[sustran] Re: Transportation Modal Choice in Asian Cities

[chuizenga at adb.org]

Eric,

Let me explain a bit more about the background of our request.  Over the 
last few months I have attended a number of workshops and conferences 
where people were presenting data on modal  splits in Asia. This were 
pretty much old data going back to the 1990's and in some case the '80 
ties. At the same time I have been in discussions where people comment on 
how the NMT share has reduced in various cities in Asia or other comments 
are made on what is happening to public transport. 

As mentioned in the email requesting for information we believe that it 
would be good to have more up to date information on modal splits in Asian 
cities BOTH as an input in the regional discussion on policies as well as 
the discussion on transport planning in individual cities.  Having said 
that, we are of course aware that there inconsistencies in data included 
in the table that we sent out, this due to differences in categorization 
and definitions. We have not tried to draw any conclusions from these data 
-- rather we wanted to know whether there is additional information out 
there on modal split which can clarify the issue further, either on a 
regional level or for specific cities. With respect to Lloyd's suggesting 
to go for ranking -- you would still need to have data on which to base 
your ranking. Personally I feel that a ranking attempt would really call 
for a lot of scrutiny of data and raise questions on comparability and 
definitions.

We will keep you posted of the feed-back we receive through other sources.

Cornie Huizenga
Head of Secretariat
Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia)
Asian Development Bank
Tel (632) 632-5047
Fax (632) 636 2198
Email chuizenga at adb.org
http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia

www.adb.org



"Eric Britton" <eric.britton at ecoplan.org> 
24/06/2005 05:18 PM
Please respond to
<eric.britton at ecoplan.org>


To
"'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport'" 
<sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
cc
<lfwright at usa.net>, <chuizenga at adb.org>, <Kyoto2020 at yahoogroups.com>, 
"Peter Newman" <newman at central.murdoch.edu.au>, "Jeff Kenworthy" 
<kenworth at central.murdoch.edu.au>
Subject
Transportation Modal Choice in Asian Cities






Dear Cornie, Lloyd and Sustran and Kyoto friends,
 
This is a very creative exchange.  I would like to share four sets of 
thoughts with you on this, quickly.
 
1.      I find the table as it now exists fascinating and most useful as 
food for reflection. 

2.      That said and as Lloyd points out, the actual figures make me most 
uneasy. There is so much variation, but even more when we bear in mind the 
realities of both the situation of each city and the enormous room for 
vagaries and alternative interpretations, I hardly see them as anything 
more than food for thought.  (But let me copy this to Peter Newman and 
Jeff Kenworthy who have far more experience that I do in collecting data 
of this sort in cities around the world in the hope that their comments 
will carry more authority than mine.)

3.      Moreover, as Lloyd suggests (I hope I read him correctly in this) 
there are a number of pretty good reasons for not putting a lot of 
resources into trying to do better.  While I can certainly support the 
thinking behind such a proposal in principle, I also know from experience 
that not only is it a huge amount of work, and that whatever you get is 
quickly overtaken by events in this world of ours that simply refuses to 
stand still for us.  And finally there is that real risk of GI-GO (garbage 
in, garbage out).

4.      Finally, the last part of Lloyd?s note which has to do with 
rewarding good performance and drawing attention to it so that other 
cities can note and -- as they always (eventually at least ) will .. thank 
god ? emulate, each it its own way.  (And what is going on with BRT world 
wide is a great example of that). So something like that ranking idea or 
some such is worth more thought. And that must come from someone who is 
internationally recognized and who can gin up the publicity needed to draw 
attention to it.  Maybe some combination of all of us?
 
I hope that we together give this more thought.
 
Eric Britton
 
 
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
 On Behalf Of aables at adb.org
 To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
Subject: [Sustran] Transportation Modal Choice in Asian Cities

Dear all, 

The urban transport sector remains a major contributor to air pollution in 
Asian cities. Decision makers and development agencies are starting to 
realize that more active policies are required to address the problems of 
air pollution, road safety and congestion associated with rapid 
motorization. 

An emerging movement in developed and developing countries is the 
promotion and improvement of public transportation and non-motorized 
transport in urban areas. In Asia, there are a number of cities with 
projects on improving public transportation (Bus Rapid Transit 
development), non-motorized transportation and pedestrian access. 
Experience from these cities in developed and developing countries have 
shown that substantial benefits on urban air quality and traffic 
congestion can be achieved, not to mention the relatively 'cheaper' cost 
required in implementing the project. 

However, in order to plan effective sustainable urban transport programs 
and policies it is important to have a good picture of the manner in which 
the urban transport sector is developing. A frequently heard complaint is 
that there is no recent overview of modal split data and trends therein 
for cities in Asia.  The Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia), 
 with the help of other organizations like EMBARQ/WRI Center for 
Transportation and Environment and the Institute for Transportation and 
Development Policy (ITDP), has therefore taken the imitative to gather 
updated information on modal split data in selected Asian cities (see 
attached ). This compilation is also posted online at 
http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia/1412/article-60210.html 

We would like to receive your comments on the data that we have gathered. 
If you had additional studies please send us copies of the studies. You 
can also add the information to the table but in that case please send us 
the complete reference for our information. We are especially interested 
in trends for individual cities, which have been calculated making use of 
the same methodology and definitions for the different years.  Some trends 
can be observed from the data posted but in many cases different 
definitions and methodologies have been used that make the trends somehow 
questionable. 

We thank you for your cooperation as always. Please send your inputs to 
Aurora Fe Ables aables at adb.org. We would like to receive them if possible 
by 30 June, 2005. 


Best regards, 
Cornie Huizenga
Head of Secretariat
Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia)
Asian Development Bank
Tel (632) 632-5047
Fax (632) 636 2198
Email chuizenga at adb.org
http://www.cleanairnet.org/caiasia 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org at list.jca.apc.org 
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+eric.britton=ecoplan.org at list.jca.apc.org] 
On Behalf Of Lloyd Wright
Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 5:01 AM
To: Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
Subject: [sustran] Re: Transportation Modal Choice in Asian Cities
 
Dear Cornie,
 
Thanks for putting together the table of modal choice data.  I think more 
than
anything the spreadsheet points to the lack of a consistent approach to
collecting such data.  One can particularly see this with non-motorised 
trips,
which in many cases are not even included in the modal choice analysis. 
 
Of course, there are a number of difficulties in collecting data on 
walking
trips.  Some transport models will arbitrarily choose a minimum distance 
that
must be travelled before a trip becomes an official trip.  The other
difficulty occurs with journeys involving multiple modes.  Virtually all 
trips
involve walking at some point, and yet the walking portion is frequently 
not
counted at all.
 
My other observation of mode share numbers in Asia is the relative lack of
awareness amongst municipal officials.  Even in the cities where some data
exists, officials will have little dat-to-day interest in the numbers. 
Thus,
it is not just a matter of collecting the data, but perhaps more 
importantly
it is a matter of effectively "marketing" the data. 
 
For this reason, I am not sure how valuable a major data collection effort 
in
Asia would be.  As I have perhaps mentioned previously to you, I think 
perhaps
the most effective means of raising awareness is through some sort of 
ranking
system.  Ranking cities by mode share or perhaps by the correlation of 
mode
share to actual investment in particular modes could be a high-profile 
means
of focussing attention.  Municipal officials very much care about the 
outside
perception of their cities.  Nobody wants to be last in terms of footpaths 
or
public transport.  And yet, outside of a ranking, the same officials may 
give
little or no attention to these issues.  Well, this is just one idea. 
 
Many thanks to everyone who helped contribute to your database.  It is 
very
good information to have.
 
Best regards,
 
Lloyd
 
 [attachment "AsiaModalSplitData.xls" deleted by Cornelius 
Huizenga/Consultants/ADB] 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050624/e6fc1a88/attachment.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 1763 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050624/e6fc1a88/attachment.gif