Transcript Urban sustainability and transport demand

SIET
Trieste, 17th June 2009
Elisabetta Venezia
Determinants of the demand for
urban transport:
results of a case study
Aims
This paper has a twofold
aim:
 it focuses on current
problems linked to
urban passenger public
transport and
 it presents results of an
empirical analysis on a
case study.
European comparisons-local transport
The European framework



Explosive growth in car
use
Greater car depedence
Difficulties of collective
public transport
systems
Exhibit 1 - Cars in use 1970-2004 in Europe (EU-15)
250.000.000
n. of cars
200.000.000
150.000.000
100.000.000
50.000.000
1970
1980
1990
1995
2000
years
2001
2002
2003
2004**
Local public transport
Theoretically there are
different models:



Free market or
deregulated market;
Regulated market;
Closed market.
Regulation models of urban LPT
Closed market
Starting regulated market
Advanced regulated market
Free market
Sweden
Finland
Norway
Estonia
Latvia
Denmark
Irland
Lithuania
Great Britain
Poland
Netherlands
Belgium
Germany
Czech Rep.
Slovakia
France
Switz.
AustriaHungary
Croatia
Bosnia
Italy
Portugal
Source: Earchimede (2005)
Spain
Bulgaria
Greece
Local transport - Structural indicators (%)
Italy
UK
Germany France Sweden
Holland
Belgium
P-km road
65
48
47
45
50
45
58
P-Km rail
35
52
53
55
50
55
42
Km
per 30. 8
habitant
41.3
31.8
26.9
56.0
23.5
22.0
Average
speed
for
buses
(km/h)
24.00
20.7
23.07
27.3
22.6
21.2
20.2
Source: Earchimede (2005)
Local transport - Structural indicators (%)
Italy
UK
Germany France
Sweden
Holland
Belgium
Market
27
share of the
first 5 bus
companies
66
37
82
72
49
77
Km public 68
operators
5
52
36
24
95
72
Km private 32
operators
95
48
64
76
5
28
Source: Earchimede (2005)
Local transport - Performance indicators (€)
Italy
UK
Germany
France Sweden
Holland Belgium
Public
2.2
funds per
km
0.6
1.5
1.9
0.9
1.5
2.0
Traffic
revenues
per km
1.08
1.49
2.39
1.14
1.07
0.98
1.00
Ordinary 0.84
price
ticket
1.53
1.89
1.26
1.95
1.60
1.40
Source: Earchimede (2005)
Local transport - Performance indicators (% and €)
Italy
UK
Germany France
Sweden
Holland
Belgium
Degree
of 30.7
cost
coverage
(%)
84.2
60.5
39.2
55.4
40.0
33.1
Labour costs 2.3
per km
(€)
0.8
2.1
1.6
1.1
1.7
2.0
Source: Earchimede (2005)
Degree of public transport users’
satisfation
Margin (% of
production value)
% of urban tr.:
high
France
medium
England
low
Sweden
Average: 10,0%
Germany
Belgium
Italy
Netherlands
low
Average: 79%
Degree of satisfaction*
* % of satisfied local public transport users
Source: Earchimede (2005)
high
Urban public transport in Italy
At present, the structural reform
of the Italian local public
transport is aimed at:

a potential re-launching of
the sector

the achievement of more
general objectives.
Urban public transport in Italy
The most innovative
points are:
 the privatisation of
operators
 regionalisation
 service contracts
 regulated liberalisation.
Current situation
Several obstacles are
still hampering the
actual implementation
of a true
competitiveness,
 this situation caused
several
misunderstandings and
excessive differences
among regional laws.
Poor results.

Current situation
Who is responsible for all
this?
Probably, the main
responsibility is of
regions and of local
bodies, which managed
the local public
transport up to date.
Reform results



There was no recovery
of efficiency loss,
the efficiency gap of
local public transport in
terms of revenues and
externalities due to
traffic was not
decreased,
the reform has not
currently achieved
efficiency and
effectiveness.
Reform results
Recently, changes in the
legislation on local public
services allow the
assignment of transport
services “in house”.
This means that tendering
procedures will no longer be
compulsory.
We are back to monopoly!
Reform results
European Court of Justice
6.4.2006 on the
assignment of transport
services “in house” in
Bari:
“Tendering procedure, no
in house assignment for
AMTAB”.
Good news, then!
Suggestions
Operators of urban transport
service have to take in
consideration the exigencies
of current and potential
users.
Operators should abandon the
idea that only systematic
transport demand use urban
buses.
Empirical evidence – sample
In this context, it could be useful to
investigate on a city like Bari
with a twofold aim:
 Analysis of the current supply of
public transport – as perceived
by users
 Understanding mobility needs
and behaviours of population
living in Bari and of those who
use urban transport in Bari.
Empirical evidence – sample
Useful information on needs of some
user categories, such as
pensioners and housewives.
Investigation on the eventual
knowledge of new mobility
sustainable tools.
All these elements may help to define:

the expected quality, which pays
attention to the expressed needs of
users,

the perceived quality, which
measures values attributed by the
client at the current quality level of
transport services.
Empirical evidence – sample
City: Bari
Type of survey: Direct survey, questionnaires on 1886 users.
Covered survey time: 7.00-21.00.
Composition: the sample is composed by 45% males and by 55%
females.
Age structure: the age composition of this sample is structured
with 32% of users who have an age between 19-29, followed by
29% belonging to the class 30-50, while 16% are over 65, 13%
are in the class 51-65 and, finally, 10% is represented by user
below 19.
Occupational composition
Pensioners
14%
Others
4%
Employees
25%
Housewives
19%
Students
30%
Selfemloyed
workers
8%
Availability of private
means - all day
Never
64%
Alw ays
24%
Som etim es
12%
Urban transport mode normally used
Foot
6%
Private m ode
11%
Bus
83%
Frequency in the use of buses
3-4 tim es per
w eek
12%
Rarely
7%
Never
1%
1-2 tim es per
w eek
7%
Every day
73%
Reasons for using buses in
comparison with other means
No ans w e r
11%
Punctuality
6%
Conve nie nce
22%
Com for t
61%
Vantages from the use of buses in
comparison with private means
Others
11%
No answ er
1%
Less polluting
16%
Cheaper
23%
No parking
problem s
49%
Degree of satisfaction for using buses
Not at all
19%
No answer
1%
A lot
6%
Not much
33%
Enough
41%
Aspects of buses services to be
improved
Thronging
6%
Inform ation
1%
None
4%
More direct links
2%
Cleaning
3%
Frequency
30%
Puntuality
22%
More m aintenance
w orks
3%
More controls on
board
10%
No answ er
3%
Others
16%
Main defects of buses
None
2%
Acce s s ability for
dis able s 9%
No ans w e r
1%
Dir tine s s
13%
No punctuality
30%
Expe ns ive
7%
Ins e cur e
10%
Cr ow de d
28%
Safety on board
Yes
30%
No
70%
Opinion on the equity of the bus
service price
No
45%
Ye s
55%
Availability to pay something more for
a higher bus frequency
No
39%
Yes
61%
Reasons for not using buses
Short dis tance s
2%
None
45%
Scarce fre que ncy
4%
Othe rs
10%
Scarce puntuality
9%
Too long w aiting
tim e
11%
Too s low
4%
Availabity of othe r
m e ans
9%
Too crow de d
6%
Definitive choice for
not using buses
No
35%
Ye s
65%
Scopes for using buses
Othe rs
1%
Le is ure tim e
22%
Shopping
36%
School/
w ork
41%
Knowledge of car sharing, car pooling
and collective taxi
Yes
20%
No
80%
Potential use of car sharing, car
pooling and collective taxi
No
30%
Yes
70%
Random utility model
The random utility model
has been used to give
an interpretation of data
on individual choice
related to bus service
provided in Bari.
Random utility model
The individual’s utility of two
choices – bus transit and
private means – is estimated
by binary logistic regression
and logistic regression
coefficients are used to
estimate odds ratios for
each independent variable
in the model.
The values assumed by the
dependent variable, as the
probability of using buses,
are equal to one.
Gender
Results indicate that females
are more likely to be bus
users than males. As a
matter of fact, women have
nearly twice as much the
probability of using buses in
comparison with males.
This aspect has a variety of
implications, among which
the demand for mobility
which is strictly linked to the
quality of life of this
population segment.
Age
Figures show that the
probability of using buses is
particularly important for
those belonging to the 19-29
year-old range, followed by
respondents who are over
the 51year-old range.
Availability of other transport means
Those who expressed a higher
probability of using buses
are those who always have
a car.
This is a very good indication
because for the future these
figures are underlying
propensities for changing
behaviour.
Main reasons for using buses
Due to the very high congestion in
the city centre, buses
guarantee more punctuality
than private means – mainly
due to congestion and parking
problems - and therefore
respondents would be more in
favour of using collective
modes.
Frequency
If frequency is considered,
those who would like to
use buses are, quite
reasonable, those who
now use buses every
day.
Scopes
As for scopes, transit due
to:
 leisure activities and
 school/working
activities
are almost one and a half
times more important
than those who would
like to use buses for
shopping.
Main advantages from potential use
Respondents indicate, as
advantages, “no parking
problem” and the fact that
this transport mode is
cheaper in comparison with
alternatives.
So, individuals would behave
rationally with regard to the
choice between public and
private transport.
Results and conclusions
The survey and the empirical
analysis suggest that one best
direct option is simply not to
improve congestion.
One can simply suggest increasing
the space allocated to buses
and thus reducing the road
space allocated to car traffic.
So doing, at least, buses can
guarantee affordable services,
although some other general
improvements are requested,
such as a higher frequency.
Results and conclusions
The results of the survey
also suggest that, in
the future, there could
be some hope, also in
sustainable terms
especially if –
regardless of the final
end of the reform
process – operators
take into consideration
what their clients need.
For the future …. more research



New survey (done! 2008)
New empirical analysis (in progress)
Comparisons with other cases
Thank you for your attention!