Transcript Slide 1

The price argument in urban
innovative transport strategies
Tallinn, 26 October 2012
|
Innovation...
Controversial
Stockholm
Trondheim
Milano
Polarising
Road user charging
Göteborg
London
Perth
Well-studied
CIty wide free
public transport
Singapore
Oslo
Hasselt
For the bold...
Zagreb
Often a succes!
|
TIDE – Transport Innovation Deployment for Europe
 Enhance the broad take-up of 15 innovative urban
transport and mobility concepts throughout Europe to
establish them as mainstream measures
 Make a range of new and feasible solutions easily
accessible to address key challenges of urban
transport such as energy efficiency, decarbonisation,
demographic change, safety, access for all, and new
economic and financial conditions
16 July 2015 | 3
Spreading Innovation
TIDE Innovative
Transport and Mobility
Concepts
Contribution to Mainstreaming
Key Target Groups
Figure based on Rogers
|
Thematic Cluster 1: New financing models and pricing measures (Milan – WSP)
Innovative Concepts
Implementation scenarios in Milan
1.1 Road user charging in urban
areas
Evaluation and action plan for fine-tuning of new
congestion charge scheme
1.2 Parking charge policies
Innovative parking management and enforcement
scheme in inner city
Additional concepts to select from
1.3 Infrastructure packages and cross financing
1.4 Value capturing
1.5 Incentive based pricing policies
|
Thematic Cluster 5: Public transport organisation (BKK – UGdansk)
Innovative Concepts
Implementation scenarios in
Budapest
5.1 Creation of public transport management bodies for
metropolitan areas
Institutional integration for
transport in Budapest
5.2 Contracting of services focused on improvement of
passenger satisfaction & efficiency
Innovative elements for bus
tendering
Additional concepts to select from
5.3 Marketing research as optimisation tools in public transport
5.4 Integration of collective and individual forms of urban transport
5.5 Sustainable urban public transport corridors
|
TIDE kicking off!
Call for Champion Cities to be launched mid December!
Survey online over the next days.
Workshop 28 November, Perugia
16 July 2015 | 7
What do cities want to achieve with free public
transport schemes?









‘Accessibility’
Social inclusion (job seekers, -16/+60)
Combat congestion (e.g. Dutch Spitsmijden, corridor approach)
Improve the Environmental situation (e.g. Belgian Ozone Plan)
Make a mark! (Hasselt, a.o.)
Change activity patterns (-16/+60, students)
Help people discover the city (tourist schemes e.g. Basel)
Increase or change economic activity (Free market bus, job seekers)
Road safety (e.g. Free nocturnal PT, New Year’s Night)
|
Fare box strategies are only one piece of the
puzzle...
|
About accessibility
Function of
 distance traveled
 per time unit
 at what cost
(financial,
physical,
psychological)
 per destination
reached
Increasing accessibility:
“Tamper” with
 distances
 speed
 financial cost
 physical accessibility
 psychology (travel
horizons)
 nature and location of
destinations
|
Reduce
psychological
barriers
Simple network
Coupling and linking of lines
Visualisation
Weekend versus week service
Simple fare structure
|
Social Inclusion: Eclipse recommendations
Objective
Action
STEP1
Allow people to access a
transport system…
Provide a universally designed
Public Transport network that is
accessible to all
STEP2
… that gives access to
relevant destinations and
services…
Give access to specific areas
and destinations, bringing
services to people
STEP3
… and that allows people
to participate to society
at the fullest.
Personalised transport
promotion and services.
|
Kaufmanns Motility Concept
Access
Modes’
availability
Spatial
distribution
Price
Supply
Skills
Appropriation
City image
Perception public
transport &
measure
Knowledge of the
Values
city
Habits
|
Motorisation
Parking supply
40%
32%
24,5%
20%
27%
19,5%
12%
9,5%
< 350
350 to 450
450 to 550
> 550
> 500
Market share of public transport (mechanised and
motorised trips) depending on motorisation rate
Volume of supply
100 to 250
250 to 500
Market share of public transport depending on
number of parking spaces per 1000 jobs in CBD.
Relative speed
42,5%
30%
19,5%
24%
33%
18,5%
9,5%
6,5%
< 1500
< 100
1500 to
2500
2500 to
5000
> 5000
Market share of public transport depending on
public transport supply per hectare (vehicle x
km / ha)
> 1,75
1,25 to
1,75
1 to 1,25
<1
Market share of public transport depending on
relative speed of cars. – source UITP
|
|
Free Public Transport strategies will need
justification
|
Legal justification – link to local planning activities








‘Accessibility’
Social inclusion
Combat congestion
Improve the Environmental
situation Make a mark!
Change activity patterns (spatial
planning)
Help people discover the city
Increase or change economic
activity
Road safety
SUMP!
|
Economic justification – positive CBA
(source TNO)
public transport
consumers,
households
companies, facilities
society
primary beneficiaries:
they are the passengers of public
transport!
secondary beneficiaries:
these parties can benefit from
consumers using public transport
|
All costs have to be compensated by
benefits
Benefits for
consumers, households
Price of the ticket
Benefits for
companies, facilities
Contracts
Benefits for society
Subsidies
Total:
≥ 100 % of costs
|
Be ready to discuss the opportunity cost of
free public transport!
|
Justification – alternative financing models


Third party payment systems (Beer Bus!)
Specific fare policies offer the possibility to financially involve other
sectors

Earmarking specific (new) revenue streams
|
Justification: Evalution
Objectives – targets - indicators
 Logical chain of objectives – targets – indicators
e.g.
 Congestion
 Measure congestion
 More PT passengers
 A substantial share of which are former car drivers
 More P&R users
 Discovering the city
 Destinations reached
 Mental mapping
|
And how can you assure the city gets value
for money?
|
Getting value for money
Entry point of negotiation with operator
 Difference between patronage and operational cost at start level
 Total cost per individual user
 Objectivation of operational cost in view of growing demand
 Quality indicators and service levels guaranteed (ENERQI)
|
Mitigate adverse effects






crowding out soft modes
filling in road space
dismantling travel chains and combined trips
capacity and punctuality problems
Lack of opportunity to package mobility solutions
Loss of data about the system (free vs open)
|
Good luck!
You have our support!
|
Contact details
 Ivo Cré
 [email protected]
 +32 2 5005676
 www.tide-innovation.eu
16 July 2015 | 27