|
Travel Trade-offs Drivers’ Convenience Faces Competing Objectives
July, 2009
| |
|
|
|
TRENDS SHIFTING TRAVEL DEMANDS
• Aging population. As the baby boom generation retires, per capita vehicle travel will decline and demand for alternatives will increase.
• Saturation of vehicle ownership and use. During most of the century, per capita vehicle ownership and use rose steadily, but in the last decade this has reached saturation levels so no further growth is expected.
• Rising fuel prices. This will increase demand for energy-efficient travel options such as walking, cycling, public transit and more accessible land use development.
• Increasing urbanization. As more people move into cities, the demand for urban modes – walking, cycling and public transportation – increases.
• Increasing traffic congestion and roadway construction costs. This increases the relative value of alternative modes that reduce urban traffic congestion.
• Shifting consumer preferences. Various indicators suggest that an increasing portion of consumers prefer multi-modal urban neighborhoods and alternative modes.
• Increasing health and environmental concerns. Many individuals, organizations and jurisdictions plan to reduce pollution and increase physical fitness.
|
| |
|
By Todd Litman
Mobility management refers to policies and programs that change travel activity to achieve planning objectives and increase transport system efficiency. It reflects a shift in philosophies.
The old planning paradigm assumed that transportation means automobile travel; that any increase in mobility is beneficial and any constraint on mobility harmful; and that transportation agencies’ only responsibility is to expand facilities to accommodate additional vehicle traffic. The new paradigm assumes the goal of transportation is accessibility; that there is an optimal level of vehicle traffic beyond which additional mobility is overall harmful to consumers and society; and that transportation agencies have many responsibilities and solutions.
PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS SKEW OUTCOMES
Current transportation policies are distorted in various ways that tend to increase motor vehicle travel beyond what is economically optimal. For most of the last century, transportation and land use policies and planning practices tended to favour automobile travel. Transportation agencies used predict-and-provide planning – they expanded roads and required more parking in anticipation of traffic growth and invested relatively little in other modes.
This resulted in communities where driving is convenient but other modes are inconvenient and uncomfortable, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of increased automobile dependency and sprawl. Mobility management objectives can lead to more balanced and efficient transport systems.
These planning practices reflect an assumption that any increase in vehicle travel is desirable. For example, transportation system performance is evaluated based on vehicle travel speeds and roadway level-of-service ratings. Most parking standards impose generous minimum requirements, and public policies strive to minimize road, parking and fuel prices so driving is cheap.
But like any good, too much mobility can be as harmful as too little. Transportation policies should strive to achieve the optimal level of mobility that maximizes benefits to users and society. In a more efficient transport system with better transport options, more efficient pricing and more neutral public policies, consumers would drive less, rely more on alternative modes and choose more accessible locations.
CARVING SPACE FOR ALTERNATIVES
Improving travel options – improved walking and cycling conditions and better public transit services – typically reduces automobile travel 10 to 20%. Efficient pricing – charging users for roads and parking, distance-based insurance and registration fees, and emission fees – typically reduces automobile traffic 20 to 40%. And land use policy reforms that create more accessible, multi-modal communities typically reduce automobile travel 5 to 15%.
Mobility management critics might argue that vehicle miles of travel (VMT) reduction should be an outcome of market reforms rather than planning objectives – i.e. let’s just implement efficient pricing and let consumers decide whether or not to reduce their mobility. However, planning involves many decisions that involve trade-offs between mutually exclusive options.
Money spent on roads and parking facilities is unavailable to invest in alternative modes. Expanding roadways to increase traffic volumes and speeds degrades walking and cycling conditions. Generous minimum parking requirements stimulate more driving and lower-density development patterns.
Mobility management objectives give decision makers a reason to change from established practices that favour automobile travel to alternative practices that will result in a more diverse and efficient transportation system. These objectives encourage various levels of governments, agencies and industries to develop integrated solutions.
They encourage state/provincial and regional transportation agencies to invest more in walking, cycling, ride-sharing and public transit, and to consider implementing pricing reforms and mobility management strategies as an alternative to expanding roadways. They encourage local governments to reform parking policies and implement more efficient parking management.
Mobility management objectives encourage transportation agencies to choose the congestion reduction strategies that also help conserve energy, reduce pollution and improve mobility for non-drivers and encourage environmental agencies to choose energy conservation and emission reduction strategies that also help reduce congestion and accidents and save consumers money.
Mobility management objectives will not really require motorists to give up their cars altogether or harm lower-income people, as the critics claim. Properly implemented mobility management can provide significant net benefits, particularly to lower-income people who tend to gain the most from affordable mobility options, financial rewards for using alternative modes and more accessible, multi-modal communities.
INTERSECTING INITIATIVES, CUMULATIVE RESULTS
Most mobility management strategies only affect a small portion of total travel and individually are seldom considered the best solution to a particular problem. However, impacts are cumulative and synergistic so integrated mobility management programs can provide large benefits and are often quite cost-effective, considering all benefits and costs.
For example, public transit improvements may only reduce traffic 5 to 15% and would not be considered the best way to reduce congestion, accidents, energy consumption or pollution problems individually. Whereas, transit improvements implemented in combination with efficient road and parking pricing, commuter-trip reduction programs and supportive land use policies can provide much larger impacts and benefits.
Integrated mobility management packages tend to be particularly beneficial compared with other solutions to transport problems. Although roadway expansion may reduce traffic congestion, it tends to induce additional vehicle travel, which exacerbates parking problems, accidents, energy consumption, pollution emissions and sprawl. Similarly, increasing vehicle fuel efficiency conserves energy but by reducing vehicle operating costs tends to increase total vehicle travel, which exacerbates traffic and parking congestion, accidents and sprawl.
Todd Litman is with the Victoria Transport Policy Institute. The preceding article is an excerpt from his research paper, Are Vehicle Travel Reduction Targets Justified? For more information, see the web site at www.vtpi.org.
|