Making UK transport more efficient with Fleximobility and car sharing

David Cook of Liftshare.com interviews Professor Greg Marsden
Originally published via http://blog.liftshare.com

UK transportation is stuck in a rut. Rail fares are rising every every year, gridlock problems continue to plague our roads, and transport poverty has become a very real issue for low-income households. The RAC’s 2014 Report On Motoring warned that many UK car owners are now leaving them unused because they are simply too expensive to operate. These ‘ghost cars’ are going untaxed, uninsured and dormant because it is now cheaper to use alternative transport methods. Multi-modals were mentioned in the same report. This is a term given to people who travel using a mix of methods on a day-to-day basis. They might cycle one day or combine a bus and taxi trip the next. As complicated as that may sound, this is often the simplest, most direct – but not necessarily cheapest – method for people using public transport every day. Enter Greg Marsden, Professor of Transport Governance at the Institute for Transport Studies at Leeds University. He has coined and drafted a green paper around a concept called ‘Fleximobility’ that proposes sea changes to the UK’s transport sector with money-saving and convenience firmly in mind. Greg and his team also look to lower carbon emissions, introduce new smart technology into transport, while incorporating the shared travel ethos into our everyday lives. While the concept may seem bold to some, it’s clear something needs to be done to reduce the amount of roads being built in the UK, and to support the efforts of bodies like Campaign For Better Transport, which strive to make the roads we have more efficient, instead of simply building more as a short-term solution to a broad problem. We spoke with Greg recently to discuss the Fleximobility concept, and to better understand how it can help improve transport for all. Here’s what we discussed. Liftshare: Can you give our readers a top-line overview of what Fleximobility means to you, and why it is important to the UK? Greg: Fleximobility is about designing the transport system so that it is more normal for people to travel by a range of modes of transport more of the time. It is essential to the future transport strategy because we are not yet making the technological progress in emissions reduction [we] anticipated. It is good for health and we need a balanced approach to managing urban congestion. A lot is made of the potential for smart technology to help. The key issue however is whether smart technology will fulfil its potential if it is introduced in a system which is not structured to being spontaneous and multi-modal. Liftshare: Where in your mind does the UK transport sector get it wrong at present, and what can be done? Greg: I would start by saying there are lots of examples of things we get right. Liftshare is an organisation that does a lot of this. However, you can find examples all round the country of effective bike sharing schemes or personalised travel planning linked to new investments. However, there is not enough [people] joining up. This can be in failing to develop skills and a desire for independent mobility without always relying on your own car at the transition from subsidised college travel to early work years. In other ways, being occasionally more multi-modal is not rewarded through high cost single tickets and pre-booking slots for bicycles on trains or by all-or-nothing car park permits for workplace parking. Liftshare: One term in your green paper – ‘multi-modals’ – is being used a lot lately. Why do you think this approach to transport is being used more often these days? Greg: It might be a recognition of a shift in the culture of ownership of vehicles, at least amongst younger people or a recognition of the need to do things differently. With mobile technology people can do more on the move nowadays when they aren’t driving. It is important to say that almost everyone is multi-modal. We focus too much on putting people in coarse categories of ‘cyclist’ and ‘car driver’. If you ask people what they ‘usually do’ as we tend to in our surveys then you get a reductionist answer. If you find out what they actually do it is much more varied. If you look across the lifecourse then everyone is multi-modal. Liftshare: To what extent would offering the public a single-ticket option for all of these transport methods solve a great deal of problems? Greg: Simplifying ticketing and moving across modes [of transport] has to be pushed. People want to get from A to B and know what they are going to pay however they do it, and they only want to pay once. Liftshare: The notion of ‘ghost cars’ – those going unused – suggests their owners can’t afford to keep them running, yet the RAC found that 81% of ghost car owners weren’t prepared to part with their vehicle. To what extent are we at an impasse here? Greg: Car clubs, car sharing in its various forms and innovations in the taxi market might chip away here. The motor manufacturers are also proposing new models of more flexible ownership. There may be some generational effects to be considered. We need a mix of solutions and Liftshare is in the market of developing and delivering these solutions. There is lots to learn through these experiences. Liftshare: What are your potential next steps for the Fleximobility green paper, and what should people out there do if they’d like to help make a change in the way they travel? Greg: We have run four workshops in cities in the UK and will be next working with citizens to refine the ideas further. Our aim is then to take this back to national government with a clear set of priorities for what needs to be done differently in order to make being more multi-modal, more often, more normal. We’d be keen to hear from anyone who wishes to take part in this debate to make a difference. You can find out more at http://www.fleximobility.solutions/ and please tweet us good and bad examples of transport systems promoting multi-modality @fleximobility. Thanks to Greg for his time and brilliant insight into the multi-modal world. If you would like to try car sharing, you can offer or request lifts within our 420,000-strong community today at Liftshare.com, or by using our free Android and iOS apps.

Resilience planning – the role of walking and cycling in keeping economies moving

By Dr Ian Philips & Dr Andy Cope

Local economic network resilience takes many forms. One major factor is transport resilience. Transport resilience is the ability of people to keep making journeys to key activities, for example if climate change causes disruption or long term change to the transport system.  A recent briefing from Climate UK says LEPs need to prove to funders that resilience is embedded in their planning.  So, how can this be done?

Ian Philips, with support from Andy Cope and colleagues at Sustrans, has recently completed a PhD which looks at the contribution of walking and cycling to transport resilience.  Walking and cycling are sustainable and resilient ways of getting about. For example, they both still work if we have to drastically reduce fuel use to meet CO₂ targets. They work even in highly congested conditions, and they work after natural disasters when transport infrastructure is damaged.

The research starts by looking at who could get to work by walking and cycling if there was no motorised transport available. Though this is a pretty extreme scenario, it is easy to understand, so when a map is produced showing street by street across a whole urban area  how resilient the population is, it becomes an interesting way to think about the current level of transport resilience.

Above is an example map from Harrogate District (Part of the Leeds City Region and York North Yorkshire and East Riding LEPS). The green areas suggest a high proportion of the population have the capacity to access work by walking and cycling.  In red areas with low values, we can test the effect of different policies. In some areas we found simulating the effect of health policies or increasing availability of bicycles led to a significant increase in resilience.  The model behind the maps is set up in a way that we can examine what other kind of policies might be useful in different areas; giving a tool that can suggest cost effective targeting of policies to specific areas.

The computer simulation model developed in the research is also set up so that it can be used to ask what-if questions such as:

If we built a new housing estate, what is the transport resilience of these people likely to be?

If we built a new business park or hospital what proportion of the staff will be resilient to forced changes to the transport system (i.e. would they be able to get to work by walking and cycling)?

We think that this tool could help LEPs assess and plan for resilience in local transport. We would like to speak to members of the LEP Network who would be interested in working with us to make a trial application of the tool which we could then discuss more widely with those involved in the LEP network.   [In relation to the map: The proportion of each Output Area (~300 residents) likely to be able to commute to work using only walking or cycling in a network with no motor vehicles.  Principal data sets ONS 2001 census data, Health Survey for England.  Estimated cumulative uncertainty in indicator value at Output Area Resolution ±10.1%.  For more details about data, maps, models or methods see Ian’s thesis or contact Ian Phillips. Ian’s PhD was sponsored by the ESPRC and Sustrans, and completed at the Institute for Transport Studies].

For more information contact: Ian Phillip i.philips@leeds.ac.uk or Andy Cope Andy.Cope@sustrans.org.uk

Growth in cycling could be worth 248 billion pounds for the English economy

New research by ITS has shown that cycling could provide benefits to the English worth 248bn between now and 2050.

The ‘Economic Cycle’ report by Fiona Crawford (ITS) and Dr Robin Lovelace (School of Geography) was commissioned by CTC, the national cycling charity.

It was released as Parliament prepared to debate the inclusion of a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy (CWIS) in the Infrastructure Bill.   An amendment to the Bill was tabled by a cross-party group of MPs, backed by a coalition of organisations including engineering institutions and health charities, as well as sustainable transport groups, including CTC.

The All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group’s ‘Get Britain Cycling’ (GBC) report called for targets to substantially boost cycle use, from less than 2% of trips at present to 10% by 2025 (less than German levels), and to 25% by 2050 (roughly Dutch levels).

The report compares the economic benefits of meeting these targets, compared with the much lower growth proposed in the Government’s draft Cycling Delivery Plan (CDP), namely to double the number of trips made wholly or partly by cycle by 2025.

Researchers Fiona Crawford and Dr Robin Lovelace found that meeting the GBC report’s 2025 target in England would yield economic benefits that year worth £6.4bn in today’s money, whereas the Government’s CDP target would be worth £2.1bn.  Meeting the 25% target in 2050 would be worth £42bn, compared with just £6.4bn if cycle use continues to grow at the rate proposed by the CDP.

After allowing for ‘discounting’ (how economists and the Treasury account for the lower value of long-run benefits compared with those over the short-term), the cumulative benefits of the GBC’s targets are worth £248bn, compared with £46.4bn under the CDP.

Full report available at: www.ctc.org.uk/economic-cycle

economic_cycle_-exec_summary

Further reading
www.ctc.org.uk/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycling-and-economy

What Is Time Worth?

It’s 9.06 am. You’re standing on Platform 4 awaiting your train, due in just a few minutes. Will it matter if it’s running late? How much will it cost you – or your employer – if your journey is delayed? What if you get on and have no seat? Does overcrowding have a cost too?

For more than a decade, researchers at the Institute for Transport Studies (ITS) have been trying to answer abstract questions such as these. Collaborating with government and business clients, our economists, statisticians and mathematical modelling experts analyse data to come up with monetary values for ‘non-market goods’. These goods include time, comfort and punctuality – aspects of travel that benefit people, but which they cannot buy or sell in the market place.

What difference does it make to know how much a minute is worth?
Although our valuations of time, punctuality and crowding might appear abstract, they have a huge impact on UK public policy. These numbers – the output from years of rigorous data collection and analysis – make an important contribution to transport policy decisions and large public infrastructure investments in road and rail.

Economic assessments are critical to all public transport development schemes. The Department for Transport (DfT) has developed a standard set of appraisal procedures for transport projects, known as WebTAG. The time valuations from Transport Systems Hub researchers are integral to this appraisal process. Cross Rail, HS2, the M6 toll around Birmingham – all these large-scale investments followed the WebTAG protocols and used our numbers to calculate the economic value of journey time savings.

Of course, investment decisions do not rest solely on economic assessments. However, monetary calculations provide significant input into the decision process. Indirectly, our research has helped to release huge sums of public investment into the economy. Moreover, improved infrastructure and faster journeys subsequently deliver additional economic gains, opening new markets, creating jobs, and benefiting citizens and businesses with greater connectivity.

The Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) has worked with us to link forecasts of passenger demand and revenues with time valuations. Our modelling and valuation work in this context has helped to inform ‘Schedule 8’ calculations that set compensation rates, known as transfer payments, for late-running trains. In 2013-14, Schedule 8 accounted for £85 million in compensation.

Entering new times
Our researchers continue to support the work of DfT investment appraisal schemes. In 2013, the DfT published several reports undertaken by the Institute for Transport Studies (ITS). The two main reports examined the latest evidence on the value of travel time savings for business and commuting  and leisure journeys.

Crucially, the researchers found that circumstances had changed dramatically since the previous time valuations were first used as a standard in WebTAG. ‘Since our first time valuations nearly 10 years ago, society has changed a lot’, explains Richard Batley, Professor of Transport Demand and Valuation at ITS. ‘Back then, people saw travel time as wasted time, because they could not work and generate wealth on the move. Now, with mobile technology and WiFi on buses and trains, this is no longer the case. It is high time that we revisited this question.’

The 2013 reports recommended that the DfT update its values to account for the many social, economic and demographic changes over the past decade. The study also suggested a range of additional research projects that could improve models of the combined employer/employee value of travel time savings.

The reports also highlighted some important gaps in valuations of commuting and leisure travel time savings. ‘Here we found that valuations needed to account for the effect of more reliable transport systems’, Professor Batley remarks. ‘We compared several valuation exercises conducted in other countries, such as the Netherlands and Sweden. We concluded that the UK needed a comprehensive nationwide study using similar modern statistical modelling methods.’

Responding to these recommendations, in 2014 the DfT commissioned ITS, working with Arup and market research company Accent, to re-estimate national average values of travel time savings. The new study will investigate the factors that cause variation and uncertainty in these values. The research team will also provide values for the benefits derived from improved reliability or reduced overcrowding.

www.its.leeds.ac.uk/research/themes/reliability www.its.leeds.ac.uk/research/themes/rail www.its.leeds.ac.uk/research/themes/pricing www.its.leeds.ac.uk/research/themes/economicappraisal

(This article is re-posted from the University of Leeds’ Transport Systems Hub:  http://tsh.leeds.ac.uk )

Man Cited for Eating a Cheeseburger While Driving

This article in Time magazine (also in New York Times) cites ITS research on driver distraction resulting from eating whilst driving:

UTSG 2015: Day 3

By Dave Milne

And so to the final day. My main choice of papers related to trends in the retail sector and their associated impacts for travel. A key angle of most of the work is the role of internet activity in altering shopping behaviour, be it through full internet shopping, click and collect, or simply checking out the alternatives available in advance of a more traditional shopping trip. It is also probably fair to say that much of this research is at a fairly early stage of thinking and development. But there are some interesting ideas being explored using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. The main understanding I gained involved a better appreciation of the amount of variability within current retail trends, as companies tailor the details of what they offer to their particular market segments. This leads me to think that there may be much scope for work on socio-cultural and generational differences. It is also striking how information about internet-related retail activity is missing from most mobility surveys and seems to be generally lacking from other information sources. This supports a more general view I’ve been developing that we should be doing more about time use (a popular area for social science in the past) as part of improving our understanding of travel in the context of people’s daily activities.

The closing address was given by Philip Rutnam, Permanent Secretary at the Department for Transport (see photo below).

He outlined what he sees as the four major challenges faced by the transport sector in a very concise and well structured presentation. In summary, the challenges he identified are:

(1) Expectation of increasing demand for road, rail and air travel that needs to be accommodated if economic potential is not to be constrained;

(2) Reconciling the expected increasing demand for travel with a need to reduce negative externalities;

(3) Addressing the spatial and institutional dimensions of transport at all levels to achieve, for example, improved regional balance; and

(4) Facilitating and responding to technological change, both in transport itself and in other relevant areas (eg information technology).

He also discussed the implications of failure, though a plot suggesting very substantial  economic gains from airport expansion in London and the south east made me wonder about a possible conflict with attempting to improve regional balance.

Finally, before signing off, I should offer congratulations to Marianna Imprialou from Loughborough University who was awarded the Smeed Prize for her presentation about modelling the relationship between road accidents and speed.

Overall, it was a well organised and enjoyable conference. But now the UTSG baton has been passed to the Universities of Bristol and the West of England, who will share hosting duties in January 2016.

UTSG 2015: Day 2

By Dave Milne

The second day of the conference is always the longest and this year there were timetabled activities from 9am until 6pm, with then only a 45 minute turnaround to get back to the hotel & change before we headed off to the conference dinner at 6:45!

During the day I spent much of my time listening to presentations about the relationship between transport and location, land use and urban form. In particular, one student paper used NTS data and structural equation modelling to explore how land use characteristics affect the volume of travel. It appeared to show quite convincingly that development density, albeit quite simply defined at a coarse level, is well correlated with the amount of travel in ways that might be expected (ie decreasing density leads to more travel). While clearly not surprising it could potentially provide a useful starting point for further survey-based research on more detailed definitions of development types and on causal factors.

The final session of the day was a plenary from ITS’ own Bryan Matthews (see photo below), who gave a unique insight into the issues surrounding the use of technology to improve the mobility of visually impaired people. What was most striking to me was the fact that I suspect awareness of the technological approaches and associated user issues Bryan described is quite poor within the transport community, despite the fact that many academics are already thinking about issues that reduce mobility for other groups in society. We really need to engage with this area more and increase the volume of ongoing research.

 

Finally, I must mention the boat trip. Taking a ride down the river at night over dinner was an excellent experience and a good way to appreciate the scale of the city. Definitely an inspired decision by the conference organiser. But my personal highlight was being able to use my contactless debit card in a seamless fashion to use the tube. The one thing I forgot to pick up early on Monday morning was my Oyster card and I was interested to hear Peter Hendy talking about the initiative to allow normal payment cards to be used instead on the grounds that he didn’t think TfL should be “running a bank” in the long term. To then find out that the system is already working & that a whole conference of academics can use it without an obvious problem occurring was impressive. West Yorkshire definitely has some catching up to do!

 

UTSG 2015: Day 1

By Dave Milne

The first day of the conference began with a keynote address from Sir Peter Hendy of Transport for London, who spoke about ongoing and potential future transport developments in the capital. Without the distraction of slides he provided a knowledgeable stream of consciousness that touched on many important issues. His starting point was to consider the importance of mobility in the current growth of London, which also happened to be the headline story in the day’s Evening Standard.

He contrasted the current strong economic performance of London and the south east with weakness across the rest of the UK.

Perhaps his most powerful statement was that all the best cities he has visited over time have a strong strategic plan, with a directly linked transport plan. He went on to argue that lack of planning is a bigger challenge facing UK urban transport professionals outside London than many other issues that receive attention, including the organisation of public transport. A thought provoking opening to the event.

I also enjoyed a couple of papers that explored the observed phenomenon of young people in developed countries being less likely to drive than previous generations. One conclusion appears to be that driving seems more likely to be delayed to a later life stage than to be ruled out altogether. However, an interesting related development is that younger people seem quite positive about car sharing and pooling schemes as an alternative to ownership, which suggests there may be potential to reduce levels of car dependence.

The day was rounded off with a meal at Le Mercury in Islington, a small French restaurant that is definitely worth a visit!

UTSG 2015

By Dave Milne

This week I’m attending the 47th Universities’ Transport Studies Group (UTSG) annual conference at City University in London. The focus is very much on research students and academics talking about their current interests, rather than on completed projects. In my experience it’s the friendliest conference in the transport field and a great way to begin a new year with some fresh ideas. I’ll be providing an update on what’s going on and some reflections on the presentations that have inspired me at the end of each day. So watch this space!

I’m also achieving a couple of personal firsts. This is the first time I’ve authored a blog (I’ve always claimed to be too busy to blog in the past) and it’s my first experience with an iPad (although I’d be lost without my iPod and iPhone, so I’m guessing it won’t be beyond my capabilities). I’m also trying to forget the fact that my first UTSG conference was the 25th. Have I really been thinking about transport for that long…?

More soon…

What London’s bike hire scheme can learn from other cities as it searches for a new sponsor

By Stephen Parkes, July 2014. www.its.leeds.ac.uk/people/s.parkes

London’s cycle hire scheme has become a prominent fixture in the capital’s transport network since it opened in 2010. Known as “Boris Bikes”, it is Barclays Bank that has provided commercial sponsorship for the scheme from the beginning, a relationship that is due to end in 2015. So the search is now on for a successor with deep pockets, one that is willing to play a role in shaping the future of the scheme.

Many bike hire schemes begin small, with the number of bikes initially in the hundreds rather than thousands. But in London, helped by a swelling population of more than 8m people and the support of the city mayor, the scheme opened with 5,000 bikes and has gradually expanded to 11,200. It is now the second largest scheme in Europe, after Paris. The financial support pledged by Barclays (£25m over five years) was certainly a factor that enabled the scheme to open at this scale.

The end of 2013 saw a decline in the number of journeys made, in comparison to the same period in 2011 and 2012, before picking up again in 2014 to hit a milestone of 30 million journeys. A study of the scheme’s users found they were disproportionately male and from more affluent areas of the city. Hopefully this issue will be addressed by the extension of the scheme to other parts of London, encouraging access to a wider spectrum of the city’s population.

For many schemes, including London’s, private sponsorship is an important element of the business model. JCDecaux and Clear Channel (both outdoor advertising companies) are involved in many European schemes. They typically manage the scheme and supply capital for the start-up and running costs in exchange for rights to a proportion of the advertising boards across the city. The London scheme differs here in that the sponsor’s investment provides advertising of their brand, as opposed to increasing the share of the market they operate in.

For London, this external sponsorship is vital – Transport for London are looking for £37.5m – and the scheme has not yet shown to be profitable. As Barclays withdrew their financial support, the scheme’s expansion into southwest London in 2013 was taxpayer funded. Nearby councils were reported to have jointly paid around £4m towards the £10m cost.

Schemes have sometimes relied upon an individual to champion the policy and ensure its success, especially in the early days of a scheme. London mayors Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson have had important roles for London, but a champion will continue to be needed to prevent the scheme from faltering.

As the London cycle hire scheme reaches a crossroads, what can be learnt from other schemes? The Paris scheme is seen as a great success but it relies upon high user numbers to offset the expense of sustaining it. Smaller schemes – for example those run by Nextbike– offer a greater likelihood of financial sustainability, but lower running costs are a key factor in this. Crucially, in many cities cyclists benefit from wider roads and more defined space. In contrast, one of the most pressing issues for London is the safety of cyclists, which is a problem for the city as a whole, including those using the bike hire scheme.

Busy, narrow roads and insufficient or absent cycling infrastructure dissuade many from using the scheme. Data suggests that a London hired bike is used far less frequently over the course of a day than a bike would be in many schemes elsewhere. Infrastructure problems are seen as a key factor in this, and this raises the issue of value for money. Resolving the safety and infrastructure problems are of course not easy tasks, and real change in authorities’ attitudes towards cycling is occurring very slowly. But concerted effort and change here may well be the key to reigniting the initial success of the scheme.

The importance of a suitable sponsor for the scheme cannot be underestimated as their financial support will be essential. Public funding will undoubtedly continue to be needed but to a lesser extent if the scheme prospers. It has been contested that Barclays’ decreasing interest in the scheme may be the result of the growing cycling safety issues in London. This is perhaps the most difficult hurdle that the scheme, and whoever its new sponsor will be, must overcome in coming years. Bikes that aren’t used are no use to anyone, whoever pays for them.