MAXimizing Success: a New Approach to the Evaluation of Mobility Management Projects
M Carreno, T Rye, Transport Research Institute, Napier University, UK
In order to persuade practitioners and policy makers to adopt mobility management (MM) strategies there is a need for these decision makers to accept, understand and be able to predict (with confidence) their likely effectiveness. To satisfy these requirements there is a need for a greater understanding of how MM interventions affect individuals? modal choice decisions and robust evaluation techniques that will allow any behavioural changes to be observed.
This paper considers three key questions, namely;
 Do mobility management (MM) type interventions work? (i.e. do they change individuals mode choice behaviour and if yes to what extent).
Evidence to support the effectiveness of mobility management strategies is increasingly well documented, although re-examination of available data reveals some inconsistencies (and over estimations) in the actual extent of changes in behaviour reported. These inconsistencies (and confusion) are in primarily due to the typical methods used in evaluations, specifically one-group pre-post test style evaluations which restrict the ability to establish cause and effect.
 How do MM interventions work?
It is increasingly acknowledged that in any given population some people are more susceptible to change travel behaviours than other. Further, behavioural change in most cases is not a one-step process, rather is a process that occurs over a period of time. This has implications for both the selection (and design) of the most appropriate MM to implement for any given population (based on their susceptibility to change behaviour).
 How best to measure their effects?
Taking into account the considerations from questions 1 and 2, there is a need to ?improve? on current evaluation methodologies (via the use of more robust methods) and to include measurements of the more subtle non-overt behavioural change aspects likely to result from interventions.
The paper then provides a summary of a recent review regarding the effectiveness of MM measures, highlighting inconsistencies in results obtained which is linked to the way current evaluations are typically performed. Practical solutions are then suggested to how these issues can be addressed, specifically via the use of more robust evaluation methods (e.g. Randomised controlled type designs) and the inclusion of diagnostic procedures to measure individuals stage positions (based on their susceptibility to change behaviour) and stage movement (progression towards actual behavioural change).
Association for European Transport