2017-08-31

Contents

  • Introduction: the Propensity to Cycle Tool
  • Putting active travel 'on the map'
  • Some Results and discussion

Introduction

The Propensity to Cycle Tool - see www.pct.bike

The front page of the open source, open access Propensity to Cycle Tool (PCT).

The front page of the open source, open access Propensity to Cycle Tool (PCT).

Context: from concept to implementation

It's been an intense 2.5 years!

Concept (PhD) -> Job at UoL (2009 - 2013)
 Discovery of R programming and shiny (2013)
  'Propensity to Cycle' bid by DfT via SDG (2014)
    Link-up with Cambridge University and colleagues (2015)
     Implementation on national OD dataset, 700k routes (2016)
      Completed LSOA phase (4 million lines!) (2017)
  • 2018: (Global PCT?)
  • Now publised in the Journal of Transport and Land Use (JTLU) (Lovelace et al. 2017)

Prior work (source: Lovelace et al. 2017)

Tool Scale Coverage Public access Format of output Levels of analysis Software licence
Propensity to Cycle Tool National England Yes Online map A, OD, R, RN Open source
Prioritization Index City Montreal No GIS-based P, A, R Proprietary
PAT Local Parts of Dublin No GIS-based A, OD, R Proprietary
Usage intensity index City Belo Horizonte No GIS-based A, OD, R, I Proprietary
Bicycle share model National England, Wales No Static A, R Unknown
Cycling Potential Tool City London No Static A, I Unknown
Santa Monica model City Santa Monica No Static P, OD, A Unknown

The PCT team

"If you want to go far, go as a team"

Robin Lovelace (Lead Developer, University of Leeds)

  • James Woodcock (Principal Investigator, Cambridge University)
  • Anna Goodman (Lead Data Analyst, LSHTM)
  • Rachel Aldred (Lead Policy and Practice, Westminster University)
  • Ali Abbas (User Interface, University of Cambridge)
  • Alvaro Ullrich (Data Management, University of Cambridge)
  • Nikolai Berkoff (System Architecture, Independent Developer)
  • Malcolm Morgan (GIS and infrastructure expert, UoL)

Policy feedback

"The PCT is a brilliant example of using Big Data to better plan infrastructure investment. It will allow us to have more confidence that new schemes are built in places and along travel corridors where there is high latent demand."

  • Shane Snow: Head of Seamless Travel Team, Sustainable and Acessible Travel Division

"The PCT shows the country’s great potential to get on their bikes, highlights the areas of highest possible growth and will be a useful innovation for local authorities to get the greatest bang for their buck from cycling investments  and realise cycling potential."

  • Andrew Jones, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport

The PCT in CWIS and LCWIP

Included in Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Strategy (CWIS) and the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP)

How the PCT works

Shows on the map where there is high cycling potential, for 4 scenarios of change

  • Government Target
  • Gender Equality
  • Go Dutch
  • Ebikes

Scenario shift in desire lines

Source: Lovelace et al. (2017)

  • Origin-destination data shows 'desire lines'
  • How will these shift with cycling uptake

Scenario shift in network load

A live demo for Leeds

"Actions speak louder than words"

Putting active travel 'on the map'

Overlaying propensity to cycle to school and work

New LSOA layer

Crowd sourced data (Strava vs PCT)

Where to prioritise?

  • Plans to create a toolkit for cycling infrastructure prioritisation
  • Combines many datasets to identify 'low hanging fruit'

Credit: Malcolm Morgan

The impacts of transport infrastructre

Credit: flickr user thestuff, Creative Commons Licence

Research into impacts of roads

The extension of the M74 motorway = 'natural experiment':

  • People who live near motorways seem to be less physically active (Ogilvie et al. 2017)
  • And more car dependent (Prins et al. 2017)
    • Although no evidence of impacts on active travel

Research into impacts of roads II

A recent review of impact assessment methods in the English context found that an increasingly wide range of methods and approaches were being used (Tajima and Fischer 2013):

  • Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
  • Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)
  • Health Impact Assessment (HIA)
  • Gender Impact Assessment (GIA)
  • Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA)

  • But overall not a huge amount of research in the area, particularly in relation to the impact on active travel:

  • "there is very little empirical data on the impact of road transport interventions", aside from injury reduction estimates (Thomson et al. 2008)

Active travel impacts: a typology

A typology of active travel options.

A typology of active travel options.

Some results and Discussion

National-level of results

  • Simulated uptake of cycling across UK: 3 -> 18% travel to work under Go Dutch, 2 million fewer car commutes.
  • Estimates of benefits authority by authority (e.g. £50 million/yr health benefit in Birmingham)
  • Large environmental benefit in the numbers (but not pushed in our write-up)

Cycling opportunities and threats

Scenario N. commuters N. cycling % cycling Distance (km, Euclidean)
Baseline
Touching buffer 53665 1537 2.9 11.9
Parallel selection 2583 28 1.1 13
Perpendicular selection 1678 21 1.3 18.5
Cycling to stations 574 3 0.5 17.9
Scenario
Touching buffer 53665 2568 4.8 11.9
Parallel selection 2583 61 2.4 13
Perpendicular selection 1678 36 2.2 18.5
Cycling to stations 574 49.5 8.6 2.6

How to maximise the benefits of research -> implementation step?

Lessons learned:

  • Decision makers want evidence and visualisations to support decision making
  • Focus on a vision of the 'end product' at the outset
  • Don't become a consultant!

But where next?

  • UrbanSim model: Privatise code? Privatise company?
  • Conveyal model: Open source code? Privatise profits?
  • Academic model: Open source code? Profits -> research?
  • Non-profit options?

Final question

  • How to integrate this work in existing tools?
  • How to ensure maximum policy impact?
  • How reproducibility can help?
  • Check out CyIPT

Thanks + References

  • Thanks for listening - get in touch via r.lovelace@leeds.ac.uk or @robinlovelace

Lovelace, Robin, Anna Goodman, Rachel Aldred, Nikolai Berkoff, Ali Abbas, and James Woodcock. 2017. “The Propensity to Cycle Tool: An Open Source Online System for Sustainable Transport Planning.” Journal of Transport and Land Use, December. doi:10.5198/jtlu.2016.862.

Tajima, Ryo, and Thomas B Fischer. 2013. “Should Different Impact Assessment Instruments Be Integrated? Evidence from English Spatial Planning.” Environmental Impact Assessment Review 41: 29–37.

Thomson, Hilary, Ruth Jepson, Fintan Hurley, and Margaret Douglas. 2008. “Assessing the Unintended Health Impacts of Road Transport Policies and Interventions: Translating Research Evidence for Use in Policy and Practice.” BMC Public Health 8: 339. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-8-339.