Experiences with transportation models: An international survey of planning practices

Transport planning practice is experiencing rapid transitions. This shifting professional environment is prompting lively and sometimes bitter debates about how transportation models should be used. While these models and their outputs play an increasingly more important function in transport-related decision-making processes, growing concerns emerge about their limitations, assumptions, biases, and usability. This paper addresses the question of how different professionals involved in transportation planning perceive and experience these tensions. For that purpose, we developed an online survey which was completed by 229 European transport planning practitioners, primarily working in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Our findings support the following key conclusions. First, and contrary to popular notions on the matter, practitioners are relatively satisfied with the models they use. Second, most respondents are confident that they understand the assumptions and uncertainties associated with transport models, but that other important stakeholders do not. However, third, the larger the distance that respondents have to hands-on working experience with transportation models, the lower is their trust on model outputs. Respondents who are not directly involved in the operation of the models a) report more negative experiences associated with model use in decision-making processes and b) identify more usability barriers. The overall picture revealed a lack of trust amongst transport planning professionals, which is a problem needing to be addressed. We propose bringing models closer to those who use their outputs as a constructive solution to this trust deficit.

[1]  David Banister,et al.  The sustainable mobility paradigm , 2008 .

[2]  Petter Næss,et al.  Forecasting inaccuracies: A result of unexpected events, optimism bias, technical problems, or strategic misrepresentation? , 2015 .

[3]  P. Healey Urban Complexity and Spatial Strategies: Towards a Relational Planning for Our Times , 2006 .

[4]  D. Banister Unsustainable Transport: City Transport in the New Century , 2005 .

[5]  S. Owens From 'predict and provide' to 'predict and prevent'?: Pricing and planning in transport policy , 1995 .

[6]  Marco te Brömmelstroet,et al.  Equip the warrior instead of manning the equipment: Land use and transport planning support in the Netherlands , 2010 .

[7]  Paul Timms,et al.  Transport models, philosophy and language , 2008 .

[8]  Henrik Gudmundsson,et al.  Analysing Models as a Knowledge Technology in Transport Planning , 2011 .

[9]  Morten Skou Nicolaisen,et al.  Forecasts: Fact or Fiction?: Uncertainty and Inaccuracy in Transport Project Evaluation , 2012 .

[10]  L. Bertolini,et al.  The Role of Transport‐Related Models in Urban Planning Practice , 2011 .

[11]  R. Bain Error and optimism bias in toll road traffic forecasts , 2009 .

[12]  R. Willson Assessing communicative rationality as a transportation planning paradigm , 2001 .

[13]  Bent Flyvbjerg,et al.  Megaproject Policy and Planning: Problems, Causes, Cures , 2007 .

[14]  Marco Te Brömmelstroet,et al.  What Curriculum for Mobility and Transport Studies? A Critical Exploration , 2013 .

[15]  Dominic Stead Institutional aspects of integrating transport, environment and health policies , 2008 .

[16]  Susan L Handy,et al.  Accessibility- vs. Mobility-Enhancing Strategies for Addressing Automobile Dependence in the U.S , 2002 .

[17]  Susan L Handy,et al.  Regional transportation planning in the US: An examination of changes in technical aspects of the planning process in response to changing goals , 2008 .

[18]  Luca Bertolini,et al.  Why Cost Benefit Analysis is perceived as a problematic tool for assessment of transport plans: A process perspective , 2012 .

[19]  Arvid Strand,et al.  Traffic Forecasts Ignoring Induced Demand: a Shaky Fundament for Cost-Benefit Analyses , 2012 .

[20]  R. Creighton Urban Transportation Planning , 1970 .

[21]  Arvid Strand,et al.  Transport Modelling in the Context of the ‘Predict and Provide’ Paradigm , 2014 .

[22]  Petter Næss,et al.  What Kinds of Traffic Forecasts are Possible? , 2012 .

[23]  J. Jacoby,et al.  Is There an Optimal Number of Alternatives for Likert Scale Items? Study I: Reliability and Validity , 1971 .

[24]  Petter Næss,et al.  Roads to Nowhere: The Accuracy of Travel Demand Forecasts for Do-Nothing Alternatives , 2015 .

[25]  Luca Bertolini,et al.  Urban Transportation Planning in Transition , 2008 .

[26]  Hjp Harry Timmermans,et al.  Transport Models and Urban Planning Practice: Experiences with Albatross , 2011 .

[27]  Jacob Jacoby,et al.  Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert-scale items? Effects of testing time and scale properties. , 1972 .

[28]  Abigail L. Bristow Policy Forum: Towards a New Logic of Transport Planning? Comments , 1999 .

[29]  Angela Hull,et al.  Policy integration: What will it take to achieve more sustainable transport solutions in cities , 2008 .

[30]  G. Norman Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics , 2010, Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice.

[31]  N. V. Exel,et al.  Behavioural Economic Perspectives on Inertia in Travel Decision Making , 2011 .