Sponsor

Focus on Service, Not IT Management

Transit agencies worldwide trust Treelight for comprehensive HASTUS support, from installation and security to integration and performance optimization.

With over 17 years of HASTUS expertise, we align the platform with your operations to deliver real efficiency gains.

Now expanding in North America with our Montreal office, we provide expert service in your timezone.

Let us handle the technical complexity while you focus on what matters: passengers, scheduling and daily operations.

Discover how we can support your agency.

Road User Charging

Are We Measuring Road Performance All Wrong?

There is an assumption in transport planning that travellers want to prioritise saving time. In this article, Todd Litman points out that the evidence shows that this is not correct.

Key Takeaways

• Conventional transportation performance indicators, such as roadway level-of-service (LOS), the Travel Time Index, and hours of congestion delay assume the goal is to maximise traffic speeds.
• Yet, when given a choice, most travellers choose to save money rather than time. We see this when we implement tolls and road user charges: people trade time to save money.
• What motorists really want is premium performance roadways, provided that somebody else bears the costs.
• The problem is that we use congested roads to justify road expansions when there are much better solutions.
• The article suggests basing our decision instead on roadway cost efficiency (maximum vehicles per infrastructure investment dollars).
• Adding traffic lanes is expensive, induces demand and degrades walking and cycling conditions.
• A smarter strategy is to use efficient road pricing as a preventive strategy to reduce congestion on existing roads and minimise total roadway costs.
• Revenues should be invested in the most cost-effective improvements, which in urban areas are often improvements to non-auto modes, since they require less space and have lower infrastructure costs per mile than driving.
• This helps reduce congestion by giving travellers better alternatives to driving, which reduces the tolls needed to achieve congestion reduction targets.
• Efficient pricing can reduce traffic problems and the need to expand roadway, providing large savings, particularly compared with road expansions financed with general tax subsidies.
• It’s time for transportation agencies to reform planning practices to better align with travellers’ priorities.

Comment

The article's argument is logical and evidence-based. Unfortunately, humans are not logical.

Transport agencies should have a better understanding of the inefficiencies of road expansion and advise their political masters accordingly.

However, the challenge with road pricing is primarily political. Implementing road pricing is a significant change and will create some significant net losers who will be very loud and vociferous in opposing the reforms.

With the demise of fuel taxes as we electrify motor vehicles, the pressure to move to road pricing is increasing, and we are seeing countries such as the UK and New Zealand progressing significant road pricing reforms.

What Next?

Does your transport agency consider roadway cost efficiency in its analyses?

Public Transport

Transportation for America's Transit Moonshot: Ambitious Goals, Uncertain Path

Transportation for America has put forward an ambitious vision for public transport (transit) in America. They want to triple the number of transit vehicles in service today, a total investment of $4.6 trillion over a twenty-year timeline.

Key Takeaways

• Only 18 per cent of Americans live within walking distance of frequent transit, while peer countries like Canada and France have double and triple that, at 47 per cent and 75 per cent respectively.

• In 2023, even when boosted by remaining COVID-era one-time emergency support for transit operations, federal spending on transit was only about 36 per cent of highway spending.
• Residents in communities of all sizes continue to vote to invest in better transit over 80 per cent of the time, even when they are voting to tax themselves to do it.
• The report proposes a three-pronged strategy on capital, operations and repair.
• Capital: Expand the fleet and build new, dedicated right-of-way at a cost of over $1tn:
  • Tripling the transit fleet to run fast and frequent transit.
  • Build out more than 7,500 miles of new dedicated transit infrastructure in urban areas with populations over 50,000.
• Operations: Make the service fast, frequent, and reliable.
  • Double annual investment in transit operations, up to $170 billion per year by 2045.
• Repair: Address the maintenance backlog and protect new assets by investing $400bn.
  • Investing an extra $5 billion annually would help eliminate the transit state of good repair backlog over the next 20 years.
• Funding: When it comes to federal transportation policy, the question of how to pay for something has never led to a productive conversation. The massive benefits of this sort of transit moonshot are worth finding a way to pay for.

Comment

I like the ambition of what Transportation for America is putting forward, but I do not see a viable political path to see anywhere near the vision being realised.

Investing in transit over a 20-year time horizon will require a much greater level of consensus than currently exists in Washington or across the United States.

Currently, the consensus is around building roads, with even heavily democratic states like California prioritising roads.

I fear that the approach of 'we just need to find the money' is not going to appeal to significant parts of Congress, especially when there are substantial fiscal deficits and national debts.

What Next?

Are you looking to build a consensus around transport policy?

Cycling

Beyond the Backlash: New Research Reveals Surprising Support for Cycle Infrastructure

One of the biggest challenges in transport is gaining and maintaining support for cycle lanes. This conversation article based on research from the UK summarised why people support or oppose bike lanes and low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs).

Key Takeaways

• There is often significant controversy over the introduction of cycle lanes and LTNs.
• These discussions may give the impression that the public is firmly against cycling initiatives and traffic restrictions.
• The research analysed more than 36,000 UK-based tweets about cycle lanes and LTNs between 2018 and 2022 and found that most social media posts were positive.
• Complaints about poor-quality cycle lanes or a lack of consultation were far more common than outright rejection of active travel, and were made by both cyclists and drivers.
• The researchers also showed more than 500 people images of different street layouts and asked them to choose their most and least preferred elements:
  • Segregated cycle lanes were popular with both regular cyclists and regular drivers.
  • Painted lanes on the road were far less liked.
  • The option of having no cycle lanes at all was the least popular with both groups.
• People strongly preferred schemes that took cycling space from the road rather than from pathways.
• All groups were consistent about parking. Even participants who identified as regular cyclists were reluctant to support layouts that involved removing car-parking spaces.
• Resistance is less about cycling infrastructure itself and more about specific design trade-offs.
• Those who strongly identified as “drivers” were more hesitant about giving up road space to cyclists, while self-identified “cyclists” were more supportive.
• The strongest opposition came from a small group that sees new cycling infrastructure as an infringement on their “freedom” to travel the way they want.
• Positive posts often focused on community benefits and safer streets.
• Negative conversations were dominated by concerns about how schemes were put in place and whether local people felt they had been consulted properly.
• How schemes are designed and introduced is crucial.

Comment

I was not surprised to see that there is a vocal minority that opposes the changes. Anecdotes from people who have implemented these schemes have suggested the same.

It was interesting to see that segregated cycle lanes were also popular with non-cyclists. I think there is an assumption that segregated lanes might be less popular with drivers.

The parking issue is an interesting one. I would like to see further research to unpick why it got such strong support, even from cyclists.

Anyone who has been following me for a while will know that I am critical of the way that we often implement bike lanes, a top-down process that is almost designed to maximise bike lash. I am a strong advocate for more co-design with communities in transport.

What Next?

Do you need to rethink your implementation approach to cycle lanes and LTNs, and the design of cycle lanes to increase segregation?

Quick Adventures in Transport Wonderland

Here is what else I came across this week:

• ​Seattle's Sound Transit Light Rail Is Drawing Riders, and Criticism​
• ​Children’s organised out-of-school activities as a source of travel demand: a critical scoping review​
• ​20th Century Transport Planning Failed. It’s Time To Do Something Different ​

Podcast

Political Decision Making

This week on the Transport Leaders podcast, Graham McCabe and I discussed the politics of transport and how we can help improve decision-making, including:

🚇 Why most transport ministers start from scratch - Understanding their knowledge baseline and the challenge of induced demand.

🏛️ The critical role of senior leadership - Why having transport experts (not just generalists) in key bureaucratic positions matters.

🤝 Building trust between politicians and public servants - The "bring out your dead" strategy and why it works.

📊 Balancing policy and politics - How to deliver both community benefits and political wins.

🎯 Communication strategies - Speaking the politician's language and understanding their values.

You can watch it here or listen here.