[sustran] Re: Cities and Transportation: Choices and Consequences

[Todd Litman]

At 06:40 PM 2/21/02 +0400, you wrote:
>You were indeed fortunate, Todd - sounds like a good conference, and
>many thanks for sharing what you learnt. My responses inserted in your
>text - 

><snip>
>>As an example, Professor Martin Wach pointed that parking pricing has more
>>influence on travel behavior than virtually any conceivable improvement in
>>transit service quality. Charging for parking or Parking Cash Out reduces
>>automobile trips by 10-20%, more than twice as much as huge transit
>>investments being implemented in the Southern California region. He
>>emphasized that without pricing, virtually all other transportation
>>improvements are more costly, or to put it more positively, virtually any
>>transportation improvement can become more effective and cost effective if
>>implemented in conjunction with pricing strategies, such as road tolls,
>>parking pricing and distance-based road charges.
>
>Like I keep saying, sticks and carrots. But there seem to be few
>decision-makers who can see it that way. They seem to think that
>either the stick, or the carrot, will be enough.
>Can you please explain, Todd, "Parking Cash Out"?

See http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm8.htm


><another snip>
>>Dr. Tony Graying described UK experience with bus transit reform, which was
>>privitized throughout the country except in London 14 years ago. 
>
>I entirely agree with Dr Graying's conclusions, but should point out
>that bus transit in London is not exactly in public ownership. The
>operating companies (including the buses themselves) were privatised
>in the early 1990s - but crucially, there remains a strong element of
>planning, financing and control by the public authorities - Transport
>for London, aka London Transport. The bus services are operated under
>route contracts awarded after a tendering process.
>
><The rest of Dr Graying's conclusions are too good to be snipped>
>>His
>>research concludes that this policy experiment indicates that privitization
>>tends to reduce subsidy costs but also reduces transit service quality, and
>>therefore ridership. London was the only area in the UK that experienced
>>growth in bus ridership, he argues, because public ownership allows better
>>network planning and coordination, which was lost in other regions. His
>>conclusion is that to make transit attractive relative to cars, it is
>>important to retain control over transportation planning and transit
>>service quality if privitization is implemented. He identified the
>>following key elements of a bus transit strategy:
>>* Planned network
>>* Whole journey planning (land use accessibility, pedestrian/cycling
>>conditions, driver courtesy, etc.)
>>* Priority transit routes
>>* Accessible vehicles
>>* Good connections
>>* Excellent information
>>* Effective marketing
>>* Affordable fares
>>
>>
>>He described a really cool new interactive Internet based model that
>>predicts the travel impacts of various transit policies, including changes
>>in transit service, speed and price, and changes in the relative price of
>>driving ("Virtual Learning Arcade - London Transport",
>>http://vla.ifs.org.uk/models/mets22.html, Institute for Fiscal Studies,
>>2001). Although it is simple to use, it was developed with the help of
>>Professor Phil Goodwin, a leading UK transportation economist, and is based
>>on sophisticated, state-of-the-art modeling.
>
>Must look at that - Phil Goodwin is a man I respect

Me too. He was at the conference, my first chance to meet him.


>>Based on this analysis, Dr. Graying concludes that:
>>* Reducing London Underground fares provides no benefits (since it is
>>already operating at capacity).
>>* Reducing bus fares provides modest net benefits (value for money).
>>* Increasing bus service provides better net benefits.
>>* Speeding bus service (through transit priority measures) provides
>>excellent net benefits.
>
>Oh yes!
>
>>* Congestion pricing also provides net economic benefits.
>
>Do you know, Todd, where I can get hold of Dr Graying's full text?

You can contact him at t.grayling at ippr.org.uk. The full reference to the
METS documents are below.

IFS, Virtual Learning Arcade - London Transport
(http://vla.ifs.org.uk/models/mets22.html), Institute for Fiscal Studies
(www.ifs.org.uk), 2001. For technical information on this model see
Tackling Traffic Congestion: More about the METS Model,
(www.bized.ac.uk/virtual/vla/transport/resource_pack/notes_mets.htm) and
(www.bized.ac.uk/virtual/vla/transport/index.htm), and Tony Grayling and
Stephen Glaister, A New Fares Contract for London, Institute for Public
Policy Research (www.ippr.org.uk), ISBN 1 86030 100 2, 2000.


Best wishes!

Sincerely,

Todd Litman, Director
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
1250 Rudlin Street
Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
E-mail:  litman at vtpi.org
Website: http://www.vtpi.org