www.vtpi.

org

Info@vtpi.org

250-360-1560

Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-Modal Transport Evaluation

18 March 2019

Todd Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Conventional planning evaluates transport system performance based primarily on motor vehicle
travel conditions, which often results in roads like this central Manila arterial designed to maximize
car traffic and parking convenience, with poor walking, cycling and public transport conditions.

Abstract
This report describes ways to make transportation planning evaluation more
comprehensive and multi-modal. Conventional transport planning is mobility-based, it
assumes that the planning objective is to maximize travel speed, and evaluates transport
system performance based primarily on motor vehicle travel conditions. A new paradigm
recognizes that the ultimate goal of most transport activity is accessibility, which refers to
people’s overall ability to reach desired services and activities. This new paradigm
applies more comprehensive and multi-modal evaluation which expands the range of
modes, objectives, impacts and options considered in the planning process. This is
particularly important in large growing cities where increased motor vehicle traffic
imposes particularly large costs, and in developing countries where a major portion of
households cannot afford cars.

A summary of this report was published in

“Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation,”
JOURNEYS, September 2013, pp. 50-58, LTA Academy, Singapore
(http://app.lta.gov.sg/ltaacademy/doc/13Sep050-Litman_ComprehensiveAndMultimodal.pdf)

Todd Alexander Litman  2012-2019

You are welcome and encouraged to copy, distribute, share and excerpt this document and its ideas, provided
the author is given attribution. Please send your corrections, comments and suggestions for improvement.
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 3
Mobility- Versus Accessibility-Based Evaluation .......................................................... 4
Analysis Scope ............................................................................................................ 6
Considering Diverse Travel Demands ......................................................................... 8
Scope of Analysis Summary ........................................................................................ 9
Defining and Evaluating Transport System Efficiency ................................................ 10
Comprehensive and Multi-modal Planning Practices .......................................... 12
More Comprehensive Transportation Data ................................................................ 12
Accessibility-based Transport Planning ..................................................................... 12
Comprehensive Impact Analysis ............................................................................... 13
More Nuanced Travel Time Analysis ......................................................................... 14
Multi-Modal Benefit Analysis...................................................................................... 14
Multi-Modal Performance Evaluation ......................................................................... 15
Consider Social Equity Objectives ............................................................................. 16
Transportation Modeling Improvements .................................................................... 16
More Accurate Congestion Costing ........................................................................... 17
Account for Generated and Induced Travel Impacts .................................................. 18
Consider Diverse Transportation Improvement Options ............................................ 18
Implement Multi-Modal Planning ............................................................................... 19
Finance Reforms ....................................................................................................... 19
Explicitly Indicate Omissions and Biases ................................................................... 19
Engage Stakeholder .................................................................................................. 19
Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 20
References ......................................................................................................... 22

2
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Introduction
Transportation policy and planning decisions can have many economic, social and
environmental impacts. It is important to consider all significant impacts when
evaluating potential transport system changes. More comprehensive and multi-modal
evaluation can lead to better decisions.

This is a timely issue. Transport planning is undergoing a paradigm shift, a change in the way
problems are defined and solutions evaluated (ADB 2009; GIZ 2011; Lockwood 2017; Litman
2013). The old paradigm assumed that transportation refers simply to mobility (physical
travel), and evaluated transport system performance based primarily on traffic conditions.
The new paradigm recognizes that most transportation’s goal is accessibility (people’s ability
to reach services and activities), and considers a wider range of impacts, objectives and
options (LaPlante 2010). Table 1 compares the old and new paradigms.

Table 1 Changing Transport Planning Paradigm (Litman 2013)

Old Paradigm New Paradigm

Definition of Accessibility (people’s overall ability to reach services

Transportation Mobility (physical travel) and activities).

Multi-modal: Walking, cycling, public transport,

Modes considered Mainly automobile automobile, telework and delivery services.

Congestion reduction; road and parking savings;

Congestion reduction; roadway consumer savings and affordability; accessibility for
cost savings; vehicle cost savings; non-drivers; safety and security; energy conservation
and reduced crash and emission and emission reductions; public fitness and health;
Objectives rates per vehicle-kilometer. efficient land use (reduced sprawl).
Travel speeds and congestion
delays, vehicle operating costs and Various economic, social and environmental impacts,
Impacts considered fares, crash and emission rates. including indirect impacts.

Favored transport Improve transport options (walking, cycling, public

improvement transit, etc.). Transportation demand management.
options Roadway capacity expansion. More accessible land development.
Vehicle traffic speeds, roadway Quality of accessibility for various groups. Multi-modal
Performance Level-of-Service (LOS), distance- LOS. Various economic, social and environmental
indicators based crash and emission rates. impacts.
The old planning paradigm favored automobile-oriented transportation improvements. The new
planning paradigm expands the range of objectives, impacts and options considered.

Many current transport economic evaluation practices, the methods used to evaluate
transport problems and potential solutions, are biased in ways that overvalue
automobile improvements and undervalue other modes and transportation demand
management strategies (EVIDENCE 2014; Holian and McLaughlin 2016; Hüging, Glensor
and Lah 2014). The following section discusses key concepts for more comprehensive
and multi-modal evaluation.

3
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Mobility- Versus Accessibility-Based Evaluation

Conventional planning tends to evaluate transport system performance based primarily
on mobility, measured as motor vehicle travel speed. But mobility is seldom an end in
itself (excepting the small portion of travel that lacks a destination), the goal of most
transport activity is accessibility, which refers to people and industry’s ability to reach
desired services and activities: goods, education, jobs, recreation, resources, workers
and customers. Various factors affect accessibility (Levinson 2013; Litman 2014):
 Automobile travel (vehicle travel speed, affordability, safety and parking convenience).
 The quality and affordability of other modes (walking, cycling and public transport).
 Transport network connectivity Roadway connectivity (Figure 1) and the quality of
connections between modes, such as the ease of walking and cycling to public transit,
the quality of transit to airports, and the efficiency of intermodal freight terminals.
 Land use accessibility (also called geographic proximity) which refers to the distances
between activities, which is affected by development density and mix.
 Mobility substitutes including telecommunications and delivery services that reduce the
need for physical travel.

Figure 1 Roadway Connectivity Impacts

Well Connected Road Network (1.3 miles) Poorly Connected Network (3.6 miles)

Although points A and B are approximately the same distance apart in both maps, the functional travel
distance is nearly three times farther with the poorly-connected, hierarchical road network. Because it
forces most trips onto major roads a hierarchical network tends to increase total traffic congestion and
accident risk, particularly where vehicles turn on and off major arterials (red circles).

New research improves our understanding of how such factors affect accessibility. For
example, Levine, et al (2012) and Levinson (2013) found that development density tends
to affect the number of jobs and services available within a given travel time much more
than vehicle travel speed. Ewing and Cervero (2010) and Handy, Tal and Boarnet (2010)
conclude that roadway connectivity significantly affects the travel distances required to
reach destinations. Ewing and Hamidi (2014) find that each 10% increase in the compact
development index reduces total journey-to-work drive time by 0.5%.

4
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Comprehensive analysis is important because transport planning often involves trade-

offs between these accessibility factors. For example:
 Road space must often be allocated between sidewalks, bike lanes, bus lanes, general
traffic lanes and parking lanes, and therefore between accessibility by different modes.
 Wider roads with higher traffic speeds can increase automobile access but degrade
pedestrian and bicycle access (called the barrier effect), and therefore transit access
since most transit trips include walking and cycling links.
 One-way streets, longer block lengths, and reduced cross-streets tend to increase traffic
speeds, but increase travel distances.
 Urban fringe highway locations tend to offer convenient automobile access but poor
access by walking, cycling and public transit. Conversely, urban center locations tend to
be more difficult to access by car but easier to access by walking, cycling and transit.

Table 2 describes the degree these factors are considered in conventional planning, and
requirements for more comprehensive and multi-modal evaluation. Failing to consider
these factors often results in decisions that improve one form of accessibility but reduce
others, such as a roadway expansion that reduces walkability, and urban fringe locations
that are convenient to access by automobile but difficult to reach by other modes.

Table 2 Consideration of Accessibility Factors In Transport Planning

Factor Consideration in Conventional Required for Comprehensive
Evaluation Evaluation
Automobility – motor vehicle Usually considered using indicators Impacts should be considered per
traffic speed, congestion delays, such as roadway level-of-service, capita (per capita vehicle costs and
vehicle operating costs, crash rates average traffic speeds and crash casualties) to take into account
per mile or kilometer. congestion costs and crash rates. the amount that people travel.
Quality of other modes – speed, Multi-modal performance indicators
convenience, comfort, safety and Considers public transit speed but that account for convenience,
affordability of walking, cycling, not comfort. Active mode (walking comfort, safety, affordability and
public transport and other modes and cycling) access is often ignored. integration (Dowling, et al. 2008)
Transport network connectivity – Traffic network models consider Fine-grained analysis of path and
density of connections between regional road and transit networks road network connectivity, and
paths, roads and modes, and but often ignore local streets, connections between modes, such as
therefore the directness of travel sidewalks and paths, and the ease of walking and biking to
between destinations intermodal connections transit stations
Land use accessibility – Often ignored. Some integrated Fine-grained analysis of how land use
development density and mix, and models consider some land use factors affect accessibility by various
therefore travel distances factors. modes.
Mobility substitutes – telecom-
munications and delivery services Only occasionally considered in Consider these accessibility options
that reduce the need to travel conventional transport planning. in transport planning.
Conventional planning evaluates transport system performance based primarily on regional travel
speed. Additional factors must be considered for comprehensive accessibility evaluation.

5
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Analysis Scope
Conventional evaluation tends to focus on some impacts but overlook others, as
indicated in Table 3. For example, it considers roadway but not parking facility costs, and
vehicle operating but not ownership costs. It seldom explicitly considers mobility for
non-drivers and other equity objectives, improving public fitness and health, or strategic
planning objectives, and so undervalues walking, cycling and public transit
improvements. More comprehensive evaluation considers a wider range of impacts and
modes (DeRobertis, et al. 2014; Holian and Ralph McLaughlin 2016).

Table 3 Scope of Impacts Considered

Usually Considered Often Overlooked
Downstream and indirect impacts
User comfort and convenience (e.g., by transit passenger)
Affordability, including vehicle ownership costs
Government expenditures on facilities and Parking congestion and costs
services
Mobility for non-drivers and social equity impacts
Travel speed (congestion delays) Per capita crash risk
Vehicle operating costs (fuel, tolls, tire wear) Public fitness and health
Per-mile crash risk Barrier effect (delay to pedestrians and cyclists)
Roadway costs Indirect environmental impacts
Road construction environmental impacts Strategic land use impacts (smart growth)
Conventional transportation planning tends to focus on a limited set of impacts.

Policy and planning decisions can have three levels of impacts:

 First-order: direct user impacts (e.g., changes in travel speed, financial costs, comfort
and safety, etc.)
 Second order: external impacts (e.g., changes in subsidy burdens, congestion delays,
accident risks and pollution emissions to other people).
 Third order: structural impacts (e.g., changes in future development patters, vehicle
ownership rates, public attitudes about different travel options, etc.)

Conventional analysis focuses primarily on first-order impacts and a limited set of

second-order impacts, but often overlooks or undervalues second and third order
impacts. Comprehensive analysis considers all significant impacts. This ensures that
individual, short-term decisions are consistent with strategic, long-term goals.

More comprehensive analysis can help identify win-win solutions that achieve multiple
objectives. Table 4 illustrates this concept. For example, expanding roadways may
reduce traffic congestion, and more efficient and alternative fueled vehicles may reduce
energy consumption and pollution emissions, but these strategies provide few other
benefits. Transportation demand management (TDM) and smart growth strategies tend
to provide a greater range of benefits, and so can be considered win-win solutions.

6
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Table 4 Comparing Strategies

Planning Roadway Efficient and Alt. TDM and
Objective Expansion Fuel Vehicles Smart Growth
Congestion reduction  
Roadway savings 
Parking cost savings 
Consumer savings and affordability 
Traffic safety 
Improved mobility options for non-drivers 
Energy conservation  
Pollution reduction  
Physical fitness and health (exercise) 
Land use objectives (more compact development) 
( = Achieve objectives.) Roadway expansion and more efficient or alternative fuel vehicles help
achieve fewer planning objectives than Transportation demand management (TDM) and smart growth.

7
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Considering Diverse Travel Demands

More comprehensive and multi-modal evaluation recognizes the diversity of travel
demands and the unique and important roles that various modes in an efficient and
equitable transport system. In a typical community, 20-40% of the population cannot or
should not drive due to age (too young), disability, low income, or impairment (after
consuming alcohol or drugs), and other modes are sometimes the most efficient option,
such as neighborhood trips best made by walking and cycling, and travel on congested
urban corridors most efficiently made by public transit. Table 5 summarizes various non-
automobile travel demands and consequences if they are not served.

Table 5 Non-Automobile Travel Demands

Type of Demand Portion of Typical Consequences of Failing to Meet These Demands
Community
Youths (10-22 years old) 10-20% Lack independent mobility. Must be chauffeured.
Seniors (over 65 years ) 10-15% and growing Lack independent mobility. Must be chauffeured.
Young males 5-10% Increased high-risk driving.
Lower-income households 20-40% Lack mobility or bear unaffordable vehicle expenses.
Non-driving tourists Varies Lack mobility. Must rely on taxis.
Urban-peak commuters 10-40% Increased traffic and parking congestion
Neighborhood trips 5-15% Reduced physical fitness, increased local traffic problems.
Post-drinking or drug use Varies Reduced restaurant and bar business. High-risk driving.
Various types of travelers and trips are most efficiently made by walking, cycling and public transit.
Failing to serve those demands reduces non-drivers’ independence, increases drivers’ chauffeuring
burdens, imposes financial burdens, and increases traffic problems.

Several current issues highlight the importance of serving such demands:

 Traffic safety programs that discourage high-risk driving (by inexperienced and impaired
drivers) can only be effective and fair if these travelers have good alternatives.
 Concern about the health risks of sedentary living justify efforts to encourage walking
and cycling for recreation and utilitarian travel.
 Concerns about transport inaffordability, the high financial costs of automobile travel
justify improvements to affordable transport modes.
 Solutions to specific transportation problems, including traffic and parking congestion
and the costs of expanding roads and parking facilities, excessive energy consumption
and pollution emissions, and high traffic accident rates, often involve shifting travel to
more resource efficient modes.
 Community economic development and livability often depend on reducing local vehicle
traffic and creating more compact, walkable neighborhoods.

8
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Scope of Analysis Summary

Table 6 indicates the scope of accessibility factors and economic impacts considered in
conventional transport evaluation, indicated by blue cells. Other factors and impacts are
sometimes discussed but seldom quantified or monetized. For example, conventional
planning seldom quantifies the vehicle ownership and parking cost savings that can be
provided by improving alternative modes or more accessible land use development.

Table 6 Accessibility Factors and Impacts Considered In Conventional Evaluation

 Accessibility Factors 
Active Road Land Use
Automobile Transit Modes Connectivity Accessibility
Government costs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Travel speeds, delays Yes Yes No Sometimes Sometimes
Safety and security Yes Yes Sometimes No No
User costs & affordability Oper. costs Oper. costs No No No
 Impacts 

Mobility for non-drivers No Yes Sometimes No No

User comfort No No No Not Applicable Not Applicable
Parking costs No No No No No
Energy consumption Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes No No
Pollution emissions Sometimes Sometimes Sometimes No No
Land use objectives No Sometimes No No No
Public fitness and health No No Sometimes No No
Blue indicates the scope of impacts normally considered in conventional transport planning. Many
accessibility factors and economic impacts are often overlooked.

These omissions tend to bias planning decisions in favor of roadway expansion to the
detriment of other solutions and modes. This contributes to a self-reinforcing cycle of
increased motor vehicle travel, reduced transport options (degraded walking and cycling
conditions and reduced public transit service), and more sprawled development, as
illustrated in Figure 2. The result is sometimes called “predict and provide” planning.

Figure 2 Cycle of Automobile Dependency

Many common planning

practices contributed to a
cycle of automobile
dependency and sprawl.
These tend to reduce the
supply of affordable housing
in compact, mixed, walkable
and transit oriented
communities.

9
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Defining and Evaluating Transport System Efficiency

Efficiency refers to the ratio of outputs (benefits) to inputs (costs). How efficiency is
defined and measured can significantly affect planning decisions. Factors that can affect
efficiency analysis are described below.
 The scope of inputs and outputs. Table 7 summarizes various costs that can be
considered in transportation project evaluating. For example, automobie travel often
seems most efficient when evalauted based only on travel time and vehicle operating
costs, but less considering other costs, including vehicle ownership, road and parking
facilities, accident risks and pollution emssions.

Table 7 Scope of Impacts (Costs and Benefits) Considered

Internal (User) External (Other People)
Vehicle costs
Market Fares Infrastructure (roads, parking facilities, etc)
Congestion delays imposed on others
Travel time Accident risks imposed on others
Non-Market Accident risk Pollution damages
The scope of impacts considered in analysis affects efficiency.

 Vehicle traffic or mobility. Transportation planning can measure vehicle traffic, or the
mobility of people and goods. Mobility-based analysis recognizes the additional
efficiency provided by policies that favor higher-capacity vehicles, such as High
Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes.
 Mobility or accessibility. Mobility is seldom an end in itself; the ultimate goal of most
transporatation is access to desired services and activities (e.g., school, work, shops,
recreation, friends, etc.). As a result, transportation efficiency should generally be
evalauted based on accessibility, measured door-to-door (i.e., to a destination). Many
factors can affect accessibility including mobility (phycial movement), transport system
diversity (the range of transport options available), transport network connectivity,
geographic proximity (the distance to desired destinations), and mobility substitutes
such as telecommunication and delivery services.
 Economic efficiency. Economic efficiency recognizes the variations in travel demands
and values. For example, some people may prefer walking and bicycling, even if they are
slower than motorized modes, because they enjoy the experience and value the
exercise, and emergency, commercial and utility vehicles tend to have relatively high
travel time costs, so transport systems become more economically efficient if those trips
are favored over lower-value travel.

10
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Table 8 compares different types of transport efficiency analysis.

Table 8 Types of Transport Efficiency Analysis

Type Description Planning Implications
Evaluates efficiency based on unit costs of
achieving a specific goal, such as dollars to build
each road-kilometer, or operating costs per bus- Reflects the efficiency of a particular project
Cost kilometer. Lifecycle analysis accounts for both or program. Does not reflect overall system
effectiveness shorter- and longer-run costs. efficiency.
Evaluates efficiency based on the vehicle traffic Favors roadway automobile-oriented
Automobile speeds, using indicators such as roadway level- improvements such as roadway expansions.
traffic of-service (LOS) and the Travel Time Index (TTI). Overlooks other travel modes.
Evaluates efficiency based on the costs of moving Favors multimodal planning, so travellers
Multimodal people and goods, using indicators such as can choose the most efficient travel option
mobility multimodal LOS. for each trip.
Evaluates efficiency based on door-to-door travel Recognizes the benefits transport system
costs, considering factors including mobility, diversity, transport network connectivity,
transport network connectivity, geographic more compact and mixed development, and
Accessibility proximity, and mobility substitutes. mobility substitutes.
Evaluates efficiency based on the value of travel, Recognizes the benefits of regulations or
Economic for example, the relatively high time costs for pricing that favor higher value trips and
efficiency emergency and commercial vehicle travel. more resource-efficient modes.
Evaluates efficiency based on the degree that a
Planning planning process responds to consumer demands Favors more responsive and comprehensive
efficiency and community goals. planning.
There are various ways to define and measure transport system efficiency which tend to favor
different outcomes.

Conventional planning often evaluates transport system efficiency using relatively

narrow analysis scope, such as motor vehicle traffic speeds on certain links, which
overlooks other impacts and options. For example, conventional evaluation recognizes
the inefficiency of traffic congestion delays, but generally ignores the inefficiency if
some travellers are forced to drive for trips that they would prefer to perform by
alternative modes. More comprehensive efficiency analysis recognizes other impacts
and modes, measures transportation based on accessibility, and applies economic
efficiency analysis which responds to consumer demands and community needs.

Comprehensive analysis is important because planning decisions often involve trade-

offs between different types of transport efficiency. For example, roadway expansions
increase vehicle traffic speeds but can reduce active transport (walking and bicycling)
access. Conventional analysis can therefore justify school-area roadway expansions to
reduce delay for parents chauffeuring students, even if that reduces the efficiency of
children walking and bicycling to school. More comprehensive analysis recognizes the
trade-offs involved in such decisions, and so can justify more multimodal planning.

11
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Comprehensive and Multi-modal Planning Practices

This section describes specific practices for more comprehensive and multi-modal planning.

More Comprehensive Transportation Data

Current planning is often biased by the greater quantity and quality of data on motor
vehicle travel demand and conditions, compared with what is available for other modes
and impacts. Table 9 summarizes various types of data required for effective transport
planning. Comprehensive and multi-modal evaluation requires more detailed data on
many factors such as the travel demands of physically, economically and socially
disadvantaged people; walking, cycling and public transit travel conditions;
transportation expenditures by governments and households (ABW 2014; Litman 2011).

Table 9 Examples of Transport-Related Data

Facilities and Services Activities Impacts Land Use
Road and railroad supply Vehicle ownership (by type Transport facility and
and quality and user) service expenditures
Parking supply and price Vehicle travel (by type, Transport expenditures Density and mix
Public transit service quality purpose and location) Traffic accidents and Various measures of
Walking and cycling facility Freight transport casualties by mode accessibility
supply and quality Person travel (by mode, Energy consumption Portion of land devoted
Port and airport size and purpose and location) Pollution emissions and to transport facilities
condition Mode share exposure Land valuation (as
Transport system Active mode improvements Traffic and aircraft noise impacted by transport
connectivity Travel speeds and delay Transport quality for facilities and services)
Accessibility indicators (congestion) disadvantaged groups Costs and market values
This table lists various types of data needed for transport policy, planning and research.

Accessibility-based Transport Planning

As previously discussed, comprehensive and multi-modal planning requires accessibility-
based analysis which accounts for all accessibility factors (automobile travel, alternative
modes, transport network connectivity, land use accessibility and mobility substitutes),
and evaluates transport system performance using indicators such as multi-modal
levels-of-service, per capita travel time, and transportation affordability. Several new
tools are available to help with such evaluation (Levinson 2013):
 Multi-modal level-of-service indicators (Dowling, et al. 2008).
 Single-mode indicators such as WalkScore and BikeScore, which measure the number of
services and activities available within convenient walking and cycling distance.
 Mapping systems that measure the numeber jobs available within a given commute
time by various modes and job categories (Levin, et al. 2012; Levinson 2013; RPA 2014).
 Surveys which measure the amount of time that residents in a community spend on
travel, and the factors that affect that (Ewing and Hamidi 2014).
 Integrated and comprehensive transportation and land use models (Johnston 2008).

12
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Comprehensive Impact Analysis

Comprehensive and multi-modal evaluation considers all significant planning objectives
and impacts, as summarized in Table 10. New modeling techniques and targeted
research can help quantify and monetize the additional impacts, such as the quality of
accessibility for disadvantaged people, and physical fitness (Litman 2009; NZTA 2010).

Table 10 Comprehensive Impact Analysis (Litman 2014)

Impact Consideration in Conventional Improvements for More
Planning Comprehensive Evaluation
Comfort and convenience, such Although often recognized as Incorporate multi-modal
as walkability, crowding, user important, not generally quantified or performance indicators that reflect
information, etc. included in benefit-cost analysis. convenience and comfort factors.
Motor vehicle delays are usually Use multi-modal indicators that
quantified but active mode travel reflect both motorized and non-
Traffic congestion delays are generally ignored. motorized travel delays.
Roadway costs Generally considered.
Include parking costs when
evaluating options that affect vehicle
Parking costs Generally ignored. ownership or trip generation rates.
Include vehicle ownership costs
Operating cost savings are generally when evaluating policies and
recognized but vehicle ownership projects that affect vehicle
User costs savings are generally ignored. ownership rates.
Measures crash rates per vehicle-km.,
ignoring the additional crashes cause Develop comprehensive evaluation
Traffic risks by induced vehicle travel. of traffic risks measured per capita.
Transport options, including the Sometimes recognized as a planning Develop indicators of the quality of
quantity of accessibility, for objective but seldom quantified or mobility and accessibility for various
physically and economically included in formal economic user types, including physically and
disadvantaged people evaluation. economically disadvantaged people.
Measures per-km fuel consumption,
which ignores additional consumption
Energy consumption from induced travel. Measure per capita.
Measures emissions per vehicle-km.,
Pollution emissions, including which ignores additional emissions
air, noise and water pollution cause by induced vehicle travel. Measure per capita.
Public fitness and health (the Measure walking and cycling activity,
amount that people exercise by Increasingly recognized but not usually particularly by high risk (overweight
walking and cycling) quantified. and sedentary) groups.
Land use objectives such as Sometimes recognized as a planning
more compact, development, objective but seldom quantified or Develop indicators, including
openspace preservation and included in formal economic changes in land use accessibility and
community redevelopment evaluation. loss of openspace.
This table summarizes the degree that current planning considers various impacts, and ways to better
incorporate these impacts into the planning process.

13
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

More Nuanced Travel Time Analysis

Conventional evaluation tends to apply the same travel time unit costs (cents per
minute or dollars per hour) to all travel, although this value can vary significantly
depending on travel conditions, with higher values for urgent errands and travel in
uncomfortable conditions, for example, when walking on roads that lack sidewalks or
when traveling on a crowded bus or train. Comprehensive evaluation uses more variable
travel time values that account for these factors, which helps quantify the value to
consumers of congestion pricing and improved travel comfort.

Multi-Modal Benefit Analysis

Conventional transport evaluation tends to overlook or undervalue many of the benefits
of non-automobile modes, and therefore many of the benefits of policies that improve
transport options, apply more multi-modal roadway design, and encourage shifts from
automobile to other modes (Holian and McLaughlin 2016; McCann 2013). Table 11 lists
various types of benefits and costs of improving alternative modes and increased their
use. Not every walking, cycling, rideshare and public transit project has all of these
impacts, but most have many of them.

Table 11 Non-Automobile Mode Benefits and Costs (Litman 2009)

Category Improve Alternative More Use of Reduced More Compact
Modes Non-Auto Modes Automobile Travel Development
Service Quality Transit Ridership Mode Shifts or More Compact and
(speed, reliability, (passenger-miles or Automobile Travel Mixed Development
Indicators comfort, safety, etc.) mode share) Reductions
 More convenience and
comfort for existing
users.  Reduced traffic and  Additional vehicle
 Mobility benefits to
 Equity benefits (since parking congestion. travel reductions
new users.
(“leverage effects”).
existing users tend to be  Increased user  Road and parking
disadvantaged). facility cost savings.  Improved accessibility,
security, as more
 Option value (the value of particularly for non-
Benefits people walk, bike and  Consumer savings.
having an option for use public transit. drivers.
 Reduced chauffeuring  Reduced crime risk.
possible future use).  Increased fare burdens.
 Improved operating revenue.  More efficient
 Increased traffic safety.
efficiency (if service  Increased public development (reduced
speed increases).  Energy conservation. infrastructure costs).
fitness and health
 Improved security (from more walking  Air and noise pollution  Farmland and habitat
(reduced crime risk). or cycling trips). reductions. preservation.
 Increased capital and
operating costs.
 Crowding of
Costs  Land and road space. sidewalks, paths and  Various problems
 Increased congestion and transit vehicles.  Reduced vehicle associated with more
accident risk. business activity. compact development.
Walking, cycling and public transport improvements can have various benefits and costs, many of which
tend to be overlooked or undervalued in conventional transportation economic evaluation.

14
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Multi-Modal Performance Evaluation

Performance evaluation refers to a monitoring and analysis to determine how well
policies, programs and projects perform relative to their intended goals and objectives.
Performance indicators (also called measures of effectiveness) are specific measurable
outcomes used to evaluate progress toward goals and objectives. Conventional planning
evaluates transport system performance primarily based on motor vehicle traffic speeds
and roadway level-of-service (DeRobertis, et al. 2014). In recent years planning
organizations have developed performance indicators for other modes, as indicated in
Table 12. These can be used to identify problems, evaluate trade-offs (for example, if
roadway expansion reduces walkability), set targets, and measure progress.

Table 12 Performance Indicators for Various Modes (Dowling and Asso. 2010;
Holian and McLaughlin 2016)
Mode Service Indicators Outcome Indicators

Sidewalk, crosswalk and path supply and Walking mode share

conditions Per capita pedestrian travel
Walking Universal design Pedestrian casualty (crash and assault) rates
Pedestrian level-of-service (LOS) Pedestrian satisfaction ratings
Cycling mode share

Bikelane, path and bike parking supply Per capita cycling travel
Cycling and conditions Cycling casualty rates
Cycling LOS Cyclist satisfaction ratings
Road and parking supply and conditions

Automobile Traffic speeds and roadway LOS Automobile mode share

Motor vehicle crash casualty rates Motorist satisfaction ratings
Transit service supply and conditions Transit mode share
Transit stop and station quality Per capita transit travel
Public transit Transit LOS Transit passenger casualty rates
Fare affordability Transit user satisfaction ratings
Taxi supply and conditions Per capita taxi travel

Taxi Average response time Taxi passenger casualty rates

Taxi fare affordability Taxi user satisfaction ratings
Quality of transport terminals Transport terminal use
Multi-modal Information integration Transport terminal user casualty rates
connectivity
Fare integration Taxi user satisfaction ratings
Number of services and jobs accessible Portion of household budgets devoted to
Overall within a given time and money budget transport
accessibility Affordability of accessible housing Quality of accessibility for disadvantaged people
This table illustrates performance indicators for various transport modes and overall accessibility.

15
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Consider Social Equity Objectives

Equity refers to the distribution of resources and opportunities. Transportation
decisions can have significant equity impacts so it is important to consider them in the
planning process. There are three major categories of transportation equity impacts:
 Horizontal equity. This assumes that people with similar needs and abilities should be
treated equality. This tends to suggest that consumers should “get what they pay for
and pay for what they get” unless a subsidy is specifically justified.
 Vertical equity with respect to income. This assumes that transport policies should be
progressive with respect to income, meansing that they favor lower-income people.
 Vertical equity with respect to transport ability or need. This assumes that transport
policies should favor people with constrained mobility (for example, due to a disability)
or who require extra transport (for example, because they are traveling with children).

Various tools can be used to quantify equity impacts in a particular situation, such as
how a policy or project impacts various groups (DfT 2013; Manaugh, Badami and El-
Geneidy 2015; Stanley, et al. 2010). Table 13 summarizes indicators that can be used to
evaluate a policy or project’s equity impacts.

Table 13 Equity Indicators

Criteria Indicator
Egalitarianism Whether each group or individually is treated equally.
Individual users bear the costs they impose unless a subsidy is
Users bear the costs they impose specifically justified.
Progressive with respect to income Lower-income households are better off overall.
Transportation disadvantaged (people with disabilities or other
Benefits transportation mobility constraints) benefit overall from improved travel options or
disadvantaged financial savings.
More important travel activity (emergency response, commuting,
Improves basic mobility basic shopping) is favored over less important travel.
Comprehensive analysis should apply indicators of both horizontal and vertical equity.

Transportation Modeling Improvements

Transportation models predict how specific policy and planning decisions affect future
travel activity. Most older models primarily reflected vehicle traffic conditions. They
tend to exaggerate vehicle trip generation rates in compact, multi-modal locations
(Millard-Ball 2015; Schneider, Handy and Shafizadeh 2014), which discourages infill and
encourages sprawled development. Some newer models evaluate overall accessibility,
taking into account the quality of access by various modes, transport network
conditions, land use patterns and other factors (Bartholomew and Ewing 2009; Dowling
and Associates 2008) . For example, accessibility models can quantify the number of
stores or jobs available within 20-minute travel time by walking, cycling, public transit
and automobile (Holian and McLaughlin 2016; Levine, et al. 2012; Levin, et al. 2012; RPA
2014), considering actual walking and cycling conditions.

16
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

More Accurate Congestion Costing

Conventional transportation planning tends to place considerable importance on traffic
congestion, and congestion reduction is often a primary planning objective, so how
congestion costs are calculated and potential congestion reduction strategies are
evaluated can significantly affect planning decisions. The methods commonly used to
quantify and monetize congestion costs are biased in various ways that tend to
exaggerate roadway expansion benefits and underestimate the benefits of other
congestion reduction strategies (Bain 2009; Dumbauth 2012; Litman 2012), as
summarized in Table 14.

Table 14 Congestion Costing Biases, Impacts and Corrections (Litman 2009)

Type of Bias Planning Impacts Corrections
Measures congestion intensity Favors roadway expansion over Measure per capita congestion
rather than total congestion costs other transport improvements costs and overall accessibility
Encourage automobile-
dependent sprawl over more Recognize that smart growth
Assumes that compact compact, multi-modal infill policies can increase accessibility
development increases congestion development and reduce congestion costs
Only considers impacts on Use multi-modal transport system
motorists Favors driving over other modes performance indicators
Use realistic baselines (e.g., LOS
Estimates delay relative to free Results in excessively high C) when calculating congestion
flow conditions (LOS A) estimates of congestion costs costs
Test willingness-to-pay for
Applies relatively high travel time Favors roadway expansion congestion reductions with road
cost values beyond what is really optimal tolls
Uses outdated fuel and emission Exaggerates roadway expansion
models that exaggerate fuel economic and environmental
savings and emission reductions benefits Use more accurate models
Ignores congestion equilibrium Exaggerates future congestion Recognize congestion equilibrium,
and the additional costs of induced problems and roadway and account for generated traffic
travel expansion benefits and induced travel costs
Makes road improvements Apply least-cost planning, so
Funding and planning biases such easier to implement than other transport funds can be used for
as dedicated road funding types of transport improvements the most cost-effective solution.
Exaggerated roadway expansion Favors roadway expansion over Use critical analysis of congestion
economic productivity gains other transport improvements reduction economic benefits
Considers congestion costs and Favors roadway expansion over Use a comprehensive evaluation
congestion reduction objectives in other congestion reduction framework that considers all
isolation strategies objectives and impacts
This table summarizes common congestion costing biases, their impacts on planning decisions,
and corrections for more comprehensive and objective congestion costs.

17
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Account for Generated and Induced Travel Impacts

Generated Traffic is the additional vehicle travel that occurs when a roadway
improvement increases traffic speeds or reduces vehicle operating costs (Holian and
McLaughlin 2016; Gorham 2009; Litman 2001). Increasing urban roadway capacity tends
to generate additional peak-period trips that would otherwise not occur, as illustrated in
Figure 3. Over the long run, generated traffic often fills a significant portion (50-90%) of
added urban roadway capacity. This has three implications for transport planning:
1. Generated traffic reduces roadway expansion congestion reduction benefits.
2. Induced travel increases external costs, including downstream congestion, parking costs,
crashes, pollution, and other environmental impacts.
3. The additional travel that is generated provides relatively modest user benefits since it
consists of marginal value trips (travel that consumers are most willing to forego).

Improved traffic models can account for these impacts. Ignoring generated traffic and
induced travel tends to overstate roadway expansion benefits and undervalues
alternative modes and transportation demand management alternatives.

Figure 3 How Road Capacity Expansion Generates Traffic

Traffic grows when roads are

uncongested, but the growth rate
declines as congestion develops,
reaching a self-limiting equilibrium
(indicated by the curve becoming
horizontal). If capacity increases, traffic
grows until it reaches a new equilibrium.
This additional peak-period vehicle
travel is called “generated traffic.” The
portion that consists of absolute
increases in vehicle travel (as opposed
to shifts in time and route) is called
“induced travel.”

Consider Diverse Transportation Improvement Options

Conventional planning tends to consider a relatively limited set of transport system
improvement options, which typically include roadway and parking facility expansions,
and sometimes major public transit improvements. More comprehensive and multi-
modal planning considers additional types of improvements, as indicated in Table 15.
Many of these strategies have synergistic effects (they are more effective implemented
together than individually) and so they should be planned and evaluated as integrated
programs (EVIDENCE 2014; SUTP 2014).

18
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Table 15 Transport System Improvement Options Considered

Conventional Comprehensive and Multi-Modal
Walking and cycling improvements and encouragement
Incremental public transit improvements
HOV lanes, bus lanes and bus rapid transit (BRT) programs
Efficient parking management
Transport pricing (fuel, road, parking, insurance, etc.) reforms
Commute trip reduction programs
Roadway expansion Mobility management marketing programs
Parking facility requirements and subsidies Complete streets policies
Major transit projects Smart growth land use policies
Comprehensive evaluation expands the types of transport system improvements considered.

Implement Multi-Modal Planning

Multi-modal planning involves various planning and design practices that help create
corridors, neighborhoods and regions with diverse transport options, including
convenient, comfortable and affordable alternatives to automobile travel (VDRPT 2013).
This includes Multimodal System Planning which integrates transport and land use
planning data to identify transport system disconnects such as areas with poor walking
and cycling conditions, and constraints on public transit access.

Finance Reforms
Conventional transportation finance often includes substantial funding that is dedicated
to roads and parking facilities and cannot be used to improve other modes, or for
transportation demand management programs, even if they are more cost effective and
beneficial overall. This biases transportation planning to overinvest in automobile
facilities and underinvest in alternatives. Least-cost planning refers to planning and
funding practices that allow funds to be dedicated to the most cost effective and
beneficial option overall, considering all impacts (VTPI 2012).

Explicitly Indicate Omissions and Biases

Conventional planning often reports analysis results with an unjustified degree of
confidence, for example, producing benefit/cost ratios and net values with three or four
significant figures. More comprehensive and multi-modal planning explicitly describes
omissions and biases in analysis, and often reports results as ranges rather than point
values using various types of statistical analyses which reflect uncertainty.

Engage Stakeholder
The planning process should involve stakeholders (people affected by a decision),
including those who are physically, economically and socially disadvantaged. This
requires informing stakeholders about planning issues and how they can become
involved in the planning process.

19
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Conclusions
Conventional transportation economic evaluation practices originally developed to
determine whether roadway improvement costs would be offset by future motor
vehicle travel time and operating cost savings. They tend to give little consideration to
other accessibility factors, other modes, and other impacts, and generally overlook the
costs of increased vehicle traffic and many benefits of improved other modes.

Conventional planning incorporates often subtle and technical biases related to how
travel demand is measured and how potential solutions are evaluated. People usually
believe statements such as “95% of all trips are by automobile,” “Los Angeles traffic
congestion costs $10,999 million annually,” or “this highway expansion project will
provide $3.74 billion in net benefits,” yet, such statements are often incomplete. Active
travel is more common than most travel surveys indicate, commonly-used evaluation
methods tend to exaggerate congestion costs, and highway expansion net benefits are
often overestimated by ignoring induced travel and its incremental external costs.
Described differently, improving transport system diversity, transportation demand
management strategies, and smart growth development policies tend to provide
significantly greater benefits than conventional evaluation indicates.

This has important implications. These omissions and biases tend to favor mobility over
accessibility and automobile travel over other modes. The results contradict many
strategic planning objectives such as resource conservation, affordability, improved
accessibility for disadvantaged residents, pollution emission reductions, and improved
public fitness and health. It also tends to be unfair and regressive because it favors
motorists who tend to be wealthier and abler than people who rely on other modes.
Many planning professionals are working to improve evaluation practices by improving
data collection and modelling, considering more impacts, modes and potential solutions
to transportation problems, and by better engaging stakeholders. This report provides
an overview of these various efforts.

More comprehensive evaluation is especially important in growing urban areas where

accommodating increased automobile travel is particularly costly; in developing
countries where a major portion of residents cannot afford a car; and in any situation
where energy conservation, environmental protection or sprawl reduction are
considered important objectives.

More comprehensive evaluation helps identify truly optimal transport improvement

options, considering all impacts and options. It can help avoid conflicts between
planning objectives, such as congestion reduction programs that unintentionally
increase accidents or reduce mobility for non-drivers, and can identify win-win
strategies that provide multiple benefits. This can help build cooperation between
stakeholders with different goals and priorities. Table 16 summarizes various problems
with existing transportation evaluation and potential reforms for correcting them.

20
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Table 16 Reforms for More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Evaluation

Problems With Existing Evaluation Methods Reforms For More Comprehensive Evaluation
Inadequate data on alternative mode activity and Collect more comprehensive travel activity and demand
demands. data, particularly for active travel (walking and cycling).
Mobility-based analysis which evaluates transport Use accessibility-based analysis which considers various
system performance based primarily on motor vehicle accessibility factors, and therefore potential trade-offs
travel conditions. between them.
Often considers a limited set of economic impacts Consider all potentially significant impacts, including
(travel speed, vehicle operating costs, accident and indirect impacts, and generally measure impacts per
emission rates. capita rather than per vehicle-mile.
Applies constant travel time unit costs, which fail to
account for variations due to different types of trips, Adjust travel time unit costs to reflect variations in
and traveler comfort. demand, and traveler comfort.
Apply more comprehensive analysis of the benefits and
costs of improving alternative modes, increasing use of
Overlooks many impacts of non-automobile modes. those modes, and more compact land use development.
Evaluates transport system performance using Use multi-faceted and multi-modal level-of-service
automobile-oriented indicators such as roadway level- indicators which recognize various impacts and various
of-service and the Travel Time Index. modes.
Ignores equity impacts, including planning that favors
motorists over other mode users, and fails to provide Use comprehensive evaluation of equity impacts,
basic mobility for disadvantaged people. including horizontal and vertical equity.
Develop and use better models that more accurately
predict how improving alternative modes, pricing
Current models are insensitive to many factors that reforms and land use changes affect travel activity, and
affect travel activity. the benefits and costs that result.
Use best practices when calculating congestion costs
Analysis uses exaggerated congestion cost estimates. and congestion reduction benefits.
Ignores generated and induced travel impacts, which Take into account generated and induced travel impacts
tends to exaggerate roadway expansion benefits. when evaluating roadway expansion projects.
Consider a diverse range of transport system
Considers a limited set of transport system improvement options including improvements to
improvement options consisting primarily of roadway alternative modes, demand management strategies and
facility expansions and major public transit projects. policies that encourage more accessible development.
Planning favors spending resources (money and road Apply least-cost principles, so resources can be spent on
space) on roadways, parking facilities and large transit the most cost effective solutions, considering all
projects, even if alternatives are more cost effective benefits and costs, including alternative modes and
overall. demand management strategies.
Identify any potential omissions and biases, and report
Inadequate understanding by decision-makers of quantitative analysis results as ranges rather than point
evaluation omissions and biases. values to indicate uncertainty.
Stakeholders are not effectively involved in decision Inform and involve people who may be affected by a
making that will affect them. planning decision.
This table summarizes ways to make transport planning more comprehensive and multi-modal.

21
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

References

ABW (2014), Bicycling and Walking in the U.S.: Benchmarking Reports, Alliance for Biking &
Walking (www.peoplepoweredmovement.org); at
www.peoplepoweredmovement.org/benchmarking.

ADB (2009), Changing Course: A New Paradigm for Sustainable Urban Transport, Asian
Development Bank (www.adb.org); at www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Paradigm-Sustainable-
Urban-Transport/new-paradigm-transport.pdf.

Steve Abley, Paul Durdin and Malcolm Douglass (2010), Integrated Transport Assessment
Guidelines, Report 422, Land Transport New Zealand (www.nzta.govt.nz); at
www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/research/reports/422.

ATAP (2017), Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Guidelines, ATAP Steering
Committee Secretariat (https://atap.gov.au) Australia Department of Infrastructure and
Regional Development.

Robert Bain (2009), “Error and Optimism Bias in Toll Road Traffic Forecasts,” Transportation (DOI
10.1007/s11116-009-9199-7); at http://bit.ly/2mJy9bI. Also see, Robert Bain (2009), “Big Numbers
Win Prizes,” Project Finance International; at
http://robbain.com/Big%20Numbers%20Win%20Prizes.pdf.

Keith Bartholomew and Reid Ewing (2009), “Land Use-Transportation Scenarios and Future
Vehicle Travel and Land Consumption: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of the American Planning
Association, Vol. 75, No. 1, Winter (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360802508726).

Marlon G. Boarnet (2007), Conducting Impact Evaluations in Urban Transport, Doing Impact
Analysis Report 5, World Bank (www.worldbank.org); at http://tinyurl.com/pcgv68w.

Daniel Bongardt, Dominik Schmid, Cornie Huizenga and Todd Litman (2011), Sustainable
Transport Evaluation: Developing Practical Tools for Evaluation in the Context of the CSD
Process, Commission on Sustainable Development, United Nations Department Of Economic
And Social Affairs (www.un.org); at www.un.org/esa/dsd/resources/res_pdfs/csd-
19/Background%20Paper%2010%20-%20transport.pdf.

Booz Allen (2012), Integrating Australia’s Transport Systems: A Strategy For An Efficient
Transport Future, Infrastructure Partnership Australia (www.infrastructure.org.au).

Eric Bruun (2017), “Assessment Methods from Around the World Potentially Useful for Public
Transport Projects,” Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 103-130; at
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1618&context=jpt.

CTE (2008), Improved Methods For Assessing Social, Cultural, And Economic Effects Of
Transportation Projects, NCHRP Project 08-36, TRB (www.trb.org) and AASHTO
(www.aashto.org); at www.statewideplanning.org/_resources/234_NCHRP-8-36-66.pdf.

22
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Michelle DeRobertis, John Eells, Joseph Kott, and Richard W. Lee (2014), “Changing the
Paradigm of Traffic Impact Studies: How Typical Traffic Studies Inhibit Sustainable
Transportation,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), May, pp. 30-35; at http://tinyurl.com/oc3l8h5.

DfT (2010-2017), Transport Analysis Guidance, Integrated Transport Economics and Appraisal,
Department for Transport (www.gov.uk/guidance/transport-analysis-guidance-webtag). This
website provides comprehensive guidance on how to identify problems, establish objectives,
develop potential solutions, model highway and public transport, and conduct economic
appraisal studies.

Chhavi Dhinghi (2011), Measuring Public Transport Performance- Lessons for Developing Cities:
Sustainable Transport Sourcebook, Sustainable Urban Transport Project (www.sutp.org) Asia and
GIZ; at www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2826.

Richard Dowling, et al. (2008), Multimodal Level Of Service Analysis For Urban Streets, NCHRP
Report 616, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at
http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=9470.

Eric Dumbaugh (2012), Rethinking the Economics of Traffic Congestion, Atlantic Cities
(www.theatlanticcities.com), 1 June 2012; at
www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/06/defense-congestion/2118.

EC (2014), Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis of Investment Projects Economic appraisal tool for
Cohesion Policy 2014-2020, European Commission (http://ec.europa.eu); at
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/cba_guide.pdf.

EVIDENCE (2014), How Urban Transport Projects are Appraised: Current Practice in the EU, by
the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy for the EVIDENCE Project:
Economic Benefits of Sustainable Transport (http://evidence-project.eu); at
http://tinyurl.com/m36e4un.

Reid Ewing and Robert Cervero (2010), “Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis,”
Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 76, No. 3, Summer, pp. 265-294; at
http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/287357__922131982.pdf.

Reid Ewing and Shima Hamidi (2014), Measuring Urban Sprawl and Validating Sprawl Measures,
Metropolitan Research Center at the University of Utah for the National Cancer Institute, the
Brookings Institution and Smart Growth America (www.smartgrowthamerica.org); at
www.arch.utah.edu/cgi-bin/wordpress-metroresearch.

FDOT (2014), Multimodal Transportation Best Practices and Model Element, Report BDK85-977-
49, National Center for Transit Research, Florida Department of Transportation (www.fdot.gov);
at www.fdot.gov/research/Completed_Proj/Summary_PL/FDOT-BDK85-977-49-rpt.pdf.

Ann Forsyth, Kevin J. Krizek and Asha Weinstein Agrawal (2010), Measuring Walking and Cycling
Using the PABS (Pedestrian and Bicycling Survey) Approach: A Low-Cost Survey Method for Local
Communities, Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University
(www.transweb.sjsu.edu); at www.transweb.sjsu.edu/project/2907.html.

23
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

GIZ (2003-2012), Sustainable Transportation: A Sourcebook for Policy-Makers in Developing

Countries, (www.sutp.org), by the Sustainable Urban Transport Project – Asia (www.sutp-
asia.org) and Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit (www.giz.de).

GIZ (2011), Changing Course in Urban Transport – An Illustrated Guide, Sustainable Urban
Transport Project (www.sutp.org) Asia and GIZ; at
www.sutp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2825.

Roger Gorham (2009), Demystifying Induced Travel Demand, Sustainable Transportation

Technical Document, Sustainable Urban Transportation Project (www.sutp.org); at
www.sutp.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=1461.

Susan Handy, Gil Tal and Marlon G. Boarnet (2010), Draft Policy Brief on the Impacts of Network
Connectivity Based on a Review of the Empirical Literature, for Research on Impacts of
Transportation and Land Use-Related Policies, California Air Resources Board
(http://arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/policies.htm).

Matthew Holian and Ralph McLaughlin (2016), Benefit-Cost Analysis for Transportation Planning
and Public Policy: Towards Multimodal Demand Modeling, Mineta Transportation Institute
(http://transweb.sjsu.edu) for the California Department of Transportation; at
http://bit.ly/2bYJ0Zj.

Hanna Hüging, Kain Glensor and Oliver Lah (2014), The TIDE Impact Assessment Method for
Urban Transport Innovations: A Handbook For Local Practitioners, TIDE (Transport Innovation
Deployment for Europe) Project (www.tide-innovation.eu); at www.tide-
innovation.eu/en/upload/Results/TIDE%20D5%202_final-CLEAN.pdf.

Robert A. Johnston (2008), “Indicators for Sustainable Transportation Planning,” Transportation

Research Record 2067, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 146 – 154; at
http://pubs.its.ucdavis.edu/publication_detail.php?id=1260.

Dr. Kara M. Kockelman, et al. (2014), The Economics of Transportation Systems: A Reference for
Practitioners, University of Texas at Austin
(www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/kockelman/TransportationEconomics_Website/homepage.htm),
published by Amazon Createspace (http://amzn.to/1FERrhF).

J. Richard Kuzmyak (2012), Land Use and Traffic Congestion, Report 618, Arizona DOT
(www.azdot.gov); at www.azdot.gov/TPD/ATRC/publications/project_reports/PDF/AZ618.pdf.

John LaPlante (2010), “The Challenge of Multi-modalism; Theodore M. Matson Memorial

Award,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), Vol. 80, No. 10, October, pp. 20-23.

Jonathan Levine, Joe Grengs, Qingyun Shen and Qing Shen (2012), “Does Accessibility Require
Density or Speed?” Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 78, No. 2, pp. 157-172,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2012.677119; at http://bit.ly/1CkF1KW.

24
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

David Levinson (2013), Access Across America, Report 13, Access to Destinations Study, Center
for Transportation at the University of Minnesota (www.cts.umn.edu); at
www.cts.umn.edu/Publications/ResearchReports/pdfdownload.pl?id=2280.

Todd Litman (2001), “Generated Traffic; Implications for Transport Planning,” ITE Journal, Vol.
71, No. 4, Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org), April, pp. 38-47; at
www.vtpi.org/gentraf.pdf.

Todd Litman (2009), Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis, Victoria Transport Policy Institute
(www.vtpi.org/tca).

Todd Litman (2011), Well Measured: Developing Indicators for Comprehensive and Sustainable
Transport Planning, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/wellmeas.pdf.

Todd Litman (2012), Smart Congestion Relief: Comprehensive Analysis of Traffic Congestion
Costs and Congestion Reduction Benefits, Paper P12-5310, TRB Annual Meeting, Victoria
Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/cong_relief.pdf.

Todd Litman (2013), “The New Transportation Planning Paradigm,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org),
Vo. 83, No. 6, pp. 20-28; at www.vtpi.org/paradigm.

Todd Litman (2013b), “Smarter Congestion Relief In Asian Cities: Win-Win Solutions To Urban
Transport Problems,” Transport and Communications Bulletin for Asia and the Pacific, No. 82
(www.unescap.org/publications/detail.asp?id=1581 ); at
www.unescap.org/ttdw/Publications/TPTS_pubs/bulletin82/b82_Chapter1.pdf.

Todd Litman (2013c), “Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation,”
JOURNEYS, September 2013, pp. 50-58, LTA Academy, Singapore
(http://app.lta.gov.sg/ltaacademy/doc/13Sep050-Litman_ComprehensiveAndMultimodal.pdf).

Todd Litman (2014), Evaluating Accessibility for Transportation Planning, Victoria Transport
Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/access.pdf.

Todd Litman (2014), Congestion Evaluation Best Practices, presented at the International
Transportation Economic Development Conference, 9-11 April 2014, Dallas, Texas; at
www.vtpi.org/ITED_congestion.pdf.

Todd Litman (2014), Economically Optimal Transport Prices and Markets: What Would Happen If
Rational Policies Prevailed? paper 11, presented at the International Transportation Economic
Development Conference (https://tti.tamu.edu/conferences/ited2014); at
www.vtpi.org/ITED_optimal.pdf.

Todd Litman (2016), Guide to Calculating Mobility Management Benefits, Victoria Transport
Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/tdmben.pdf.

Todd Litman (2017), Evaluating Transportation Diversity Victoria Transport Policy Institute
(www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/choice.

25
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Ian M. Lockwood (2004), Transportation Prescription for Healthy Cities, Glatting Jackson
Transportation Urban Design Studio, for presentation and Common Ground
www.glatting.com/PDF/IML_RWJF_Paper2004.pdf.

Ian Lockwood (2017), “Making the Case for Transportation Language Reform: Removing Bias,”
ITE Journal (www.ite.org), Vol. 87, No. 1, January, pp. 41-43; at
https://swbikeinitiative.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/ite_language_reform-by-ian-lockwood-
pdf.pdf.

Kevin Manaugh, Madhav G. Badami and Ahmed M. El-Geneidy (2015), “Integrating Social Equity
into Urban Transportation: A Critical Evaluation of Equity Objectives and Measures in
Transportation Plans in North America,” Transport Policy, Vol. 37, pp. 167–176
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.09.013); at
http://tram.mcgill.ca/Research/Publications/Equity_planning.pdf.

Michael J. Markow (2012), Engineering Economic Analysis Practices for Highway Investment,
NCHRP Synthesis 424, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_syn_424.pdf.

Barbara McCann (2013), Completing Our Streets: The Transition to Safe and Inclusive
Transportation Networks, Island Press (www.islandpress.org); at
http://islandpress.org/ip/books/book/islandpress/C/bo9115674.html.

Adam Millard-Ball (2015), “Phantom Trips: Overestimating the Traffic Impacts of New
Development,” Journal of Transportation and Land Use (www.jtlu.org); at
http://tinyurl.com/m6ay4ut; summarized in, ACCESS 45, pp. 3-8; at
www.accessmagazine.org/articles/fall-2014/phantom-trips.

Multimodal Benefit-Cost Analysis Tool (http://tredis.com/mbca) is a free, web-based calculation

system for comparing the costs and user benefits of individual transportation projects

NZTA (2010-2017), Economic Evaluation Manual, Volumes 1 and 2, New Zealand Transport
Agency (www.nzta.govt.nz); at www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/economic-evaluation-manual.

Lee Pike (2011), Generation of Walking, Cycling and Public Transport Trips: Pilot Study, New
Zealand Transport Agency (www.nzta.govt.nz); at
www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/research/reports/439/docs/439.pdf.

John Poorman (2005), “A Holistic Transportation Planning Framework For Management And
Operations,” ITE Journal, Vol. 75, No. 5 (www.ite.org), May, pp. 28-32; at
www.ite.org/membersonly/itejournal/pdf/2005/JB05EA28.pdf.

Portland (2009), Portland Streetcar System Concept Plan: A Framework for Future Corridor
Planning and Alternatives Analysis, Portland Bureau of Transportation
(www.portlandoregon.gov); at www.portlandonline.com/transportation/streetcarsystemplan.

Ricardo-AEA (2008-2014), Handbook on Estimation of External Cost in the Transport Sector, CE

Delft (www.ce.nl); at http://bit.ly/2qAyPRx.

26
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

RPA (2014), “Access to Jobs,” Fragile Success, Regional Plan Association (www.rpa.org); at
http://fragile-success.rpa.org/maps/jobs.html.

Robert J. Schneider, Susan L. Handy and Kevan Shafizadeh (2014), “Trip Generation for Smart
Growth Projects,” ACCESS 45, pp. 10-15; at http://tinyurl.com/oye8aqj. Also see the Smart
Growth Trip-Generation Adjustment Tool, (http://ultrans.its.ucdavis.edu/projects/smart-growth-
trip-generation).

Smart Growth and SSTI (2015), The Innovative DOT: A Handbook of Policy and Practice, Smart
Growth America and the State Smart Transportation Initiative (www.smartgrowthamerica.org);
at www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/the-innovative-dot-third-edition.pdf.

John Stanley, et al. (2010), Social Exclusion And The Value Of Mobility, ITLS-WP-10-14, Institute
of Transportation and Logistical Studies, University of Sydney (http://sydney.edu.au); at
http://sydney.edu.au/business/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/72913/itls-wp-10-14.pdf.

Peter R. Stopher and Stephen P. Greaves (2007), “Household Travel Surveys: Where Are We
Going?” Transportation Research A, Vol. 41/5 (www.elsevier.com/locate/tra), June, pp. 367-381.

SUTP (2014), Urban Mobility Plans – National Approaches and Local Practice, Sustainable Urban
Transportation Project (www.sutp.org); at www.sutp.org/files/TD13_UMP_final.pdf.

Swiss ARE (2005 and 2010), External Cost of Transport In Switzerland, Swiss Federal Office of
Spatial Development (www.are.admin.ch); at www.are.admin.ch/are/en/home/transport-and-
infrastructure/data/costs-and-benefits-of-transport.html.

TIDE (2013), Impact Assessment Handbook: Practitioners’ Handbook for Cost Benefit and Impact
Analysis of Innovative Urban Transport Measures, Transport Innovation Deployment for Europe;
at www.eltis.org/sites/default/files/trainingmaterials/tide-assessment-handbook-lite.pdf.

TRB (2010), Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at

http://sjnavarro.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/highway_capacital_manual.pdf.

UITP (2012), Better Urban Mobility in Developing Countries: Problems, Solutions and Good
Practices, International Association of Public Transport (www.uitp.org); at
www.uitp.org/publications/brochures/Dev-Countries-uk.pdf.

UKDfT (2013), New Approach to Transport Appraisal (NATA), Department for Transport
(www.webtag.org.uk/overview-pages/the-appraisal-framework).

VDRPT (2013), Multimodal System Design Guidelines, Virginia Department of Rail and Public
Transportation (www.drpt.virginia.gov);
www.drpt.virginia.gov/activities/MultimodalSystemDesignGuidelines.aspx.

VTPI (2012), Online TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org/tdm).

27
 Towards More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Glen Weisbrod (2015), Estimating Wider Economic Impacts in Transport Project Prioritisation
Using Ex-Post Analysis, International Transport Forum (www.internationaltransportforum.org)
OECD Roundtable on Quantifying the Socio-Economic Benefits of Transport, International
Transportation Forum (www.itf-oecd.org), Organization for Economic Development and
Cooperation, at www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/RoundTables/2015_Socio-Economic-
Benefits/Weisbrod_draftDP.pdf.

World Bank (2008), A Framework for Urban Transport Projects: Operational Guidance for World
Bank Staff, Transport Sector Board, World Bank (www.worldbank.org); at
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/17411.

WRA (2014), State of the Art Practice for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA), Cost-Benefit Analysis
(CBA) and Resource Allocation, World Road Association (www.piarc.org); at
http://tinyurl.com/kvgwpnv.

www.vtpi.org/comp_evaluation.pdf

28