[sustran] Re: Transportation Modal Choice in Asian Cities

[V. Setty Pendakur]

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: Walter Hook 
  To: eric.britton at ecoplan.org ; Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport
  Cc: Peter Newman ; chuizenga at adb.org ; Kyoto2020 at yahoogroups.com ; Jeff Kenworthy ; 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
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Eric Britton 
    To: 'Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport' 
    Cc: Peter Newman ; Kyoto2020 at yahoogroups.com ; chuizenga at adb.org ; 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20050624/fab046fe/attachment-0001.html