What is Active Transport?

[ozbob]

What is Active Transport?

Active transport is defined as physical activity undertaken as a means of transport and not purely as a form of recreation. Active transport generally refers to walking and cycling for travel to and/or from a destination, but may also include other activities such as roller blading or use of public transport.

Many people find that choosing active transport options is an effective way to build physical activity into their daily routines and busy schedules. Active transport also has the added benefit to communities and the environment of reduced traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.

Source: http://www.goforyourlife.vic.gov.au/hav/articles.nsf/pages/Active_Transport?open

[ButFli]

The use of the term "active transport" to describe motorized public transport is wrong even if it does occur.

True active transport should be funded by both the Health and Transport departments of all levels of Government.

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/Robert_Dow/status/928371402192822272

[verbatim9]

Looking for a great way to keep fit and healthy and explore your local area? Reboot Your Commute with active travel!

Try hopping off your service a stop earlier to clock up some extra steps! You can even set yourself a challenge to increase the distance one stop at a time.

For more active travel tips, visit http://bit.ly/2FyjJmg

Translink--- Reboot your commute with Active Travel

[ozbob]

https://twitter.com/BrentToderian/status/1656353490518540289

[#Metro]

The more people that walk and bike in cities, the better cities work for everyone.

FOR EVERYONE.

That's just a fact. Anyone who denies it doesn't understand cities, or is lying on purpose.

So WHY do we keep FAILING to design cities that make walking and biking attractive? 2/2

(bolding added by me)

Well, you don't have to be ignorant or a liar to see why some modes are not good substitutes for other modes for certain trips. It's a harsh criticism Brent is making.

You just have to understand that people tend to act in ways that serve their own interests, not the public interest.

If two competing modes offer the same door-to-door journey time, all else equal, prospective passengers will be indifferent to which mode they take. You would expect roughly an even split of choices. Likewise, if two competing modes have different door-to-door journey times, then the mode that gives the shorter journey time - all else equal - will be the preferred one.

This will all be reflected in mode shares, which are another way of expressing the 'market share' of each mode. In reality, this will of course be clouded by things like differences in fares, parking charges, fuel costs etc, but the point is to get at the fundamental reasons of why people choose one mode over another.

Time-equivalence is one hypothesis for explaining why mode share targets seem to be very hard to move. And key to understanding why initiatives that work at one location will not work well at other locations, even in the same city. This is why I think it's so important to match the right tool to the right situation and be adaptive.

It explains observations such as why CityCycle, Free-Tram Zones, and eScooters tend to decrease walking trips more than car trips. It explains why cycling is a viable option for someone going to the CBD in West End but maybe not for someone in Bellbowrie. And so on.

I think a recent example on this forum was criticism that Landsborough Station was getting expanded P&R. But IMHO in that location it makes sense.

City planners get criticised for many things. One of the things they should not be, however, is for not wanting to advance initiatives that would be unlikely to deliver PT/AT mode shift in areas where it is unlikely to succeed. Their efforts are best focused areas where they can make the greatest wins. And plainly, that just is not everywhere equally across the entire city.

Whoever you are, and wherever you are, there's an area you could get to in an amount of time that's available in your day. That limit defines a wall around your life.  Outside that wall are places you can't work, places you can't shop, schools you can't attend, clubs you can't belong to, people you can't hang out with, and a whole world of things you can't do.

Basics: Access, or the Wall Around Your Life
https://humantransit.org/basics-access-or-the-wall-around-your-life

[Jonno]

The more people that walk and bike in cities, the better cities work for everyone.

FOR EVERYONE.

That's just a fact. Anyone who denies it doesn't understand cities, or is lying on purpose.

So WHY do we keep FAILING to design cities that make walking and biking attractive? 2/2

(bolding added by me)

Well, you don't have to be ignorant or a liar to see why some modes are not good substitutes for other modes for certain trips. It's a harsh criticism Brent is making.

You just have to understand that people tend to act in ways that serve their own interests, not the public interest.

If two competing modes offer the same door-to-door journey time, all else equal, prospective passengers will be indifferent to which mode they take. You would expect roughly an even split of choices. Likewise, if two competing modes have different door-to-door journey times, then the mode that gives the shorter journey time - all else equal - will be the preferred one.

This will all be reflected in mode shares, which are another way of expressing the 'market share' of each mode. In reality, this will of course be clouded by things like differences in fares, parking charges, fuel costs etc, but the point is to get at the fundamental reasons of why people choose one mode over another.

Time-equivalence is one hypothesis for explaining why mode share targets seem to be very hard to move. And key to understanding why initiatives that work at one location will not work well at other locations, even in the same city. This is why I think it's so important to match the right tool to the right situation and be adaptive.

It explains observations such as why CityCycle, Free-Tram Zones, and eScooters tend to decrease walking trips more than car trips. It explains why cycling is a viable option for someone going to the CBD in West End but maybe not for someone in Bellbowrie. And so on.

I think a recent example on this forum was criticism that Landsborough Station was getting expanded P&R. But IMHO in that location it makes sense.

City planners get criticised for many things. One of the things they should not be, however, is for not wanting to advance initiatives that would be unlikely to deliver PT/AT mode shift in areas where it is unlikely to succeed. Their efforts are best focused areas where they can make the greatest wins. And plainly, that just is not everywhere equally across the entire city.

Whoever you are, and wherever you are, there's an area you could get to in an amount of time that's available in your day. That limit defines a wall around your life.  Outside that wall are places you can't work, places you can't shop, schools you can't attend, clubs you can't belong to, people you can't hang out with, and a whole world of things you can't do.

Basics: Access, or the Wall Around Your Life
https://humantransit.org/basics-access-or-the-wall-around-your-life

If you listen to what Brent teaches, you will learn there should not be places where "PT/AT mode shift is unlikely to succeed". If there are you have built your city, town, region wrong. 

He will also tell you the 8 most unhelpful words in the English language "You could never do THAT in OUR city"

Please stop using bad design decision over the last 50 years and "debunked modelling" to prove that things can't change. Our politicians are ding a good enough job at that so don't help them..

[#Metro]

If you listen to what Brent teaches, you will learn there should not be places where "PT/AT mode shift is unlikely to succeed". If there are you have built your city, town, region wrong.

He will also tell you the 8 most unhelpful words in the English language "You could never do THAT in OUR city"

Please stop using bad design decision over the last 50 years and "debunked modelling" to prove that things can't change. Our politicians are ding a good enough job at that so don't help them.

Like I said "you didn't spend enough money there" theory cannot explain many observations satisfactorily.

Like why cycling and walking mode share drops off with increasing distance from the CBD.

Is it because the infrastructure is not there, or is it because even if it were provided, it would still be much slower than the competing alternatives?

And how would one apply Brent's principles to say, people on the Gold Coast, MBRC, Ipswich, Logan, or Sunshine Coast and commute into Brisbane? I cannot see a practical application of what he is saying to our situation.

Marchetti's Constant: The curious principle that shapes our cities
https://bigthink.com/strange-maps/marchettis-constant/

[Jonno]

Need the big flashing screen from QI

"You could never do THAT in OUR city"

[#Metro]

"You could never do THAT in OUR city"

If you listen to what Brent teaches, you will learn there should not be places where "PT/AT mode shift is unlikely to succeed". If there are you have built your city, town, region wrong.

Mr Toderian was the head of planning for many years for Vancouver City Council (which to be fair, is one part of a wider metro area). Oddly enough, Vancouver City Council fired him in 2012 without cause.

Vancouver shows decline in AT mode share as you get further away from the inner city. To me, that's just confirming the obvious, people prefer motorised methods (car/PT) over non-motorised methods (walking cycling) as distances increase. You will also see that cycling generally in Vancouver is generally low (below 5%).

You cannot view this attachment.

You cannot view this attachment. 

Source: http://www.metrovancouver.org/metro2040/sustainable-transportation/vehicle-use/mode-share/Pages/default.aspx

[RowBro]

The reason isnt the distance from the city, its the distance from any amenities at all. If all the necessities were within a close proximity to someones house and there was adequate biking infrastructure Im sure it would be rather popular.

[#Metro]

The reason isnt the distance from the city, its the distance from any amenities at all. If all the necessities were within a close proximity to someones house and there was adequate biking infrastructure Im sure it would be rather popular.

I hear you, but its hard to see how a CBD area with the jobs would be dispersed given that companies generally centralise their workforce there.

Like, if I were a public servant working at 1 William Street in the CBD, how would that be dispersed across Brisbane's suburbs given that the employees all live all over the city? There are 190 suburbs in Brisbane.

On average, every SEQ resident generates 3.3 trips per day. I suspect at least two of those trips are the commute to and from work, which is very likely to be in the CBD.

[RowBro]

The reason isnt the distance from the city, its the distance from any amenities at all. If all the necessities were within a close proximity to someones house and there was adequate biking infrastructure Im sure it would be rather popular.

I hear you, but its hard to see how a CBD area with the jobs would be dispersed given that companies generally centralise their workforce there.

Like, if I were a public servant working at 1 William Street in the CBD, how would that be dispersed across Brisbane's suburbs given that the employees all live all over the city? There are 190 suburbs in Brisbane.

Thats where public transport comes in. PT for longer distances and AT for shorter distances. The more that is within the AT radius the better, but obviously a lot of office work will continue to be in the CBD.

[Jonno]

Worth watching

[#Metro]

^ Thanks for this Jonno. Great video and applicable here.

It's worth re-examining this comment:

If you listen to what Brent teaches, you will learn there should not be places where "PT/AT mode shift is unlikely to succeed".

The video supplied shows that being selective about where in the city to invest is crucial because not all locations will give you the same level of return on effort.

For example, there is a section in the video where they discuss what market they are going to compete for. The planners map out the car trips and separate the short-distance car trips from the long-distance car trips. The use modelling software for this.

You cannot view this attachment.

They then decided that substituting the longer trips are not worth the battle, and that the focus should be on competing against the shorter car trips. Specifically, short car trips that are < 5 km.
I think this is the way to go, because being selective maximises the chances of success.

You cannot view this attachment.

Source: https://bike-lab.org/cities/austin/ and Active Towns