Active transport

In countless conversations about everything from municipal budget priorities to the design of interstate bridge replacement projects, I hear engineers and planners emphasize how they plan to “prioritize all modes.”

Widening a highway and adding sidewalks and a bike lane? That’s “Prioritizing All Modes.” Adding “intelligent signals” that will try to maximize vehicle throughput and reduce delays (for drivers): “Prioritizing All Modes.” Building a pedestrian bridge over a highway and adding benches and art? Definitely “Prioritizing All Modes.”

It is not possible to prioritize everyone.

Every decision has tradeoffs, and it’s clear who those choices prioritize when you consider the comfort, ease and safety of different users. When it’s faster, easier, safer and more comfortable to get somewhere by driving, it’s driving that we are prioritizing.

Very few elected leaders are willing to say they want to slow down car travel and make transit more convenient than driving. Yet unless we have leaders who are willing to do this, cars will continue to kill too many.

[…]

We need to be building communities where it’s possible for more people to travel by car less far, less fast, less often. When it is necessary to travel farther, we need to make driving a less convenient option than riding transit.

This approach is very explicitly not “Prioritizing All Modes.” It is prioritizing the movement of people outside of vehicles over the movement of people in vehicles. It is prioritizing the movement of transit over the movement of cars.

In the first of many papers expected from the study, the researchers found that, a year after the ultra-low emissions zone took effect, 2 out of every 5 London students in the study had switched from “passive” to “active” ways of getting to school. So instead of being chauffeured to school by their parents, the students started walking, biking, scootering, or taking public transit. On the other hand, in Luton, which acted as a control group, 1 in 5 made the same switch to modes that got them up and active, but an equal proportion switched to passive travel. But in London’s ultra-low emissions zone, shifting to driving was rare.

The implications of getting kids active, even if it’s just for their pre-class commute, are intuitive but important.

“Walking and biking and scootering to school is better for the child, better for the family, and better for the environment,” said Alison Macpherson, an epidemiologist at York University in Toronto who researches ways to protect and promote the health and safety of children. (She was not involved in the London study.)

“It’s a great way for children to start their day,” she said. “You can imagine just being thrown in a car and thrown out of a car is not the most calming way.” Walking or biking to school, on the other hand, can be calming and conducive to concentration, Macpherson said, potentially even improving academic performance. But perhaps most importantly, at a time when an epidemic of childhood obesity is on the rise worldwide, walking or wheeling to and from school can get kids more active.

The use of cars in cities has many negative impacts, including pollution, noise and the use of space. Yet, detecting factors that reduce the use of cars is a serious challenge, particularly across different regions. Here, we model the use of various modes of transport in a city by aggregating Active mobility (A), Public Transport (B) and Cars (C), expressing the modal share of a city by its ABC triplet. Data for nearly 800 cities across 61 countries is used to model car use and its relationship with city size and income. Our findings suggest that with longer distances and the congestion experienced in large cities, Active mobility and journeys by Car are less frequent, but Public Transport is more prominent. Further, income is strongly related to the use of cars. Results show that a city with twice the income has 37% more journeys by Car. Yet, there are significant differences across regions. For cities in Asia, Public Transport contributes to a substantial share of their journeys. For cities in the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, most of their mobility depends on Cars, regardless of city size. In Europe, there are vast heterogeneities in their modal share, from cities with mostly Active mobility (like Utrecht) to cities where Public Transport is crucial (like Paris or London) and cities where more than two out of three of their journeys are by Car (like Rome and Manchester).