Phil Goodwin

385 Followers
335 Following
73 Posts
UK Emeritus Professor of Transport Policy, UCL, UWE, Oxford. Research on travel demand, sustainable transport, induced traffic, reallocation of road capacity, public transport and active travel, listed at https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=3hF5I4oAAAAJ&hl=en. Tweets at @Phil_Goodwin99. 20 years of commentary and controversy in Local Transport Today https://www.transportxtra.com.
In the current Local Transport Today and (free to view) in the Tapas Network. Lisa Hopkinson and my piece on #inducedtraffic, summarising historic and new research findings since the 1920s and explaining why it is disingenuous to describe this very substantial body of evidence as 'limited'. https://tapas.network/35/hopkinsongoodwin.php
Induced traffic: yet again a worryingly overlooked dimension in crucial road planning and appraisal policy

Any attempt to write an academically profound history of transport theory by assuming it had been made in the academic journals, rather than in the 'grey literature', would not just be ignorant, it would also misunderstand and misrepresent the history. Literature reviews treating 'grey' publications as second class sources cannot comprehend the origins of transport policy and methodology, and are barriers to improving both. My LTT and TAPAS article free to view at tapas.network/32/goodwin.php
@PhilGoodwin That's what we're doing in Scotland.
You still need the 'without 20%' future so you can see how much the intervention (and not just road schemes) moves you toward (or even away from) your desired with 20% reduction future.
If a Government seriously wants to reduce overall road traffic by, say, 20%, then appraisal of every new road scheme must include its potential performance under the *possibility* of 20% less traffic. Isn't that completely obvious? It still needs implementation of course, and different ways to to do so, which will change the % for different markets. But to exclude the future you actually want is self-defeating.
The book 'Why Travel?' (Niblett and Beuret, Eds, Bristol University Press) proposes that the need and desire to travel is a fundamental human characteristic 'hard-wired' into us by evolution and history. Some have interpreted this as implying that any attempt to reduce travel runs against our inherent humanity and is bound to fail. But the evidence is ambiguous, the argument partial, and the conclusion flawed. My critical LTT article free to view at https://tapas.network/28/goodwin.php
Is all our travelling just a basic human need - or are some of us simply justifying unrealistic expectations?

Meanwhile in #shipping the problem of vessel/seafarer abandonment is rising;

vessels are abandoned by shippers/owners when the costs of completing the voyage or repairing the ship outweigh the return from selling the cargo... for the #workers (seafarers) involved abandonment means unpaid #wages & being marooned in a shop without power or ability to legally dock.

But this is hardly known about outside the sector as Sarah O'Conner (FT) points out & who would tolerate this treatment on land?

@PhilGoodwin
This really is superbly useful on scenarios for testing policy. I hope that
@LDN_Planning will read it, and then please will you both go on to do LTNs.
How to resolve the 3-way tension in road plans between (A) preparing for further climate change, (B) the need for traffic reductions, and (C) projections of traffic increases? Read @jillian_anable's and my submission about this to the UK Transport Committee inquiry on Strategic Roads, at https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/117633/pdf/
How to resolve the 3-way tension in road plans between (A) preparing for further climate change, (B) the need for traffic reductions, and (C) projections of traffic increases? Read @jillian_anable's and my submission about this to the UK Transport Committee inquiry on Strategic Roads, at https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/117633/pdf/