Good day my good friend.

No long-winded introduction today (partly because I’m exhausted and its the night before you receive this, and sleep sounds very good right now). So lets get straight to the news.

If you have any suggestions for interesting news items or bits of research to include in this newsletter, you can email me.

James

The economics of delivery is also about the economics of restaurants

It goes without saying that there are different markets for different deliveries – sending food, for example, is a markedly different market to sending a letter. Too often in transport what we do is focus on the economics of competing delivery businesses and the impacts that they have on city streets. In short, in congested environments more delivery drivers is a bad thing for traffic. But transport planning 101 is that demand for transport is a derived demand, so we need to think about competition and economic factors in the industries making those choices.

A really interesting economic study has been done about how competition in the market for restaurants affects the delivery market in New York. And while the conclusions are logical, they are worth considering. In areas where competition for restaurants is high, more restaurants are likely to exit the food delivery market, and even more interestingly do not adjust their tactics for delivery when there are new entrants. For transport planning, what this means is that there is a higher turnover of delivery companies and drivers, and those sending out food will not change their ways. Think about how that affects policies for managing delivery traffic in major cities.

Is it better to over-promise and under-deliver?

Some comments by Stuart Grieg of Transport Scotland got me thinking. To paraphrase what he said, when it comes to sustainable transport, it is better to set a target just out of reach and fail to achieve it (just) than it is to set an unambitious but achievable target. There is a logic there if the scale of change is greater than an unambitious target. For example, if you set a target to get 50% of people regularly using buses and you achieve 25%, its better than setting a target of 20% and meeting it. The problem is when you struggle to meet miserly targets, which is what Transport Scotland are doing.

Best practice guidance on transport policy states it is better to have SMART objectives (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Target-Driven). And setting them is as much an art as it is a science. Its why I prefer stretched targets based on a good knowledge of your established capability and what capability you can invest in, and not ones totally driven by a vision. But Stuart’s comments are worth considering.

Random things

These links are meant to make you think about the things that affect our world in transport, and not just think about transport itself. I hope that you enjoy them.

• AI experts are increasingly afraid of what they’re creating (Vox)

• Village Green (Monocle)

• The world map of the future might be vertical (Big Think)

• The rise of Archaeologists Anonymous (Unherd)

• The People Cheering for Humanity’s End (The Atlantic)

Something interesting

It’s official. Americans like bike lanes, bus stops, parks and playgrounds more than they do parking garages. Didn’t Joni Mitchell sing about something similar? Regardless, our friends across the pond also don’t like casinos and country clubs!

If you do nothing else today, then do this

The Mayor of London has produced a rather good report on safety in public space for women, girls, and those who are gender diverse. Building on what I said yesterday, this has moved from challenging norms to showing good practice. Which is a very good thing.