Last Mile Commute: An Integral Component and Driver of Sustainability of Passengers Accessibility in Urban Transport

Increasingly, the relevance and clamour for transit solutions that integrate the first and last mile commute infrastructure has assumed increasing relevance in the discourse of sustainable urban transport and social inclusion in cities. As evident in several past studies, critical deficiencies in transit solutions have been exemplified by transit systems which majorly over-emphasize intervention that stops at transit hubs without cognizance to infrastructure linking these hubs to final phase of commute of passengers. Rethinking and re-inventing the position of last mile commute infrastructure within urban transport fabric may become even more imperative especially when the environmental, social, economic costs and impacts of the fragmented, inconvenient and unsafe access to transit hub that predominates this phase of passenger commute is analyzed. First and last mile commute infrastructure in cities is posited by various studies as a concrete theme with potentials to reforming cities faced with the risk of commuters’ preference for cars usage and importantly to reverse social exclusion.

This paper is premised on qualitative and quantitative data sets which were triangulated to generate arguments that are consistent with the suggested disconnect between last mile commute and transit solutions in rapidly urbanizing cities using Abuja Nigeria as an exemplar illustrative case of global south cities. The findings provided evidences towards making explanation of how the existing transport network and intervention paid less consideration to the cost-saving, social inclusiveness and environmental efficiency impacts attributable to the integration of last mile commute infrastructure within public transport network. The absence of a safe and convenient last mile commute infrastructure emerged in the analyses as a strong explanatory variable for increased passenger transportation costs.

Keyword: Bicycling infrastructure, first and last mile commute, passenger accessibility, sustainable transport, rapidly urbanizing cities.

Increasingly, consensus of researchers and research evidences in the realm of sustainable transport has indicated that first and last mile commute remain a concrete theme that contributes to the optimization of transit infrastructure intervention (public transport network/system). Notwithstanding this demonstrable critical role of first and last mile commute, evidences have indicated that discourses in the sustainable transport realm show that first and last mile is an often neglected theme (Shaheen et al. 2010, Shaheen and Guzman, 2011, Fishman et al. 2013, Litman 2012, Van Wee, 2012, and ITDP, 2014). This is especially in instances where transit infrastructure intervention over-emphasizes engineering solution of road building and expansion to address transport challenges which include traffic congestion.

Evidences of impacts resulting from transit infrastructure intervention that stops at transit hubs and neglects first and last mile commute depict unsafe walking and cycling system, not only due to lack of safe segregated pathways, but because this phase of commute is predominated by motorized mode which may include private cars, commercial motorcycle and rickshaw (Seema, 2014, Cohen and Kietzmann, 2014, Litman, 1999, 2012). In this situation, evidences show that the arrays of impacts resulting from the motorization of this phase of commute include traffic accidents from pedestrian – motorist conflict, air pollution, transport – related Greenhouse Gas emission; and increased daily transport expenditure by commuters (Litman, 2003, Molina et al. 2004, Schipper et al. 2000, Seema 2013, Cervero 2000, Cohen and Kietzmann, 2014).

As it is already evident, in literature and empirical evidences, the convenience and increased accessibility which integrated first and last mile commute infrastructure present to commuters has the capacity to spur transit ridership, retrofit the highlighted impacts and reduce city-wide automobile dependence (Shaheen and Guzman 2011, ITDP, 2014, Dai and Weinzimmer, 2014, Lesh, 2013, Fishman et al. 2013).

This therefore reveal the desirability to rethink and re-invent first and last mile commute network/system in cities (especially sub-Saharan African cities) and make it an integral part of transit intervention. This is not only because modal integration can be enhanced, transit ridership leveraged, related impacts reduced, but importantly because it can attract choice riders from private car usage, and increase city-wide transit dependence.

Achieving sustainable transportation requires optimizing each mode by assigning each mode for what it does best, this implies using non-motorized modes for local travel, public transit for travel at urban and regional-level travel, and the reduction in private car usage (TAC, 1998, Litman, 2003). This is in contrast to emphasis on mobility that emphasizes overall travel speed. In order to demonstrate the need for more emphasis on accessibility as against mobility, Whitelegg argues that,

“It is the ease of access to other people and facilities that determines the success of a transportation system, rather than the means or speed of transport. It is relatively easy to increase the speed at which people move around, much harder to introduce changes that enable us to spend less time gaining access to the facilities that we need” (Whitelegg, 1993).

It may therefore suffice to posit that, by skewing transport policy and investments in cities towards passenger accessibility, the desired outcomes of sustainable passenger transport that guarantees an equitable transport system that meets the needs of a large spectrum of commuters can be realized.

The goal to shift mobility in cities toward a sustainable pathway that deleverages automobile-dependent mobility, and the demand by commuters for efficient, reliable and safe accessibility has continued to spur the search for integrated transit-dependent mobility pattern. While, it is evident that daily commuter trips are amendable to transit mode, evidences show that transit infrastructure efficiency may only be a viable option where it present the opportunity for holistic intervention that is indicative of and demonstrate capacity, convenience and efficiency for commuter experience through all the phase of commute (Cervero and Deakin, 2008). The sustainability requirements of transport infrastructure and the demand by commuters for efficient passenger commuting experience require holistic intervention that integrate first and last mile commute in city transport network.

2.0 Factors creating enabling environment for fragmented First and Last Mile commute

Several factors interplay to serve as permissive factors for the present character of first and last mile commute in cities. These may include, predict and provide engineering solution to transport sector investments, the role of city’s built form, and commuter choices that may often be determined by the perception of private car ownership and usage.

1. 
   Predict and Provide solution to transport sector investments
   

More worrisome is that, while global north cities are already rethinking this paradigm as evident in the phenomenon of “Peak car travel” argued by Newman and Kenworthy (2011) and other studies by ITDP and EMBARQ (2012). The global south cities with increasing population and mobility demand are stuck to the old ways of building and expansion of highways as solution to transport challenges. This may explain why first and last mile commutes in these cities receive little or no attention from transport sector investments.

2. 
   The Role of Built Form
   

It is therefore argued by protagonists of dispersed city form that motorized trips present the most efficient opportunity of getting around in a convenient and timely manner. Conversely, protagonist of smart compact spatial pattern in cities argued that smart city form is a permissive factor for shorter trips and VKT because places are located relatively close together (in mixed use community), and places are able to be reached in less time via walking or non-motorized modes (Newman and Kenworthy, 2006, Cervero, 1998, Scheurer, 2001, Tiwari et al, 2011, Jabareen, 2006). This usually refers to development of diverse, mixed-use transit communities within 400 – 500 meters radius of transit stations. Even where longer trips are necessitated they are made via transit. In the latter scenario, the investments structure in transport sector de-emphasize permissive environment for private automobile trips and proliferation, while emphasizing transit investments and in non-motorized trips. This may therefore encourage the development of first and last mile commute infrastructure and encourage sustainable passenger transport.

3. 
   The Role of Commuter Choices
   

In line with literatures and empirical case evidences, the array of responses / intervention for shaping and transforming first and last mile commute include TOD, safe segregated walkways, cycle paths and bike share facility linking residences to public transport stations .

1. 
   Safe-segregated walkways and Cycle Paths
   

These related impacts may include reduced motorized trips with related reduction in traffic accidents, PM air pollution, transport-related CO₂ emission. Importantly, another less reported impact of non-motorized trips is the opportunity for increased daily physical activities for commuters which contribute to health benefits as prescribed by WHO (adults aged between 18-64 years should engage in at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity throughout the week) (WHO, 2013).

2. 
   Bike Share Facility