See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237820138

Introduction to Multi-Modal Transportation Planning

Article · January 2011

CITATIONS READS
31 793

1 author:

Todd Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Canada
145 PUBLICATIONS   3,982 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Affordable-Accessible Housing in a Dynamic City (http://www.vtpi.org/aff_acc_hou.pdf ) View project

Investigating the process of traditional design principles formation in the Iranian-Kurdish urban quarters View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Todd Litman on 17 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Telephone: 250-360-1560 | email: Info@vtpi.org

Introduction to Multi-Modal Transportation Planning

Principles and Practices
18 November 2008

By Todd Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Abstract
This paper summarizes basic principles for transportation planning. It describes
conventional transport planning, which tends to focus on motor vehicle traffic conditions,
and newer methods for more multi-modal planning and evaluation.

Todd Alexander Litman © 2006-08

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 improving it.

0
 Multi-Modal Transportation Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Conventional Transportation Planning

Conventional (also called traditional or business as usual) transportation planning refers
to current practices for making transport policy, program and investment decisions.
Multi-modal planning refers to decision making that considers various modes (walking,
cycling, automobile, public transit, etc.) and connections among modes so each can fill its
optimal role in the overall transport system. There are several specific types of transport
planning for reflecting different scales and objectives:
• Traffic impact studies evaluate traffic impacts and mitigation strategies for a particular
development or project.
• Local transport planning develops municipal and neighborhood transport plans.
• Regional transportation planning develops plans for a metropolitan region.
• State, provincial and national transportation planning develops plans for a large jurisdiction,
to be implemented by a transportation agency.
• Strategic transportation plans develop long-range plans, typically 20-40 years into the future.
• Transportation improvement plans (TIPs) or action plans identify specific projects and
programs to be implemented within a few years.
• Corridor transportation plans identify projects and programs to be implemented on a specific
corridor, such as along a particular highway, bridge or route.
• Mode- or area-specific transport plans identify ways to improve a particular mode (walking,
cycling, public transit, etc.) or area (a campus, downtown, industrial park, etc.).

Figure 1 Transport Planning Process A transport planning process typically

(FHWA and FTA, 2007) includes the following steps:
• Monitor existing conditions.
• Forecast future population and
employment growth, and identify major
growth corridors.
• Identify current and projected future
transport problems and needs, and various
projects and strategies to address those
needs.
• Evaluate and prioritize potential
improvement projects and strategies.
• Develop long-range plans and short-range
programs identifying specific capital
projects and operational strategies.
• Develop a financial plan for implementing
the selected projects and strategies.

1
 Multi-Modal Transportation Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Conventional transportation planning tends to focus on a specific set of options (primarily

automobile travel) and impacts (summarized in Table 1). Commonly-used transportation
economic evaluation models, such as MicroBenCost, were designed for highway project
evaluation, assuming that total vehicle travel is unaffected and is unsuitable for
evaluating projects that include alternative modes or demand management strategies.

Table 1 Impacts Considered and Overlooked

Usually Considered Often Overlooked
Financial costs to governments Downstream congestion impacts
Vehicle operating costs (fuel, tolls, tire wear) Impacts on non-motorized travel
Travel time (reduced congestion) Parking costs
Per-mile crash risk Vehicle ownership and mileage-based depreciation costs.
Project construction environmental impacts Project construction traffic delays
Generated traffic impacts
Indirect environmental impacts
Strategic land use impacts
Transportation diversity value (e.g., mobility for non-drivers)
Equity impacts
Per-capita crash risk
Impacts on physical activity and public health
Travelers’ preferences (e.g., for walking and cycling)
Conventional transportation planning tends to focus on a limited set of impacts. Other impacts tend to
be overlooked because they are relatively difficult to quantify (e.g., equity, indirect environmental
impacts), or simply out of tradition (e.g., parking costs, vehicle ownership costs, construction delays).

Conventional transportation planning strives to maximize traffic speeds, minimize

congestion and reduce crash rates (generally measured per vehicle-mile) using a well
developed set of engineering, modeling and financing tools. Many jurisdictions codify
these objectives in concurrency requirements and traffic impact fees, which require
developers to finance roadway capacity expansion to offset any increase in local traffic.
Alternatives to roadway expansion, such as transportation demand management and
multi-modal transport planning, are newer and so have fewer analysis tools. As a result,
conventional planning practices support automobile dependency, which refers to transport
and land use patterns favoring automobile travel over alternative modes (in this case,
automobile includes cars, vans, light trucks, SUVs and motorcycles).

In recent years transportation planning has expanded to include more emphasis on non-
automobile modes and more consideration of factors such as environmental impacts and
mobility for non-drivers. One indication of this shift is that over the last two decades,
many highway agencies have been renamed transportation agencies, and have added
departments and experts related to environmental analysis, community involvement and
nonmotorized planning. Transportation modeling techniques are improving to account for
a wider range of options (such as alternative modes and pricing incentives) and impacts
(such as pollution emissions and land use effects). In addition, an increasing portion of
transport funds are flexible, meaning that they can be spent on a variety of types of
programs and projects rather than just roadways.

2
 Multi-Modal Transportation Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Figure 2 Four-Step Traffic Model Most regions use four-step models to predict
future transport conditions (see Figure 2). The
region is divided into numerous transportation
analysis zones (TAZs) each containing a few
hundred to a few thousand residents. Trip
generation (the number and types of trips
originating from each TAZ) is predicted based
on generic values adjusted based on local travel
surveys that count zone-to-zone peak-period
trips. These trips are assigned destinations,
modes and routes based on their generalized
costs (combined time and financial costs), with
more trips assigned to relatively cheaper routes
and modes, taking into account factors such as
travel speeds, congestion delays and parking
costs. Transport models are being improved in
various ways to better predict future travel
www.mwcog.org/transportation/activities/models/4_step.asp
activity, including the effects of various transport
and land use management strategies.

This predicts future peak-period Figure 3 Highway LOS Map (PSRC, 2008)
traffic volumes on each route, and
identifies where volumes will exceed
capacity (based on the
volume/capacity ratio or V/C) of
specific roadway links and
intersections. The intensity of
congestion on major roadways is
evaluated using level-of-service (LOS)
ratings, a grade from A (best) to F
(worst).

Table 2 summarizes highway LOS

ratings. Similar ratings are defined for
arterial streets and intersections.
Roadway level-of-service is widely
used to identify traffic problems and
evaluate potential roadway
improvements. Figure 3 illustrates a
typical model output: a map showing
LOS ratings of major regional
roadways.

3
 Multi-Modal Transportation Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Table 2 Highway Level-Of-Service (LOS) Ratings (Wikipedia)

LOS Description Speed Flow Density
(mph) (veh./hour/lane) (veh./mile)
A Traffic flows at or above posted speed limit. Over 60 Under 700 Under 12
Motorists have complete mobility between lanes.
B Slightly congested, with some impingement of 57-60 700-1,100 12-20
maneuverability. Two motorists might be forced to
drive side by side, limiting lane changes.
C Ability to pass or change lanes is not assured. Most 54-57 1,100-1,550 20-30
experienced drivers are comfortable and posted
speed is maintained but roads are close to capacity.
This is the target LOS for most urban highways.
D Typical of an urban highway during commuting 46-54 1,550-1,850 30-42
hours. Speeds are somewhat reduced, motorists are
hemmed in by other cars and trucks.
E Flow becomes irregular and speed varies rapidly, 30-46 1,850-2,000 42-67
but rarely reaches the posted limit. On highways this
is consistent with a road over its designed capacity.
F Flow is forced, with frequent drops in speed to Under 30 Unstable 67-
nearly zero mph. Travel time is unpredictable. Maximum
This table summarizes highway Level of Service (LOS) rating, an indicator of congestion intensity.

Under optimal conditions a grade separated highway (no cross traffic) can carry up to
2,200 vehicles per hour (VPH) per lane. An arterial with intersections can carry about
half that. Table 3 indicates units commonly used to measure traffic. These are generally
measured during peak hours. Speed is generally based on the 85th percentile (the speed
below which 85% of vehicles travel). Traffic volumes are also sometimes measured as
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT), indicating traffic volumes averaged over a year.

Table 3 Basic Traffic Units

Parameter Typical Units Reciprocal Typical Units
Flow Vehicles per hour (Veh/h) Headway Seconds per vehicle (s/veh)
Speed Kilometers or miles per hour (Km/h) Travel time Seconds per km or mi (s/km)
Density Vehicles per lane-km or mi (veh/lane-km) Spacing Feet or meters per vehicle (m/veh)
This table summarizes units commonly used to measure vehicle traffic.

Terms and Concepts

• Traffic congestion can be recurrent (occurs daily, weekly or annually, making it easier to
manage) or non-recurrent (typically due to accidents, special events or road closures).
• Design vehicle refers to the largest and heaviest vehicle a roadway is designed to
accommodate. Passenger Car Equivalents (PCE) indicate the traffic impacts of larger
vehicles compared with a typical car.
• A queue is a line of waiting vehicles (for example, at an intersection). A platoon is group of
vehicles moving together (such as after traffic signals turn green).
• Capacity refers to the number of people or vehicles that could be accommodated. Load factor
refers to the portion of capacity that is actually used. For example, a load factor of 0.85
indicates that 85% of the maximum capacity is actually occupied.

4
 Multi-Modal Transportation Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

A typical transport planning process defines the minimum level-of-service considered

acceptable (typically LOS C or D). Roads that exceed this are considered to fail and so
deserve expansion or other interventions. This approach is criticized on these grounds:
• It focuses primarily on motor vehicle travel conditions. It assumes that transportation
generally consists of automobile travel, often giving little consideration to travel conditions
experienced by other modes. As a result, it tends to result in automobile dependency,
reducing modal diversity.
• It defines transportation problems primarily as traffic congestion, ignoring other types of
problems such as inadequate mobility for non-drivers, the cost burden of vehicle ownership
to consumers and parking costs to businesses, accident risk, and undesirable social and
environmental impacts.
• It ignores the tendency of traffic congestion to maintain equilibrium (as congestion increases,
traffic demand on a corridor stops growing), and the impacts of generated traffic (additional
peak-period vehicle travel that results from expanded congested roadways) and induced
travel (total increases in vehicle travel that result from expanded congested roadways). As a
result, it exaggerates the degree of future traffic congestion problems, the congestion
reduction benefits of expanding roads, and the increased external costs that can result from
expanding congested roadways.
• It can create a self-fulfilling prophecy by directing resources primarily toward roadway
expansion at the expense of other modes (widening roads and increasing traffic speeds and
volumes tends to degrade walking and cycling conditions, and often leaves little money or
road space for improving other modes).
• Short trips (within TAZs), travel by children, off-peak travel and recreational travel are often
ignored or undercounted in travel surveys and other statistics, resulting in walking and
cycling being undervalued in planning.

In recent years transportation planning has become more multi-modal and comprehensive,
considering a wider range of options and impacts. Transport planners have started to
apply Level-of-Service ratings to walking, cycling and public transit, and to consider
demand management strategies as alternatives to roadway capacity expansion.

Green Transportation Hierarchy Some urban areas have established a

1. Pedestrians transportation hierarchy which states that
2. Bicycles
3. Public Transportation
more resource efficient modes will be
4. Service and Freight Vehicles given priority over single occupant
5. Taxis automobile travel, particularly on
6. Multiple Occupant Vehicles congested urban corridors. This provides a
7. Single Occupant Vehicles basis for shifting emphasis in transport
planning, road space allocation, funding
The Green Transportation Hierarchy favors
more efficient (in terms of space, energy and and pricing to favor more efficient modes.
other costs) modes.

5
 Table 4 Mode Profiles
Mode Availability Speed Density Loads Costs Potential Users Limitations Appropriate Uses
Portion of locations and typical space ability to carry user costs Non- Handi-
times served speeds requirements baggage Drivers Poor capped
Wide (nearly 2-5 mph High Small Low Requires physical ability.
universal) Limited distance and carrying Short trips by physically able
Yes Yes Varies
Walking capacity. Sometimes difficult people.
or unsafe.
Limited (requires 2-5 mph Medium Small Med. Requires suitable sidewalk or Short urban trips by people
Yes Yes Yes path. Limited distance and with specific physical
Wheelchair suitable facilities)
carrying capacity. disabilities.
Wide (feasible on 5-15 Medium Small to Med. Requires bicycle and physical Short to medium length trips
most roads and mph medium ability. Limited distance and by physically able people on
Yes Yes Varies
Bicycle some paths) carrying capacity. suitable routes.
Moderate (in most 20-60 Low Medium High High costs and limited Infrequent trips, short and
Yes Limited Yes availability. medium distance trips.
Taxi urban areas) mph
Fixed Route Limited (major 20-40 High Small Med. Limited availability. Short to medium distance
Yes Yes Yes Sometimes difficult to use. trips along busy corridors.
Transit urban areas) mph
Paratransit Limited 10-30 Medium Small High Yes Yes Yes High cost and limited service. Travel for disabled people.
mph
Wide (nearly 20-60 Low Medium to High Requires driving ability and Travel by people who can
No Limited Varies automobile. Large space drive and afford an
Auto driver universal) mph large
requirements. High costs. automobile.
Ridesharing Limited (requires 20-60 High Medium Low Requires cooperative motorist. Trips that the driver would
(auto motorist, matching mph Consumes driver’s time if a take anyway (ridesharing).
Yes Yes Yes
passenger) services) special trip (chauffeuring). Occasional special trips
(chauffeuring).
Carsharing Limited (requires 20-60 Low Medium to Med. Requires convenient and Occasional use by drivers
No Limited Varies affordable vehicle rentals who don’t own an
(vehicle nearby services) mph large
rentals) services. automobile.
Wide (nearly 20-60 Medium Medium High Requires riding ability and Travel by people who can
No Limited No motorcycle. High fixed costs. ride and afford a motorcycle.
Motorcycle universal) mph
Telecommute Wide (nearly NA NA NA Med. Yes Varies Varies Requires equipment and skill. Alternative to some types of
universal) trips.
This table summarizes the performance of various transportation modes.

6
Multi-modal transportation planning is complicated because modes differ in various ways,
including their availability, speed, density, costs, limitations, and most appropriate uses
(Table 4). They are not equal substitutes; each is only appropriate for specific users and
uses.

Such analysis is even more complex because each mode includes various subcategories
with unique characteristics. For example, “pedestrians” include people standing, walking
alone and in groups, using canes and walkers, jogging and running, playing, walking pets,
carrying loads, and pushing hand carts. Their actual needs, abilities, impacts and value to
society can vary significantly, as indicated in Table 5.

Table 5 Nonmotorized Facility Uses Compared

Mode or Activity Facility Requirements Risk to Others Basic Mobility
Quality and quantity of Danger these users Whether the mode provides
pedestrian facilities impose on others basic mobility benefits)
People standing Minimal None NA
People sitting at benches or tables Seats or benches None NA
Individual walkers Minimal Low High
Walkers in groups Medium Low High
Walkers with children Medium Low High
Children playing Medium to large Medium Medium
Walkers with pets Medium to large Low Medium
Human powered wheelchairs Medium Low Very High
Motor powered wheelchairs Medium to large Medium to high Very High
Joggers and runners Medium to large Medium Medium
Skates and push-scooters Large Medium Low
Powered scooters and Segways Large Medium Low to high
Human powered bicycle Medium to large Medium to high Medium
Motorized bicycle Large High Low
People with handcarts or wagons Medium to large Low to medium Medium
Vendors with carts and wagons Medium to large Low Sometime (if the goods sold
are considered ‘basic’).
This table compares various nonmotorized facility users.

Similarly, public transit (also called public transportation or mass transit) includes
various types of services and vehicles. Table 6 summarizes the performance of various
types of public transit. Actual performance depends on specific circumstances; for
example costs per trip can vary depending on which costs are included (for example,
whether major new road or rail improvements are required, whether park&ride facilities
are included in transit budgets, construction and operating costs, load factors and types of
trips.

7
 Multi-Modal Transportation Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Table 6 Transit Modes Compared

Name Description Availability Speed Density Costs
Destinations Passenger Passenger Cost per trip
served travel speeds volumes
Heavy rail Relatively large, higher-speed trains, Limited to High Very high Very high
operating entirely on separate rights-of- major corridors
way, with infrequent stops, providing in large cities
service between communities.
Light Rail Moderate size, medium-speed trains, Limited to Medium High High
Transit (LRT) operating mainly on separate rights-of- major corridors
way, with variable distances between
stations, providing service between
urban neighborhoods and commercial
centers.
Streetcars (also Relatively small, lower-speed trains, Limited to Medium High High
called trams or operating primarily on urban streets, major corridors
trolleys) with frequent stops which provide
service along major urban corridors.
Fixed route bus Buses on scheduled routes. Widely Low to High Low to
transit available in medium medium
urban areas
Bus Rapid A bus system with features that provide Limited to Medium to High Low to
Transit (BRT) a high quality of service. major corridors high medium
Express bus Limited stop bus service designed for Limited to High High Low to
commuters and special events. major corridors medium
Ferry services Boats used to transport people and Limited to Low to Low to Medium to
vehicles. major corridors medium medium high
Paratransit Small buses or vans that provide door- Widely Low Low High
to-door, demand-response service. available
Personal Rapid Small, automated vehicles that provide Limited to Low to Low to Medium to
Transit (PRT) transit service, generally on tracks. major corridors medium medium high
Vanpool Vans used for ridesharing. Widely Medium to High Low
available high
Shared taxi. Private taxis that carry multiple Limited to busy Medium to Low to Medium to
customers. corridors high medium high
Taxi Conventional taxi service. Widely Medium to Low High
available high

Multi-modal transport planning requires tools for evaluating the quality of each mode,
such as Level-of-Service standards which can be used to indicate problems and ways to
improve each mode. Tables 7 and 8 indicate factors that can be considered when
evaluating different modes.

8
 Multi-Modal Transportation Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Table 7 Nonmotorized Level-Of-Service Rating Factors

Feature Definition Indicators
Network continuity Whether sidewalks and paths • Portion of streets with nonmotorized facilities.
exist, and connect throughout an • Length of path per capita.
area. • Network connectivity and density (kilometers of
sidewalks and paths per square kilometer).
Network quality Whether sidewalks and paths are • Sidewalk and path functional width.
properly designed and • Portion of sidewalks and paths that meet current
maintained. design standards.
• Portion of sidewalks and paths in good repair.
Road crossing Safety and speed of road • Road crossing widths.
crossings • Motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds.
• Average pedestrian crossing time.
• Quantity and quality of crosswalks, signals and
crossing guards.
Traffic protection Separation of nonmotorized • Distance between traffic lanes and sidewalks or
traffic from motorized traffic, paths.
particularly high traffic volumes • Presence of physical separators, such as trees and
and speeds. bollards.
• Speed control.
Congestion and Whether sidewalks and paths are • Functional width of sidewalk and paths.
user conflicts crowded or experience other • Peak-period density (people per square meter)
conflicts. • Clearance from hazards, such as street furniture
and performers within the right-of-way.
• Number of reported conflicts among users.
• Facility management to minimize user conflicts.
Topography Presence of steep inclines. • Portion of sidewalks and paths with steep inclines.
Sense of Security Perceived threats of accidents, • Reported security incidents.
assault, theft or abuse. • Quality of visibility and lighting.
Wayfinding Guidance for navigating within • Availability and quality of signs, maps and visitor
the station and to nearby information services.
destinations.
Weather protection User protected from sun and rain. • Presence of shade trees and awnings.
Cleanliness Cleanliness of facilities and • Litter, particularly potentially dangerous objects.
nearby areas. • Graffiti on facilities and nearby areas.
• Effectiveness of sidewalk and path cleaning
programs.
Attractiveness The attractiveness of the facility, • Quality of facility design.
nearby areas and destinations. • Quality of nearby buildings and landscaping.
• Area Livability (environmental and social quality
of an area).
• Community cohesion (quantity and quality of
positive interactions among people in an area).
• Number of parks and recreational areas accessible
by nonmotorized facilities.
Marketing Effectiveness of efforts to • Quality of nonmotorized education and promotion
encourage nonmotorized programs.
transportation. • Nonmotorized transport included in Commute
Trip Reduction programs.
This table summarizes factors to consider when evaluating walking and cycling conditions.

9
 Multi-Modal Transportation Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Table 8 Transit Level-of-Service Rating Factors

Feature Description Indicators
Availability Where and when transit • Annual service-kilometers per capita.
service is available. • Daily hours of service.
• Portion of destinations located within 500 meters of transit service.
• Hours of service.
Frequency Frequency of service • Trips per hour or day.
and average wait time. • Headways (time between trips).
• Average waiting times.
Travel Speed Transit travel speed. • Average vehicle speeds.
• Transit travel speed relative to driving the same trip.
• Door-to-door travel time.
Reliability How well service • On-time operation.
actually follows • Portion of transfer connections made.
published schedules. • Mechanical failure frequency.
Boarding Vehicle loading and • Dwell time.
speed unloading speed. • Boarding and alighting speeds.
Safety and Users perceived safety • Perceived transit passenger security.
security and security. • Accidents and injuries.
• Reported security incidents.
• Visibility and lighting.
• Absence of vandalism.
Price and Fare prices, structure, • Fares relative to average incomes.
affordability payment options, ease • Fares relative to other travel mode costs.
of purchase. • Payment options (cash, credit cards, etc.).
• Ticket availability (stations, stores, Internet, etc.).
Integration Ease of transferring • Quality of transit service to transport terminals.
between transit and • Ease of accessing transit service information from transport terminals.
other travel modes.
Comfort Passenger comfort • Seating availability and quality.
• Space (lack of crowding).
• Quiet (lack of excessive noise).
• Fresh air (lack of unpleasant smells).
• Temperature (neither too hot or cold).
• Cleanliness.
• Washrooms and refreshments (for longer trips).
Accessibility Ease of reaching • Distance from transit stations and stops to destinations.
stations and stops. • Walkability (quality of walking conditions) in areas serviced by transit.
Baggage Accommodation of • Ability, ease and cost of carrying baggage, including special items such as
capacity baggage. pets.
Universal Accommodation of • Accessible design for transit vehicles, stations and nearby areas.
design diverse users including • Ability to carry baggage.
special needs. • Accommodation of people who cannot read or understand the local language.
User Ease of obtaining user • Availability and accuracy of route, schedule and fare information.
information information. • Real-time transit vehicle arrival information.
• Information available to service people with special needs (audio or visual
disabilities, inability to read or understand the local language, etc.).
Courtesy and Courtesy with which • How passengers are treated by transit staff.
responsiveness passengers are treated. • Ease of filing a complaint.
• Speed and responsiveness with which complaints are treated.
Attractiveness The attractiveness of • Attractiveness of vehicles and facilities.
transit facilities. • Attractiveness of documents and websites.
Marketing Effectiveness of efforts • Popularity of promotion programs.
to encourage public • Effectiveness at raising the social status of transit travel.
transport. • Increases in public transit ridership in response to marketing efforts.
This table summarizes factors that can be considered when evaluating public transit services.

10
 Multi-Modal Transportation Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Automobile Dependency and Multi-Modalism

Automobile dependency refers to transportation and land use patterns that favor
automobile travel and provide relatively inferior alternatives. Its opposite, multi-
modalism, refers to a transport system that offers users diverse transport options that are
effectively integrated, in order to provide a high degree of accessibility even for non-
drivers. Table 9 compares automobile dependency and multi-modal transport systems.

Table 9 Auto Dependency and Multi-Modal Transportation Compared

Factor Automobile Dependency Multi-modal Transportation
Motor vehicle Medium per capita motor vehicle
ownership High per capita motor vehicle ownership. ownership.
Vehicle travel High per capita motor vehicle mileage. Medium to low vehicle mileage.
Land use density Low. Common destinations are dispersed. Medium. Destinations are clustered
Land use mix Single-use development patterns. More mixed-use development.
Land for transport Large amounts of land devoted to roads Medium amounts devoted to roads
and parking. and parking.
Road design Emphasizes automobile traffic. Supports multiple modes and users.
Street scale Large scale streets and blocks. Small to medium streets and blocks.
Traffic speeds Maximum traffic speeds. Lower traffic speeds.
Walking Mainly in private malls. Mainly on public streets.
Signage Large scale, for high speed traffic. Medium scale, for lower-speed traffic.
Parking Generous supply, free. Moderate supply, some pricing.
Site design Parking paramount, in front of buildings. Parking sometimes behind buildings.
Planning Practices Non-drivers are a small minority with little Planning places are high value on
political influence. modal diversity.
Social expectations Non-drivers are stigmatized and their Non-drivers are not stigmatized and
needs given little consideration. their needs are considered.
This table compares automobile dependency and multi-modal transport systems.

Automobile dependency is a matter of degree. Few places are totally automobile

dependent (that is, driving is the only form of transport). Many relatively automobile
dependent areas often have significant amounts of walking, cycling, and transit travel
among certain groups or situations. Even ‘car free’ areas usually have some automobile
travel by emergency, delivery and service vehicles.

Automobile dependency has many impacts. It increases total mobility (per capita travel),
vehicle traffic, and associated costs. It makes non-drivers economically and socially
disadvantaged, since they have higher financial and time costs or less ability to access
activities. This tends to reduce opportunities, for example, for education, employment and
recreation. In an automobile dependent community virtually every adult is expected to
have a personal automobile (as opposed to a household automobile shared by multiple
drivers), non-drivers require frequent chauffeuring, and it is difficult to withdraw driving
privileges from unfit people since alternatives are inferior. Automobile dependency
reduces the range of solutions that can be used to address problems such as traffic
congestion, road and parking facility costs, crashes, and pollution.

11
 Multi-Modal Transportation Planning
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

References and Information Resources

BCMoT (2008), 2008/09–2010/11 Service Plan, British Columbia Ministry of Transportation
(www.gov.bc.ca/tran); at www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/Annual_Reports/2007_2008/trans/trans.pdf.

CALTRANS (2008), Planning Frequently Asked Questions, California Department of

Transportation (www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/index.html); at www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/faqs.html.

CALTRANS (2002), Guide For The Preparation Of Traffic Impact Studies, California DOT
(www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/operationalsystems/reports/tisguide.pdf)

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

FDOT (2002), Quality/Level of Service Handbook, Florida Department of Transportation

(www.dot.state.fl.us); at www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los.

FHWA and FTA (2007), The Transportation Planning Process Key Issues: A Briefing Book for
Transportation Decisionmakers, Officials, and Staff, FHWA-HEP-07-039, FHWA and FTA
(www.planning.dot.gov); at www.planning.dot.gov/documents/briefingbook/bbook.htm.

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

Todd Litman (2007), Guide to Calculating Mobility Management Benefits, Victoria Transport
Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/tdmben.pdf.

Todd Litman (2008), Comprehensive Transport Planning: Best Practices For Evaluating All
Options And Impacts, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/comprehensive.pdf.

MWCG (2006), Transportation Models & Forecasts, Metropolitan Washington Council of

Governments (www.mwcog.org/transportation/activities/models).

PennDOT (2007), The Transportation and Land Use Toolkit: A Planning Guide for Linking
Transportation to Land Use and Economic Development, Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation,
PUB 616 (3-07); at (ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/PubsForms/Publications/PUB%20616.pdf).

PSRC (2008), Transportation 2040 (long-range transport plan) and Transportation Improvement
Program (three-year transportation plan), Puget Sound Regional Council
(http://psrc.org/projects/tip/index.htm).

TransLink (2008), Transport 2040 Plan (strategic plan) and 2008 Transportation and Financial
Plan (annual plan), TransLink (www.translink.bc.ca/Plans/Transport_plan.asp).

WSDOT (2006), Washington State Transportation Plan, Washington State Department of

Transportation (www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/wtp).

www.vtpi.org/multimodal_planning.pdf

12

View publication stats