Policy

Transport Policy Evolution - From Predicting Traffic to Understanding People

Professor David Hensher from the ITLS at the University of Sydney. Last week, he provided a short summary of where he sees the current state of transport policy.

Key Takeaways

• From Infrastructure Planning to Understanding Choice. Policy has shifted from building infrastructure to understanding traveller preferences and behavioural responses. The policy question is now: "What behavioural change are we trying to achieve?"
• Valuing What Users Actually Care About. Traditional transport appraisal largely focused on travel time savings. Today, evaluations increasingly include:
  • Reliability benefits
  • Customer experience measures
  • Accessibility improvements
  • Social inclusion outcomes
  • Environmental impacts.
• Road Pricing and Demand Management. The key policy insight is: Congestion is often better managed through pricing than by continuously expanding road capacity. This remains one of the most important and politically challenging ideas in transport economics.
• Accessibility Rather Than Mobility. Governments now ask:
  • Can people reach jobs?
  • Can they access health services?
  • Can they access education?
  • Can they participate in society?
• The emerging focus is: "Moving people efficiently" rather than "moving vehicles efficiently."
• Recognising Heterogeneity. Perhaps the most important contribution of advanced choice modelling is the recognition that there is no "average traveller."
• Decarbonisation and the Energy Transition. Current policy questions include:
  • How quickly will EVs be adopted?
  • What charging infrastructure is needed?
  • How will consumers respond to carbon pricing?
  • What incentives are most effective?
• If one examines current transport policy globally, three grand challenges dominate:

1. Net-zero decarbonisation

2. Congestion management

3. Accessibility and social inclusion

• The field has moved from predicting traffic flows to understanding how people respond to incentives, service quality, technology and policy interventions.

Comment

Unfortunately, a large gap currently exists between the research literature and practice. Many transport agencies still focus on building infrastructure rather than achieving behavioural change. Even when transport strategies aim to change behaviour, implementation often ignores this in favour of building infrastructure.

What Next?

Is your transport agency focused enough on behaviour change?

Enjoying this? Here's how you can help keep it going.

If this newsletter has given you something useful, here are a couple of ways to support it:

📤 Forward it to a friend​
Know someone who'd get value from this? Forward this email their way. Word of mouth is still the best way for a newsletter like this to grow.

💛 Chip in, if you're able​
If this newsletter has been useful to you and you'd like to support it financially, you can do that here. Totally optional, always appreciated.

Whichever you choose (or if it's none of the above, no pressure!), thank you for reading. It means a lot.

Car Sharing

Bremen's carsharing study: does it prove reduced car use?

I believe carsharing (car clubs) can reduce car use in the right context. This research examined the impact of carsharing in Bremen, Germany.

Key Takeaways

• More than 660 carsharing vehicles are available to users (including approximately 120 vehicles in free-floating services and approximately 530 vehicles at around 160 fixed stations across the city).
• Each carsharing vehicle in Bremen replaces 18.8 private cars, equating to 11,800 fewer vehicles on the road.
• Carsharing users make fewer car trips and walk, cycle, or use public transport more often than non-customers with a private car in their household.
• While the average household in Bremen has 0.9 cars and travels around 10,000 km per year, carsharing households average only 0.4 cars and travel around 3,500 km per year.
• On average, the households of carsharing members owned 0.7 cars 12 months before registering with the carsharing provider. After registration, this figure fell to the current 0.4.
• Carsharing members shop locally more often, whereas non-members are more likely to drive to large shopping centres.
• The study showed that carsharing represents an alternative to maintaining a company fleet for commercial customers in Bremen.
• Around 8% of Bremen households use car sharing. Around a third of residents who do not currently use the service can imagine doing so in the future.
• Frequently cited barriers to use among non-users are the belief that it is "important to own a car," uncertainty about "the actual costs associated with carsharing," and the assumption that carsharing is too inflexible because you have to commit to a schedule in advance.
• If car sharing was not available, 28% of users would probably use public transport more often and 27% would consider buying their own car.
• Recommendations:
  • Continue to promote carsharing in general
  • Expand the number of dedicated carsharing spaces.
  • Continue the free floating service.
  • Promote walking and cycling
  • Focus promotional work on new/non-traditional target groups.
  • Co-operate with local retailers.
  • Continue integration of electric vehicles
  • Promote corporate carsharing use

Comment

Assessing the effectiveness of car sharing is difficult. Does it replace active and public transport trips with car use, or does it prevent people from purchasing a car and therefore making fewer car trips?

Based on the data, the answer to this is both. The key is the balance between the two and the overall effect on car use.

While not conclusive, the reduction in the number of vehicles (11,800) suggests a significant shift toward reduced car use overall.

What Next?

If you want to listen to a debate between a car share fan and a car share sceptic, then the latest Transport Leaders podcast is for you.

👂 Listen to it here.

👀 Watch it here.

Accessibility

The problem with a bus network accessibility plan

The UK Government has published its guidance on creating and managing a bus network accessibility plan (NAP).

Key Takeaways

• A bus NAP must:
  • describe existing features of the bus network which support disabled people to use local bus services
  • assess the extent to which features of the network enable disabled people to travel independently, safely and in reasonable comfort
  • describe any action that the authority plans to take to improve the accessibility of bus services in their area
• To create a good plan:
  • work with disabled people throughout the development and review of their Bus NAP, including through a genuine co‑design approach, rather than relying solely on statutory public consultation.
  • take a whole journey approach, considering accessibility across the entire bus journey – from planning and preparing to accessing and using services and complaining when things go wrong.
  • assess the bus network systematically, drawing on clear evidence, engagement and a consistent methodology for identifying strengths, gaps and priorities
  • be transparent about decisions and trade‑offs, including actions considered but not taken, and the reasons for those decisions
  • Clearly distinguish between:
  • commitments - specific actions with defined timescales
  • ambitions - longer‑term goals where delivery depends on future decisions or funding
• A compliant and effective Bus NAP should:
  • provide a clear and objective picture of how accessible the local bus network is
  • enable accountability by showing what will improve, by when, and how progress will be tracked
  • act as a practical and accessible source of information for disabled passengers
  • support alignment with wider local transport plans, policies and delivery, including franchising and enhanced partnership arrangements where relevant

Comment

I have previously written about the need to consider end-to-end journeys for disabled people, so it is good to see this included in the guidance.

However, I question the whole concept of a bus accessibility plan because it is transport mode-centric, not people-centric. I worry this will prioritise bus accessibility over, for example, walking or wheeling accessibility to the local shops or other amenities or even, in the spirit of the 15-minute city concept, prioritise accessibility through better land use.

What Next?

Do you understand the full accessibility challenges local disabled people face, rather than just the challenges they face using particular modes?

Quick Adventures in Transport Wonderland

Here is what else I came across this week:

• ​Travel Behaviour As A Tool To Improve Road Safety - An article discussing the role of exposing people to fewer motor vehicles as a path to improving road safety.
• ​Why transit suddenly costs so much - A blog talking about why transit costs so much to build in the Anglosphere.
• ​Why active travel demands a unified framework of safety - An editorial making the case for considering both traffic and personal safety when designing active travel.

Tool

Plain English Transport Summaries From Scotland

​This resource provides one-page, plain-English summaries on aspects of transport planning from robust peer-reviewed studies. Although the resources are applied to the Scottish context, the evidence comes from around the world.

Innovation

Traffic Lights that Punish Speeders

​This article describes traffic lights that turn red when people speed and green when they don't, rewarding safe driving.

Jobs

Jobs for Transport Leaders

I'm often asked whether I know of any jobs for my readers. Here is a link with jobs around the world, specifically designed for transport leader readers. Use the filter to find jobs that match what you are looking for.