Transportation diversity (options and choices) shashikant nishant sharma


Published on


Published in: Education, Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transportation diversity (options and choices) shashikant nishant sharma

  1. 1. TRANSPORTATION DIVERSITY (OPTIONS AND CHOICES) Transportation diversity refers to the quantity and quality of transportationoptions available in a particular situation. Many transport options are considered,including various travel modes, substitutes for physical travel, and land usestrategies that improve access. Transportation diversity (also called options, choiceand multi-modalism) refers to the quantity and quality of transportoptions available in a particular situation. Because travel demands are diverse(users differ in their needs and preferences), transport efficiency and equity tend toincrease with system diversity, which allows travelers to choose the best option foreach trip. As a result, a more diverse transport system tends to increase transportsystem efficiency by allowing users to choose the most cost effective option foreach trip. Transport diversity supports other transport policy reforms, such as transportpricing. It describesvarious benefits to users and society from increased transportsystem diversity, barriers to increased transport diversity, methods for quantifyingthe benefits of specific transport options, examples of transportdiversity analysis,and ways to increase transport system diversity. Transportation is provided by anintegrated system, so transportation diversity should be evaluated at a networklevel. Automobile-oriented transportation systems tend to provide inferior transportoptions for non-drivers. Households in communities with good transportoptions spend thousands of rupees a year less on Transportation than householdsin Automobile dependent communities. In many communities households searching for a home to rent or purchasemust choose between living in an Automobile-dependent suburb with good schoolsand public services, or neighborhood with bettertransportation options but inferiorschools and services. They often lack the option of having goods communityservices with good Transportation diversity. Conventional transportationplanning tends to undervalue many benefits of transport diversity because theytend to be difficult to measure and accrue to less powerful members ofsociety. Planning that focuses on specific transport problems, such as traffic
  2. 2. andparking congestion, pollution or crashes, tends to give little weight to otherbenefits associated with improved transport options. For example, in mostcommunities, integrating cycling and transit transport by installing bikeracks onbuses and providing bike storage and rental services at transit stations would onlyserve a tiny portion of total personal travel needs, and only directly benefit a smallportion of the population, mostly young and lower-income people.This type ofinitiative has been taken by Delhi Metro.Some people feel that they contradict the egalitarian tradition of transport service(all users should bear congestion and poor transit servicediscomfort equally). Evaluating transport in terms of access allows the widestrange of solutions to be considered foraddressing Transportation problems. Transportation disadvantaged refers to peoplewho have significant unmet transportation needs. For example, a nondriver mayhave adequate transportation options if they are physically able, live in acommunity with good walking and transit services, and can afford taxi anddelivery services when necessary. For example, when evaluating solutions toa transportation problem such as traffic congestion, decision-makers may favourthose that increase transportation options, and be willing to pay up to a certainamount extra for diversity-improving options. Examples include: Planners can identify individual solutions tothese transportation problems, such as establishing a special mobility service,contracting with existing mobility service providers to provide additional trips,changing scheduled transit service to accommodate such needs, or subsidizing taxiservice. Taxi demand is affected by the size of transportation disadvantagedpopulation in an area, the portion of trips bytransportation disadvantagedpeople that cannot be met by other modes and the number of visitors who arrive inan area without a car. Taxi service is an important transportation option for manypeople who are transportation disadvantaged. In many communities, Delhitransport bus service is infrequent, connections are difficult, terminals areinconveniently located and unattractive, support services are minimal, buses aresometimes unpleasant (the poor quality of interregional bus service is strikingcompared with the service quality. Performance indicators include: interregionalbus and train service is an important transportation options for nondrivers,particularly for short- and medium-distance trips, and to destinations not servedby commercial air service. Many transportation disadvantaged people are motorists, including peoplewith physical disabilities and low incomes, although age restrictions, the physicalrequirements of driving, and the financial costs of owning and operatingan Automobile limits many peoples ability to drive. Various management andpricing options, such as those listed below, can improve transportation
  3. 3. options for motorists: Conventional transportation demand models used in mostcommunities provide information on Automobile travel demand. Various types ofdelivery services have different performance standards related to what can becarried, delivery speed, cost, etc. Delivery services can benefit most transportationdisadvantaged people, support telework (working at home), and substitute for somenon-work travel. Various transportation management strategies can improvetransport diversity. Some transportation management strategies have mixedimpacts on transportation diversity. A variety of land use factors affect access and transport diversity. Anotherapproach for evaluating the quality of Transportation diversity is to survey users(residents, commuters and visitors to an area) concerning the qualityof transportation they experience, with special attention to comparing differencesin mobility, costs and satisfaction between motorists (people who can driver andafford an Automobile) and people who are transportation disadvantaged. Transportation diversity refers to the quantity and quality of transportationoptions available to an individual or group, taking into account their needs andabilities. Increased options can help solve many specific transport problems, andtends to create a more efficient, equitable and robust transportation system.Because transport and land use are interrelated, transport diversity can also includeland use and location options, such as the ability to afford living in a moreaccessible, less automobile-dependent neighborhood. In order toevaluate transportation diversity it is useful to prioritize trips, recognizing thatsome types of Transportation, called basic access, provide particularly high valueto society. In general, most Transportation and land use systems do a good jobof accommodating automobile transportation. Improving transport diversity involves improving alternativesto automobile transport, creating more accessible land use options, and providingnew options for motorists, such as carsharing. This paper describes a morecomprehensive range of Transportation diversity objectives and solutions, anddescribes several methods for evaluating transportation options. Some methodsfocus on particular transportation problems, others on particular transportationmodes, and others focus on the transportation planning process. Twenty-five specific transportation options are considered, including mobility modes,substitutes for physical travel, and land use strategies that improveaccess. An optimal transport system would probably be more diverse, withbetter transport options and less automobile use.Shashikant Nishant SharmaSPA, Delhi
  4. 4. Litman, (2011), You Can Get There From Here, Evaluating Transportation SystemDiversity ,Victoria Transport Policy InstituteLinda Dixon (1996), “Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance IndicatorsandStandards for Congestion Management Systems,” Transportation Research Record 1538, pp.1-9.David J. Forkenbrock and Glen E. Weisbrod (2001), Guidebook for Assessing the SocialandEconomic Effects of Transportation Projects, NCHRP Report 456, TransportationResearchBoard, National Academy Press ( Giuliano and Jacqueline Golog (1998), “Impacts of the Northridge Earthquake onTransit and Highway Use,” Journal of Transportation Statistics, Vol. 1, No. 2, May;Zhan Guo, et al. (2011), The Intersection of Urban Form and Mileage Fees: Findings from theOregon Road User Fee Pilot Program, Report 10-04, Mineta Transportation InstituteJohn Holtzclaw (1994), Using Residential Patterns and Transit to Decrease Auto Dependenceand Costs, National Resources Defense Council