Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Under-appreciated and  neglected policy opportunities (and reframing competition in urban transport) Dr Paul Barter Assist...
Some under-appreciated and neglected policy issues <ul><li>Public transport integration and comprehensiveness </li></ul><u...
Public transport’s customers? Cartoon:  GTZ Thailand
Can public transport attract people who have alternatives? Does it take a rail system like Tokyo’s?
<ul><li>Simply a business?  – sink or swim according to competition in the market? </li></ul><ul><li>Like a Utility?  – ne...
Should public transport try to offer direct service? No! <ul><li>Hub-and-spoke (or ‘trunk and feeder’) versus many-to-many...
Aim to be a NETWORK. Don’t attempt to mimic car’s direct service <ul><li>“ Transit can compete with car travel not by copy...
Importance of frequent service
Relatively simple grid-like network  –  one map can portray all metro, tram and bus lines
Transfer-friendly networks for  buses too? <ul><li>“ Competently designed transit networks often consist of trunk lines wi...
Importance of regular, frequent service <ul><li>Hanoi and HCM City bus reforms </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Regular service  (10 ...
Buying a car creates commitment ...  <ul><li>Public transport  can create  customer  commitment too </li></ul><ul><li>Exam...
Urban Bus Regulat ion Categories   Government takes responsibility for outcomes Compatible with ambitious integration Gove...
Seoul’s 2004 ‘Semi-public’ bus reforms  Public control, private provision suits ambitious integration Source:  Kim, GC 200...
Seoul’s 2004 bus reforms Source:  Kim, GC 2007 with permission <ul><li>The Trunk bus routes require high on-road priority ...
Could public transport be even more ambitious? <ul><li>Public transport CAN compete with cars  </li></ul><ul><li>Requires ...
Poor public transport forces private vehicle ownership.  Excellent public transport makes low car ownership possible. <ul>...
To really compete with car ownership public transport needs help from its “friends” <ul><li>Needs help to fill “mobility g...
Filling the short-trip gap
Filling the short-trip gap  (last kilometre)
2 km in 12 minutes  (at a gentle 10 km/h)
Personal Mobility Devices  (Not oddities. Opportunities to help fill short-trip gap)
Helping cycling (and PMDs) is NOT just about bike paths or bike lanes Source:  London Cycling Design Standards book, p. 62
Car-sharing: no need to own a car in order to access one when needed http://www.scwalkandroll.com/LibraryIndices/images/ca...
Taxis and taxi-related policy:  more important than usually perceived when we remember their role in filling mobility gaps
3 rd  generation bicycle sharing  and the short-trip gap
Comprehensive multi-modal package to rival car ownership <ul><li>‘ Mobility Packages’ (Hannover) and ‘Mobility Hubs’ (Brem...
Car access without owning one prompts a critical look at car ownership cost structures Fixed costs Variable costs Time of ...
Possibility of excellent mobility without owning a car prompts a more critical look at car ownership
Can we make cost structure for all cars more like car-sharing and taxis? <ul><li>Cannot completely eliminate the  ‘all you...
Singapore could make all its fixed taxes PAYD  (including COE!) Insurance yearly (but could also be made distance-based) P...
Coming changes to parking policy will also change car cost structures <ul><li>Demand-responsive prices for kerb parking </...
My central message today <ul><li>Urban transport policy for liveable cities can and should dare to compete successfully wi...
Thank you  very much Paul Barter LKY School of Public Policy National University of Singapore [email_address]
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Under-appreciated and neglected urban transport policy opportunities (and reframing competition in urban transport)

6,375 views

Published on

Presentation to 6 May 2009 event in Singapore organised by the Land Transport Authority (LTA), the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Centre for Liveable Cities (CLC).

  • Be the first to comment

Under-appreciated and neglected urban transport policy opportunities (and reframing competition in urban transport)

  1. 1. Under-appreciated and neglected policy opportunities (and reframing competition in urban transport) Dr Paul Barter Assistant Professor LKY School of Public Policy National University of Singapore [email_address]
  2. 2. Some under-appreciated and neglected policy issues <ul><li>Public transport integration and comprehensiveness </li></ul><ul><li>Short trips between 1 and 4 km </li></ul><ul><li>Taxis and car-sharing </li></ul><ul><li>Car ownership cost structures </li></ul><ul><li>Parking policy </li></ul><ul><li>What do they have in common? </li></ul>
  3. 3. Public transport’s customers? Cartoon: GTZ Thailand
  4. 4. Can public transport attract people who have alternatives? Does it take a rail system like Tokyo’s?
  5. 5. <ul><li>Simply a business? – sink or swim according to competition in the market? </li></ul><ul><li>Like a Utility? – necessary infrastructure, serving wider urban objectives </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Welfare service? – only for those with no other options and for work trips to city centre? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ambitiously comprehensive? - to serve wide range of people and trips? An alternative to cars? </li></ul></ul>What kind of industry is public transport?
  6. 6. Should public transport try to offer direct service? No! <ul><li>Hub-and-spoke (or ‘trunk and feeder’) versus many-to-many: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>More frequent with same resources (3 high-frequency lines versus 9 low-frequency lines) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lower total travel time, despite transfers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Simple network: easily understood and remembered </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Aim to be a NETWORK. Don’t attempt to mimic car’s direct service <ul><li>“ Transit can compete with car travel not by copying its door-to-door routing (which it can never match) but by providing opportunities for flexible travel throughout an integrated network with convenient, rapid transfers… ” </li></ul><ul><li>Vukan Vuchic, 1999, pp. 209-210 </li></ul>
  8. 8. Importance of frequent service
  9. 9. Relatively simple grid-like network – one map can portray all metro, tram and bus lines
  10. 10. Transfer-friendly networks for buses too? <ul><li>“ Competently designed transit networks often consist of trunk lines with frequent service and separate feeders, even when both sections are served by buses…” </li></ul><ul><li>Vukan Vuchic, 1999, p. 210 </li></ul>
  11. 11. Importance of regular, frequent service <ul><li>Hanoi and HCM City bus reforms </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Regular service (10 min ‘turn-up-and-go headway) has revealed demand for bus travel in these cities of motorcycles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Season passes! </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Indore in India similar success </li></ul>
  12. 12. Buying a car creates commitment ... <ul><li>Public transport can create customer commitment too </li></ul><ul><li>Example: ‘rainbow cards’ in Europe = season passes for unlimited public transport travel </li></ul>
  13. 13. Urban Bus Regulat ion Categories Government takes responsibility for outcomes Compatible with ambitious integration Government takes little or no responsibility for outcomes Incompatible with integration Public monopolies Proactive planning with service contracts Well-regulated Franchises Passive franchises Deregulation
  14. 14. Seoul’s 2004 ‘Semi-public’ bus reforms Public control, private provision suits ambitious integration Source: Kim, GC 2007 with permission
  15. 15. Seoul’s 2004 bus reforms Source: Kim, GC 2007 with permission <ul><li>The Trunk bus routes require high on-road priority (high-end BRT would be even better) </li></ul>
  16. 16. Could public transport be even more ambitious? <ul><li>Public transport CAN compete with cars </li></ul><ul><li>Requires regulatory arrangements compatible with high ambitions </li></ul><ul><li>Even humble buses can do much better than they usually do </li></ul><ul><li>Can public transport also compete with car ownership? </li></ul>
  17. 17. Poor public transport forces private vehicle ownership. Excellent public transport makes low car ownership possible. <ul><li>Car ownership and Melbourne’s rail network </li></ul>Source: Melbourne Atlas 2006 (State Government of Victoria, Department of Planning and Community Development) [http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/dse/dsenres.nsf/linkview/9ca360582b427fbfca2570ad007b7bc26edcd66e75635aadca2571bf00242532]
  18. 18. To really compete with car ownership public transport needs help from its “friends” <ul><li>Needs help to fill “mobility gaps” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Short(ish) trips between 1 and 4 km </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Last kilometre </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Major shopping </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Luggage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Pets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>etc </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. Filling the short-trip gap
  20. 20. Filling the short-trip gap (last kilometre)
  21. 21. 2 km in 12 minutes (at a gentle 10 km/h)
  22. 22. Personal Mobility Devices (Not oddities. Opportunities to help fill short-trip gap)
  23. 23. Helping cycling (and PMDs) is NOT just about bike paths or bike lanes Source: London Cycling Design Standards book, p. 62
  24. 24. Car-sharing: no need to own a car in order to access one when needed http://www.scwalkandroll.com/LibraryIndices/images/carsharing.gif http://i.treehugger.com/files/th_images/photo_ReservedParking.JPG
  25. 25. Taxis and taxi-related policy: more important than usually perceived when we remember their role in filling mobility gaps
  26. 26. 3 rd generation bicycle sharing and the short-trip gap
  27. 27. Comprehensive multi-modal package to rival car ownership <ul><li>‘ Mobility Packages’ (Hannover) and ‘Mobility Hubs’ (Bremen) put transport services together in unexpected ways (see German mythical creature ‘egg-laying wool-milk sow’) </li></ul>Source: City of Bremen publicity materials
  28. 28. Car access without owning one prompts a critical look at car ownership cost structures Fixed costs Variable costs Time of purchase 10 years Pay retail price, GST. Bid & pay for COE; Pay ARF, excise duty, registration fee Pay road tax yearly Monthly parking at home Vehicle inspection fees (year 3, 5, 7,9, 10, 11, 12, etc) ERP, fuel tax, parking at destinations, maintenance Scrap or renew COE for another 5 or 10 yrs Pay road tax yearly – higher rate for older cars Scrap & get rebate for next car COE, ARF value Insurance yearly time
  29. 29. Possibility of excellent mobility without owning a car prompts a more critical look at car ownership
  30. 30. Can we make cost structure for all cars more like car-sharing and taxis? <ul><li>Cannot completely eliminate the ‘all you can eat car buffet’ and tendency for owned cars to be over-used </li></ul><ul><li>But “Pay as You Drive” (PAYD) pricing is coming: </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Insurance </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mileage taxes and charges </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Shifting fixed taxes and charges into usage charges </li></ul></ul></ul>
  31. 31. Singapore could make all its fixed taxes PAYD (including COE!) Insurance yearly (but could also be made distance-based) Pay retail price + GST Fixed costs Variable costs Time of purchase 25,000km 75,000km 50,000km 2 years (moderate use) Bid & pay for 25,000km COE; Buy 25,000km worth of ARF, import duty, reg. fee, road tax New 25,000km COE at current price New 25,000km COE at current price Pay for new 25,000km block of other taxes New 25,000km block of other taxes 4 years (moderate use) Veh. inspection & fee ERP, fuel tax, parking fees, maintenance distance New 25,000km COE at current price New 25,000km block of other taxes Veh. inspection & fee
  32. 32. Coming changes to parking policy will also change car cost structures <ul><li>Demand-responsive prices for kerb parking </li></ul><ul><li>Deregulate supply of off-street parking </li></ul><ul><li>Encourage unbundling of parking (bundled parking involves cross-subsidies for parking and for car ownership) </li></ul><ul><li>Plan quality and location but not quantity of parking </li></ul>
  33. 33. My central message today <ul><li>Urban transport policy for liveable cities can and should dare to compete successfully with car ownership </li></ul><ul><li>Seeing the car-owning lifestyle as our primary competition expands and enriches our policy horizons </li></ul><ul><li>Imagining excellent mobility without owning a car prompts a more critical look at car ownership arrangements </li></ul>
  34. 34. Thank you very much Paul Barter LKY School of Public Policy National University of Singapore [email_address]

×