transport terminal user casualty rates Taxi user satisfaction ratings Overall accessibility Number of services and jobs accessible within a given time and money budget Affordability of accessible housing Portion of household budgets devoted to transport Quality of accessibility for disadvantaged people This table illustrates performance indicators for various transport modes and overall accessibility. Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation Victoria Transport Policy Institute 13 Consider Social Equity Objectives Equity refers to the distribution of resources and opportunities. Transportation decisions can have significant equity impacts so it is important to consider them in the planning process. There are three major categories of transportation equity impacts:  Horizontal equity. This assumes that people with similar needs and abilities should be treated equality. This tends to suggest that consumers should “get what they pay for and pay for what they get” unless a subsidy is specifically justified.  Vertical equity with respect to income. This assumes that transport policies should be progressive with respect to income, meansing that they favor lower-income people.  Vertical equity with respect to transport ability or need. This assumes that transport policies should favor people with constrained mobility (for example, due to a disability) or who require extra transport (for example, because they are traveling with children). Various tools can be used to quantify equity impacts in a particular situation, such as how a policy or project impacts various groups (DfT 2006; Stanley, et al. 2010). Table 11 summarizes indicators that can be used to evaluate a policy or project’s equity impacts. Table 11 Equity Indicators (VTPI 2013) Criteria Indicator Egalitarianism Whether each group or individually is treated equally. Users bear the costs they impose. Individual users bear the costs they impose unless a subsidy is specifically justified. Progressive with respect to income. Lower-income households are better off overall. Benefits transportation disadvantaged. Transportation disadvantaged people (people with disabilities or other mobility constraints) are better off overall from improved travel options or financial savings. Improves basic mobility. More important travel activity (emergency response, commuting, basic shopping) is favored over less important travel. Comprehensive analysis should apply indicators of both horizontal and vertical equity. Transportation Modeling Improvements Transportation models predict how specific policy and planning decisions will affect future travel activity. Most older models primarily reflected vehicle traffic conditions. Some newer models evaluate overall accessibility, taking into account the quality of access by various modes, transport network conditions, land use patterns and other factors (Bartholomew and Ewing 2009; Dowling and Associates 2008) . For example, new models can quantify the number of stores or jobs available within 20-minute travel time by walking, cycling, public transit and automobile (Levine, et al. 2012; Levin, et al. 2012; RPA 2014). Some of these models take into account actual walking, cycling and transit travel conditions, including the quality of sidewalks, crosswalks, and crowding. Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation Victoria Transport Policy Institute 14 More Accurate Congestion Costing Conventional transportation planning tends to place considerable importance on traffic congestion, and congestion reduction is often a primary planning objective, so how congestion costs are calculated and potential congestion reduction strategies are evaluated can significantly affect planning decisions. The methods commonly used to quantify and monetize congestion costs are biased in various ways that tend to exaggerate roadway expansion benefits and underestimate the benefits of other congestion reduction strategies (Dumbauth 2012; Litman 2012), as summarized in Table 12. Table 12 Congestion Costing Biases, Impacts and Corrections (Litman 2009) Type of Bias Planning Impacts Corrections Measures congestion intensity rather than total congestion costs Favors roadway expansion over other transport improvements Measure per capita congestion costs and overall accessibility Assumes that compact development increases congestion Encourage automobile-dependent sprawl over more compact, multi-modal infill development Recognize that smart growth policies can increase accessibility and reduce congestion costs Only considers impacts on motorists Favors driving over other modes Use multi-modal transport system performance indicators Estimates delay relative to free flow conditions (LOS A) Results in excessively high estimates of congestion costs Use realistic baselines (e.g., LOS C) when calculating congestion costs Applies relatively high travel time cost values Favors roadway expansion beyond what is really optimal Test willingness-to-pay for congestion reductions with road tolls Uses outdated fuel and emission models that exaggerate fuel savings and emission reductions Exaggerates roadway expansion economic and environmental benefits Use more accurate models Ignores congestion equilibrium and the additional costs of induced travel Exaggerates future congestion problems and roadway expansion benefits Recognize congestion equilibrium, and account for generated traffic and induced travel costs Funding and planning biases such as dedicated road funding Makes road improvements easier to implement than other types of transport improvements Apply least-cost planning, so transport funds can be used for the most cost-effective solution. Exaggerated roadway expansion economic productivity gains Favors roadway expansion over other transport improvements Use critical analysis of congestion reduction economic benefits Considers congestion costs and congestion reduction objectives in isolation Favors roadway expansion over other congestion reduction strategies Use a comprehensive evaluation framework that considers all objectives and impacts This table summarizes common congestion costing biases, their impacts on planning decisions, and corrections for more comprehensive and objective congestion costs. Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation Victoria Transport Policy Institute 15 Account for Generated and Induced Travel Impacts Generated Traffic is the additional vehicle travel that occurs when a roadway improvement increases traffic speeds or reduces vehicle operating costs (Gorham 2009; Litman 2001). Increasing urban roadway capacity tends to generate additional peakperiod trips that would otherwise not occur, as illustrated in Figure 3. Over the long run, generated traffic often fills a significant portion (50-90%) of added urban roadway capacity. This has three implications for transport planning: 1. Generated traffic reduces roadway expansion congestion reduction benefits. 2. Induced travel increases external costs, including downstream congestion, parking costs, crashes, pollution, and other environmental impacts. 3. The additional travel that is generated provides relatively modest user benefits since it consists of marginal value trips (travel that consumers are most willing to forego). Improved traffic models can account for these impacts. Ignoring generated traffic and induced travel tends to overstate roadway expansion benefits and undervalues alternative modes and transportation demand management alternatives. Figure 3 How Road Capacity Expansion Generates Traffic Traffic grows when roads are uncongested, but the growth rate declines as congestion develops, reaching a self-limiting equilibrium (indicated by the curve becoming horizontal). If capacity increases, traffic grows until it reaches a new equilibrium. This additional peak-period vehicle travel is called “generated traffic.” The portion that consists of absolute increases in vehicle travel (as opposed to shifts in time and route) is called “induced travel.” Consider Diverse Transportation Improvement Options Conventional planning tends to consider a relatively limited set of transport system improvement options, which typically include roadway and parking facility expansions, and sometimes major new public transit services. More comprehensive and multi-modal planning considers additional types of improvements, as indicated in Table 13. Many of these strategies have synergistic effects (they are more effective implemented together than individually) and so they should generally be planned and evaluated as integrated programs. Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation Victoria Transport Policy Institute 16 Table 13 Transport System Improvement Options Considered Conventional Comprehensive and Multi-Modal Roadway expansion Parking facility requirements and subsidies Major transit projects Walking and cycling improvements and encouragement Incremental public transit improvements HOV lanes, bus lanes and bus rapid transit (BRT) programs Efficient parking management Transport pricing (fuel, road, parking, insurance, fares, etc.) reforms Commute trip reduction programs Mobility management marketing programs Complete streets policies Smart growth land use policies Comprehensive evaluation expands the types of transport system improvements considered. Implement Multi-Modal Planning Multi-modal planning involves various planning and design practices that help create corridors, neighborhoods and regions with diverse transport options, including convenient, comfortable and affordable alternatives to automobile travel (VDRPT 2013). This includes Multimodal System Planning which integrates transport and land use planning data to identify transport system disconnects such as areas with poor walking and cycling conditions, and constraints on public transit access. Finance Reforms Conventional transportation finance often includes substantial funding that is dedicated to roads and parking facilities and cannot be used to improve other modes, or for transportation demand management programs, even if they are more cost effective and beneficial overall. This biases transportation planning to overinvest in automobile facilities and underinvest in alternatives. Least-cost planning refers to planning and funding practices that allow funds to be dedicated to the most cost effective and beneficial option overall, considering all impacts (VTPI 2012). Explicitly Indicate Omissions and Biases Conventional the transport planning often reports analysis results with an unjustified degree of confidence, for example, producing benefit/cost ratios and net values with three or four significant figures. More comprehensive and multi-modal planning explicitly describes omissions and biases in analysis, and often reports results as ranges rather than point values using various types of statistical analyses which reflect uncertainty. Engage Stakeholder The planning process should involve stakeholders (people affected by a decision), including those who are physically, economically and socially disadvantaged. This requires informing stakeholders about planning issues and how they can become involved in the planning process. Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation Victoria Transport Policy Institute 17 Conclusions Conventional transportation economic evaluation practices originally developed to determine whether roadway improvement costs would be offset by future motor vehicle travel time and operating cost savings. They tend to give little consideration to other accessibility factors, other modes, and other impacts. They tend to overlook many costs of increased motor vehicle traffic and many benefits of improved other modes. Conventional transportation planning incorporates often subtle and technical biases related to how travel demand is measured and how potential solutions are evaluated. People usually believe statements such as “95% of all trips are by automobile,” “in Los Angeles traffic congestion $10,999 million annually,” or “this highway expansion project will provide $3.74 billion in net benefits,” yet, such statements are often incomplete. Active travel is more common than most travel surveys indicate, commonly-used evaluation methods tend to exaggerate congestion costs, and highway expansion net benefits are often overestimated by ignoring induced travel and the external costs it imposes. Described differently, improving transport system diversity, transportation demand management strategies, and smart growth development policies tend to provide significantly greater benefits than conventional evaluation indicates. This has important implications. These omissions and biases tend to favor mobility over accessibility and automobile travel over other modes. The results contradict many strategic planning objectives such as resource conservation, affordability, improved accessibility for disadvantaged residents, pollution emission reductions, and improved public fitness and health. It also tends to be unfair and regressive because it favors motorists who tend to be wealthier and abler than people who rely on other modes. More comprehensive evaluation helps identify truly optimal transport improvement options, considering all impacts and options. It can help avoid conflicts between planning objectives, such as congestion reduction programs that unintentionally increase accidents or reduce mobility for non-drivers, and can help identify win-win strategies that provide multiple benefits. This approach can help build cooperation between stakeholders with different goals and priorities. Table 14 summarizes various problems with existing transportation evaluation and potential reforms for correcting them. Many planning professionals are working to improve transportation evaluation practices by improving data collection and modelling, considering more impacts, modes and potential solutions to transportation problems, and by better engaging stakeholders. This report provides an overview of these various efforts. More comprehensive evaluation is especially important in growing urban areas where accommodating increased automobile travel is particularly costly; in developing countries where a major portion of residents cannot afford a car; and in any situation where energy conservation, environmental protection or sprawl reduction are considered important objectives. Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation Victoria Transport Policy Institute 18 Table 14 Reforms for More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Evaluation Problems With Existing Evaluation Methods Reforms For More Comprehensive Evaluation Inadequate data on alternative mode activity and demands. Collect more comprehensive data on travel activity and demands, particularly for active travel. Mobility-based analysis which evaluates transport system performance based primarily on motor vehicle travel conditions. Use accessibility-based analysis which considers various accessibility factors, and therefore potential trade-offs between them. Often considers a limited set of economic impacts (travel speed, vehicle operating costs, accident and emission rates. Consider all potentially significant impacts, including indirect impacts, and generally measure impacts per capita rather than per vehicle-mile. Applies constant travel time unit costs, which fail to account for variations due to different types of trips, and traveler comfort. Adjust travel time unit costs to reflect variations in demand, and traveler comfort. Overlooks many impacts of non-automobile modes. Apply more comprehensive analysis of the benefits and costs of improving alternative modes, increasing use of those modes, reduced automobile travel and more compact land use development. Evaluates transport system performance using automobile-oriented indicators such as roadway levelof-service and the Travel Time Index. Use multi-faceted and multi-modal level-of-service indicators which recognize various impacts and various modes. Ignores equity impacts, including the unfairness of planning that favors motorists over other mode users and fails to provide basic mobility for disadvantaged people. Use comprehensive evaluation of equity impacts, including horizontal and vertical equity. Current models are insensitive to many factors that affect travel activity. Develop and use better models which can more accurately predict how improving modes, pricing reforms and land use changes affect travel activity, and the benefits and costs that result. Analysis uses exaggerated congestion cost estimates. Use best practices when calculating congestion costs and congestion reduction benefits. Ignores generated and induced travel impacts, which tends to exaggerate roadway expansion benefits. Take into account generated and induced travel impacts when evaluating roadway expansion projects. Considers a limited set of transport system improvement options consisting primarily of roadway facility expansions and major public transit projects. Consider a diverse range of transport system improvement options including improvements to alternative modes, demand management strategies and policies that encourage more accessible development. Planning favors spending resources (money and road space) on roadways, parking facilities and large transit projects, even if alternatives are more cost effective overall. Apply least-cost principles, so resources can be spent on the most cost effective solutions, considering all benefits and costs, including alternative modes and demand management strategies. Inadequate understanding by decision-makers of evaluation omissions and biases. Describe to decision-makers any potential evaluation process omissions and biases, and report quantitative analysis results as ranges rather than point values to indicate uncertainty. Stakeholders are not effectively involved in decision making that will affect them. Inform and involve people who may be affected by a planning decision. This table summarizes ways to make transport planning more comprehensive and multi-modal. Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation Victoria Transport Policy Institute