TOPIC 1
VISION BASED PLANNING
In the previous module, we explored the fundamental principles of urban mobility planning and examined the concept of a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP). Many experts have noted that urban mobility planning has traditionally been based on methodologies developed primarily in the United States post-World War II, which subsequently expanded to other regions, especially Europe.
The previous widespread approaches had several characteristics which include the following:
Overemphasis on Technical Analysis:
In essence, the old approach overvalued the element of technical analysis during planning and undervalued the importance of discussing key assumptions, fundamental goals, and the long-term implications of decisions with various stakeholders in various formats.
Overemphasis on new technical tools:
For a long time, computer solutions supporting decisions in traffic planning promised significant forecasts for urban mobility, especially as computer modeling tools were constantly improving. However, considering that cities and the movement of people and vehicles within them are complex systems, urban planners of leading cities have gradually preferred to approach those forecasts modelled by computers with more caution.
Overemphasis on the methodologies of rational decision making:
With the advancement of science, particularly after World War II, the belief that decisions based on rational grounds were flawless became prevalent. In urban planning, such as the design of transportation infrastructure, it was typical to follow a decision-making process that adhered to a specific scheme.
- Defining goals
- Defining the problem
- Developing alternatives
- Evaluating alternatives
- Making the decision
But in real life conditions, the outcomes of these decisions are not always as clear and predictable.
Accepting current trends as “destined”
The methods used to date are often criticized for their stereotypical "predict-and-provide" approach. This methodology, along with others in the field, emerged in the latter half of the twentieth century when private car ownership surged, public transportation usage declined, and suburbanization increased. Most studies assumed these trends would persist, leading to increased investment in road infrastructure based on projected demand. Occasionally, these predictions became self-fulfilling prophecies, which bore no relation to the method's actual predictive ability.
Overemphasis on traffic speed and duration:
Until recently, common approaches were overly concentrated on traffic speed and the uninterrupted movement of motorized vehicles. The primary considerations in cost-benefit analyses were the anticipated costs of potential congestion and the time-saving advantages for drivers. These factors predominantly influenced the planning and construction of new infrastructures, especially roads.
Overestimating the congestion factor
Approaches formed in the past tended to overestimate the costs of congestion. For example, Todd Litman, a well-known researcher and founder of the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute, points out several factors reflecting the exaggerated approach of traditional studies to the congestion issue:
- Choosing unrealistic speed goals. In any case, it is unreasonable to expect zero delays during peak hours in a city.
- Overestimating the value of drivers’ personal time.
- Ignoring the fact that at some point congestion can stop increasing when some drivers change their behavior to avoid traffic problems.
- Failing to account for the fact that increasing road capacity encourages more car traffic on those roads, leading to congestion again.
Concerning the final point, it's important to note that since the 1960s, it has been recognized that congestion can decrease the demand for travel on a particular road segment. However, the reverse effect is often overlooked: increasing road capacity usually leads to a quicker increase in traffic volume than would have occurred otherwise. Consequently, the beneficial effects of newly built roads on urban mobility tend to diminish in a relatively short period.
To summarize the assumptions above, traditional approaches to urban mobility planning generally used to overestimate the impact of congestion while underestimating other factors, such as the cost of cars, the potential increase in accidents, parking issues and, importantly, environmental harm.
Shortcomings of multimodal planning:
Historically, planning typically involved separate analyses of road/private vehicle and road/public transport systems. The interaction between the two was only considered in later planning stages. This approach essentially viewed private and public transport as competitors for the limited urban space. Given that urban space is finite and the demand for transportation continues to rise, it's evident that these methods are not sustainable. A shift towards a more integrated approach that combines public and private transportation efficiently is necessary to serve the needs of urban residents effectively.
Neglecting the need for short-distance trips:
Traditional approaches usually paid little attention to short-distance trips and the means of implementing those trips, which apart from motorized machines, include, first of all, walking and cycling.
This is partly because in traditional models, especially in earlier stages, the emphasis on analysis and research was on large zones, and the movement inside those zones was subordinated to movement between those zones. Walking, cycling and trips combining those two were neglected.
Dominance of narrow professional perspectives in studies:
Until recently, urban mobility studies were primarily conducted by traffic engineers and economists. However, it has become clear that urban mobility, being a complex social system, necessitates as thorough an analysis as possible, involving a broad range of stakeholders and interested parties.
Nowadays, approaches are changing, and we’ll learn more about this in the coming sections of this module.
