• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Nathan pittman
 

Nathan pittman

on

  • 418 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
418
Views on SlideShare
418
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Nathan pittman Nathan pittman Presentation Transcript

    • Nathan Pittman
    • • Current system – why is it inadequate? • How to create an integrated system • Reduction in travel costs • Improved labour market participation • Questions?
    •  Franchised in 1999  Poor economic and transport outcomes  Massive increase in subsidies from government to private operators  No integrated timetabling  Many services are still inadequate
    •  Modelled on German and Swiss transport unions  Improves cost effectiveness of service delivery by reducing duplication  Increases patronage by improving mobility  Improves connectivity in the city-region allowing more destinations to be reached easily by public transport
    •  Outer-suburban residents often have lower incomes and higher transport costs  Greater proportion of Forced Car Ownership  Greater accessibility through PT integration potentially reduces FCO levels  Increasing petrol and housing costs shifts people to public transport – current system is inadequate  This is also a land-use issue, but transport is easier to change
    •  The layout of rapid-transit systems determines the accessibility of jobs to the Black community. If transportation systems in American cities could be laid out so as to provide an opportunity for poor people to get meaningful employment, then they could begin to move into the mainstream of American life. [In Atlanta] the rapid-transit system has been laid out for the convenience of the white upper-middle- class suburbanites who commute to their jobs downtown. The system has virtually no consideration for connecting the poor people with their jobs. Martin Luther King, Jr (1986)
    •  Generally better access to mobility means greater labour market participation  Suburbanisation of entry-level, low paying jobs creates spatial mismatch  Labour market participation is generally higher in areas with better public transport  Transport is usually an afterthought in urban poverty reduction policies
    •  Redirecting public transport finances means current funding can be better used  Detrimental economic effects of increasing transport costs can be mitigated  There is potential to improve employment participation, however these links need further investigation
    •  Selected references ◦ Buehler, R., & Pucher, J. (2010). Making public transport financially sustainable. Transport Policy. ◦ Currie, G. et al. (2009). Investigating links between transport disadvantage, social exclusion and well-being in Melbourne - Preliminary Results. Transport Policy, 16, 97-105. ◦ Loader, C., & Stanley, J. (2009). Growing bus patronage and addressing transport disadvantage - The Melbourne experience. Transport Policy, 16, 106-114. ◦ Mees, P. (2005). Privatization of Rail and Tram Services in Melbourne: What Went Wrong? Transport Reviews, 25(4), 433-449. ◦ Mees, P. (2010). Transport for Suburbia: Beyond the Automobile Age. London: Earthscan. ◦ O'Connor, K. (2010). Melbourne 2030: A Response. Urban Policy and Research, 21(2), 211-215. ◦ Pucher, J., & Kurth, S. (1996). Verkehrsverbund: the success of regional public transport in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. Transport Policy, 2(4), 279-291. ◦ Sanchez, T. W. (1999). The Connection Between Public Transit and Employment: The Cases of Portland and Atlanta. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(3), 284-296. ◦ Sanchez, T. W. (2008). Poverty, Policy, and Public Transportation. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 42, 833-841. ◦ Stanley, J., & Hensher, D. A. (2008). Melbourne's Public Transport Franchising: Lessons for PPPs. Australian Accounting Review, 14(2), 42-50. ◦ Stanley, J., & Lucas, K. (2008). Social exclusion: What can public transport offer? Research in Transportation Economics, 22, 36-40. ◦ Wachs, M., & Taylor, B. D. (1998). Can Transportation Strategies Help Meet the Welfare Challenge? Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(1), 15-19.