The value of time

Appraisals and evaluations were a new and interesting topic for me to explore this week and I will be reflecting on this subject today. Specifically, I want to highlight the problematic task with placing a value of time travel and the possibility of doing so for active transportation. Placing a value on our time is a fascinating concept. As postulated in the literature, in using a set of values of time, the economic benefits of a transport project can be quantified in order to compare them to the costs, thus forming the basis of cost-benefit analysis.

The most fascinating take away for me in looking at this is that the value of time varies considerably from person to person and depends upon the purpose of the journey - for instance, is the person attending a job interview or are they simply heading out to get a coffee? Are they meeting someone, or are they going alone? Do they need to cross a dangerous intersection? Valuing time accurately is fraught with complexities and using a single value doesn't always capture the many variables and circumstances at play.

This also brings up the issues of valuing active transport. Unique to active transport modes is that you can't work while you undertake these activities - so our value of time may increase. It's also important to note that unlike motorised trips which are usually undertaken to consume an activity at a destination, many active transport trips are discretionary and occurring for their own sake. For instance, I primarily walk when I take my dogs out at night. It also appears that numerous co benefits of these modes exist due to climate change mitigation and health, however due to the complexity in translating these to monetary values, they are often poorly undertaken or omitted from investment appraisals. I believe it is critical that we are able to adequately represent the likely impacts and benefits, especially the societal costs on a inactive nation (ie. greater in-hospital patient care). 

Towards Zero...

I was particularly drawn to the similarities between this week's topic covering Vision Zero and the adverts I've been seeing for TAC’s Towards Zero campaign, asking Victorians to aim for zero deaths on our roads each year. The angle of the Towards Zero campaign is to put a face to road trauma - it is not just a number, but rather someone's brother, sister, father. This appears to be an expression of the ethical imperative within the vision, 'it can never be ethically acceptable that people are killed or seriously injured when moving within the road transport system.' 

Towards Zero is a departure from past campaigns such as 'if you drink and drive, you're a bloody idiot' or raw imagery of fatal crashes. This new approach is a change from an emphasis on current problems to being guided by what the optimum state of the road transport system should be -  the basis of Vision Zero. Now more than ever, it seems cars are negatively impacting the lives of individuals - through congestion, air pollution and car crashes. In some respects, we have created a mentality that prioritises the automobile over human life. I wondered if the goal of zero deaths is achievable as outlined in the SMART acronym. That aside, I think for me it gives a new perspective, especially on the need for better system design. The transport system is so intricately interwoven in our lives that human health and life needs to be a key integrating factor in policies. If we want increased accessibility, but we can only reach that by an increased inherent safety.

Looking at predecessor campaigns such as that of Sweden and NYC, it was interesting to recognise a number of shocks that prompted and provoked policy change, particularly in NYC where the city experienced three deaths in a matter of days - and particularly that of young Cooper Stock. I see shocks happening in other systems all the time - asylum seekers, shootings, domestic violence, healthcare - but we see little policy change occurring. I think this highlights the real role political will and agenda play.

Lastly on this topic, something else which struck me from the NYC case study was the shared responsibility of the transport system between civilians and policymakers and new challenges for planners and designers arising with the advent of technology - ie. drivers looking at their GPS and pedestrians distracted looking down at their phones. While driving can be regulated and governed by laws, walking is an everyday part of life. Walking laws doesn't seem fair. Perhaps the answer is in smart design, alerts and education.