green transport hierarchy
Moved over from World Transport Forum:
From: Simon Norton <S.Norton@...>
Date: Tue May 30, 2006 6:44pm
Subject: green transport hierarchy
I generally agree with Dave's comments, so let me clarify by saying that "small
vehicles can only be assumed to be an advantage over large ones if the number
of passengers [per vehicle] is kept constant".
The advantage of higher frequency may not always be applicable. For example,
consider coaches which take passengers from a rail station to a popular event
starting at a specific time; it's clearly best to use fewer, larger buses.
- Michael Yeates refers to people who argue that more passengers means more
subsidies. Where do they get their brains from ? The main reason why subsidies
came to be needed in the first place is that (especially off peak) passengers
were abstracted away by cars. Conversely, I would imagine that the greatest
potential to capture new passengers was off peak where the existing modal share
of the car is greatest.
Another factor is that in times of congestion the transfer of passengers from
cars to buses can create new capacity on the latter because if vehicles are
going faster they can do more round trips in the same time and for the same
Michael also says that people can cycle 4-5 times faster than walking for the
same effort. As a one time cyclist I never managed more than a factor of 2. I
dare say a top quality bike might have made a difference, but many people
wouldn't want to use them for everyday cycling because of the danger of theft.
- By Jimmy Chuang
Thursday, Jun 01, 2006Taiwan is planning to construct 2,600km of bicycle lanes by 2011 to help promote the use of bicycles rather than motor vehicles."The idea is to help save energy, protect the environment and promote the idea of riding bicycles. However, we want to avoid potential waste at the same time as well," Premier Su Tseng-chang (Ä¬s©÷) said.Su said that the Cabinet's plan was to build bicycle-only lanes nationwide, and also to amend related traffic rules so that bicyclists' legal rights can be protected. While constructing the bike lanes, the premier asked officials to avoid wasting money by considering the practicality of the lanes in terms of location and material used for construction."You do not want to build a bike lane in a mountain area where bicyclists would not even visit. You do not want to cut down a lot of trees or pave over those spaces that used to be grass just to build a fancy bike track," Su said.In the meantime, Su said that he was also concerned about the fact that, although the sale of sport utility vehicles (SUV) was decreasing worldwide, the sale of SUVs in Taiwan was growing steadily. He said that since SUVs guzzle more gas, they were anathema to energy conservation efforts."We will ask the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to do something about it. Maybe we should control the number of SUVs by raising applicable taxes. Anyway, we will do whatever it takes to protect Taiwan's natural environment," Su said.In the 1990s, the Taipei City Government built the city's first bicycle lane on Dunhua N Road. The lane began in front of Songshan Domestic Airport, and ended at Dunhua N Road and Renai Road.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On 31 May 2006, at 21:23, Simon Norton wrote:
> Michael Yeates refers to people who argue that more passengers
> means more
> subsidies. Where do they get their brains from ? The main reason
> why subsidies
> came to be needed in the first place is that (especially off peak)
> were abstracted away by cars. Conversely, I would imagine that the
> potential to capture new passengers was off peak where the existing
> modal share
> of the car is greatest.
Total agreement, supported (in the UK) by:
Stagecoach Buses, who have proposed to government a "Kickstart"
funding mechanism whereby government funds a major service
improvement on a lossmaking (but potentially profitable) bus route
instead of subsidising it. The operator improves the route and
frequency, or pays for priority measures or park & ride, and after 3
years the route has to stand on its own two feet financially. How?
Because more passengers means less subsidy per passenger, and
eventually you get into profit. Kickstarts would be of the order of
GBP 200,000 to GBP 1,000,000 (a typical bus costs GBP 100,000)
the rail industry. Some commuter lines in South East England (serving
London) have gone from being lossmaking to profitmaking in the last
few years as London's growth has fuelled commuting. In major cities
outside London, there is a perception that rail is heavily lossmaking
and there are high subsidies per passenger. While these are in the
order of GBP 0.20 - 0.30 per passenger, in the West Midlands they are
around GBP 0.05 per passenger. Why? Because the trains are more full.
They also run longer trains at a higher frequency than many other
Harrogate & District buses (north of Leeds) concluded that, as they
served a wealthy area with high car ownership, they had to provide a
competitive product. So they invested in the most expensive double
deck buses in the UK, with reclining leather seats, and do not charge
a premium fare. They aimed to attract the "BMW drivers" who preferred
to queue on the roads into Leeds. The service is profitable and the
frequency has had to be increased twice. They also plan later
journeys to abstract passengers from taxis. The service launch cost
around GBP 3,000,000 to put together. The bus company is happy, it
was within their power to deliver in the short term, and car volumes
in the corridor are down more than 10%
RULE: More services mean more subsidies, more passengers mean more
revenue. You try and run more services to get more passengers until
your subsidies reduce or you go into profit.
> Another factor is that in times of congestion the transfer of
> passengers from
> cars to buses can create new capacity on the latter because if
> vehicles are
> going faster they can do more round trips in the same time and for
> the same
A lot of this benefit can be got from good bus priority measures.
More passengers (in the UK, not in some Continental countries like
Italy) mean more waiting time at stops, which slows the bus down again.
> Michael also says that people can cycle 4-5 times faster than
> walking for the
> same effort. As a one time cyclist I never managed more than a
> factor of 2. I
> dare say a top quality bike might have made a difference, but many
> wouldn't want to use them for everyday cycling because of the
> danger of theft.
That's certainly put me off cycling before. As a traveller, you want
some security of your ride home. If I plan a journey by bike that has
no public transport backup (such as riding to a nearby village that
has no bus service, or staying until after the last bus when it's too
far to walk), I need to know I can get back...
Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD