pres4

THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF WALKING:Making use of walking for transport efficiency and economic regenerationWednesday 3rd July 2002Staffordshire UniversityStoke-on-Trent: 

THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF WALKING: Making use of walking for transport efficiency and economic regeneration Wednesday 3rd July 2002 Staffordshire University Stoke-on-Trent THE FIFTH NATIONAL WALKING CONFERENCE C A S T

Does walking count in national policy and funding?Adding up the cost:the appraisal of walking schemesProfessor Phil GoodwinUniversity College, London: 

Does walking count in national policy and funding? Adding up the cost: the appraisal of walking schemes Professor Phil Goodwin University College, London

Appraisal of Walking SchemesPhil Goodwin: 

Appraisal of Walking Schemes Phil Goodwin OR Why should the appraisal of walking schemes be any different from appraisal of any other transport projects, and why are a lot more schemes not being approved?

APPRAISAL OF TRANSPORT PROJECTS: 

APPRAISAL OF TRANSPORT PROJECTS Economic cost-benefit analysis for time savings, accidents, cost changes compared with cost of implementation. Separate assessment of effects on wider economy, environmental impact, social inclusion, integration...

APPRAISAL ATTRIBUTES OF WALKING PROJECTS: 

APPRAISAL ATTRIBUTES OF WALKING PROJECTS ADVANTAGES Walking projects are usually fairly cheap to do, provide benefits to a wide variety of people, without major new building DISADVANTAGES Walking projects are usually fairly cheap to do, provide benefits to a wide variety of people, without major new building

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSISapplied to walking: 

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS applied to walking Accident reduction - use standard values; Cost reductions - ignore for walkers - but include for previous vehicle-users; Time savings: value of time x2; BUT carefully - three cases where faster travel is not a benefit, slower travel is not a cost

TIME SAVINGS ARE NOT A BENEFIT WHEN:: 

TIME SAVINGS ARE NOT A BENEFIT WHEN: 1. Crossing the road a calm walking pace has higher benefit than a forced hurry under pressure of a short pedestrian phase even if no effects on safety 2. Strolling in a shopping centre observe behaviour - walking slowly can be a mark of greater enjoyment, so higher benefit

TIME SAVINGS ARE NOT A BENEFIT WHEN:: 

TIME SAVINGS ARE NOT A BENEFIT WHEN: 3. They are illegal Cost benefit studies should not include time savings/losses due to exceeding the legal speed limit. (Accepted in principle, often ignored). So don’t base assessments on effects on average vehicle speed if part of that is due to speeding - important in calmed areas

OTHER APPRAISAL CRITERIA: 

OTHER APPRAISAL CRITERIA Environment - no special problems, but include quality of street environment; Economy - include important evidence about effects of well-designed pedestrianisation on retail turnover; Integration - effects of good pedestrian environment on access to public transport. Walking includes standing

BUT: 

BUT WE STILL HAVE SERIOUS PROBLEMS OF APPRAISAL...

PROBLEMS OF LOCAL TRAFFIC MODELS: 

PROBLEMS OF LOCAL TRAFFIC MODELS Walking rarely included as a ‘real’ mode of transport zone structure says little about short journeys (even car journeys) ‘fixed trip matrix’ - especially if only vehicles - implies volume of pedestrian activity will not change - which is wrong, and underestimates benefits substantially

PROBLEMS OF DATA: 

PROBLEMS OF DATA Traffic surveys never pay as much serious attention, professional resources, or money, to collecting data on walking as they do routinely for vehicle trips At best - a one or two-day a year add-on survey. At worst, no data at all. (We all know it’s difficult. That’s a reason for paying more attention, not less)

Problems of 10 Year Plan: 

Problems of 10 Year Plan walking (like cycling, buses, pricing) downplayed, ignored or inconsistent all vehicle traffic movements are in the forecasts (including short distance urban car trips) - but they do not interact with walking

Problems of career structures: 

Problems of career structures Vehicle Planner Walking Planner

The fundamental law of traffic: 

The fundamental law of traffic The more traffic there is the slower it goes. Traffic volumes near capacity are unstable Speed Traffic

‘PREDICT AND PROVIDE’strategic axioms:: 

‘PREDICT AND PROVIDE’ strategic axioms: Main drivers of traffic growth outside policy control (income, life-styles...) Policy task - provide road capacity where and when it will be required Public transport, walking, cycling will all decline...but mobility benefits greater than costs

‘Predict and Provide’ Flawed: 

‘Predict and Provide’ Flawed Traffic growth from uncharged external costs damages economy and environment Some drivers of growth are under policy control - ‘Roads generate traffic’ Car dependence reduces choice Vicious circle (‘self-fulfilling predictions’) No feasible road programme can keep pace with unrestricted traffic growth

The fundamental law of traffic 2: 

The fundamental law of traffic 2 If traffic grows faster than capacity congestion will increase, in intensity, time or space Speed Traffic

If supply cannot match demand - manage demand to match supply: 

If supply cannot match demand - manage demand to match supply Pedestrianisation, traffic calming, control reallocation of road capacity public transport, walking, cycling land use planning prices which reflect full costs including congestion and environmental damage then can judge useful (reduced) role for road building

Environment and Economy: 

Environment and Economy Theory - and some experience: if well done, such policies provide environmental, economic and social benefits and are politically popular and save money. So potential for ‘green-gold’ alliance of business, industry, environmentalists

‘New Deal for Transport’ - well received BUT: 

‘New Deal for Transport’ - well received BUT delivery agonisingly slow loss of confidence and momentum fear of being ‘anti-motorist’ some supporters in initial consensus faded inappropriate forecasting and evaluation tools

‘Tackling Congestion and Pollution’ (January 2000): 

‘Tackling Congestion and Pollution’ (January 2000) Government’s first report under the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Act 1998 (required local authorities to make plans for traffic reduction, and the Government to report on whether it wanted such targets at national level or not). The Government decided that it was not helpful to define a specific target for national traffic reduction, but would instead focus on the negative effects of traffic growth, namely congestion and pollution.

SO - TEN YEAR PLAN...: 

SO - TEN YEAR PLAN... Perceived as U-turn Main focus on rail and road investment to reduce the ‘negative consequences of traffic growth’ (not traffic growth itself) Fuel costs down Traffic to grow by 17% And forecast that pollution and congestion will be reduced

Problems of 10 Year Plan: 

Problems of 10 Year Plan walking, cycling, buses, pricing downplayed, ignored or inconsistent rail - much investment ‘promised’ BUT how to get the money? how to spend it? pollution - dependent on voluntary action: technical fix offset by traffic growth CONGESTION - the cornerstone...

The Great Achievement‘Traffic up, congestion down’ (?): 

The Great Achievement ‘Traffic up, congestion down’ (?) But motorways, congestion up by 13%, rural roads up by 16-20%

‘Change in Congestion’...? Compares ‘real’ speeds with ‘universal free-flow’, all vehicles going as close to speed limit as they want: 

‘Change in Congestion’...? Compares ‘real’ speeds with ‘universal free-flow’, all vehicles going as close to speed limit as they want (aggregated over several thousand area, road types, times)

This measure of ‘congestion’ exaggerates tiny changes in speeds: 

This measure of ‘congestion’ exaggerates tiny changes in speeds Motorways travel time up by 0.5 sec/km, rural roads up 0.2 sec/km

Two viable strategies : 

Two viable strategies Network-wide road pricing would reduce congestion by 5-10 times more than all the schemes in 10 YP, and with better benefit cost ratios. OR Without this, a good second best would be a more radical programme of physical restraint and public transport investment.

Two silly strategies: 

Two silly strategies Return to predict-and-provide: doomed to fail, and the attempt would increase problems OR (based on ‘congestion’ indicator) Reduce all speed limits but don’t enforce them.

Appropriate methods?: 

Appropriate methods? How sensitive is traffic growth to policy instruments? Currently under-estimated. ‘Equilibrium end-states’ conceal difference between short and long run trajectories for monitoring sequence of implementation how long will it take to show success? Still some appraisal biasses

‘change in congestion’ - a hostage to fortune: 

‘change in congestion’ - a hostage to fortune Does not correspond with public view Unrealistic expectations Can’t monitor Perverse policy effects Based on flawed concept Redefine asap

Conclusions: 

Conclusions There is no sustainable transport strategy without demand management. The only demand management tool which can pay for itself is road pricing. Without pricing, the sticks will need to be harder and the carrots more expensive. Everything I’ve said has research support...reading lists available.