[sustran] Re: Transportation Modal Choice in Asian Cities

[Todd Litman]

Good points Setty. In addition, it is important to define carefully what 
constitutes a "trip". Many travel surveys ignore nonmotorized links of 
trips that involve a motorized mode. For example, bike-bus-walk trips are 
usually coded simply as "bus" trips, and drive-walk trips are coded as 
"auto" trips, even if they involve considerable walking on public 
facilities. Transit users often spend more time as pedestrians, walking and 
waiting, than actually traveling on transit vehicles.

In addition, travel surveys tend to ignore or undercount short trips, 
non-commute and off-peak trips, travel by children, and recreational 
travel, all of which leads to undercounting of nonmotorized travel. For 
more information see "Economic Value of Walkability" 
(http://www.vtpi.org/walkability.pdf).


Best wishes,
-Todd Litman

At 07:53 AM 6/24/2005 -0700, V. Setty Pendakur wrote:
>During the past 20 years, we have been saying at TRB, CODATU and WCTR that 
>aggregating modal splits without making sure that they have a common base 
>for the split, simply and blatantly distorts the data systems for policy 
>formulation and implementation , with a bias favoring the MVs.  It is time 
>that all of us, including the international funding agencies, recognize 
>this bias.  If NMT data is not included in the modal splits, such data 
>should be separated as specifically a data set not including NMT.  If 
>possible, estimates can be made for NMT and such data can be 
>adjusted.  However, combining, willy nilly, all data into one set will 
>only repeat and reinforce the historic bias to favor the MVs.
>
>Data sets should also be separated by chronological periods.  If you have 
>several cities in Asia and the data set covers the period 1980-2005 all in 
>one file, comparisons for policy making would be meaningless.  This 
>applies to Africa also.
>
>Whatever tabulations ADB wish to produce, we certainly don't need another 
>data set with a lot implicit biases.
>
>Best wishes.  Setty.
>
>Dr. V. Setty Pendakur
>Professor Emeritus, University of BC
>Honorary Professor, National Academy of Sciences of the PRC
>Chair, TRB-ABE90 & Director, ITDP
>President
>Pacific Policy and Planning Associates
>702--1099 Marinaside Crescent
>Vancouver, BC, Canada  V6Z 2Z3
>Phone: 604-263-3576; Fax:604-263-6493
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:whook at itdp.org>Walter Hook
>To: <mailto:eric.britton at ecoplan.org>eric.britton at ecoplan.org ; Asia and 
>the Pacific sustainable transport
>Cc: <mailto:newman at central.murdoch.edu.au>Peter Newman ; 
><mailto:chuizenga at adb.org>chuizenga at adb.org ; 
><mailto:Kyoto2020 at yahoogroups.com>Kyoto2020 at yahoogroups.com ; 
><mailto:kenworth at central.murdoch.edu.au>Jeff Kenworthy ; 
><mailto:lfwright at usanet.jca.ne.jp>lfwright at usanet.jca.ne.jp
>Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 7:30 AM
>Subject: [sustran] Re: Transportation Modal Choice in Asian Cities
>
>i agree we need to at least separate out the modal split data that has 
>walking and nmt included and that which doesnt, as there is huge variation 
>in the way walking trips are counted.
>
>Walter Hook, Ph.D.
>Executive Director
>Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP)
>127 West 26th Street, Suite 1003
>New York, NY 10001
>Ph:  (212) 629-8001
>Fax: (212) 629-8033
>
>Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide
>
>Visit <http://www.itdp.org>http://www.itdp.org
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:eric.britton at ecoplan.org>Eric Britton
>To: <mailto:sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>'Asia and the Pacific 
>sustainable transport'
>Cc: <mailto:newman at central.murdoch.edu.au>Peter Newman ; 
><mailto:Kyoto2020 at yahoogroups.com>Kyoto2020 at yahoogroups.com ; 
><mailto:chuizenga at adb.org>chuizenga at adb.org ; 
><mailto:kenworth at central.murdoch.edu.au>Jeff Kenworthy
>Sent: Friday, June 24, 2005 5:18 AM
>Subject: [sustran] 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
>
>
>
>
>
>----------
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, 
>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries 
>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus 
>is on urban transport policy in Asia.
>
>
>----------
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, 
>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries 
>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus 
>is on urban transport policy in Asia.
>
>
>
>================================================================
>SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, 
>equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries 
>(the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus 
>is on urban transport policy in Asia.