Comprehensive

Evaluation for
Sustainable
Transport Planning
Todd Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Presented
Brown Bag Presentation
14 January 2011
Asian Development Bank
Manila, Philippines
Presentation Summary

The presentation will discuss a new ADB program to

develop guidelines and tools for more
comprehensive evaluation of transport projects
particularly for urban transport. It will also discuss
Transport project evaluation best practices and
impacts that are often overlooked in conventional
transport economic analysis.
Todd Litman Bio
Todd Litman is founder and executive director of the Victoria
Transport Policy Institute, an independent research organization
dedicated to developing innovative solutions to transport problems.
His work helps expand the range of impacts and options considered in
transportation decision-making, improve evaluation methods, and
make specialized technical concepts accessible to a larger audience.
His research is used worldwide in transport planning and policy
analysis.

He authored the Online TDM Encyclopedia, a comprehensive Internet

resource for identifying and evaluating mobility management
strategies; Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis: Techniques,
Estimates and Implications, a comprehensive study which provides
cost and benefit information in an easy-to-apply format; and Parking
Management Best Practices, the most comprehensive book available
on management solutions to parking problems.
Greetings from
Victoria, BC
Sustainable Transport
• Good walking and cycling condition
(highest bike mode share in Canada)
• Universal design (accommodates people
with disabilities).
• Good public transit service.
• Compact and mixed development
(neighborhood shops and services).
• Strong central business district (jobs and
shops concentrated downtown).
• Limited highway capacity.
• Mixed housing types (major portion of
housing is multi-family)
Victoria Sustainability Plan
• Concentrates
development.
• Improve walking and
cycling conditions.
• Streetscaping
• Improve public transport
(BRT or LRT planned).
• Create transit-oriented
development.
• Increase affordable
housing supply.
• Reduce parking supply
and more efficiently price
public parking.
Seoul, South Korea
 Sustainability Planning

Sustainability
emphasizes the
integrated nature of
human activities and
therefore the need to
coordinate planning
among different sectors,
jurisdictions and
groups.

1/13/2011
Preventing Problems

Sustainability planning
is to development what
preventive medicine is
to health: it anticipates
and manages problems
rather than waiting for
crises to develop.
 Sustainability Objectives
Economic Social Environmental
Mobility/Accessibility Equity/Fairness Pollution reduction
Congestion reduction Affordability Climate protection
Roadway cost savings Human health Habitat preservation
Parking cost savings Community cohesion Aesthetics
Consumer savings Cultural preservation
Energy conservation Community livability
Economic productivity and Public Participation
development
Tax burden
Sustainabile Transportation?

Would we have a
sustainable
transportation
system if everybody
drove hybrids?
 Hybrids Do Not
• Reduce traffic congestion
• Reduce accidents
• Reduce vehicle purchase costs
• Improve mobility for non-drivers
• Improve public fitness and health
• Reduce sprawl
• Reduce tax burdens
• Reduce land use sprawl
• Protect habitat
• Create more livable communities
 Transport Planning Paradigm Shift
Old Paradigm
Goal Maximize mobility (travel
speed and distance)
Methods Attempts to satisfy demand
extrapolated from past trends
New Paradigm
Efficient accessibility (help people
reach desired services and activities in
the most resource efficient way)
Establishes strategic goals and
objectives

Planning Each sector, mode and Planning is integrated between

Scope jurisdiction is planned in sectors, modes and jurisdictions.
isolation
Analysis Reductionist. Each objective Integrated analysis. Considers
Scope is considered in isolation multiple objectives to avoid conflicts
and identify “win-win” solutions.
Solutions Focuses on facility Includes policy solutions such as
Considered construction and design pricing and land use management.
 What is “The” Transportation Problem?
• Inconvenient and uncomfortable
travel experience?
• Traffic congestion?
• Road construction costs?
• Parking congestion or costs?
• Excessive costs to consumers?
• Traffic crashes?
• Lack of mobility for non-drivers?
• Poor freight services?
• Environmental impacts?
• Inadequate physical activity?
• Others?
Current Transport Planning

Current planning tends to be reductionist: each

problem is assigned to a single agency with
narrowly defined responsibilities. For example:
• Transport agencies deal with congestion.
• Environmental agencies deal with pollution.
• Welfare agencies deal with the needs of disadvantaged
people.
• Public health agencies are concerned with community
fitness.
• Etc.
Reductionist Decision-Making

Reductionist planning can

result in public agencies
implementing solutions to
one problem that
exacerbate other problems
facing society, and tends to
undervalue strategies that
provide multiple but modest
benefits.
Win-Win Solutions

Put another way, more

comprehensive Ask:
planning helps identify “Which congestion-reduction
“Win-Win” strategies: strategy also reduces
parking costs, saves
solutions to one consumers money, and
problem that also help improves mobility options for
solve other problems non-drivers.”
facing society.
 Comparing Benefits
Planning Expand Efficient and Alt. Shifts from Auto
Objectives Roadways Fuel Vehicles Alternative Modes
Vehicle Travel Impacts Increased VMT Increased VMT Reduced VMT
Improve travel experience  
Reduce traffic congestion  
Road/railway cost savings 
Parking cost savings 
Consumer cost savings 
Improve mobility options 
Improve traffic safety 
Energy conservation  
Pollution reduction  
Land use objectives 
Economic development ? ? 
Public fitness & health 
Economic Evaluation Scope
 Type of Economic Analysis
Sustainability planning requires
consideration of all significant impacts,
including those that are difficult to
measure.
• Qualitative (description of impacts)
• Direction of impact (good or bad;
supports or contradicts objectives)
• Ratings (A to F, 1-3, 1-10, -10 to +10, etc.)
• Quantitative (kilometers per hour, deaths
per 100,000 population, dollars per capita)
• Monetization (use monetary units to
measure the value of impacts)
 Comparing Costs
$0.30
Dollars Per Vehicle Mile

$0.25

$0.20

$0.15

$0.10

$0.05

$0.00

21
 Impacts To Consider
Impacts Definition
User experience Travel convenience and comfort
Traffic congestion Congestion delays and costs.
Road and railway costs Roadway facility costs
Parking costs Parking facility costs
Consumer costs Financial costs of travel to users
Transport options, especially
Mobility options affordable modes for non-drivers
Traffic safety Crash costs and risks
External costs of resource
Resource externalities consumption, particularly energy
Pollution emissions Transport pollution emissions
Degree planning decisions support
Land use impacts land use development objectives
Degree planning decisions support
Economic development economic development objectives
Public fitness and health Physical fitness and health impacts
Components
Ease of obtaining information and paying fares. Comfort
while traveling and waiting.
Travel speed, delay and reliability. Vehicle operating costs.
Pollution emissions.
Construction, land, maintenance and operating costs
Construction, land, maintenance and operating costs
Vehicle ownership and operating expenses, fares
Ease of walking, cycling, public transport, vehicle rentals, taxi
services, telework, delivery services, etc.
Property damages, medical and disability costs, productivity
losses, pain and suffering, etc.
Facility and vehicle embodied energy, fuel consumption,
production externalities.
Air, noise and water pollution from facilities and vehicles.
Impervious surface, sprawl, community redevelopment
Production costs, productivity, import exchange, support for
strategic industries
Amount of walking and cycling activity.
 Conventional Evaluation
Generally Considered
• Congestion impacts.
• Vehicle operating costs.
• Per-mile crash impacts.
• Per-mile pollution
emissions.
Often Overlooked
• Parking costs.
• Total consumer costs.
• Downstream congestion.
• Crash, energy & pollution
impacts of changes in mileage.
• Land use impacts.
• Impacts on mobility options for
non-drivers/equity impacts.
• Changes in active transport
and related health impacts.
23
 Consideration of Impacts
Impacts Current Consideration Evaluation Methods
User experience Often discussed but not quantified Incorporate in value of travel time

Traffic congestion Vehicle delay monetized Vehicle and pedestrian delay monetized
Road and rail costs Generally monetized Monetized using lifecycle costs
Parking costs Generally ignored Monetized using lifecycle costs
Consumer costs Vehicle operating costs and fares All vehicle costs (including ownership)

Mobility options Sometimes described Quantify. Option value and equity benefits

Traffic safety Monetized using distance-based rates Monetized using per capita rates

Resource externalities Not generally considered Monetized using shadow pricing

Pollution emissions Sometimes monetized Comprehensive monetization

Land use impacts Sometimes discussed but not quantified Integrated modeling

Economic development Some impacts quantified Comprehensive modeling

Public fitness and health Generally ignored Modelled and monetised

 Traffic Fatality Rates

When crash rates are

6 Fatalities Per 100 Million Vehicle Miles
Fatalities Per 10,000 Population
measured per
5 vehicle mile, they
4 declined significantly,
3
but when measured
per capita they show
2
relatively little decline
1
due to increased per
0 capita vehicle
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
mileage.
Traffic Fatalities
25

Automobile Dependent
Traffic Fatalities Per 100,000

20 Multi-Modal
Residents

15

10

0
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Annual Per Capita Transit Passenger-Miles
International Traffic Death Rates
25
Northern Europe
Southern Europe
Traffic Fatalities Per 100,000

20 US
Canada
Australia
Population

15

10

0
-500 500 1,500 2,500 3,500 4,500
Annual Per Capita Transit Passenger-Miles
Smart Growth Safety Impacts
Equity
A more diverse transportation
systems helps achieve equity
objectives:
• A fair share of public resources for
non-drivers.
• Financial savings to lower-income
people.
• Increased opportunity to people who
are physically, socially or economically
disadvantaged.
Basic Mobility
Certain goods and services are
considered “essential” or “basic”:
• Emergency services (police, fire,
ambulances, etc.).
• Public services and utilities (garbage
collection, utility maintenance, etc.).
• Health care.
• Basic food and clothing.
• Education and employment (commuting).
• Some social and recreational activities.
• Mail and freight delivery.
30
Transportation Affordability
25%
Automobile Dependent
Transprot Portion of Household

Muti-Modal
20%
Expenditures

15%

10%

5%

0%
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Per-Capita Annual Transit Passenger-Miles
 What Gets People Moving?

Walking is a natural
and essential
activity. If you ask
sedentary people
what physical
activity they will
most likely to stick
with, walking usually
ranks first.
 Economic Development Benefits
• Reducing transportation costs
(congestion, parking, property
Jobs Created Per $1 million Expenditure

25 taxes) in ways that increase

productivity and competitiveness.
20
• Supports strategic industries
15 (resource extraction, agriculture,
tourism, retail, etc.).
10
• Reducing vehicle expenditures and
5 expanding transit service increases
regional employment and business
0 activity.
Petroleum General General Public Transit
Automobile Consumer • Agglomeration efficiencies.
Expenses Expenditures
• Increases affordability, allowing
businesses to attract employees in
areas with high living costs.
 Value of Highway Expansion

When the highway

system was being 38%

Annual Economic Returns

33%
developed in the Highway Capital
28%
1950s and 60s it 23%
Private Capital

provided high returns 18%

on investment. Now 13%

8%
that the system is 3%
mature, economic -2%
1950-59 1960-69 1970-79 1980-89
returns have
declined.
 Per Capita GDP and VMT
$60,000

Per Capita Annual GDP (2004)

$50,000
Productivity tends to
$40,000
decline with increased
vehicle travel. (Each dot
is a U.S. urban region.) $30,000

Bureau of Economic Analysis $20,000

and FHWA data
$10,000
R2 = 0.2923
$0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

Per Capita Annual Mileage (2005)

 Per Capita GDP and Fuel Prices

Productivity tends
to increase with
higher fuel prices,
particularly in oil
consuming
countries (each dot
is a country).

Fuel price data from

Metschies, 2005
 Travel Impacts
Impacts are affected by how a project
affects travel activity:
• Some benefits depend on the degree that
automobile travel is reduced. For example,
public transit improvement benefits depend, in
part, on the amount of automobile travel
reduced.
• Roadway expansion benefits can be reduced
induced vehicle travel, which reduces
congestion reduction benefits and increases
external costs including accidents, pollution
and sprawl.
• Some health benefits depend on the degree
that walking and cycling activity increases.
Example – Roadway Expansion
Planning
Objectives
Travel Activity
Improve travel experience
Reduce traffic congestion
Road or railway savings
Parking cost savings
Consumer cost savings
Improve mobility options
Improve traffic safety
Energy conservation
Pollution reduction
Land use objectives
 = positive impact
Economic development
 = negative Impact
Public fitness & health
Roadway Expansion
Unchanged Induced Travel
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 



Example - Bus Rapid Transit

• Grade-separated right-of-way
• Frequent, high-capacity
service (less than 10-minute
headways).
• High-quality vehicles.
• Pre-paid fare collection.
• Convenient user information
• Comfortable stations.
• Excellent customer service.

39
Example - BRT
Planning Public Transport
Objectives Improvement
Travel Activity Unchanged Mode Shift
Improve travel experience  
Reduce traffic congestion  
Road savings 
Parking cost savings 
Consumer cost savings  
Improve mobility options  
Improve traffic safety 
Energy conservation 
Pollution reduction 
 = positive impact Land use objectives 
 = negative Impact Economic development 
Public fitness & health 
 Non-Motorized Improvement
Objective NMT
Improve travel experience 
Reduce traffic congestion 
Roadway cost savings 

Parking cost savings 

User cost savings 

Improve mobility options 

• Build and improve sidewalks Improve traffic safety 
• Build paths and bike lanes
Energy conservation 
• Improve crossswalks
Pollution reduction 
• Bicycle parking
Land use objectives 
• Public bike rental
Economic development 
• Wider road shoulders
• Traffic calming and speed control Public fitness & health 
 Pricing Reforms
Objective Price Reforms
Improve travel experience /
Reduce traffic congestion 
Roadway cost savings 

Parking cost savings 

User cost savings 

Improve mobility options /

More efficient pricing of: Improve traffic safety 

• Roads Energy conservation 

• Parking Pollution reduction 

• Fuel Land use objectives 
• Vehicle insurance and Economic development 
registration fees
Public fitness & health 
 Smart Growth
Objective Smart Growth
Improve travel experience 
Reduce traffic congestion 
Roadway cost savings 

Parking cost savings 

User cost savings 

Improve mobility options 

Increases accessibility and reduces
vehicle travel by supporting land use Improve traffic safety 
development that is: Energy conservation 
• Compact Pollution reduction 
• Mixed-user
Land use objectives 
• Connectivity
Economic development 
• Multi-modal
Public fitness & health 
 Examples
Planning Objectives Expand Improve Improve Pricing Smart
Road Transit NMT Reform Growth
Improve travel experience     
Reduce traffic congestion     
Roadway cost savings     

Parking cost savings    

User cost savings    / 

Improve mobility options   / 

Improve traffic safety    

Energy conservation    

Pollution reduction    

Land use objectives    

Economic development ?    
Public fitness & health    
 Applications
Urban
• Investments in sidewalks and paths.
• Road design - streetscaping
• Highway versus public transit
investments.
• Transit system design.
• Road, parking and fuel pricing.
• Parking management.
• Smart growth land use policies.
Rural
• Highway versus rail investment
• Highway design
• Highway speed management
• Provision of shoulders and paths for
non-motorized travel
• Bus stations in towns, with programs to
formalize bus services.
• Road tolls and fuel prices.
 Win-Win Transportation Solutions
Market reforms justified on
economic principles that help
provide various economic,
social and environmental
benefits.
• Improved travel options.
• Incentives to use travel
alternatives.
• Accessible land use.
• Policy and market reforms.
 Sustainable Transport Hierarchy

1. Walking
2. Cycling
3. Public Transit
4. Service & Freight
5. Taxi
6. HOV
7. Private Automobile
 Improve Public Transit Services
• Quality service (convenient, fast,
comfortable).
• Low fares.
• Support (walkable communities, park & ride
facilities, commute trip reduction programs).
• Convenient information.
• Parking pricing or “cash out”.
• Integrated with special events.
• Positive Image.
Multi-modal Roadway Design

• Access management
• Context sensitive design
• Streetscaping
• Complete streets
Pedway Access to Metro Stations

Pedways are
covered and
enclosed walkways
that connect
homes, businesses
and transit stations,
allowing
comfortable access
in bad weather.
These become
attractive shopping
centers.
50
Wider Roadway Shoulders
ADT < ADT ADT 400- DHV 100- DHV DHV
250 250-400 DHV 100 200 200-400 >400

Rural Arterials 1.2 1.2 1.8 1.8 2.4 2.4

Rural Collectors 0.6 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 2.4

Rural Local 0.6 0.6 1.2 1.8 1.8 2.4

Routes

ADT = Average Daily Traffic DHV = Design Hour Volume

Widths in Meters: 0.6m = 2 ft; 1.2m = 4 ft.; 1.8m = 6 ft; 2.4m = 8 ft.
“Raise My Prices, Please!”

Of course, motorists do not

like to pay more for roads
and parking, but unpriced
facilities are not really free,
consumers ultimately pay
through higher taxes and
retail prices. The choice is
actually between paying
directly or indirectly.
 More Efficient Pricing
Rank Category Examples
Best Time- and location- Variable road pricing, location-specific parking
specific road and management, location-specific emission
parking pricing charges.

Second Mileage-pricing Weight-distance charges, mileage-based

Best vehicle insurance, prorated MVET, mileage
based emission charges.
Third Best Fuel charges Increase fuel tax, apply general sales tax to
fuel, pay-at-the-pump insurance, carbon tax,
increase Hazardous Sub. Tax.
Bad Fixed vehicle charges Current MVET, vehicle purchase and ownership
fees.
Worst External costs General taxes paying for roads and traffic
(not charged to services, parking subsidies, uncompensated
motorists) external costs.
 Fuel Taxes
$1.80
Canada
$1.60 Denmark
Gasoline Price (US$/Liter)

$1.40 France
$1.20
Germany
Italy
$1.00
Japan
$0.80 Netherlands
$0.60 Norway
Canada
$0.40 United Spain
States Sweden
$0.20
Switzerland
$0.00 United Kingdom
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
United States
Average Annual Vehicle Kilometers
 Efficient Parking Pricing

• Price parking in more

areas.
• Increase fees to reflect
commercial rates.
• Higher fees at times and
locations where parking
demand is greatest.
• Develop more convenient
payment and
enforcement systems.

55
Distance-Based Pricing

Motorists pay by the vehicle-

kilometre, so a $600 annual
premium becomes 3¢/km and a
$2,000 annual premium becomes
10¢/km. This gives motorists a
significant financial incentive to
drive less, but is not a new fee at
all, simply a different way to pay
existing fees.
Performance Indicators

Performance
indicators are like the
score in a game.
They define what
must be
accomplished to
succeed.
 Conventional Transport Indicators

• Roadway Level-of-Service (LOS)

• Average traffic speeds.
• Per capita congestion delay.
• Parking occupancy rates.
• Traffic fatalities per billion
vehicle-miles.

58
 Multi-Modal Level-Of-Service (LOS)
Mode Level of Service Factors
Walking Sidewalk/path quality, street crossing conditions, land use
conditions, security, prestige.

Cycling Path quality, street riding conditions, parking conditions, security.

Ridesharing Ridematching services, chances of finding matches, HOV priority.

Public transit Service coverage, frequency, speed (relative to driving), vehicle and
waiting area comfort, user information, price, security, prestige.

Automobile Speed, congestion delay, roadway conditions, parking convenience,

safety.

Telework Employer acceptance/support of telecommuting, Internet access.

Delivery services Coverage, speed, convenience, affordability.
Multi-Modal LOS (Jacksonville)
Cycling LOS Pedestrian LOS

60
 Defining Data Quality
• Accuracy. The methods used to collect statistics
must be suitably accurate.
• Transparency. The methods used to collect
statistics must be accessible for review.
• Comprehensiveness. An adequate range of
statistics should be collected to allow various
types of analysis.
• Frequency. Data should be collected regularly.
• Consistency. The range of statistics, definitions
and collection methodologies should be
consistent.
• Availability. Statistics should be available to
users.
Development and Professional Organizations

Sustainable transport goals are endorsed

by major development and professional
organizations:
• ADB and World Bank
• OECD
• United Nations
• Institute of Transportation Engineers.
• American Planning Association.
• Federal, state, regional and local
planning and transportation agencies.
• Health organizations.
• And much more...
Conclusions
• Sustainable development balances economic,
social and environmental objectives.
• Sustainable transport planning requires
comprehensive evaluation of impacts, including
those that are indirect and long-term.
• Current transport planning tends to overlook some
impacts.
• The impacts that are overlooked tend to
undervalue walking, cycling and public transport
improvements, and mobility management
strategies such as pricing reforms.
• A new ADB program is developing guidelines and
tools for more comprehensive impact analysis.
• We want feedback from practitioners concerning
this project.
“Comprehensive Transportation Evaluation Framework”
“Introduction to Multi-Modal Transportation Planning”
“Smart Transportation Economic Stimulation”
“Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis”
“Sustainable and Livable Transportation”
“Smart Transport Emission Reduction”
“Online TDM Encyclopedia”
and more...
www.vtpi.org