[sustran] Re: Thinking Outside the Bus

[Todd Alexander Litman]

There certainly is a role for demand response transit services, and in some
cases such services can be provided efficiently by private firms, but I
caution against assuming that unregulated privitazation is necessarily
desirable.

My study "Contrasting Visions of Urban Transport: Critique of 'Fixing
Transit: The Case For Privatization'" (http://www.vtpi.org/cont_vis.pdf )
evaluates the service quality and efficiency of public and private transit.
Contrary to frequent claims, purely private transit is generally inferior
and inefficient. It may be profitable on a few corridors and may be
appropriate in some niche markets, but it cannot provide integrated,
cost-effective service throughout a region, and so fails to achieve
strategic planning objectives, such as reducing traffic congestion,
improving traffic safety and providing basic mobility for non-drivers.

The New York Times blog fails to understand the difference between demand
response services that can provide basic mobility in lower-density areas,
with high costs per trip, and grade-separated bus or rail transit, which can
provide high quality (integrated, frequent, cost effective) service on major
urban corridors. They are totally different services with different goals,
service requirements and cost profiles. They are not substitutes for each
other. An efficient urban transport system requires both.

For information on demand response transit, and the role it should play, see
Reconnecting America's new report, "Putting Transit to Work in Main Street
America: How Smaller Cities and Rural Places Are Using Transit and Mobility
Investments to Strengthen Their Economies and Communities"
(http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/PDFs/201205ruralfinal.pdf ).

I am a strong supporter of both BRT and rail transit, because their high
service quality can attract travelers who would otherwise drive, which
provides a variety of economic, social and environmental benefits. BRT is
often operated by private companies, but with a high degree of central
planning and regulation. Without that, service quality deteriorates, forcing
all households that can afford it to purchase cars and rely on automobile
travel, even for trips that are best made by public transit.


Sincerely,
Todd Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
litman at vtpi.org
facebook.com/todd.litman
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"


-----Original Message-----
From: sustran-discuss-bounces+litman=vtpi.org at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+litman=vtpi.org at list.jca.apc.org] On Behalf
Of Jonathan Richmond
Sent: May-29-12 9:23 AM
To: Paul Barter
Cc: sustran-discuss
Subject: [sustran] Re: Thinking Outside the Bus



I wrote a book, "The Private Provision of Public Transport" about
alternative ways of offering transit services, that included case-studies of
both the New York and Miami jitney services and I agree with the
brilliantly-written New York Times article. It is not misleading at all, but
dead on target.

I disagree about the advantage of a "connective network" in locations where
there is low demand. Such a system runs empty buses all day and forces
people to make unnecessary changes along their route. The Brunswick example
shows imagination in instead creating a service that has both fixed
characteristics that cater to primary demands (the route may be circuitous,
but it hits all major points people without cars need to go
to) but also offers flexibility.

As to the jitneys, they are an example of the advantages of private
enterprise. The drivers are offering this service because they are able to
earn more than in alternative occupations available to them. Certainly, they
are making less than in regular transit jobs, but that is not the point.
They are might not qualify to be regular bus drivers -- and they might even
prefer to do small-scale community oriented enterprise. The service provided
is terrific and meets local needs far better than the conventional transit
alternative.

                                        --Jonathan

On Tue, 29 May 2012, Paul Barter wrote:

> On 29 May 2012 14:26, Sujit Patwardhan <patwardhan.sujit at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Conventional wisdom says that the way to create or improve public 
>> transit is to invest billions to engineer rails, trains and buses. 
>> But the Brunswick Explorer is one of many innovators that are seeing 
>> transit as more than an engineering problem and trying to  build 
>> transit that meets the needs of its residents.
>> http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/thinking-outside-the-
>> bus/
>> ...
>
>
> Yes, it is an interesting item. But be careful! It is misleading (at 
> least for places with high labour costs).
>
> See http://www.humantransit.org/2011/11/new-york-times-how-to-be-co
> nfused-about-transit.html for a thoughtful critique of this NYT article.
> Jarrett Walker writes:
>
> "Brunswick's local buses, in short, are geared to people with special 
> needs, as small-town transit systems often are. ... These systems are 
> absolutely laudable. ... But they are intrinsically inefficient, in 
> terms of passengers service per unit of public cost... Serving special 
> needs is a good thing to do, but it requires lots of staff time per 
> passenger, so it will always have a very high cost per passenger.
>
> Unless ... you pay the drivers less. Margonelli's next story is about 
> the emerging minibuses of New York, an important private sector initiative
...
> The genius of these buses is that they tolerate lower ridership 
> (mandated in fact by their small size) but they can do this because 
> the drivers make much less than unionized transit agency labor. ...
>
> So is Margonelli really a ferocious right-wing union-busting capitalist?
> No, she's just unclear on transit's basic geometry and economics."
>
>> From the same source (Human Transit blog) here is a better example of 
>> how
> to do surprisingly well with public transport even in a very 
> transit-unfriendly suburban environment with high labour costs ( 
>
http://www.humantransit.org/2012/05/fort-lauderdale-yet-another-triumph-for-
multi-destinational-networks.html).
> The key is a 'connective network' with regular service in a grid (for
> example) and making connections between services attractive and easy.
>
> Paul
> --
> Working to make urban transport and parking enrich our lives more and 
> harm us all less.
> paulbarter at reinventingtransport.org
> http://www.reinventingtransport.org  http://www.reinventingparking.org
> --------------------------------------------------------
> To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit 
> http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss
>
> ================================================================
> SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South').
>

-----
Jonathan Richmond
+1 617 395-4360
e-mail: richmond at alum.mit.edu
http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/
--------------------------------------------------------
To search the archives of sustran-discuss visit
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=014715651517519735401:ijjtzwbu_ss

================================================================
SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred,
equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries
(the 'Global South').