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

Tom Ryet.rye@napier.ac.ukwww.tri-napier.org