1 Objectives
and Problems
|
 |
1.1 Introduction
|
|
1.1.1 |
In developing a transport strategy or plan
it is essential to be clear as to what the strategy or plan
is designed to achieve. The answer to this question can be
expressed at varying levels of generality or detail, from
broad statements of vision, through strategic objectives,
to more specific objectives and lists of problems to be overcome.
|
| 1.1.2 |
Stated objectives serve several functions.
They help to identify the problems to be overcome, both now
and in the future. They provide guidance on the types of solution
which might be appropriate and the locations in which they
are needed. They act also as constraints, in clarifying what
should be avoided in pursuing any particular solution. Finally,
they provide the basis for appraisal of alternative solutions,
and for monitoring progress in implementation.
|
| 1.1.3 |
Almost inevitably, it will not be possible
to satisfy all of the objectives which are identified in this
way. In principle, it would be helpful, not just to have a
clear understanding of the overall objectives, but also to
be able to specify their relative importance, so that conflicts
can be readily resolved. However, priorities between objectives
are a matter for political judgement which is exercised by
the decision-maker on the basis of the appraisal information
against each of the objectives.
|
| 1.1.4 |
This TAG Unit deals with: |
| |
- the Government's objectives for transport;
- local and regional objectives;
- objectives and targets; and
- problems.
|
1.2 Objectives-led
and Problem-orientated Approaches
|
|
| 1.2.1 |
There are, in practice, two different types
of approach which can be adopted to identifying objectives
and related problems. The first is the true objectives-led
approach in which objectives of the kind described in Section
1.3 and 1.4 are first specified. These are then used to identify
problems by assessing the extent to which current or predicted
future conditions, in the absence of new policy measures,
fail to meet the objectives.
|
| 1.2.2 |
The main drawback with this approach is that
many members of the public are less familiar with the abstract
concept of objectives (such as improving accessibility) than
they are with concrete problems (such as the nearest medical
facilities being 50 minutes away). It is to bridge this gulf
that some integrated transport (or 'top-down') studies check
the identified problems with the public.
|
| 1.2.3 |
The alternative approach is to start by defining
types of problem, and to use data on current (or predicted
future) conditions to identify when and where these problems
occur. The objectives are implicit in the specified problems,
and may never actually be stated. This approach has the merits
of being easily understood. However, it is dependent on developing
a full list of potential problems at the outset. If particular
types of problem (like access to medical facilities) are not
identified because the underlying objective (accessibility)
has not been considered, the resulting strategy will be partial
in its impact. It is thus important to check with the public
(either directly, or through their representatives) that the
full set of problems has been identified.
|
| 1.2.4 |
Neither of these approaches is necessarily
preferable to the other. Both require checks to ensure that
the problems identified are comprehensive. Once this has been
done both methods follow the approach described in The
Overall Approach (TAG
Unit 2.1). The choice between them should be determined
by whether the users of the study feel more at ease with the
concepts of objectives or problems. For a more detailed discussion
of these approaches, see Section 2.3 of the IHT's Guidelines
on Developing Urban Transport Strategies.
|
1.3 The
Government's Objectives for Transport
|
|
| 1.3.1 |
The Government's objectives which underpin A
New Deal for Transport (DETR, 1998) are: |
| |
- to promote a strong economy and increase prosperity;
- to provide better protection for the environment; and
- to develop a more inclusive society.
|
| 1.3.2 |
In A New Deal for Transport, the DfT
has set out its five main criteria for transport. These may
be couched in terms of objectives, as follows: |
| |
- environmental impact -
to protect the built and natural environment;
- safety - to improve safety;
- economy - to support sustainable
economic activity and get good value for money;
- accessibility - to improve
access to facilities for those without a car and to reduce
severance; and
- integration - to ensure
that all decisions are taken in the context of the Government's
integrated transport policy.
|
| 1.3.3 |
These objectives should be taken as a 'given'
in the study areas. The intentions of these objectives are
discussed below
|
| |
Environmental
Impact
|
|
| 1.3.4 |
The environmental protection objective involves
reducing the direct and indirect
impacts of transport facilities and their use on the environment
of both users and non-users. The environment impacts of concern
include those listed in DMRB Volume 11. They include noise,
atmospheric pollution of differing kinds, vibration, formal
intrusion, severance, and impacts on intrinsically valuable
flora and fauna, ancient monuments and historic buildings
and so on. While some of these can be readily quantified,
others such as severance are much more difficult to define
and analyse.
|
| 1.3.5 |
More recently, the environmental protection
objective has been defined more widely to include reduction
of the impact of transport on the global environment, particularly
through emission of carbon dioxide, but also by consumption
of scarce and non-renewable resources.
|
| |
Safety
|
|
| 1.3.6 |
The safety objective is concerned with reducing
the loss of life, injuries and damage to property resulting
from transport accidents and crime.
|
| 1.3.7 |
It has been common practice for some time
in the UK to place money values on casualties and accidents
of differing severity, and to include these within a cost/benefit
analysis. These values include the direct costs of accidents,
such as loss of output, hospital, police and insurance costs,
and damage to property and, more controversially, an allowance
for the pain, grief and suffering incurred. However, in some
cases there is concern with the direct safety performance
of the system, it is therefore helpful to estimate accident
numbers directly as well.
|
| 1.3.8 |
The safety objective is also concerned with
improving the personal security of travellers and their property.
The security of public transport passengers increases with
the provision of surveillance, design features which reduce
the opportunities for attackers to surprise travellers and
facilities for making emergency calls. The security of car
users increases when the instances when they are required
to stop or travel very slowly are reduced, vehicles can be
parked in safety and facilities for making emergency calls
are increased.
|
| |
Economy
|
|
| 1.3.9 |
The economy objective is concerned with improving
(a) the economic efficiency of transport, and (b) the efficiency
of economic activities.
|
| 1.3.10 |
Much economic analysis is concerned with defining
'efficient' allocations of scarce resources. Economic efficiency
is achieved when it is impossible to make one person or group
in society better off without making another group worse off
by a larger amount. In such a situation, it is impossible
to find any measures for which - if they were undertaken -
the gainers would be able to compensate the losers and still
be better off themselves. In other words, seeking economic
efficiency means taking all measures for which the 'willingness
to pay' of the beneficiaries exceeds the 'required compensation'
of the losers by an acceptable margin.
|
| 1.3.11 |
In practice, in transport appraisal, the economy
objective is usually defined more narrowly. It is often concerned
primarily with maximising the net benefits, in resource terms,
of the provision of transport. This is turn involves maximising
the difference between the consumer surplus of travellers
and the resource costs of the provision, operation and maintenance
of transport facilities. Consumer surplus can be thought of
as the difference between the maximum which an individual
traveller is prepared to pay to travel and the actual cost
of that journey. Consumer surplus is, therefore, increased
when travel time, operating costs and direct payments such
as fares are reduced and also when more travellers are able
to travel as a result of reductions in those costs. Further
information on environmental economics is available (Treasury
and DfT, March 2003b).
|
| 1.3.12 |
Economic efficiency defined in this way is
central to the principles of social cost/benefit analysis,
and a higher net present value from an economic appraisal
represents a more efficient outcome.
|
| 1.3.13 |
While some cost/benefit analyses focus on the
costs and benefits for motorised travel, and treat the impacts
on pedestrians and cyclists, such as pedestrian delay, as
an environmental impact, it is more logical to consider economic
efficiency for all travellers together, whatever their mode
of travel.
|
| 1.3.14 |
From this, somewhat narrow, viewpoint, cost/benefit
analysis excludes environmental and safety impacts, but would
subsume overall accessibility effects (for the reasons given
below in paragraph 1.3.18). An alternative broad view of cost/benefit
analysis would include all these effects, whether or not valued
in money terms, and this broad view of cost/benefit analysis
would yield the overall value for money of the option being
appraised. As noted in The Overall Approach: The Steps
in the Process (TAG
Unit 2.1), the Appraisal Summary Table provides the basis
on which such a wider assessment of value for money will be
made.
|
| 1.3.15 |
The second element of this objective is the
efficiency of economic activities. It has often been argued
that, the benefits to transport users and operators captured
in a cost/benefit analysis are a satisfactory measure of the
wider benefits to the economy, that is, the efficiency with
which economic activities are undertaken insofar as they are
affected by transport. However, others have suggested that
this fails to capture the additional benefits to economic
development, particularly in areas where regeneration is a
priority, of improved transport provision and transport links.
SACTRA has considered this argument and its final report was
published in August 1999. The Government's response to the
SACTRA report on "Transport and the Economy" is
available at www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/economics/sactra/.
|
| |
Accessibility
|
|
| 1.3.16 |
In general terms, accessibility can be defined
as 'ease of reaching'. The accessibility objective is concerned
with increasing the ability with
which people in different locations, and with differing availability
of transport, can reach different types of facility. The term
'accessibility' has been used in the past in several different,
often overlapping, ways, including the following: |
| |
- measurement of ease of access to the transport system
itself in terms of, for example, the proportion of homes
within x minutes of a bus stop or the proportion of buses
which may be boarded by a wheel-chair user;
- measurement of ease of access to facilities, with the
emphasis being on the provision of the facilities necessary
to meet people's needs within certain minimum travel times,
distances or costs;
- measurement of the value which people place on having
an option available which they might use only under unusual
circumstances (such as when the car breaks down) - 'option
value' - or even the value people place on simply the existence
of an alternative which they have no real intention of using
- 'existence value'; and
- measurement of ease of participation in activities (for
personal travel) or delivery of goods to their final destination
(for goods travel), provided by the interaction of the transport
system, the geographical pattern of economic activities,
and the pattern of land use as a whole.
|
| 1.3.17 |
Planners of public transport systems often
focus on the first of these, while land-use planners often
concentrate on the second. It is possible to argue that the
first three views of accessibility are particular views within
the general framework provided by the fourth. Thus, the fourth
use may be regarded as the all-embracing measure of accessibility.
|
| 1.3.18 |
Work by David Simmonds Consultancy, ITS Leeds
University and MVA for the DfT (1998) has shown that system-wide
accessibility benefits are, to a very large extent, subsumed
in a fully-specified cost/benefit
analysis - that is, a cost/benefit analysis in which all traveller
responses are properly included. Thus, couched in its most
general and all-embracing form, the accessibility objective
would duplicate the economy objective. The accessibility objective
is therefore concerned with the more specific aspects, such
as access to facilities by non-car-owners and community severance.
|
| |
Integration
|
|
| 1.3.19 |
The general presumption in A New Deal for
Transport (DETR, 1998) is that integration should increase,
with the aim of ensuring that all decisions are taken in the
context of the Government's integrated transport policy. More
specifically, this means: |
| |
- integration within and between different types of transport,
so that each contributes its full potential and people can
move easily between them;
- integration with the environment, so that the transport
choices available support a better environment;
- integration with land-use planning, at national, regional
and local level, so that transport and planning work together
to support more sustainable travel choices and reduce the
need for travel; and
- integration with policies for education, health and wealth
creation, so that transport helps make a fairer, more inclusive
society.
|
1.4 Local
and Regional Objectives
|
|
| 1.4.1 |
The five criteria or objectives of Central
Government discussed in the previous section are very broad
and may not fully reflect the specific regional and sub-regional
circumstances of individual studies. More specific objectives
need to be set at the regional level through Regional Planning
Guidance/Regional Transport Strategies as explained in Chapter
6 of draft PPG 11 (DETR, February 1999e). Among other
things, this sets priorities for transport investment across
all modes, to support the objectives of the spatial strategy
for the region. Outputs from the regional planning process
should include integrated planning and transport proposals
and objectives for both the major transport corridors and
major urban areas. Studies must reflect these strategic priorities
and objectives for future land uses, and show how transport
options can support them. Steering Groups are also free to
set out other study-specific objectives as they see fit.
|
| 1.4.2 |
The sources for study objectives could include: |
| |
- regional planning guidance;
- local transport plans;
- development plans;
- the plans of transport provides in the study area; and
- aspirations of local groups.
|
| 1.4.3 |
However, it is important that these objectives
should be fully up to date; they must: |
| |
- all 'nest' within the Government's five main objectives,
with no local or regional objectives lying outside the framework
provided by the Government's objectives; and
- avoid at all costs indications of preferred solutions
as these may then cause other better solutions to be overlooked
in the process of establishing a strategy or plan.
|
| 1.4.4 |
By their nature, these objectives will be specific
to each individual study; there is no requirement for them to
be the same in all studies. It is therefore not practical to
be prescriptive in this Guidance about the formulation of the
local and regional objectives. Some
examples of study specific objectives under each of the
five Central Government objectives are as follows. |
| |
- environmental objectives
could provide increased focus on particular aspects of the
environment which were particularly vulnerable or in need
of improvement; for example:
- to reduce traffic intrusion in a specified National
Park or AONB or a conservation area; or
- to reduce local emissions in a specified town centre;
or
- to reduce traffic noise in a specified residential
area, etc.
- safety objectives could
provide increased focus on particularly vulnerable sections
of the public in particular locations; for example:
- to reduce accidents to pedestrians and cyclists; or
- to reduce accidents on a specified section of road.
- economy objectives could
provide increased focus on regeneration objectives; for
example:
- to improve road access to specified areas so that
redevelopment may be encouraged; or
- to provide road access to hitherto inaccessible land
so that development may take place.
- accessibility objectives
could provide increased focus on particular aspects of accessibility;
for example:
- to improve access to the public transport system for
the mobility impaired; or
- to ensure that all households are within a specified
walking time of a public transport service; or
- to reduce waiting or interchange times for public
transport users;
- to promote walking and cycling.
- integration objectives
could provide increased focus on specific means of ensuring
or improving integration; for example:
- to support specific planning policies and local land-use
development proposals.
|
| 1.4.5 |
In some cases, objectives may not obviously
be directly related to the Central Government objectives.
In many cases, these will be subsidiary objectives, devised
to focus on the way in which the Central Government objectives
can be achieved. For example, an objective to reduce road
traffic growth is likely to have been proposed to focus on
ways in which Central Government's environmental objectives
may be achieved. Where this kind of objective is to be employed,
it is important to ensure that options which appear to perform
well against them also perform well against the primary Central
Government objectives. For example, an intervention which
reduced road traffic growth but worsened environmental impacts
would be unlikely to be satisfactory. Generally, however,
this kind of objective should be avoided so as not to constrain
the search for solutions unduly.
|
| 1.4.6 |
It may also be feasible to identify some priorities
between objectives. This would be useful where options meet
one objective but conflict with another; the priorities would
help decide the circumstances under which particular policy
instruments should be considered. Again, these priorities
between objectives need not necessarily be the same for all
studies.
|
1.5 Objectives
and Targets
|
|
| 1.5.1 |
Objectives may be couched in general terms so
that all they do is indicate the desired general direction of
change; for example: |
| |
- to reduce the environmental nuisance caused by traffic.
|
| 1.5.2 |
They may also be couched in more specific terms
which include the notion of a target;
for example: |
| |
- to reduce traffic noise to below 68dB(A) in residential
streets; or
- to reduce carbon monoxide levels to below 8.5 parts per
million; or
- to reduce nitrogen dioxide levels to below 70 parts per
billion.
There are advantages in this kind of more specific objective.
It is clear when any one objective has been achieved and the
degree of achievement can be measured by the extent to which
conditions differ from the target.
|
| 1.5.3 |
However, the approach has considerable dangers.
Using the example in the previous paragraph, the three objectives
imply an equivalence between a noise level of 68dB(A), a carbon
monoxide level of 8.5ppm, and a nitrogen dioxide level of
70ppb. A full set of detailed objectives containing targets
which cover all the aspects of the five Government objectives
would imply many more equivalences of this kind. In theory,
this may seem a reasonable approach, but the key difficulty
lies with establishing targets which imply the correct emphasis
or importance of one objective in relation to another. In
principle, it would be possible to derive a set of targets
that people accepted as consistent through social research
techniques, but the more objectives are involved the more
difficult would such an exercise become.
|
| 1.5.4 |
In concept, of course, an objective specified
in terms of a target is little different from a problem identified
using a threshold. For example, an objective to reduce noise
levels in residential areas to below 68 dB(A) amounts to the
same as a problem identified as a noise level above 68 dB(A)
in a residential area. The two concepts are sides of the same
coin. Problem identification is discussed in the next section.
|
1.6 Problems
|
|
| 1.6.1 |
Problems may be identified in a number of ways,
including: |
| |
- by consulting people about
their perceptions of the problems, both those that they
encounter when travelling and those which result from other
people travelling;
- by consulting representatives
of the regional and local authorities and the transport
providers to gain an understanding of the transport and
planning professional's perceptions of problems with the
transport system (also see Step 4 below);
- by conducting audits of
specific elements of the transport system in order to gain
a deeper understanding of the roles performed and to analyse
the extent to which the expected aims are not met; and
- by objective analysis
of problems through analysis of outputs from the transport
model in comparison with thresholds so as to enable the
geographic display of the worst conditions on a consistent
numerical basis across the study area.
|
| 1.6.2 |
The first two methods are essentially parts
of the consultation step of
the studies, see Step 4 in Figure 2.1 of The Overall Approach:
Steps in the Process (TAG
Unit 2.1). People will naturally have more reliable views
about current problems than those predicted to occur at some
future date. Problem identification through consultation is
therefore of most use in the base or current year.
|
| 1.6.3 |
Audits can be
useful ways of exploring in some depth particular aspects
of the transport system. Again, however, their focus is on
the current situation and past history so that trends can
be identified, rather than on speculations about the future.
Examples of elements of the transport system which may be
suitable for detailed audits include: |
| |
- the local public transport system;
- the national rail system insofar as it affects the particular
study area;
- the trunk road system; and
- the local parking system.
|
| 1.6.4 |
Audits should be conducted by experts in the particular
aspect of the transport system being audited. As an example,
the aims of an audit of the local public transport system might
be: |
| |
- to describe the current services in detail in terms of
routes, frequencies and fares;
- to identify the operators providing each service;
- to identify which services are run commercially and which
are provided through support from the local authorities;
- to analyse the quality of the services provided in terms
of type and age of vehicle;
- to assess service reliability, including factors which
affect reliability, such as availability of vehicles and
staff; and
- trends in factors such as vehicle-kms operated, passenger-kms
carried, fares and levels of subsidy.
The general aim is to develop a detailed understanding of
the services currently provided and the financial and institutional
framework that applies.
|
| 1.6.5 |
Objective (or systematic)
analysis of problems lies at the heart of the problem-oriented
approach to transport planning. A comprehensive list of types
of problem can be achieved using the framework provided by
the Government's five criteria or objectives.
|
| 1.6.6 |
Objective analysis of problems requires the
adoption of thresholds. The idea is that when a condition
is measured or predicted to differ from a threshold, then
a problem is said to exist. A range of thresholds can be set,
so that problems may be graded by severity.
Thus, for example, noise levels which exceed, say, 68dB(A),
72 dB(A) and 76 dB(A) would be classed as, say, 'slight',
'moderate' and 'severe' noise problems.
|
| 1.6.7 |
This approach is, of course, not without its difficulties.
By labelling problems of different types which are of a particular
severity with the same label, an equivalence is being implied
between problems of that severity. Thus, for example: |
| |
- if a noise level in excess of 68 dB(A) but less 72 dB(A),
say, were to be classed as a 'slight' noise problem, and
- if a carbon monoxide levels in excess of 8.5 ppm but
less than 15 ppm, say, were to be classed as a 'slight'
air quality problem,
then this would imply an equivalent importance of the noise
range 68 to 72 dB(A) and the carbon monoxide range 8.5 to
15 ppm. The danger from such implied equivalences needs to
be recognised. Evidence from consultations may be used to
establish the relativities of the thresholds so that the thresholds
and severity gradings reflect local opinions about problems
of different kinds.
|
| 1.6.8 |
A further dimension to the analysis of problems
is their magnitude. This would
normally be measured based on the numbers of people affected.
Problems should be classed by both severity and magnitude.
A severe problem which affects no one would not be one for
which a solution would be necessary. A solution to a slight
problem which affected many people could, on the other hand,
be much more worthwhile.
|
| 1.6.9 |
When thresholds are defined, they can be used,
with current data, to identify the locations, times of day,
and groups of traveller or resident for which problems currently
occur. Given an appropriate predictive model, a similar exercise
can be conducted for a future year. The model can also be
used to assess whether a strategy will overcome these current
or future problems, and whether it will induce new ones.
|
| 1.6.10 |
The strengths of the approach in which problems
are identified using an objective or systematic analysis are
that it enables: |
| |
- problems to be identified across the study area on a consistent
basis, on a geographical background for ease of appreciation;
- problems to be identified for the future years on the
same basis as the base year (and these can be validated
against local people's opinions through consultation); and
- the effectiveness of the option being tested can be assessed
by checking how well the problems at which the intervention
was aimed would be ameliorated.
|
| 1.6.11 |
It is crucial to recognise that this approach
may only show problems as symptoms. Some analysis of the underlying
causes of the problems should always be considered. For example,
it should not be assumed that a congestion problem can be
solved by adding extra capacity at the location concerned.
Other solutions, such as traffic reduction measures or road
improvements elsewhere to take through traffic away from the
problem area, may be more appropriate and may only be revealed
by analysis of the causes of the problem.
|
| 1.6.12 |
It is attractive to think that consistency
between studies could be ensured by adopting the same thresholds
for the same types of problems throughout the studies. However,
this is considered impractical and unnecessary - impractical
because it is very unlikely that a single set of thresholds
could be established to which there would be general agreement
- and unnecessary because the Steering Groups and the public
in the various study areas may have different ideas as to
the relative importance and seriousness of different types
of problem. Thus, while consistency in the way in which the
information for the AST is derived is regarded as essential,
locally determined problem analysis is how the local perspective
can be introduced to the appraisal process.
|
| |
|
|
