Evaluating Transportation Options

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TDM Encyclopedia

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Updated 31 August 2014


This chapter describes the benefits of having a diverse transportation system, and methods for evaluating the value of specific transport options.

 

 

Description

Transportation Options (also called Transportation Choice, Transportation Diversity) refers to the quantity and quality of accessibility options available to an individual or group, taking into account their specific needs and abilities. There are several reasons that society may value improved Transportation Options, as described below.

 

·         Solving Transportation Problems. Improved Transportation Options can help reduce traffic congestion, facility costs, road risk, environmental impacts and consumer costs.

 

·         Consumers benefits. Improved options allow consumers to save money, avoid stress, and reduce their need to chauffeur non-drivers.

 

·         Efficiency. Consumer choice is necessary for economic efficiency (Market Principles), reflecting the principle of consumer sovereignty, which requires that markets respond to consumer Travel Demands. Improved transportation options allows consumers to choose the most efficient option for each trip.

 

·         Equity. Inadequate transport options often limits the personal and economic opportunities available to people who are physically, economically or socially disadvantaged. Increasing transportation options can help achieve equity objectives.

 

·         Livability. Many people value living in or visiting a community where walking and cycling are safe, pleasant and common. There are also public Health benefits from increased walking and cycling. As a result, transportation options can help communities become more “livable,” resulting in increased property values and commercial activity.

 

·         Security and Resilience. Improved transportation options results in a more diverse and flexible transportation system that can accommodate variable and unpredictable conditions. Even people who do not currently use a particular form of transport may value its availability as a form of insurance to accommodate future needs.

 

 

Definitions

There can be confusion over terms used to describe transport diversity. We sometimes describe it as the value of travel choice, but the word choice is both a noun (as in “having options”) and a verb (as in “making a decision”). To avoid this confusion I generally use the terms options for specific options, and diversity for having a variety of options from which to choose.

 

Different transportation modes serve different roles, as indicated in Table 1. No mode is optional for all purposes. Increasing Transportation Options tends to create a more efficient and equitable transportation system, because it allows each mode to do what it does best. This is particularly important for providing Basic Mobility to people who are economically, physically or socially disadvantaged.

 

Table 1            Travel Modes Performance Profiles

Mode

Non-Drivers

 

Poor

Handi-capped

Limitations

Most Appropriate Uses

 

 

Walking

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

Varies

Requires physical ability. Limited distance and carrying capacity. Difficult or unsafe in some areas. 

 

Short trips by physically able people.

 

Wheelchair

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

Yes

Requires sidewalk or path. Limited distance and carrying capacity.

Short urban trips by people with physical disabilities.

 

 

Bicycle

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

Varies

Requires bicycle and physical ability. Limited distance and carrying capacity.

Short to medium length trips by physically able people on suitable routes.

 

Taxi

 

Yes

 

Limited

 

Yes

 

Relatively high cost per mile.

Infrequent trips, short and medium distance trips.

Fixed Route Transit

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

Yes

 

Destinations and times limited.

Short to medium distance trips along busy corridors.

Paratransit

Yes

Yes

Yes

High cost and limited service.

Travel for disabled people.

 

Auto driver

 

No

 

Limited

 

Varies

Requires driving ability and automobile. High fixed costs.

Travel by people who can drive and afford an automobile.

 

Ridesharing

(auto passenger)

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

 

 

Yes

Requires cooperative automobile driver. Consumes driver’s time if a special trip (chauffeuring).

Trips that the driver would take anyway (ridesharing). Occasional special trips (chauffeuring).

Carsharing

(Vehicle Rentals)

 

No

 

Limited

 

Varies

Requires convenient and affordable vehicle rentals services.

Occasional use by drivers who don’t own an automobile.

 

Motorcycle

 

No

 

Limited

 

No

Requires riding ability and motorcycle. High fixed costs.

Travel by people who can ride and afford a motorcycle.

Telecommute

Yes

Varies

Varies

Requires equipment and skill.

Alternative to some types of trips.

Each mode is suitable for certain purposes.

 

 

Because travel Demands are diverse (different people and travel conditions have differing needs and preferences), a more diverse transport system tends to be more efficient and equitable, because it allows travelers to choose the best option for each trip. For example, it would be inefficient to walk for a long-distance trip best made by motor vehicle, and it would be equally inefficient to drive for a short trip best made by walking or cycling. Since some people cannot or should not drive, the quality of non-automobile modes (often called alternative modes) is an important factor in the quality of their overall accessibility. Since many non-drivers are physically or economically disadvantaged, the quality of alternative modes has significant social Equity impacts.

 

Most developed regions of the world are increasingly Automobile Dependent: Driving is relatively affordable, comfort and safety (although in some urban areas driving speeds are reduced at certain time by congestion), and land use patterns tend to be dispersed, which is Accessible by automobile but difficult to reach by other modes. As a result, people who can drive and afford an automobile can generally satisfy their basic transportation needs. On the other hand, non-automobile travel options are often inferior. Walking and cycling is can be difficult and dangerous. Public transit service is often inconvenient and uncomfortable. There is often a lack of coordination between non-automotive modes, so it may be difficult to carry a bicycle on transit vehicles, or reach major transportation terminals by cycling or transit. Interregional travel is often Unaffordable. As a result, concerns about Basic Access often focus on relative inferior transportation options available to non-drivers, particularly those who are physically or economically disadvantaged.

 

Conventional planning tends to assume that transport progress is linear, with newer, faster modes replacing older, slower modes. This series model assumes that the older modes are unimportant, and so, for example, there is no harm if walking conditions and transit service decline, provided that automobile ownership and vehicle traffic speeds increase. Transportation Demand Management requires a parallel model, which assumes that each mode has a role to play in an efficient transportation system. Transport progress therefore involves improving all useful modes, not just the newest mode. For example, in many situations the best way to improve urban transportation may be to Improve Walking and Cycling Conditions, Improve Public Transit Service, to Prioritize travel or even to Restrict Automobile Travel. Even if this approach does not increase travel speeds it can improve the convenience, comfort and affordability of transport.

 

Most adults living in developed countries own and drive automobiles, and so may perceive relatively little value from Transportation Diversity. But over their lifetimes, most people experience times in which they cannot drive due to physical or financial constraints, and most large cities have corridors on which traffic and parking congestion limit mobility. If you ask, “What portion of households rely entirely on alternative modes?” the number is generally small, usually under 10% in developed countries, but if you ask, “What portion of households have at least one member that would use alternative modes at least occasionally, if services are adequate?” the number is relatively large, usually 25-50%, and even higher if all Nonmotorized Travel is considered.

 

A motorist who wants to experience automobile dependency, and the benefits of transportation diversity, can perform a simple experiment: don’t drive for two weeks that involve normal commuting, shopping, and family obligations. You’ll discover that non-drivers face many obstacles, including limited options, high financial and time costs, and poor service. You may experience embarrassment when asking for a ride or when using stigmatized modes such as transit, bicycling and walking. As a result you are likely to travel less overall, foregoing some trips and choosing more convenient destinations for others.

 

Improved Transportation Options can give people better options for where they live and work. For example, many people want to “age in place,” that is, they want to continuing living in their community as they become older, rather than moving to a specialized retirement community. For this to be possible their community must provide transportation services for people with various needs and abilities, including good walking facilities, support for mobility aids and wheelchairs, transit service and special mobility services. Similarly, lower-income workers, and families with children, have special needs that require a diverse transportation system and Accessible land use patterns.

 

Transportation Equity is often evaluated in terms of a system’s ability to provide Basic Access to people who are transportation disadvantaged. For this reason, analysis of Transportation Options often focuses on improving mobility options for non-drivers. It can be quite rational for people to support transportation options that they do not currently use, so they will be available if needed in the future. This is called “Option Value.” Most people can expect to go through periods in life when their ability to drive is limited by age, physical disability, financial constraints, vehicle failures or disasters, and so they value the availability of non-automotive travel options.

 

Transportation Options also include strategies that improve the options available to motorists, such as Value Pricing, Carsharing, Parking Management, and land use Accessibility factors such as roadway connectivity.

 

The Costs of Chauffeuring

Chauffeuring refers to additional vehicle travel required to carry a passenger, in contrast to a rideshare trip in which a passenger is carried in an otherwise empty seat in a vehicle that would be making a trip anyway, and so does not increase vehicle travel. In automobile-dependent conditions non-drivers often require significant amounts of chauffeuring: children driven to and from school, recreational and social activities; people with disabilities driven to medical appointments and shopping; and out-of-town visitors being chauffeured to and from airports or train stations, and to various activities.

 

Chauffeured travel is inefficient. It requires drivers’ time, increases vehicle travel (chauffeured trips often require an empty backhaul, so transporting a passenger 5 miles generates 10 miles of vehicle travel), and deprives passengers of independence.

 

People sometimes value chauffeuring as an opportunity to socialize, such as a time when parents can talk with their children, but it can also generate stress and conflict, such as when a driver must interrupt an important activity to fulfill chauffeuring obligations, or when a passenger or driver misses a scheduled connection. Parents often complain about the time poverty and stress of chauffeuring, and seniors with declining ability are often reluctant to giving up driving because they do not want to lose their independence or burden others for rides. Studies indicate that both time poverty and reduced independence tend to reduce people senses of wellbeing and happiness (Curie and Delbose 2010).

 

A diverse transport system with efficient non-automobile transport options (walking, cycling, public transit, taxi services, and telecommunications), can reduce the need for chauffeuring. More accessible land use, which minimizes travel distances, increases the portion of trips that can be made by walking, cycling and taxi. Transit-oriented development, with appropriate housing located in transit-rich areas can significantly reduce the need for chauffeuring.

 

 

Measuring Transportation

Transportation option analysis is affected by how transportation is measured. For more discussion see Measuring Transportation. FDOT (2002) describes various techniques for measuring Level of Service for various transportation modes.

 

Transportation is often evaluated based on vehicle traffic or person trips. But movement is not an end in itself; the ultimate goal of most transport is Accessibility (often just called access) the ability of people to obtain desired goods, services and activities. Evaluating transportation in terms of access allows a wider range of solutions to be considered for solving transportation problems. Access is affected by the three factors described below.

 

·         Mobility - Mobility refers to movement of people and goods. Conventional transportation planning focuses primarily on mobility, and well-developed evaluation techniques have been developed for some modes, particularly automobile and transit.

 

·         Mobility Substitutes - Telecommunications and delivery services can often substitute for physical mobility. These are likely to become increasingly important, and so should be considered in analysis of transportation options.

 

·         Land Use - Land use can significantly affect access. Higher density, mixed-use areas have better access because of increased proximity between destinations. For example, running a dozen errands in an area with dispersed shops and services may require many miles of driving. In a more accessible area the same errands may require much less travel and may be performed easily without a car. Higher population and employment densities also affect transportation options by increasing demand for transport services, which tend to have economies of scale. For example, higher-density urban areas usually have more sidewalks and better transit services than lower-density suburban areas due to greater demand. Similarly, large employment centers can provide better ridesharing services.

 

 

Analysis of transport options must take into account the integrated nature of the transportation system. For example, the ability to shop without a car may depend not only on the quality and affordability of transit service, but also on the ease of walking between home, transit stops and shops; the ability to carry goods while walking and riding transit; and whether retailers deliver large purchases. Barriers to any of these links limit the utility of transit for shopping.

 

 

Transportation Options Objectives

Efforts to improve Transportation Options can have a variety of goals, some of which are difficult to measure. The five objectives described below are considered practical ways to evaluate how a specific policy or strategy affects Transportation Options (Evaluating TDM). Of course, these objectives can be modified and expanded as appropriate to meet specific needs.

 

Equity Objectives

·         Non-drivers. Does it improve access or otherwise benefit non-drivers?

·         Low-incomes. Does it improve access or otherwise benefit people with lower incomes?

·         Physical disabilities. Does it improve access or otherwise benefit people with disabilities?

 

TDM Objectives

·         Commuting. Does it improve access or support other TDM objectives (road safety, reduced environmental impacts) for commute trips.

·         Non-Work Travel. Does it improve access or support other TDM objectives for non-work trips, including shopping, medical visits, recreation trip, and tourist travel.

 

 

Evaluation Methods

Five practical methods of evaluating transportation options in planning applications are described in this section. For more discussion see Litman, 2001 and Forkenbrock and Weisbrod, 2001.

 

Method 1: Solving Specific Problems

This method involves identifying and addressing specific problems associated with inadequate transportation options. Examples include:

·         Insuring that transportation disadvantaged patients can access medical services.

·         Insuring that elderly non-drivers can access shops and personal services.

·         Providing residents of economically disadvantaged communities access to education and employment opportunities.

·         Insuring that people with disabilities can access social and recreational activities.

·         Increasing options to allow motorists who are in a hurry or have other special needs to avoid congestion delays or use more convenient parking locations.

 

Planners can identify individual solutions to these transportation problems, such as establishing a single-purpose mobility service, contracting with existing mobility service providers to provide additional trips, changing scheduled transit service to accommodate such needs, or subsidizing taxi service.

 

This is a common approach to addressing transportation problems. However, it may not be the best approach, because it defines problems and solutions narrowly. For example, providing daytime paratransit service to help elderly residents shop may fail to let them access evening social activities that they consider equally important. Some elderly non-drivers may prefer pedestrian improvements that allow that them to travel to stores on their own, rather than being chauffeured for such trips.

 

It is therefore important that problems and solutions be broadly defined to find the most effective solutions. Planning for transportation options should include consultation to identify:

 

 

Method 2: Strategic Planning For Transportation Options

This approach involves evaluating policies and projects according to whether they tend to increase or reduce transport options. It recognizes that transportation and land use decisions have cumulative and synergetic effects (Louis Berger & Associates, 1998). Although the impact of an individual decision may appear modest and difficult to measure, their general direction is usually predictable. Rather than trying to model such complex impacts it may be appropriate to simply categorize each decision according to whether it supports or contradicts strategic goals for improving transport options.

 

For example, if a number of solutions are being considered to help solve traffic congestion problems, the solutions can be rated according to their impacts on transportation options and basic mobility. Some of these, such as transit and ridesharing, increase non-automotive travel options, but others, such as HOT lanes and some Parking Pricing strategies, also increase options available to motorists. The table below categorizes various polices and programs according to their transportation options impacts. This analysis should be modified to reflect conditions in a particular situation.

 

Table 2          Policy Impacts on Transportation Options

Tends to Increase Transport Options

Tends to Reduce Transport Options

Transit Improvements

Carsharing

Pedestrian and Cycling Improvements

Traffic Calming

HOV Priority

Transportation Demand Management Programs

Parking Management

Parking Pricing

Road Pricing (especially HOT lanes)

Distance-based Insurance

New Urbanism

Smart Growth

Location Efficient Development.

Increased motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds.

Low-density, urban fringe, automobile oriented development patterns (Sprawl).

Generous parking requirements.

Low-density, homogeneous land use (e.g., commercial activities are not located in residential neighborhoods).

Pricing that minimizes the cost of driving (free parking, low fuel taxes, fixed insurance) or increase the price of alternatives (transit fare increases).

Anything that degrades pedestrian and cycling conditions.

Some transportation policies and planning decisions tend to increase transportation options, while others tend to reduce options.

 

 

This method involves the following steps:

 

1.       Establish strategic goals and objectives related to transportation options. These goals can be incorporated into a community’s comprehensive plan or transportation policy guidelines.

 

2.       Based on these strategic goals, establish suitable planning objectives. For example, objectives may include improved walking and cycling conditions, improved transit services, and increased incentives to use alternative modes.

 

3.      Categorize specific policies and projects according to whether they support or contradict these objectives.

 

 

Method 3: Evaluating Transportation Options

This method involves evaluating individual transport options in terms of their ability to help achieve transportation options objectives. Multi-modal Level-of-Service (LOS) Indicators can be used to evaluate the quality of various transport modes from a users perspective. This helps create a more neutral planning decisions that involve tradeoffs between different transport modes. Specific examples are discussed below.

 

Land Use Management

A variety of land use factors affect access, including density, mix, integration with various transportation modes (such as transit and pedestrian travel). New Urbanism, Smart Growth, Location Efficient Development, Transit Oriented Development and Access Management are examples of specific land use management strategies that can improve access.

 

Below are possible Performance Indicators for evaluating land use Accessibility.

·         Average time and financial cost for travel between residences and commercial centers.

·         Average annual per capita vehicle mileage.

·         Average number of public services (e.g., schools, shops, medical offices) and employment within a ½ mile walk of residents.

·         Overall quality of transit, walking and cycling conditions in an area.

·         Degree to which zoning laws and development policies support land use objectives to improve access (e.g., urban infill, clustering, Transit Oriented Development, etc.).

·         Affordability and quality of accessible neighborhoods, particularly for people who are transportation disadvantaged (i.e., can non-drivers afford to live in a nice neighborhood with good walking and cycling conditions, and good transit service).

 

 

Pedestrian Improvements

Walking is inexpensive, provides Basic Mobility, and is valued for recreation and exercise. Pedestrian improvements benefit most people who are transportation disadvantaged, and support TDM objectives, both directly, and by improving access to transit. Pedestrian access is an important factor in the utility of public transit and ridesharing. For more information see Pedestrian Improvements.

 

Pedestrian travel is slow, averaging about 3 mph, and even slower for people with physical disabilities. Walking trip distances tend to be short, typically ¼ to ½ mile. As a result, even small changes in the pedestrian network can have a large effect on the feasibility and use of pedestrian travel. For example, reducing pedestrian travel distance by a fraction of a mile can significantly increase the feasibility of walking, particularly for people with physical disabilities, or who carry loads such as shopping or laundry.

 

Below are examples of Performance Indicators for pedestrian conditions (see Evaluating Nonmotorized Transport):

·         The number of significant barriers to walking identified by pedestrians.

·         Portion of streets with continuous and connected sidewalks, paths and crosswalks.

·         Quality of pedestrian facilities, including functional width, surface condition, etc.

·         Width and traffic volumes on roads to be crossed, and average crossing wait.

·         Pedestrian security, including risk of falls and assaults while walking.

 

 

Universal Design

Universal Design (also called barrier-free design) refers to facilities that accommodate people with diverse needs, including wheelchairs users, people who walk with difficulty or have visual disabilities, and pedestrians pushing strollers or handcarts. The term Universal Design is preferred over Handicapped Access because these design requirements can benefit many users, not just those with handicaps or disabilities.

 

Several planning and professional organizations publish Universal Design guidelines and standards (Evaluating Nonmotorized Transport). Below are possible Performance Indicators:

·         The number of mobility barriers identified by people with physical disabilities.

·         The portion of the pedestrian network that meets barrier-free design standards.

·         Sidewalk, path and crosswalk surface condition (cracks, potholes, etc.).

·         Availability of information on barrier-free facilities in an area.

·         Ability of transport modes (transit, taxies, interregional buses) to serve people with disabilities.

 

 

Cycling Improvements

Cycling is an important transportation options for some people. It provides basic mobility for many transportation disadvantaged people, is an inexpensive form of transportation that supports TDM objectives, and is a popular form of recreation and exercise. For more information see Cycling Improvements.

 

Cyclists travel at moderate speeds (averaging about 10 mph), and trip lengths tend to average 1-5 miles. Cyclists’ needs and preferences vary considerably. Some cyclists are comfortable riding on roads with heavy traffic, while others consider even moderate traffic a significant deterrent, and have a strong preference for separated facilities.

 

Below are some possible Performance Indicators for Evaluating Cycling Conditions:

·         The number of barriers identified by cyclists.

·         Roadway cycling conditions, including traffic volumes and speeds, lane widths, surface conditions, and presence of hazards such as potholes and railroad track crossings.

·         Existence and quality of special cycling facilities, including separated paths, bike lanes and paved shoulder on highways and arterials.

·         Existence and quality of bicycle parking and changing facilities.

 

 

Moped

Mopeds are small, low-powered motorcycles. They provide an inexpensive form of transportation that reduces parking and some environmental impacts. Mopeds travel at moderate speeds (averaging about 20 mph), with medium trip lengths, that are suitable for local roads but not major highways.

 

Mopeds benefit some people who are transportation disadvantaged, including people with modest incomes and physical disabilities. Some jurisdictions allow people who are too young to drive other vehicles to use a moped. Mopeds support some TDM objectives, including parking cost savings and fuel conservation.

 

Below are possible performance indicators of moped transport:

·         Roadway cycling conditions, including traffic volumes and speeds, lane widths, surface conditions, and presence of special hazards to moped travel.

·         Caution and respect for mopeds exhibited by other drivers.

·         Moped crash and injury rates.

·         Affordability of mopeds and fuel relative to average incomes.

·         Existence and quality of moped parking facilities.

 

 

Taxi

Taxis are an important alternative mode for the following applications:

·         Non-drivers and people who cannot afford an automobile often rely on taxi travel for basic mobility, including emergencies, errands, shopping, and sometimes commuting.

·         Visitors to an area who do not have an automobile (i.e., business travelers and tourists who arrive by airplane, ship or train) often rely on taxis.

·         Motorists may value having taxi service as a backup option (i.e., when a vehicle fails, a driver has been drinking alcohol, etc.).

 

Taxi Service Improvements improve transportation options and provide an important fallback option to people who use alternative transportation modes. Taxi service is often regulated, with restrictions on market entry and pricing, although many communities are shifting to more competitive markets (Regulatory Reform). Informal taxi service often develops in rural communities where certain motorists will drive their neighbors for a fee (Ridesharing).

 

Below are possible performance indicators for Taxi service.

·         Average response time for various conditions and locations.

·         Number of taxis per capita, or per non-driver in an area.

·         Price for an average trip relative to users’ income.

·         Comfort, safety, reliability, and courtesy of service.

·         Number of user complaints over poor taxi service.

·         Number of taxis able to carry people with disabilities (i.e., wheelchair users).

 

 

Transit

Public transit includes various services that provide mobility to the public (Transit Improvements, Transit Evaluation and Transit Oriented Development). Examples including:

·         Fixed route bus.

·         Express commuter bus.

·         Light rail (relatively small, lower-speed trams, in urban areas, with frequent stops).

·         Heavy rail (relatively large, higher-speed trains, in suburban areas, with infrequent stops).

 

 

There are many ways to improve public transit services, including:

·         Additional routes, expanded coverage, increased service frequency and hours of operation.

·         Reduced and more convenient fares (such as discounts for frequent users).

·         HOV Priority (bus or HOV lanes, queue-jumper lanes, bus-priority traffic signals, and other measures that reduce delay to transit vehicles).

·         Comfort improvements, including bus shelters and better seats.

·         Improved Security for transit users and pedestrians.

·         Improved rider information and marketing programs.

·         Services targeting particular travel needs, such as express commuter buses, Special Event Service, and paratransit for people with disabilities.

·         Various types of Shuttle Service.

·         Park-and-Ride facilities.

 

 

Recent publications provide standardized guidelines for evaluating public transit service quality (Kittelson & Associates, 1999). The Local Index of Transit Availability (LITA) system rates transit service availability within urban areas, taking into account demographic and geographic factors (Rood, 1999). Below are possible transit service Performance Indicators.

·         Service coverage (transit routes within walking distance of residential, commercial and employment destinations) and frequency (number of transit vehicles per hour).

·         Quality of pedestrian access to transit stops and stations.

·         Service reliability, average wait time, and amenities (e.g., shelters at bus stops).

·         Personal security while walking, waiting and riding on transit.

·         Comfort (e.g., crowding and cleanliness of shelters and vehicles).

·         Trip financial costs, including fares and transfers, relative to users income.

·         Average trip time costs, and how those compare with other modes (particularly driving).

 

 

Paratransit

Paratransit uses small buses or vans to provide the following transit services (Shuttle Service):

·         Community transportation, providing special mobility services for transportation disadvantaged groups.

·         Flexible route, door-to-door transit service provided to the general public. This may be more efficient and attractive than fixed-route service in lower-density areas.

·         Mobility-to-work programs that involve reverse-commute shuttle services between low-income neighborhoods and suburban employment centers.

·         Private “jitney” mini-bus services.

 

 

Paratransit can be evaluated with the same Level-of-Service factors used for public transit, modified to reflect targeted users. For example, special mobility services can be evaluated based on the quantity of trips provided per potential user. Mobility-to-work service can be evaluated based on the convenience, reliability, trip times and costs of commute trips by low-income workers.

·         Number of trips provided per potential user (i.e., people who qualify for the service).

·         Portion of trip requested trips that are satisfied.

·         Average response time.

·         Price for an average trip relative to users’ income.

·         Comfort, safety, reliability, and courtesy of service.

·         Number of problems reported by users.

 

 

Interregional Bus and Rail

Interregional bus and rail services (e.g. Greyhound, Amtrak, Via Rail) provide mobility between cities and regions. Interregional bus and train service is an important transportation options for non-drivers, particularly for short- and medium-distance trips, and to destinations not served by commercial air service.

 

Interregional bus and rail can be evaluated with similar Level-of-Service factors used for public transit, modified as needed to reflect the needs of longer-distance trips. For example, interregional bus and rail must accommodate baggage, and may have seasonal peaks that should be considered. Below are some possible performance indicators:

·         Existence and frequency of interregional bus or train service to a community.

·         Price of interregional bus or train service relative to incomes and other travel modes.

·         Average trip speeds.

·         Comfort, safety, reliability, and courtesy of service.

·         Number of problems reported by users.

 

 

Commercial Air Travel

Commercial air service provides mobility between cities and regions. Although relatively expensive, it still provides basic mobility, including access to medical and emergency services, and commercial travel. It can be a particularly important option in small, isolated communities. Air service does not usually support TDM objectives (i.e., reductions in traffic congestion, facility costs, risk, pollution or consumer costs).

 

Below are some possible performance indicators for commercial air travel:

·         Existence and frequency of commercial air service in a community.

·         Price of air travel relative to incomes and other travel modes.

·         Comfort, safety, reliability, and courtesy of service.

·         Number of problems reported by users.

 

 

Automobile

This refers to motorists, which includes people who can drive a personal automobile or are chauffeured (a driver makes a special trip). For this analysis, “automobile” includes cars, light trucks, vans and motorcycles. Although age restrictions, physical disabilities and financial costs limit many people’s ability to drive, some transportation disadvantaged people are motorists, including those with physical disabilities and low incomes.

 

Automobile travel is relatively well served compared with other travel modes in most communities. The transportation systems and land use patters in most communities are oriented largely toward accommodating automobiles, and there are few places where automobile travel is prohibited (although automobile travel is sometimes slowed by congestion).

 

A number of TDM strategies can improve transportation options for motorists, as indicated in Table 3. For example, Carsharing and Distance-Based Insurance make automobile use more accessible to lower-income drivers, and Road Pricing allows motorists to choose a less congested highway trip if they are willing to pay for it. On unpriced roads, travelers have no alternative to being delayed by congestion. Value Pricing and HOT lanes allow travelers to choose between driving in congestion, avoiding congestion by ridesharing, or avoiding congestion by paying a toll. This lets individual consumers choose the option that best meets their needs for a particular trip. Parking Management can also increase the range of parking options available to motorists, such as convenient parking available for special uses (e.g., delivery vehicles and people with disabilities). This allows motorists to give priority to their higher value or more urgent trips.

 

Table 3          Impacts on Motorist Options

Tends to Increase Motorist Options

Carsharing

HOV Priority

Parking Management (such as priority parking for special uses)

Parking Pricing

Value Pricing

Pay-As-You-Drive Insurance

 

 

Pricing and management strategies tend to increase the range of available options to some motorists, although they can reduce affordability or convenience to others. Pricing may be considered to reduce transportation options for low-income travelers who cannot afford an additional vehicle fee, but the majority of motorists either have travel alternatives (changes in travel timing, destination or mode), or can afford to pay an additional fee, at least sometimes. For example, a $2 per trip road toll paid 200 times per year may seem like a major additional cost to motorists accustomed to free roads, but it represents less than a 10% increase in total average Vehicle Costs. Whether such pricing is considered to increase or reduce overall Transportation Options depends on several factors, including the quality of transportation alternatives, and whether driving is considered a necessity or a luxury.

 

Even lower-income motorists are sometimes willing to pay for time savings, indicating that pricing strategies that prioritize trips can provide a transportation option that is valued by motorists of all income levels. For example, user surveys of the SR 91 Value Priced lanes, in which motorist can pay a premium to drive on a less congested lane, show that about a quarter of the lowest-income class of motorist (less than $25,000 annual income) use the lanes on a frequent basis (Sullivan 1998). Paying such a toll may be worthwhile to allow a working parent to avoid fines at their childcare center or to reach an urgent appointment. Even if a particular motorist seldom uses such an option, its existence may be highly valued, just as ship passengers value having lifeboats that they home will never actually be used (Evaluating Transportation Resilience).

 

In general, if a corridor has enough vehicle traffic to experience traffic congestion there is enough Demand for transit and ridesharing to provide congestion reduction benefits. However, simply operating buses or a rideshare matching service will not necessarily achieve this benefit in developed countries where most households own an automobile, and automobile travel is supported by low fuel prices and free parking. Although owning an automobile is expensive, most costs are fixed, giving motorists an incentive to drive rather than use alternatives. Only by giving discretionary riders (travelers who have the option of driving, also called choice riders) suitable incentives to shift mode can transit and ridesharing achieve their full congestion reduction benefits.

 

To attract discretionary riders, public transit must be fast, comfortable, convenient and affordable. Various TDM strategies can improve transit service and provide additional incentives for motorists to shift to transit (Transit Improvements). Grade-separated transit (such as rail on its own right-of-way or buses with HOV Priority features) provides a travel time advantage that tends to attract discretionary riders. To the degree that such improvements induce some motorists to shift to transit, they can reduce the point of congestion equilibrium, reducing total traffic congestion delays for both motorists and transit users.

 

Level of Service standards exist for motor vehicle traffic flows (TRB, 1994). Possible performance indicators with respect to Transportation Diversity are described below.

·         Portion of population licensed to drive.

·         Portion of people with disabilities and low income licensed to drive.

·         Portion of population with access to a personal automobile.

·         Portion of people with disabilities and low income with access to a personal automobile.

·         Ability of drivers with disabilities to find convenient parking spaces.

 

 

Ridesharing (Auto Passenger)

Ridesharing refers to a passenger using an otherwise empty automobile seat (see Ridesharing). Ridesharing is an important travel option for most transportation disadvantaged people, and supports transportation demand management. Rideshare matching services exist in many communities, and informal ridesharing is common among families, friends and neighbors.

 

Possible performance indicators include:

·         Existence and quality of rideshare matching services in a community.

·         Number of potential users registered by rideshare matching service.

·         Liability and insurance coverage limitations on ridesharing.

·         Number of successful rideshare matches and trips.

·         Employee benefits offered rideshare users (such as Parking Cash Out).

 

 

Carsharing (Vehicle Rentals)

Carsharing is an automobile rental service designed to substitute for private vehicle ownership. Vehicles are rented by the hour, located near residences, and require minimal effort to check in and out. This is different from most vehicle rental services, which are located at major transportation terminals or commercial centers and price by the day. Carsharing can benefit people who are low income, and because it tends to reduce total per capita driving, it supports TDM objectives. It is considered a cost-effective alternative to owning an automobile that is driven less than 10,000 kilometers (6,000 miles) annually.

 

Possible performance indicators include:

·         Number of carsharing vehicles per capita.

·         Portion of residents living within a 10-minute walk of a carsharing station.

·         Portion of population that regularly uses carsharing services.

·         Carsharing prices relative to user income.

 

 

Telecommunications

Telework involves the use of telecommunications to substitute for some physical trips. There are several specific types, including telecommuting for work or school, teleshopping, electronic banking and government services, and other applications. Some of these activities require only a telephone, but many require a computer with Internet access. These options are important for many people who are transportation disadvantaged, and support TDM objectives.

 

Possible performance indicators include:

·         Portion of households with telephones.

·         Portion of transportation disadvantaged people who have convenient access to the Internet.

·         Portion of employers who allow telework.

·         Portion of public services (banks, government agencies, libraries, etc.) that that can be performed by telephone or Internet.

 

 

Delivery Services

Delivery services include the postal system and private couriers (such as United Parcel Service and Federal Express), and delivery services for local goods such as groceries, medical goods and bulk goods. Such services can substitute for many vehicle trips, and can provide Basic Access for transportation disadvantaged people. Delivery services can benefit transportation disadvantaged people, support telework (working at home), and substitute for some non-work travel.

 

Possible performance indicators include:

·         Portion of retail businesses (particularly those providing essential goods, such as grocery stores and pharmacies) that offer product delivery.

·         Charges for using delivery services.

·         Range and quality of service (such as the availability and price of guaranteed overnight delivery).

 

 

Summary Table

The table below shows how these transportation options are rated according to the five transportation options objectives. This can help identify options that are most appropriate for achieving a particular objective. This analysis framework can be modified as appropriate to reflect the objectives and conditions that apply in a particular planning situation.

 

Table 4          Benefits of Transportation Modes/Strategies

 

Transportation Disadvantaged

TDM

 

Non-Drivers

Low- Income

Physically

Disabled

 

Commuting

Non-Work Travel

Mobility Options

 

 

 

 

 

Pedestrian Improvements

3

3

3

3

3

Universal Design

1

1

3

1

1

Cycling Improvements

3

3

1

3

3

Moped

1

2

1

1

1

Taxi

3

2

3

0

0

Fixed Route Bus

3

3

3

3

3

Commuter Bus

1

1

1

3

1

Light Rail

2

2

2

3

2

Heavy Rail

1

1

1

3

1

Intercity Bus and Rail Services

3

3

3

0

1

Commercial Air Service

2

1

2

0

0

Automobile Travel

1

2

2

0

0

Ridesharing

3

3

3

3

3

Carsharing

0

3

1

2

2

Land Use Management

 

 

 

 

 

Smart Growth/New Urbanism

3

3

3

3

3

Transit Oriented Development

3

3

3

3

3

Location Efficient Housing

3

3

3

2

3

Accessible Employment

3

3

3

3

1

Mobility Substitutes

 

 

 

 

 

Telecommunications

3

3

3

3

3

Delivery Services

3

2

3

1

3

This table indicates how much each transportation option supports various objectives.

 

 

Method 4: Network Analysis of Transportation Options

The previous methods for evaluating transportation options focus primarily on individual modal options, but as described earlier, it is the overall functionality of the non-automotive transportation system that ultimately determines the quality of transportation options. Below are some indicators that can be used to evaluate transportation options at a network level.

 

Comparing Transportation Costs of Drivers and Non-drivers

Non-drivers can travel just about anywhere a driver can go, but at a higher cost. A non-driver can hire a taxi or chauffeur, at a significantly higher financial cost. A physically fit non-driver can walk or bicycle just about anywhere, but with significantly higher time, discomfort and risk costs. Transportation options can therefore be evaluated by comparing the generalized cost (financial and time, with time costs incorporating discomfort and risk factors) of travel between drivers and various types of non-drivers. This analysis can be disaggregated into different transportation disadvantaged groups, such as people with disabilities, people with low incomes, youths, elders, etc. The incremental costs they bear for basic access relative to motorists can be considered an indicator of transportation options.

 

Comparing Household Transportation Expenditures

Holtzclaw (1994) and McCann (2000) compare household surface transportation expenditures (i.e. automobile and transit) by geographic area. The higher expenditures associated with Automobile Dependent land use can be considered, in part, to reflect a lack of transportation options. This analysis can also be disaggregated into different groups, such as households with low incomes, youths, elders, etc. For example, if low-income residents in one neighborhood spend 30% more on transportation than otherwise similar residents in another neighborhood, the difference may be explained, in part, by the quality of transportation options, and higher expenditures may be considered a cost of poor transportation options.

 

Mobility, Cost and Satisfaction Surveys

Another approach for evaluating the quality of transportation options is to survey users (residents, commuters and visitors to an area) concerning the quality of transportation they experience, with special attention to comparing differences in mobility, costs and satisfaction between motorists (i.e. people who can driver and afford an automobile) and people who are transportation disadvantaged.

 

Mode Split

Another indictor of transportation diversity is the exiting mode split in an area compared with otherwise similar communities. For example, a neighborhood with higher levels of walking, cycling and transit than other neighborhoods with similar demographics can be considered to offer relatively good transportation options. Even relatively small differences (i.e., between 4% and 8% of total trips made by transit) may represent a significant difference the quality of service available to non-drivers.

 

 

Method 5: Planning Process Analysis of Transportation Options

A final approach to evaluating transportation options focuses on the transportation planning process. The following are indicators of whether transportation options is given appropriate consideration and support.

 

·         Transportation is evaluated based on access rather than vehicle traffic (Measuring Transportation).

 

·         Non-motorized trips are considered equally in travel surveys and models (Evaluating Nonmotorized Transportation).

 

·         Transportation surveys and other data collection activities effectively incorporate transportation-disadvantaged populations.

 

·         Transportation disadvantaged populations are consulted and effectively involved in transportation policy and planning decisions.

 

·         Transportation services and policy options are evaluated from different perspectives, including the perspectives of transportation disadvantaged people.

 

·         Least Cost Planning principles are followed in transportation planning and funding.

 

·         Complete Streets Policies recognize that roadways often serve diverse functions including through travel, recreational walking, socializing, vending, and nearby living, which must be considered and balanced in roadway design and management.

 

·         A broad range of costs are considered, including vehicle ownership costs, parking costs, safety and health costs, and environmental impacts.

 

·         Equity and basic mobility objectives are incorporated in transportation planning (Evaluating Equity).

 

·         Land use accessibility factors are considered in transportation planning (Land Use Impacts on Transportation, Smart Growth, and New Urbanism).

 

·         At least some residential neighborhoods are suitable for people who are transportation disadvantaged, with good walking and cycling conditions, good public transit services, and convenient access to basic services such as shops and parks (Location Efficient Development and Transit Oriented Development).

 

·         Transportation policies and planning practices support development and use of a wide range of transportation options, including Nonmotorized Modes, Transit, Shuttle Services, Carsharing, delivery services and Tele-Access. For example, Parking Cash Out is implemented to allow non-drivers benefits similar in value to parking subsidies, and Parking Management is implemented to allow non-drivers to avoid paying for parking spaces they don’t use.

 

 

Conclusions

Many current transportation planning and investment practices recognize some value to transportation options, but the analysis is often limited to just one or two goals, such as basic mobility for particular transportation disadvantaged groups, or congestion reduction. The full benefits of diversity become apparent when transportation is measured in terms of access, and a variety of efficiency, equity, option value and community Livability goals are considered.

 

An important finding of this analysis is that the range of solutions to transportation problems is broader than tends to be considered in most conventional transportation planning. Land use management strategies (such as more accessible neighborhood design), and substitutes for mobility (such as electronic access and delivery services) can be as important as increased mobility to help achieve transportation objectives.

 

 

Wit and Humor

Three guys were sitting around talking about what being really, really famous would be like.

The first guy says, “Real fame is being invited to the White House for a personal chat with the president.”

The second guy says, “Real fame is sitting there in the Oval Office chatting with the president when the hot line rings, and he won’t take the call.”

The third guy says, “Real fame is sitting there in the Oval Office chatting with the president when the hot line rings, and he answers it, listens for a moment, and then says, ‘It’s for you.’”

 

 

Related Chapters

For more discussion of the benefits of Transportation Options see TDM Planning, Evaluating TDM, Measuring Transportation, Why TDM?, Comprehensive Transportation Planning, Market Principles, and Win-Win Transportation Solutions.

 

 

References And Resources For More Information

 

AARP (2010), The Getting Around Guide: An AARP Guide to Walking, Bicycling and Public Transportation, American Association of Retired Persons; at www.completestreets.org/webdocs/resources/aarp-gettingaroundguide.pdf.

 

Gary Barnes and Heather Dolphin (2006), An Exploratory Survey of Potential Community Transportation Providers and Users, University of Minnesota Center for Transportation Studies (www.cts.umn.edu/publications/reports/reportdetail.pl?id=1086).

 

Graham Currie and Alexa Delbose (2010), Modelling the Social and Psychological Impacts of Transport Disadvantaged,” Transportation, Vol. 37, No. 6, pp. 953-966; abstract at www.springerlink.com/content/e1j732870x124241.

 

DfT (2003), Transport Analysis Guidance: 3.6.1: The Option Values Sub-Objective, Department for Transport (www.dft.gov.uk); at  www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/unit3.6.php#3.6.1.

 

ECONorthwest and PBQD (2002), Estimating the Benefits and Costs of Public Transit Projects, TCRP Report 78, (http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp78/index.htm), TRB (www.trb.org).

 

FDOT (2002), Quality/Level of Service Handbook, Florida Department of Transportation (www11.myflorida.com/planning/systems/sm/los/los_sw2.htm).

 

David J. Forkenbrock and Glen E. Weisbrod (2001), Guidebook for Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects, NCHRP Report 456, Transportation Research Board, National Academy Press (www.trb.org).

 

John Hamburg, Larry Blair and David Albright (1994), “Mobility as a Right,” Transportation Research Record 1499, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 52-55.

 

A. Hay and E. Trinder (1991), “Concept of Equity, Fairness, and Justice Expressed by Local Transport Policy Makers,” Environment and Planning C, Vol. 9, pp. 453-465.

 

Joel Hirschhorn (2000), In the Fast Lane: Delivering More Transportation Choices to Break Gridlock, National Governor’s Association, Center for Best Practices (www.nga.org).

 

Anthony C. Homan (2012), Using Option Pricing Theory in Valuing Benefits from Transit Projects, U.S. Department of Transportation (www.transportationresearch.gov); at www.transportationresearch.gov/dotrc/eco/Shared Documents/Option Value of Transit.docx.

 

Kittelson & Associates (1999), Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, Web Document 6, Project A-15. Transit Cooperative Research Program, TRB, www4.nationalacademies.org/trb/crp.nsf/All+Projects/TCRP+A-15.

 

William Lennertz and Laurence Qamar (1995), The Principles of a Balanced Transportation Network: Implementing the Oregon Transportation Planning Rule, Oregon Transportation and Growth Management Program (www.lcd.state.or.us/tgm/publications.htm).

 

Todd Litman (1999), The Costs of Automobile Dependency and the Benefits of Transportation Diversity, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at http://vtpi.org/autodep.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2001), “You Can Get There From Here: Evaluating Transportation Choice,” Transportation Research Record 1756, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 32-41; at www.vtpi.org/choice.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2008), Celebrate (Transportation) Diversity!, Planetizen Blogs (www.planetizen.com); at www.planetizen.com/node/30539.

 

Louis Berger & Associates (1998), Guidance for Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects, Report 403, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org).

 

Barbara McCann (2000), Driven to Spend; The Impact of Sprawl on Household Transportation Expenses, STPP (www.transact.org).

 

Multisystems, et al (2000), Welfare to Work: Integration and Coordination of Transportation and Social Services, Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 64; TCRP Web Document 16, TRB (www4.national-academies.org/trb/crp.nsf), Federal Transit Administration.

 

Peter Newman and Jeff Kenworthy (1998), Sustainability and Cities; Overcoming Automobile Dependency, Island Press (www.islandpress.org).

 

Clarissa Penfold, N. Cleghorn, C. Creegan, H. Neil and S Webster (2008), Travel Behaviour, Experiences And Aspirations Of Disabled People, produced for the Department of Transport, United Kingdom by The National Centre for Social Research (NatCen), Social Research in Transport Clearinghouse (www.sortclearinghouse.info); at www.sortclearinghouse.info/research/325.

 

R. H. Pratt and T.J. Lomax (1996), “Performance Measures for Multi-Modal Transportation Systems,” Transportation Research Record 1518, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 85-93.

 

Timothy Rood (1999), Local Index of Transit Availability (LITA), LGC (www.lgc.org).

 

K.H. Schaeffer and Elliot Sclar (1980), Access for All, Columbia University Press (New York).

 

Scott Sharpe and Paul Tranter (2010), “The Hope For Oil Crisis: Children, Oil Vulnerability And (In)Dependent Mobility,” Australian Planner, Vol. 47, No. 4, December, pp. 284-292; summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2010.526622.

 

STPP (2001), Easing the Burden: A Companion Analysis of the Texas Transportation Institute's Congestion Study, Surface Transportation Policy Project (www.transact.org).

 

Edward Sullivan (1998), Evaluating the Impacts of the SR 91 Variable-Toll Express Lane Facility, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Cal Poly State University (http://ceenve.calpoly.edu/sullivan/SR91).


This Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.

 

VTPI

Homepage

Encyclopedia Homepage

Send Comments

 

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

www.vtpi.org       info@vtpi.org

1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC,  V8V 3R7,  CANADA

Phone & Fax 250-360-1560

“Efficiency - Equity - Clarity”

 

 

#65