What is the Marchetti Constant and why does it matter?
In 1994, an Italian physicist, Cesare Marchetti, described what is now known as the Marchetti Constant. He noted that most people are willing on average to commute about 30 minutes to work (26 minutes to be precise), although some people will have much shorter or much longer commutes. This has been the case since Roman Times, when the only option was to walk, which was why the diameter of ancient Rome was about 2 miles and why the Square Mile in London is so-called. Eventually, bicycles, streetcars, railways, metros and private cars allowed the expansion of cities and the lengthening, in distance at least, of people’s commutes. There might be an addendum to the Marchetti Constant in that for some industries, where hybrid working is in place, people might be prepared to endure a much longer commute if they only have to visit the office once or twice a week. For those who work in hospitality, retail or other public-facing jobs (e.g. train drivers), hybrid working is not an option.
As to why it matters, transport and society have always been and will continue to be interlinked, as transport is built to satisfy demand, rather than for its own sake. Whether this is the steam train allowing the Victorian upper classes to move to villages outside London, other transport means enabling the creation and expansion of suburbia on cheaper land around the cities’ edges, though to the expressway cities built around the car, predominantly in North America. Once the height of the COVID pandemic had passed, there was a ‘race for space’ in the UK with people looking to move from cities to rural and coastal areas when working full time in the office seemed a thing of the past. This trend has been partially reversed more recently as people return to cities, however, the forecast is that hybrid working is here to stay with a recent report finding just 27% of 1,000 companies surveyed expecting that their staff will be fully in-person over the next 5 years, with only 17% of B2B services expecting this.
What does this mean for transport and communities?
Maple helped prepare two white papers with Amey Consulting on ‘Creating Cohesive Communities’ covering transport requirements and reinvention of town centres following the pandemic. To a large extent, cities and buildings reinvent themselves organically. One example is the repurposing of former Debenhams stores following the closure of the chain; whilst some have been taken over by other retailers, in many cases there is no one to take over such large stores, but many have or will be, repurposed for diverse uses including leisure, housing and community centres, which could give inspiration for the many that remain vacant.
When it comes to transport, however, it has typically been subject to more centralised planning, but things might be changing. Quite apart from a limited budget for major new road schemes, there is now an increased recognition of communities shaping their priorities rather than grand masterplans, particularly the car-centric plans of the 1960s and 70s. We can be thankful for a property recession in the early 1970s for the avoidance of an elevated eight-lane motorway running through central London or a sunken dual carriageway running in front of Cardiff Castle .
There is more consensus now that getting large numbers of people in and around cities using private cars isn’t the answer. For those who remain to be convinced, take a trip to Los Angeles.
There isn’t a single solution, but there are a few options that can be explored. Some towns and cities now have a surplus of office and/or retail space. Can these be repurposed into mixed-use, mid-rise developments including housing to create both a population density within the city centre as well as retail and leisure destinations? Apart from having more of the population living near the centre means more amenities would be within walking or cycling distance, it would also increase the population density which would have other positive impacts. A lower population density characterised by low-rise housing has been identified as a reason that cities in the UK (outside London) have lower public transport use than similar size cities in other areas of Europe, limiting job opportunities and effectively making large cities in the UK ‘smaller’ than comparable European cities. The same report indicates that poor urban transport costs the UK economy more than £23.1 billion per year.
Focusing on Wales, it is likely that many out-of-town shopping centres and office complexes, which rely almost entirely on private car use, would not have been approved if the Well-being of Future Generations Act had been in place. These developments do not support inclusivity or equality. These areas too, could be repurposed or expanded for mixed-use development, public services and housing in sufficient density that could justify light rail or tram links or at least a frequent bus service.
Transport-orientated development, whether building where there are already public transport links or creating a development around them is a way to facilitate higher public transport patronage. This is particularly the case for rail or light rail, as permanent infrastructure gives people the confidence to live or work somewhere, whereas a bus route can be changed at any point.
Going back to the Marchetti Constant and the 26-minute commute, a network of traffic-free and well-connected cycle routes could be one way of both enabling access to employment and services. A quick Google Maps check shows that the radius of cities such as Cardiff and Bristol are about 7-8km making large areas within an acceptable commute time, if based on the relatively low cycling speeds of the Nethlands of 12.4km/h. Even large cities such as Birminghan and Manchester are under 12km from the edge of the city to the centre. This would have numerous benefits, with a significant ROI as was discussed in last month’s article.
None of this is meant to be anti-car and it could be a win-win as a large shift towards active and public transport would potentially reduce congestion for those who need to or choose to drive.
As there is a suite of options that may improve transport and communities, there needs to be a recognition that no two communities are the same. Different areas of cities have different needs and may not be equally well served by transport options; for example, the eastern half of Cardiff has no rail links, whereas the northern and northwestern suburbs are well served. This is where the role of communities is of crucial importance in determining what they want and need in terms of transport options.
Local residents often have the best understanding of the challenges they face and can offer valuable insights into the kinds of transport improvements that would benefit their areas. By engaging with transport authorities and planners, communities can advocate for changes that reflect their priorities, whether it’s improved public transport connections, better cycling infrastructure, or safer pedestrian pathways, ensuring that solutions are not only top-down but also built from the ground up.
An example of this are the many Rail User Groups across the UK who campaign locally for railways lines to remain open or reopen or for new stations and timetable improvements. Elsewhere, there are local campaigns for cycling and active travel with such as the ones in Brisol and Cardiff. Further afield, the ‘Superblocks’ concept in Barcelona involves closing individual blocks to traffic, usually on a 3×3 grid and rerouting traffic around the outside. The reclaimed blocks on the insidie are then opened up as low traffic neighbourhoods, as parks, playgrounds and squares. Community engagement was key to the concept with residents involved in decisions on how to use the space. The results have been impressive with improved air quality, reduced noise and reduced traffic and car use.
Involving communities in the planning process also helps to ensure that transport solutions are inclusive and equitable. For example, prioritising active travel and public transport in areas where car ownership is low, can have a high impact. Grassroots initiatives, such as those outlined above show how community action can directly influence policy and planning decisions. Engaging communities not only helps to create transport solutions that reflect local priorities but also fosters a sense of shared responsibility. When people see the impact of their involvement, it encourages further participation, driving continuous improvement in how cities and towns meet the diverse mobility needs of their residents. Ultimately, empowering communities to help shape transport creates more connected, liveable, and resilient urban spaces.
Read more from us:
From Policy to Practice: Examining the New Government’s Transport Vision and Alternative Approaches
Build back better – how about we investigate new business opportunities for public transport
