Gap Analysis of data for urban transport planning in the developing countries: Comparative study of United Kingdom (UK) and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA)

This study performed a gap analysis of data for urban transport planning in two countries, one developing, and one developed with a view to conducting a gap analysis in the two countries and then comparing the results. The study commenced with an exploration of the background study of the research area by highlighting the importance of data collection and the types of data that are collected for urban transport planning. The specific types of data that are identified as collected were listed in order to enable the contextualisation of the work to be carried out in the subsequent sections of the study. Furthermore, the identified data collection methods in transport planning were identified and discussed, the key methods were highlighted, and the future directions identified in the background area were discussed. Thereafter, the activities directed towards the collection of data and the actual collection of data for public transport planning in the UK and KSA were discussed. The gap analysis showed that the UK has a robust framework for the collection of data for urban transport planning which the KSA does not, and in fact it was discovered that the most importance concern of the KSA government is how to reduce the number of private motor vehicles on its roads and increase the number of buses, and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions with a currently a serious cause for concern. The UK also needs to concentrate more on the collection of data for the management of Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAVs), and Mobility as a Service (MaaS), in preparation for the deployment of both forms of transport. © 2023 R. N. Alahamidi, licensed to EAI. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, which permits copying, redistributing, remixing, transformation, and building upon the material in any medium so long as the original work is properly cited.