Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [NewMobilityCafe] RE:Ticketless Public Transport - For the New Mobility Agenda

Expand Messages
  • Anzir Boodoo
    Lee, ... ...and a free at point of use public transport system would... • be severely overcrowded in certain places - where would the additional revenue
    Message 1 of 16 , Jun 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Lee,
      On 29 Jun 2006, at 21:57, Lee Schipper wrote:
      > And which operator would express a clear sense of SERVICE in such a
      > free system? The complaint I heard over and over again amonst
      > public transport officials AND advocates in Brasil last month was
      > that there was no "service mentality" from Brasilian bus or rail
      > systems...they were
      > just doing their jobs. Without this, who would want to ride? Can a
      > free system give both operators, drivers, and passengers a sense
      > that they
      > want service, not simply route- or seat-km?
      ...and a "free at point of use" public transport system would...

      • be severely overcrowded in certain places - where would the
      additional revenue for new capacity come from (areas such as Scotland
      which have introduced free travel for the over 60s have grappled with
      this problem, so it's not insurmountable, just expensive)
      • fail to provide a barrier to vandalism, virtually all of which is
      caused by non ticketholders accessing public transport stops/
      stations. Rail stations in the UK with ticket barriers have reported
      up to 90% reduction in vandalism.
      • not foster a sesne of environmental responsibility, as people would
      be encouraged to travel more (as with the idea of cars being "free at
      point of use")
      • not provide any clear incentives for operators to improve or
      maintain the quality of service - they'd get passengers anyway.

      As an alternative, a system we have in some areas of the UK (and also
      in some parts of continental Europe) is to charge a levy on local
      taxes for public transport, and use a large part of this to subsidise
      fares (in the UK this applies mostly to rail fares and season
      tickets, not bus or tram fares). Increasing this, and making it clear
      that people are being charged in order to fund better public
      transport, could reduce fares to make them very cheap (OK, London and
      Sheffield have done this before!). At the same time, overuse would
      not be encouraged, and the ticket aspect would also stop people
      riding the system purely to cause damage & mayhem - (see http://
      www.firstfreebus.co.uk for another type of mayhem)

      --
      Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
      transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD
    • Stephen Plowden
      Anzir puts the case against free-at-point-of- use public transport very well, but do the arguments not apply almost equally strongly to the suggestion of a
      Message 2 of 16 , Jul 2 7:43 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Anzir puts the case against free-at-point-of- use public transport very
        well, but do the arguments not apply almost equally strongly to the
        suggestion of a levy on local taxes to be used for public transport?

        At present, there is an economic case for subsidies arising from the
        fact that cars are insufficiently priced and regulated. If they were,
        this "second best"case for subsidies wd fall down, though there might
        still in some places be a social case, perhaps best met by subsidising
        disadvantaged travellers rather than operators. Keith Buchan and I
        suggested some years ago that in London we shd subsidise bus fares so
        that the fares wd be the same as what they would be in a well regulated
        system , with buses freed from congestion caused by cars and goods
        vehicle. Simultaneoulsy we shd work to achieve such a system. I think
        this suggestion might apply quite widely.

        Anzir Boodoo wrote:

        >Lee,
        >On 29 Jun 2006, at 21:57, Lee Schipper wrote:
        >
        >
        >>And which operator would express a clear sense of SERVICE in such a
        >>free system? The complaint I heard over and over again amonst
        >>public transport officials AND advocates in Brasil last month was
        >>that there was no "service mentality" from Brasilian bus or rail
        >>systems...they were
        >>just doing their jobs. Without this, who would want to ride? Can a
        >>free system give both operators, drivers, and passengers a sense
        >>that they
        >>want service, not simply route- or seat-km?
        >>
        >>
        >...and a "free at point of use" public transport system would...
        >
        >• be severely overcrowded in certain places - where would the
        >additional revenue for new capacity come from (areas such as Scotland
        >which have introduced free travel for the over 60s have grappled with
        >this problem, so it's not insurmountable, just expensive)
        >• fail to provide a barrier to vandalism, virtually all of which is
        >caused by non ticketholders accessing public transport stops/
        >stations. Rail stations in the UK with ticket barriers have reported
        >up to 90% reduction in vandalism.
        >• not foster a sesne of environmental responsibility, as people would
        >be encouraged to travel more (as with the idea of cars being "free at
        >point of use")
        >• not provide any clear incentives for operators to improve or
        >maintain the quality of service - they'd get passengers anyway.
        >
        >As an alternative, a system we have in some areas of the UK (and also
        >in some parts of continental Europe) is to charge a levy on local
        >taxes for public transport, and use a large part of this to subsidise
        >fares (in the UK this applies mostly to rail fares and season
        >tickets, not bus or tram fares). Increasing this, and making it clear
        >that people are being charged in order to fund better public
        >transport, could reduce fares to make them very cheap (OK, London and
        >Sheffield have done this before!). At the same time, overuse would
        >not be encouraged, and the ticket aspect would also stop people
        >riding the system purely to cause damage & mayhem - (see http://
        >www.firstfreebus.co.uk for another type of mayhem)
        >
        >
        >
      • Anzir Boodoo
        Stephen, ... I think it might. However, how do we start to move from public transport being second best to best ? Whether operators or travellers should be
        Message 3 of 16 , Jul 2 11:54 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Stephen,
          On 2 Jul 2006, at 15:43, Stephen Plowden wrote:

          > Anzir puts the case against free-at-point-of- use public transport
          > very
          > well, but do the arguments not apply almost equally strongly to the
          > suggestion of a levy on local taxes to be used for public transport?
          >
          > At present, there is an economic case for subsidies arising from the
          > fact that cars are insufficiently priced and regulated. If they were,
          > this "second best"case for subsidies wd fall down, though there might
          > still in some places be a social case, perhaps best met by
          > subsidising
          > disadvantaged travellers rather than operators. Keith Buchan and I
          > suggested some years ago that in London we shd subsidise bus fares so
          > that the fares wd be the same as what they would be in a well
          > regulated
          > system , with buses freed from congestion caused by cars and goods
          > vehicle. Simultaneoulsy we shd work to achieve such a system. I think
          > this suggestion might apply quite widely.

          I think it might.

          However, how do we start to move from public transport being "second
          best" to "best"?

          Whether operators or travellers should be subsidised is an
          interesting question... It all depends on the journeys, I suppose,
          and again, whether the little "hopper bus" is actually socially
          necessary or a network infill which strictly speaking isn't really (I
          used to have one going past my house, when the main bus route (every
          10 minutes) was only 3 minutes' walk away). Perhaps for socially
          "necessary" bus routes (such as to villages or important links which
          are hard to make without the bus (such as suburban cross river or
          orbital journeys)) we should subsidise the operator so the cost of
          running the service is met?

          --
          Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
          transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD
        • Stephen Plowden
          Anzir Thanks for this. I am inclined to think that subsidising bus operators might be best in rural situations such as the one you mention, and subsidising
          Message 4 of 16 , Jul 3 12:27 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Anzir

            Thanks for this.

            I am inclined to think that subsidising bus operators might be best in
            rural situations such as the one you mention, and subsidising
            disadvantaged travellers might be best in towns, but I haven't thought
            it through. The most important thing is to reduce the need for subsidies
            by regulating cars properly.|I am horrifed by the extent of rail
            subsidies.

            Stephen





            Anzir Boodoo wrote:

            > Stephen,
            > On 2 Jul 2006, at 15:43, Stephen Plowden wrote:
            >
            > > Anzir puts the case against free-at-point-of- use public transport
            > > very
            > > well, but do the arguments not apply almost equally strongly to the
            > > suggestion of a levy on local taxes to be used for public transport?
            > >
            > > At present, there is an economic case for subsidies arising from the
            > > fact that cars are insufficiently priced and regulated. If they were,
            > > this "second best"case for subsidies wd fall down, though there might
            > > still in some places be a social case, perhaps best met by
            > > subsidising
            > > disadvantaged travellers rather than operators. Keith Buchan and I
            > > suggested some years ago that in London we shd subsidise bus fares so
            > > that the fares wd be the same as what they would be in a well
            > > regulated
            > > system , with buses freed from congestion caused by cars and goods
            > > vehicle. Simultaneoulsy we shd work to achieve such a system. I think
            > > this suggestion might apply quite widely.
            >
            > I think it might.
            >
            > However, how do we start to move from public transport being "second
            > best" to "best"?
            >
            > Whether operators or travellers should be subsidised is an
            > interesting question... It all depends on the journeys, I suppose,
            > and again, whether the little "hopper bus" is actually socially
            > necessary or a network infill which strictly speaking isn't really (I
            > used to have one going past my house, when the main bus route (every
            > 10 minutes) was only 3 minutes' walk away). Perhaps for socially
            > "necessary" bus routes (such as to villages or important links which
            > are hard to make without the bus (such as suburban cross river or
            > orbital journeys)) we should subsidise the operator so the cost of
            > running the service is met?
            >
            > --
            > Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
            > transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD
            >
            >
          • Roland Sapsford
            Hi I do think that the central point raised in the initial posting has been missed somewhat. It was David Engwicht of Bribane who, I believe, first pointed out
            Message 5 of 16 , Jul 3 1:15 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi

              I do think that the central point raised in the initial posting has been
              missed somewhat.

              It was David Engwicht of Bribane who, I believe, first pointed out that
              there is no logical reason to treat public transport as a pay per
              service operation just because you can. Looked at from the overall
              functioning of a city, it may be better to have the cost of
              comprehensive public transport met largely (or entirely) through
              collective revenue sources. This makes it more like the footpath, for
              example, - something which can be taken utterly for granted. That
              psychological shift is an important factor in modal choice long-term.

              As several people have pointed out there are downsides in terms of
              performance and quality incentives, but it is a balancing act.
              Full-cost pricing for cars is a theoretical concept - some form of less
              than perfect congestion pricing plus low entry cost public transport may
              deliver a better overall economic outcome - particularly if one is
              trying to achieve a high degree of modal shift. Of course, road pricing
              is more economically relevant and politically feasible after such a shift.

              I am not saying it always will be better - just that it might. It is
              apparent that in some places free public transport has worked extremely
              well and in other places it hasn't. The quality of service, the nature
              of the urban environment and many other factors seem relevant.

              Kind regards
              Roland Sapsford
              Wellington, New Zealand






              Stephen Plowden wrote:
              > Anzir
              >
              > Thanks for this.
              >
              > I am inclined to think that subsidising bus operators might be best in
              > rural situations such as the one you mention, and subsidising
              > disadvantaged travellers might be best in towns, but I haven't thought
              > it through. The most important thing is to reduce the need for subsidies
              > by regulating cars properly.|I am horrifed by the extent of rail
              > subsidies.
              >
              > Stephen
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Anzir Boodoo wrote:
              >
              >
              >> Stephen,
              >> On 2 Jul 2006, at 15:43, Stephen Plowden wrote:
              >>
              >>
              >>> Anzir puts the case against free-at-point-of- use public transport
              >>> very
              >>> well, but do the arguments not apply almost equally strongly to the
              >>> suggestion of a levy on local taxes to be used for public transport?
              >>>
              >>> At present, there is an economic case for subsidies arising from the
              >>> fact that cars are insufficiently priced and regulated. If they were,
              >>> this "second best"case for subsidies wd fall down, though there might
              >>> still in some places be a social case, perhaps best met by
              >>> subsidising
              >>> disadvantaged travellers rather than operators. Keith Buchan and I
              >>> suggested some years ago that in London we shd subsidise bus fares so
              >>> that the fares wd be the same as what they would be in a well
              >>> regulated
              >>> system , with buses freed from congestion caused by cars and goods
              >>> vehicle. Simultaneoulsy we shd work to achieve such a system. I think
              >>> this suggestion might apply quite widely.
              >>>
              >> I think it might.
              >>
              >> However, how do we start to move from public transport being "second
              >> best" to "best"?
              >>
              >> Whether operators or travellers should be subsidised is an
              >> interesting question... It all depends on the journeys, I suppose,
              >> and again, whether the little "hopper bus" is actually socially
              >> necessary or a network infill which strictly speaking isn't really (I
              >> used to have one going past my house, when the main bus route (every
              >> 10 minutes) was only 3 minutes' walk away). Perhaps for socially
              >> "necessary" bus routes (such as to villages or important links which
              >> are hard to make without the bus (such as suburban cross river or
              >> orbital journeys)) we should subsidise the operator so the cost of
              >> running the service is met?
              >>
              >> --
              >> Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
              >> transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD
              >>
              >>
              >>
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Check in here via the homepage at http://www.newmobility.org
              > To post message to group: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
              > Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
              > (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • Todd Alexander Litman
              For information on free transit and special discount programs see the Transit Encouragement (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm112.htm ) and Transit Examples
              Message 6 of 16 , Jul 3 11:05 AM
              • 0 Attachment

                For information on free transit and special discount programs see the "Transit Encouragement"  ( http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm112.htm ) and "Transit Examples" ( http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm118.htm ) chapters of our Online TDM Encyclopedia. An outstanding example is Hasselt, Belgium, where the city used money that would have been spent on a ring road to make public transit free, which increased ridership by 800%, resulting in a variety of benefits to the city.

                There are several good reasons to subsidize public transit, as discussed in our report "Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs" ( http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf ), including as a second-best solution while automobile travel is underpriced, and to achieve equity objectives. However, I tend to be skeptical of free transit for the following reasons:
                * When something is free people often assume it has no value.
                * Transit vehicles may become filled with vagrants.
                * It may be better to use the additional subsidy to improve service rather than make existing service free.

                In general, I tend to support moderate fares with targeted discounts and lots of special services. My main concern is that transit service quality be maintained at a high level, and that we never give the impression that, because transit service is free or cheap, people should accept inferior quality.


                Best wishes,
                -Todd Litman


                At 01:15 AM 7/3/2006, Roland Sapsford wrote:
                Hi

                I do think that the central point raised in the initial posting has been
                missed somewhat.

                It was David Engwicht of Bribane who, I believe, first pointed out that
                there is no logical reason to treat public transport as a pay per
                service operation just because you can.  Looked at from the overall
                functioning of a city, it may be better to have the cost of
                comprehensive public transport met largely (or entirely) through
                collective revenue sources.   This makes it more like the footpath, for
                example, - something which can be taken utterly for granted.  That
                psychological shift is an important factor in modal choice long-term.

                As several people have pointed out there are downsides in terms of
                performance and quality incentives, but it is a balancing act. 
                Full-cost pricing for cars is a theoretical concept - some form of less
                than perfect congestion pricing plus low entry cost public transport may
                deliver a better overall economic outcome - particularly if one is
                trying to achieve a high degree of modal shift.  Of course, road pricing
                is more economically relevant and politically feasible after such a shift.

                I am not saying it always will be better - just that it might.  It is
                apparent that in some places free public transport has worked extremely
                well and in other places it hasn't. The quality of service, the nature
                of the urban environment and many other factors seem relevant.

                Kind regards
                Roland Sapsford
                Wellington, New Zealand






                Stephen Plowden wrote:
                > Anzir
                >
                > Thanks for this.
                >
                > I am inclined to think that subsidising bus  operators  might be best in
                > rural situations such as the one you mention,  and subsidising
                > disadvantaged travellers  might be best in towns, but I haven't thought
                > it through. The most important thing is to reduce the need for subsidies
                > by regulating cars properly.|I am horrifed by the  extent of rail
                > subsidies.
                >
                > Stephen
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Anzir Boodoo wrote:
                >
                >  
                >> Stephen,
                >> On 2 Jul 2006, at 15:43, Stephen Plowden wrote:
                >>
                >>    
                >>> Anzir puts the case against free-at-point-of- use public transport
                >>> very
                >>> well, but do the arguments not apply almost equally strongly to the
                >>> suggestion of a levy on local taxes to be used for public transport?
                >>>
                >>> At present, there is an economic case for subsidies arising from the
                >>> fact that cars are insufficiently priced and regulated. If they were,
                >>> this "second best"case for subsidies wd fall down, though there might
                >>> still in some places be a social case, perhaps best met by
                >>> subsidising
                >>> disadvantaged travellers rather than operators. Keith Buchan and I
                >>> suggested some years ago that in London we shd subsidise bus fares so
                >>> that the fares wd be the same as what they would be in a well
                >>> regulated
                >>> system , with buses freed from congestion caused by cars and goods
                >>> vehicle. Simultaneoulsy we shd work to achieve such a system. I think
                >>> this suggestion might apply quite widely.
                >>>      
                >> I think it might.
                >>
                >> However, how do we start to move from public transport being "second
                >> best" to "best"?
                >>
                >> Whether operators or travellers should be subsidised is an
                >> interesting question... It all depends on the journeys, I suppose,
                >> and again, whether the little "hopper bus" is actually socially
                >> necessary or a network infill which strictly speaking isn't really (I
                >> used to have one going past my house, when the main bus route (every
                >> 10 minutes) was only 3 minutes' walk away). Perhaps for socially
                >> "necessary" bus routes (such as to villages or important links which
                >> are hard to make without the bus (such as suburban cross river or
                >> orbital journeys)) we should subsidise the operator so the cost of
                >> running the service is met?
                >>
                >> --
                >> Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
                >> transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD
                >>
                >> 
                >>    
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Check in here via the homepage at http://www.newmobility.org 
                > To post message to group: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                > Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
                > (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
                >
                >
                >

                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >

                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >  






                ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
                Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email.
                http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/CVewlB/TM
                --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

                Check in here via the homepage at http://www.newmobility.org 
                To post message to group: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
                (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)



                 
                Yahoo! Groups Links

                <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewMobilityCafe/

                <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                 


                Sincerely,
                Todd Alexander Litman
                Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
                litman@...
                Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
                1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
                “Efficiency - Equity - Clarity”
                 

              • Sherrill Nixon Urban Affairs Editor
                Cities worldwide try congestion tolls Sherrill Nixon Urban Affairs Editor July 4, 2006 LONDON S congestion charge is probably the best-known in the world, but
                Message 7 of 16 , Jul 3 11:21 PM
                • 0 Attachment

                  Cities worldwide try congestion tolls

                  Sherrill Nixon Urban Affairs Editor
                  July 4, 2006

                   

                  LONDON'S congestion charge is probably the best-known in the world, but it has not been the most successful.

                  That honour appears to go to Durham, a city in northern England noted for its cathedral and castle. Durham introduced a cordon-based pricing scheme in 2002, the first in the United Kingdom, and a year before London.

                  Traffic has fallen by 90 per cent since motorists were hit with a £2 ($5) fee to drive in the World Heritage-listed city centre between 10am and 4pm, from Monday to Saturday.

                  In comparison, London's congestion charge has reduced its considerably higher traffic levels by about 20 per cent, and has led to a 29,000 rise in bus passengers going into the city centre during morning peak.

                  From next February, the area that falls under London's congestion charge - which is £8 per weekday for unlimited travel between 7am and 6.30pm - will almost double in size to take in the Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea districts.

                  Britain's Commission for Integrated Transport released a comparison of 22 road-pricing schemes in 14 countries last month, saying their success had produced a new political confidence in congestion charging.

                  Its case studies included:

                  � Singapore: introduced in 1975, the Electronic Road Pricing scheme charges motorists for using CBD roads between 7.30am and 7pm, or expressways between 7.30am and 9.30am.

                  � Stockholm: a trial scheme levies motorists between 10 and 20 kronor ($1.90 and $3.80) depending on what time between 6.30am and 6.30pm they drive into the city centre. Tolls are collected electronically and revenue is to be used to improve public transport.

                  � Santiago: motorists using a network of roads pay according to the distance they drive and the time of day. Three levels apply - the basic level (the equivalent of eight cents per kilometre) during off-peak periods, the second level (16 cents) during peak periods and when speeds drop below 70kmh, and the third level (24 cents) when speeds consistently drop below 50kmh.

                  � Toronto: the all-electronic 108-kilometre 407 Express Toll Route opened in 1997. Charges vary depending on time of day, with peak hours (6-10am and 3-7pm) tolled highest. Heavy vehicles are charged three times as much as cars.

                  � Oregon, US: drivers pay a charge equivalent to about a cent a kilometre instead of the state's fuel tax. The scheme is being trialled with 300 motorists, who pay the charge when they fill up at the service station, which can read their in-car mileage counting equipment. The state fuel tax no longer raises enough to pay for road maintenance.

                   

                • CfIT
                  21.06.06: New study shows road pricing progress The UK Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT) today released a new review of road pricing across the world,
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jul 4 1:11 AM
                  • 0 Attachment

                    21.06.06:
                    New study shows road pricing progress

                    The UK Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT) today released a new review of road pricing across the world, looking at 22 schemes to identify lessons for UK policy makers.

                    A Government survey of public attitudes to road pricing, also published today, shows that 87% of people view congestion as a serious problem for the country and a majority believe that the current system of paying for road use should be changed so that drivers pay in proportion to their use. However, the results also show there is still work to be done in gaining a consensus on the way a scheme should operate.

                    CfIT Member Paul Godier said: "The Government should be heartened by the overwhelming recognition that congestion is a very real problem in this country and that a momentum is growing for changing the way we pay for road use.

                    "The survey shows the public are more uncertain about the operating detail of a road pricing scheme. Our study gives examples from around the world - including the three recent schemes in England - showing how issues such as fairness, enforcement and technology can be addressed successfully. We hope our study will aid wider public understanding, and therefore acceptance, of road pricing as part of an integrated transport policy."

                    Douglas Alexander the Transport Secretary said: "This review of road pricing around the world from CfIT is a welcome contribution to the debate. It reinforces the view that pricing can be an effective tool to help address congestion and make journeys more reliable. It also shows that we need to explain to people what pricing might mean for them in practice if they are to see the benefits.

                    "New technology is developing rapidly to help us provide effective solutions that will help us manage our roads better. The challenge now for the pilot areas is to take road pricing off the drawing board and make it work in real places, in a way that brings real benefits to road users."

                    The CfIT review shows that:

                    • While schemes vary widely between different cities, regions and countries, their increasing number shows that the principle of pricing road use is now firmly established around the globe;
                    • No road pricing initiative has yet been withdrawn prematurely once it has been introduced*;
                    • The significant number of schemes - many in particularly high profile parts of the world - has led to an increase in public knowledge and public acceptability of road pricing;
                    • Public acceptability, where measured consistently over time, increases once road pricing initiatives are introduced and the benefits observed;
                    • Public acceptability before and during the introduction of schemes has been significantly enhanced through the adoption of strategies such as:
                      • ringfencing the revenue raised for local improvements to transport,
                      • introducing a scheme as part of a package of other transport improvements,
                      • ensuring country-wide compatibility between the technology used in different schemes,
                      • ensuring there is a high profile, visible champion to promote schemes,
                      • confining the scheme's objectives to a simple, clear aim.

                    Paul Godier added:

                    "There are now 'live' road pricing schemes on every continent of the world. The evidence suggests that these have been very successful and, to date, no scheme has had to be withdrawn prematurely once it has been launched.

                    "The message is clear: more and more governments around the world are seeing the logic of using road pricing as the best way of tackling congestion, environmental concerns and transport funding. And more of the voting publics in those countries are finding it an acceptable way of paying for the way they use their roads, once they see the benefits it can generate."

                    * The scheme in Trondheim ceased to operate on 31 December 2005, but this was in line with the original plans to run the scheme for a fixed period of 15 years to allow sufficient money to be raised for transport improvements.

                    Notes to editors:

                    1. Paul Godier is available for interviews. Please contact Luke Blair on 07779 023188 for details.

                    2. The CfIT Road Pricing World Review is available from the CfIT website at: www.cfit.gov.uk/docs/2006/wrrp1/index.htm.

                    3. The 22 case studies on which the Review was based are also available from the CfIT website at: www.cfit.gov.uk/map/index.htm.

                    4. The DfT survey of attitudes to road pricing is available on the DfT website at: www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_transstats/documents/page/dft_transstats_029807.hcsp.

                    5. In 2002, CfIT published its advice to Government on the introduction of a national road user charging scheme: www.cfit.gov.uk/docs/2002/pfru/index.htm.

                    6. The Commission for Integrated Transport was set up by Government to provide it with independent advice on strategic policy issues.

                    7. CfIT is chaired by Peter Hendy and has 16 other Commission Members drawn from a broad spectrum of transport expertise. See: www.cfit.gov.uk/about/index.htm.

                    8. The DfT is funding seven pilot areas which are carrying out feasibility studies on packages of road pricing and improvement of public transport. The seven are preparing bids to the Transport Innovation Fund. See: www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/fullDetail.asp?ReleaseID=179352&NewsAreaID=2.

                     

                  • Tory Damantoro
                    I would like to suggest ticketless zoning instead of totally free public transport. I agree that people have to pay to show the value of the service and
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jul 4 5:03 AM
                    • 0 Attachment

                      I would like to suggest ticketless zoning instead of totally free public transport. I agree that people have to pay to show the value of the service and increase their  sense of belonging. For country that doesn’t have ear marking system in their finance regime like Indonesia, it is difficult to have direct subsidy for any public services including transport.

                      Free public transport in special zoning can run as part of service provision from area management. There is a trend to make a super block in central city now days which are vibrant, crowd and sometime very close between one to another, so why not bundled it up to a wider pedestrian friendly CBD area serve with free shuttle commuter public transport.

                       

                      Anyway, in Jakarta, only busway and partly of commuter train that provides ticket. The rest of other public transport is already “ticketless”

                       

                      Damantoro

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Todd Alexander Litman
                      Sent:
                      Tuesday, July 04, 2006 1:05 AM
                      To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] RE:Ticketless Public Transport - For the New Mobility Agenda

                       


                      For information on free transit and special discount programs see the "Transit Encouragement"  ( http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm112.htm ) and "Transit Examples" ( http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm118.htm ) chapters of our Online TDM Encyclopedia. An outstanding example is
                      Hasselt, Belgium, where the city used money that would have been spent on a ring road to make public transit free, which increased ridership by 800%, resulting in a variety of benefits to the city.

                      There are several good reasons to subsidize public transit, as discussed in our report "Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs" ( http://www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf ), including as a second-best solution while automobile travel is underpriced, and to achieve equity objectives. However, I tend to be skeptical of free transit for the following reasons:
                      * When something is free people often assume it has no value.
                      * Transit vehicles may become filled with vagrants.
                      * It may be better to use the additional subsidy to improve service rather than make existing service free.

                      In general, I tend to support moderate fares with targeted discounts and lots of special services. My main concern is that transit service quality be maintained at a high level, and that we never give the impression that, because transit service is free or cheap, people should accept inferior quality.


                      Best wishes,
                      -Todd Litman


                      At 01:15 AM 7/3/2006, Roland Sapsford wrote:

                      Hi

                      I do think that the central point raised in the initial posting has been
                      missed somewhat.

                      It was David Engwicht of Bribane who, I believe, first pointed out that
                      there is no logical reason to treat public transport as a pay per
                      service operation just because you can.  Looked at from the overall
                      functioning of a city, it may be better to have the cost of
                      comprehensive public transport met largely (or entirely) through
                      collective revenue sources.   This makes it more like the footpath, for
                      example, - something which can be taken utterly for granted.  That
                      psychological shift is an important factor in modal choice long-term.

                      As several people have pointed out there are downsides in terms of
                      performance and quality incentives, but it is a balancing act. 
                      Full-cost pricing for cars is a theoretical concept - some form of less
                      than perfect congestion pricing plus low entry cost public transport may
                      deliver a better overall economic outcome - particularly if one is
                      trying to achieve a high degree of modal shift.  Of course, road pricing
                      is more economically relevant and politically feasible after such a shift.

                      I am not saying it always will be better - just that it might.  It is
                      apparent that in some places free public transport has worked extremely
                      well and in other places it hasn't. The quality of service, the nature
                      of the urban environment and many other factors seem relevant.

                      Kind regards
                      Roland Sapsford
                      Wellington, New Zealand






                      Stephen Plowden wrote:
                      > Anzir
                      >
                      > Thanks for this.
                      >
                      > I am inclined to think that subsidising bus  operators  might be best in
                      > rural situations such as the one you mention,  and subsidising
                      > disadvantaged travellers  might be best in towns, but I haven't thought
                      > it through. The most important thing is to reduce the need for subsidies
                      > by regulating cars properly.|I am horrifed by the  extent of rail
                      > subsidies.
                      >
                      > Stephen
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Anzir Boodoo wrote:
                      >
                      >  
                      >> Stephen,
                      >> On 2 Jul 2006, at 15:43, Stephen Plowden wrote:
                      >>
                      >>    
                      >>> Anzir puts the case against free-at-point-of- use public transport
                      >>> very
                      >>> well, but do the arguments not apply almost equally strongly to the
                      >>> suggestion of a levy on local taxes to be used for public transport?
                      >>>
                      >>> At present, there is an economic case for subsidies arising from the
                      >>> fact that cars are insufficiently priced and regulated. If they were,
                      >>> this "second best"case for subsidies wd fall down, though there might
                      >>> still in some places be a social case, perhaps best met by
                      >>> subsidising
                      >>> disadvantaged travellers rather than operators. Keith Buchan and I
                      >>> suggested some years ago that in London we shd subsidise bus fares so
                      >>> that the fares wd be the same as what they would be in a well
                      >>> regulated
                      >>> system , with buses freed from congestion caused by cars and goods
                      >>> vehicle. Simultaneoulsy we shd work to achieve such a system. I think
                      >>> this suggestion might apply quite widely.
                      >>>      
                      >> I think it might.
                      >>
                      >> However, how do we start to move from public transport being "second
                      >> best" to "best"?
                      >>
                      >> Whether operators or travellers should be subsidised is an
                      >> interesting question... It all depends on the journeys, I suppose,
                      >> and again, whether the little "hopper bus" is actually socially
                      >> necessary or a network infill which strictly speaking isn't really (I
                      >> used to have one going past my house, when the main bus route (every
                      >> 10 minutes) was only 3 minutes' walk away). Perhaps for socially
                      >> "necessary" bus routes (such as to villages or important links which
                      >> are hard to make without the bus (such as suburban cross river or
                      >> orbital journeys)) we should subsidise the operator so the cost of
                      >> running the service is met?
                      >>
                      >> --
                      >> Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
                      >> transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD
                      >>
                      >> 
                      >>    
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Check in here via the homepage at http://www.newmobility.org 
                      > To post message to group: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                      > Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
                      > (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
                      >
                      >
                      >

                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >

                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >  






                      ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
                      Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email.
                      http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/CVewlB/TM
                      --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

                      Check in here via the homepage at http://www.newmobility.org 
                      To post message to group: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                      Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
                      (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)



                       
                      Yahoo! Groups Links

                      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewMobilityCafe/

                      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                       


                      Sincerely,
                      Todd Alexander Litman
                      Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org)
                      litman@...
                      Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
                      1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
                      “Efficiency - Equity - Clarity”
                       

                    • Chris Bradshaw
                      I would like to add my voice to the chorus of those supporting charging users for transit services. I agree that without any charge, people would be attracted
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jul 4 5:15 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I would like to add my voice to the chorus of those supporting charging
                        users for transit services.

                        I agree that without any charge, people would be attracted to it for
                        non-travel purposes, and that the providers of it would also lose the most
                        important incentive to maintain and improve it.

                        Having said that, I feel that the transit users should not be expected to
                        pay the full cost. Rather, those driving cars should be charged for the
                        business they take from the transit system and for the congestion -- and
                        failure to yield -- they cause which slows transit vehicles on shared
                        rights-of-way.

                        Transit, it should be remembered, is not the top-rated mode of travel, but
                        the third of five, according to the Green Transportation Hierarchy, based on
                        cost and footprint. Making transit free will induce many people who would
                        otherwise choose walking or cycling (and other human-powered options) to
                        switch to transit. (the fourth tier is shared-car use, and the fifth
                        personal-car use, mostly single-occupant).

                        The money extracted from motorists should not be seen as a subsidy, but
                        simply a fee. That casts it in a different light (to get motorists to whine
                        less about it), and also protects the system from a financial addiction that
                        is caused by becoming dependent on either general property taxes or on high
                        car-useage. As transit becomes more successful and garners a higher % of
                        travellers (hopefully exclusively from car-owning drivers), it is important
                        to know that each person attracted represents a nicely matched loss of
                        revenue and a savings by virtue of the extra ridership accompanied by no
                        increase in costs (the urban density dividend).

                        Finally, it is equally important to distribute the cost of both road-use and
                        transit-use fairly. At the present time, transit authorities (at least in
                        North America) consider its peak-hour commuter as its "choice" clients and
                        offer them discounts in the form of unlimited-use monthly and annual passes,
                        presumably reflecting their high utilization of transit vehicles and for the
                        regularity (and predictability) of their demand. Tt is assumed that these
                        people also invariably have their own cars and live in suburbs, and thus
                        they have a "choice" as to whether to use transit. The other users are
                        deemed "transit captive" (not owning cars or having much choice) and
                        subsidize, I feel, the peak-hour "choice" users.

                        The peak-hour suburban commuter is more, not less, expensive to transport
                        for several key reasons: they take longer trips, the trips are in one
                        direction only (the vehicles run empty in the non-peak direction, if they
                        are buses, or mostly empty, if they are trains), and they create demand that
                        can be satisfied only by adding to both the transit vehicle fleet and the
                        driver's pool (expensive, since drivers have to work split shifts), instead
                        of utilizing vehicles already owned and filling out or merging part-time
                        drivers' shifts. What has developed since the oil crisis is that the road
                        engineer has partially relieved his peak-hour headache by shifting the
                        problem to the transit system engineer.

                        This misplaced onus for paying for transit must be reversed. But it can be
                        done so only of the car owners begin to face fees reflecting the true costs
                        of both car use, peak-hour travel, and car-ownership (which makes peak-hour
                        road congestion possible, and mandates such high parking requirements).

                        Chris Bradshaw
                        Ottawa
                      • Anzir Boodoo
                        Tory, ... Are you suggesting something similar to London s Heathrow Airport? Travel within an Airport zone by bus and train (but not London Underground) is
                        Message 11 of 16 , Jul 4 5:46 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Tory,
                          On 4 Jul 2006, at 13:03, Tory Damantoro wrote:

                          > I would like to suggest ticketless zoning instead of totally free
                          > public transport. I agree that people have to pay to show the value
                          > of the service and increase their sense of belonging. For country
                          > that doesn’t have ear marking system in their finance regime like
                          > Indonesia, it is difficult to have direct subsidy for any public
                          > services including transport.
                          >
                          > Free public transport in special zoning can run as part of service
                          > provision from area management. There is a trend to make a super
                          > block in central city now days which are vibrant, crowd and
                          > sometime very close between one to another, so why not bundled it
                          > up to a wider pedestrian friendly CBD area serve with free shuttle
                          > commuter public transport.
                          Are you suggesting something similar to London's Heathrow Airport?

                          Travel within an "Airport zone" by bus and train (but not London
                          Underground) is free and ticketless, see http://
                          www.heathrowairport.com/assets/B2CPortal/Static%20Files/
                          Space_Invaders_map_05.pdf

                          Other possibilities:

                          Free or reduced price travel within a congestion charging zone -
                          "you're going to have to leave your car here, but you can pay $$$ to
                          go further or get a free bus into the centre" - this would have to be
                          funded somehow though.

                          City centre zone is free. The problem here is that this is the most
                          overcrowded zone. I think in Manchester they contemplated letting
                          anyone with a train ticket to the city centre travel on the Metrolink
                          (tram) free, but you can't squeeze any more people onto it...

                          --
                          Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
                          transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD
                        • Stephen Plowden
                          There have to be very strong reasons to depart from the principle, which is both an economic and a moral one, that the consumer should pay for the goods and
                          Message 12 of 16 , Jul 4 6:11 AM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            There have to be very strong reasons to depart from the principle, which
                            is both an economic and a moral one, that the consumer should pay for
                            the goods and services (s)he consumes. One big disadvantage of making
                            public transport free or artificially cheap is that people would use it
                            more; in particular, they might be encouraged to live further from their
                            work or other activities. "Keep journeys short " is a (the?) cardinal
                            rule of transport planning. Public transport has its own external
                            costs, even though they are usually (not necessarily or always ) less
                            than those of cars.

                            Controlling cars is not only, or even mostly, a matter of pricing.
                            Reallocating road space away from cars is also part of it; so are
                            parking controls which are very various and may or may not involve pricing

                            I feel a little hypocritical about attacking public transport subsidies,
                            since my age entitles me to free public transport in London. But we
                            oldies should not really get our freedom pass for nothing, we should be
                            asked to pay something for it. I wonder if there is not much more scope
                            for season tickets or something equivalent as a means of financing
                            public transport?



                            Roland Sapsford wrote:

                            > Hi
                            >
                            > I do think that the central point raised in the initial posting has been
                            > missed somewhat.
                            >
                            > It was David Engwicht of Bribane who, I believe, first pointed out that
                            > there is no logical reason to treat public transport as a pay per
                            > service operation just because you can. Looked at from the overall
                            > functioning of a city, it may be better to have the cost of
                            > comprehensive public transport met largely (or entirely) through
                            > collective revenue sources. This makes it more like the footpath, for
                            > example, - something which can be taken utterly for granted. That
                            > psychological shift is an important factor in modal choice long-term.
                            >
                            > As several people have pointed out there are downsides in terms of
                            > performance and quality incentives, but it is a balancing act.
                            > Full-cost pricing for cars is a theoretical concept - some form of less
                            > than perfect congestion pricing plus low entry cost public transport may
                            > deliver a better overall economic outcome - particularly if one is
                            > trying to achieve a high degree of modal shift. Of course, road pricing
                            > is more economically relevant and politically feasible after such a shift.
                            >
                            > I am not saying it always will be better - just that it might. It is
                            > apparent that in some places free public transport has worked extremely
                            > well and in other places it hasn't. The quality of service, the nature
                            > of the urban environment and many other factors seem relevant.
                            >
                            > Kind regards
                            > Roland Sapsford
                            > Wellington, New Zealand
                            >
                            > Stephen Plowden wrote:
                            > > Anzir
                            > >
                            > > Thanks for this.
                            > >
                            > > I am inclined to think that subsidising bus operators might be best in
                            > > rural situations such as the one you mention, and subsidising
                            > > disadvantaged travellers might be best in towns, but I haven't thought
                            > > it through. The most important thing is to reduce the need for
                            > subsidies
                            > > by regulating cars properly.|I am horrifed by the extent of rail
                            > > subsidies.
                            > >
                            > > Stephen
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Anzir Boodoo wrote:
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >> Stephen,
                            > >> On 2 Jul 2006, at 15:43, Stephen Plowden wrote:
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >>> Anzir puts the case against free-at-point-of- use public transport
                            > >>> very
                            > >>> well, but do the arguments not apply almost equally strongly to the
                            > >>> suggestion of a levy on local taxes to be used for public transport?
                            > >>>
                            > >>> At present, there is an economic case for subsidies arising from the
                            > >>> fact that cars are insufficiently priced and regulated. If they were,
                            > >>> this "second best"case for subsidies wd fall down, though there might
                            > >>> still in some places be a social case, perhaps best met by
                            > >>> subsidising
                            > >>> disadvantaged travellers rather than operators. Keith Buchan and I
                            > >>> suggested some years ago that in London we shd subsidise bus fares so
                            > >>> that the fares wd be the same as what they would be in a well
                            > >>> regulated
                            > >>> system , with buses freed from congestion caused by cars and goods
                            > >>> vehicle. Simultaneoulsy we shd work to achieve such a system. I think
                            > >>> this suggestion might apply quite widely.
                            > >>>
                            > >> I think it might.
                            > >>
                            > >> However, how do we start to move from public transport being "second
                            > >> best" to "best"?
                            > >>
                            > >> Whether operators or travellers should be subsidised is an
                            > >> interesting question... It all depends on the journeys, I suppose,
                            > >> and again, whether the little "hopper bus" is actually socially
                            > >> necessary or a network infill which strictly speaking isn't really (I
                            > >> used to have one going past my house, when the main bus route (every
                            > >> 10 minutes) was only 3 minutes' walk away). Perhaps for socially
                            > >> "necessary" bus routes (such as to villages or important links which
                            > >> are hard to make without the bus (such as suburban cross river or
                            > >> orbital journeys)) we should subsidise the operator so the cost of
                            > >> running the service is met?
                            > >>
                            > >> --
                            > >> Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
                            > >> transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >>
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Check in here via the homepage at http://www.newmobility.org
                            > <http://www.newmobility.org>
                            > > To post message to group: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                            > <mailto:NewMobilityCafe%40yahoogroups.com>
                            > > Please think twice before posting to the group as a whole
                            > > (It might be that your note is best sent to one person?)
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            >
                            >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.