Strategic Planning

Why the Abundance Movement Needs to Rethink Transportation Planning

The 'Abundance' movement in the United States has gained widespread attention around the world, especially regarding the need to build housing and infrastructure. To date, it has been less convincing about what to do about transport, other than making it easier to build transport megaprojects. This paper makes suggestions on what 'Abundance' in transport should look like and barriers to reform.

Key Takeaways

• The paper proposes using transportation accessibility (users’ ability to reach destinations) as the key target for abundance in transport.
• For nearly a century, planning has centred on movement, especially automotive movement. That orientation shapes investment and land use, constraining housing where demand is strongest.
• Transportation law, regulation, and policy institutions are largely constructed around the project of mitigating car traffic and tend to sacrifice housing before they allow more traffic, or even, often, more transit.
• In transportation, the relevant institutions are semi-autonomous and vary in capacity, so the successful implementation of edicts issued from the political level cannot be taken for granted.
• Accessibility can be increased in two basic ways: by increasing travel speeds or by increasing the number or value of destinations reachable within a given travel time, for example, through higher development densities.
• Traffic-impact assessments, which evaluate the congestion effects of a proposed land development, first look for signal changes, then turn lanes, road widenings, lower densities, or blocking the project altogether.
• Reform barriers clustered around three themes: fragmented governance, path dependence, and diverse yet persistent legal barriers.
• The paper proposes three targeted legal interventions:
  • Treating behavioural data as a form of participation for purposes of the public involvement requirement;
  • Requiring realistic alternatives modelling in environmental review; and
  • Improving cost-benefit analysis to account for opportunity costs and externalities.
• Environmental and traffic impact assessments and business cases are often measured against a baseline of no action, but this is wrong. If a building is not constructed, the prospective residents and the traffic they generate do not disappear. They live elsewhere. If the places they go to have lower transportation accessibility, total traffic may increase, just not at the immediate site.

Comment

Last year, I wrote a blog post about the barriers that transport policy can impose on housing supply. I covered many of the points made in this paper, although I also focused on parking.

One point that really stood out for me, and I strongly approve of, is the removal of the no action counterfactual. In my blog, I highlighted that blocking housing with good accessibility displaces it to areas with lower accessibility and exacerbates traffic.

What Next?

Has your transport and land-use planning moved away from 'predict and provide' to accessibility and vision-led planning?

Cycling

Why Women Make Up 55% of Cyclists in Amsterdam But Only 26% in London

London has increased cycling from a 1.9% mode share in 2000 to 4.7% in 2024. Yet, it has a very different gender pattern from Amsterdam. In Amsterdam, women make up the majority of cyclists at 55%. In contrast, women constitute just 26.5% of cyclists in London.

​Seren Rayment wrote a dissertation on why. I got a copy from Seren.

Key Takeaways

• A United Nations (2024) report shows that men cycle at four times the rate of women worldwide.
• This disparity is not uniform across countries. In nations such as the Netherlands, Germany, and Japan, women cycle as much as, or even more than, men.
• 58% of women report being deterred from cycling in London due to perceived safety concerns.
• Other research has explored the gender gap in cycling:
  • While both men and women generally prefer segregated infrastructure, high-quality, segregated cycling infrastructure is strongly associated with increased cycling rates among women.
  • Drivers are more likely to pass closer to female cyclists than male cyclists, particularly on roads without cycle lanes.
  • Many women report avoiding cycling because it is seen as incompatible with femininity and/or professionalism.
  • Cyclists often feel obligated to wear sports or cycling gear, such as hi-vis clothing and helmets, which can reinforce the perception that it is unsafe.
• Results from the dissertation:
  • A key difference was the type of bicycle used in each city. In London, 44% of cyclists reported using a road bike, whereas in Amsterdam, 79% used commuter/city bikes.
  • In Amsterdam, cyclists of all genders typically ride in everyday clothes. In contrast, London cyclists often wore helmets, sports gear, and Lycra.
  • 52.8% of women and 41.5% of men in London reported wearing a helmet, compared to just 9.5% of women and 11.6% of men in Amsterdam.
  • In Amsterdam, cycling is widely embraced as a mode of everyday transportation. London cyclists are more likely to cite fitness and leisure as key motivators, particularly among men.
  • There is a strong perception that cycling in London is dangerous, with women reporting greater discomfort than men.
• Policy recommendations:
  • Safer, more coherent cycling infrastructure to increase female participation.
  • Focus on encouraging new cyclists, especially women, through targeted campaigns, training programmes, and improved education around cycling practices and bike options.

Comment

Research on cycling has highlighted the need for high-quality segregated cycling infrastructure. This dissertation did a good job of showing how that has a disproportionate impact on women's cycling.

As an Australian, where cycling helmets are compulsory, I wonder what impact this has on perceptions of cycling, whether it is safe and whether this disproportionately discourages women from cycling.

What Next?

Are you focusing on delivering cycling infrastructure that appeals to both men and women equally?

Road Safety

Speed Reduction Tactics: Less Controversial Than You Think?

​David Zipper has written a research briefing on the political acceptability of tactics to reduce urban vehicle speeds in the US. It shares insights drawn from interviews with 11 urban transportation leaders from across the United States.

Key Takeaways

• Speed is a key contributing factor in crash deaths, particularly among “vulnerable road users” such as pedestrians and cyclists who are more numerous within urban areas.
• Although few researchers have considered the popularity of speed countermeasures, those who have generally found moderate-to-strong support that rises over time as residents experience the benefits of slower streets.
• With few exceptions, city transportation leaders provided consistent feedback on the popularity of anti-speed measures they have pursued.
• All but one interviewee said that safety was the main argument they used when discussing speed mitigation efforts with the public.
• A majority of city leaders said that speed humps are the most requested speed countermeasure.
• Road diets that reduce travel lanes or parking to add a bike lane and/or widen pedestrian infrastructure were seen as the most controversial of all anti-speed tactics.
• Since many road diets gain popularity after installation, presenting their establishment as temporary can sidestep opposition that later dissipates.
• Enforcement actions were seen as being broadly popular among urban residents, and typically less controversial than road diets.
• Speed cameras appear to be a tactic whose popularity is higher than commonly perceived, perhaps because media stories amplify a narrative of controversy.
• Local public officials said that a strong majority of their constituents support bursts of police enforcement on high-speed thoroughfares.
• Reducing speed limits was universally seen as an uncontroversial tactic.
• The consensus was that traffic signal modifications can reliably reduce speeds.

Comment

David's article is based on the premise that tactics to reduce speed are less controversial than the public perception suggests. I agree with that. However, I would caution that going too far, too soon and penalising large numbers of people can quickly turn into a political headache (see here).

What Next?

Do you have a genuine understanding of what the public thinks about speed reduction tactics?

Quick Adventures in Transport Wonderland

Here is what else I came across this week:

• ​UN announces a global regulation to facilitate safe introduction of self-driving vehicles on public roads worldwide​
• ​Perceived accessibility across activity types and transport modes​
• ​The new rhythm of travel: an empirical investigation of intrapersonal day-to-day variability in the era of tele-activities​

Podcast

Electrification and Decarbonisation

This week on the Transport Leaders podcast, Graham McCabe and I discussed the transition to net zero for transport beyond the electrification of cars.

You can watch it here or listen here.

Tool

Healthy Streets Assessment

Here is a tool for assessing how healthy your street is. Thanks to Wendy Nash's podcast for putting me onto this one.

Before you go: Here's how I can help

Working through a transport policy challenge?

I offer consulting, coaching, and training services to help you navigate complex decisions, build stakeholder support, and implement effective solutions.

Whether you need strategic guidance on a specific policy, want to develop your team's capabilities, or are looking for expert analysis, I'd be glad to discuss how I can support your work.

Get in touch at russell@transportlc.org