tom rye, professor of pay and display and mobility management transport research institute
DESCRIPTION
Some reflections from this morning… and the role of public transport in a recession. Tom Rye, Professor of Pay and Display and Mobility Management Transport Research Institute Edinburgh Napier University. Trends in PT use in Scotland. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Tom Rye, Professor of Pay and Displayand Mobility ManagementTransport Research InstituteEdinburgh Napier University
Some reflections from this morning… and the role of
public transport in a recession
Trends in PT use in Scotland
2000-2006 bus patronage increased… but this almost all due to increase in Lothians (against trend in England o/s London)
Mode shift continuing away from bus (trips)
Mode shift towards train (pass km) – but in context of increasing trip length, reduction in walk trips
Back-casting – emissions index
Trip
length Trips per person
Emissions per v km
Carbon intensity Mode share Total
Current situation 1 1 1 1 1 1 2025 Business as usual 1.5 1.2 0.9 1 1 1.62 Engine efficiency 1.5 1.2 0.29 1 1 0.52 Engine efficiency and new fuels 1.5 1.2 0.4 0.72 1 0.52 Mode specific 2005 Car 1 1 1 1 0.88 0.88 Bus 1 1 1 1 0.1 0.10 Rail 1 1 1 1 0.02 0.02 1.00 2025 - mode shift only Car 1.5 1.2 0.97 1 0.65 1.13 Bus 1.5 1.2 0.44 1 0.25 0.20 Rail 1.5 1.2 0.53 1 0.1 0.10 1.43 2025 - combination Car 1.3 1.1 0.55 0.8 0.65 0.41 Bus 1.3 1.1 0.25 0.8 0.25 0.07 Rail 1.3 1.1 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.03 0.51
So…
Is there anywhere that’s achieved that kind of mode shift to PT?
(and anything else e.g. reductions in trip lengths…)
Specific example: Freiburg
550,000 people Public transport has priority Cars and parking restricted; P+R Tram network mostly new since 80s Integrate planning and transport March 84 - Enviro Season ticket (all
modes) Prices and subsidy reduced - 70%
farebox
Freiburg results
Freiburg tram…
Freiburg Vauban
5000 people, 600 jobs, 38 ha
3 km from city centre Bus then tramline (10 tph)
built in from start 40% of households have
no car Limited parking Green space, walking and
cycling routes
Sihlcity, Zurich
Sihlcity, Zurich – key dataarea m2 41’990
construction period 30.06.2003 - 22.03.2007
volume of investment Mio. € 600
rental revenue p.a. Mio. € 30
total rentable area (without parking) m2 97’000
rentable area for shops m2 41’000
rentable area for services m2 24’000
rentable area for culture, cinema, hotels m2 19’000
rentable area shopping, fitness / wellness, apartments, stocks
m2 13’000
number of working places 2’300
visitors per day (average between 22.03 and 30.06)
19’000
number of parking spaces 850
Sihlcity, Zurich: Accessibility with different modes
Sihlcity, Zurich - requirements to obtain planning permission, 2002
public transport: financial contribution on study of improving PT and on re-building of PT stops
bike: 600 bike parking lots pedestrians: to assure „recreation quality „ (Aufenthaltsqualität)
in the area motorised transport: costs for construction of access ramp to
main road, less than 805 PP and 50 P+R Mobility Management (not directly but): Parking concept (and trip
quota model) implementation of a home delivery service
defined in the area specific land use plan of Sihlcity and agreement between investor/ground owner and environmental association (on the base of existing right to complain of NGO’s)
Anywhere that’s reduced journey lengths?
Yes, Groningen
percentages
percentages
percentages
percentages
Source: ZIS, City of GrazMobility in Graz 2004
Questions for discussion…
Can we realistically achieve large scale mode shift to PT?
Yes but we need disincentives to car use and mindset shift amongst politicians and senior staff
A resounding no because of land use working against it and lack of political will
Yes but a coherent programme of demand management is required
If so, what needs to change in PT (list your top three)?
Better information 9 Marketing and promoting what is already there in a
manner that is more akin to “traditional” PLCs and develop new markets; prepare for success 7
Sell bus use as a lifestyle choice, make it more fashionable – and easy 2
Frequency, reliability and journey times 6 Cost of PT relative to driving (perceived or actual) 7 Addressing capacity problems 0 Improve“whole journey experience” 3 Tackle real and perceived crime/safety problems 3
What are the top three delivery challenges in achieving these changes to PT?
Buses perceived as public service but also profit-making companies
Monopoly in local bus service provision Political conservatism/inertia Lack of public support for change Transport groups see themselves as mobility providers more
than just operators Getting a “grown-up” approach to how to package traffic
restraint, land use changes and public transport improvements
Lack of funding Lack of vision Delivery hampered by bureaucracy Greater emphasis on customer care
Does the recession present us with any particular challenges?
Challenge is to retain new ridership resulting from recession
Does NPF/SOA framework have to change at all to increase the role of PT in mode shift?
Could be publicised to public transport operators and role of PT within SOA/NPF
Links between SOA outcomes and funding – or what happens if you don’t achieve outcomes – could be clearer
Whole SOA maybe needs clearer links to actual actions for local authorities
Need to talk to civil servants and politicians who are working on NPF to ask these questions