John Attanucci 1.201, Lecture 7 Fall 2008 1 PUBLIC TRANSPORT INTRODUCTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL MODELS: THE ROLES OF THE PUBLIC and PRIVATE SECTORS Outline • Current U.S. Status and Recent Trends • Significant Influences • A Critical Assessment • Arguments Supporting Public Transport • Organizational Models • US Transit Industry • UK Bus Industry Experience John Attanucci 1.201, Lecture 7 Fall 2008 2 Current Status • Ridership increasing modestly but remains small • Strong financial support from all levels of government • Significant growth in number of new rail starts in past 25 years • Major rebuilding of many older systems over past 15 years • Little institutional or technological innovation, but growing recognition that fundamental change may be necessary for survival well into 21st centuryUS Urban Transport Today Trends in Modal Split for Daily Travel in the United States (1969-2001) Mode of Transportation 1969 1977 1983 1990 1995 2001 Auto 81.8 83.7 82.0 87.1 86.5 86.4 Transit 3.2 2.6 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 Walk n/a 9.3 8.5 7.2 5.4 8.6 Bicycle n/a 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.9 Other 5.0 3.7 6.5 3.0 5.4 2.5 Source: Socioeconomics of Urban Travel: Evidence from the 2001 NHTS by John Pucher and John L. Renne. Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 3, Summer 2003 (49–77). Eno Transportation Foundation, Inc., Washington, DC. Federal Highway Administration, Nationwide Personal Transportation Surveys 1969, 1977, 1983, 1990, and 1995; and National Household Travel Survey, 2001. John Attanucci 1.201, Lecture 7 3 Fall 2008 Transit Share of Commute for Metropolitan Areas Over 2 Million in Population (2000) Sources: U.S. 2000 Census Journey to Work (http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/c2kbr-33.pdf) and U.S. Department of Transportation Census Transportation Planning Package http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/jtw/ John Attanucci 1.201, Lecture 7 4 Fall 2008↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑ ↑ Metropolitan Areas with Largest Transit Share Modal Split for Home-to-Work Journeys (2000) Car Transit Non-Motorized Work at home San Francisco -Oakland Chicago NY-NJ-CT-PA 81.0 81.5 ↑65.7 9.5 11.5 ↓24.9 5.5 4.2 ↓6.4 ↓� ↑↓�4.1 ↑2.9 ↑3.0 ↑Washington DC-Baltimore 83.2 ↑ 9.4 ↓ 3.9 ↓ 3.5 ↑Boston 82.7 9.0 5.1 ↓ ↑↓ 3.2 ↑↑ ↓↑ ↓ indicates change of more than 0.5% from 1990-2000 Source: Journey to Work Trends in the United States and its Major Metropolitan Areas 1960-2000 John Attanucci 1.201, Lecture 7 5 Fall 2008 John Attanucci 1.201, Lecture 7 Fall 2008 6 Significant Influences • Suburbanization of homes, employment and attractors • Low costs for car ownership and operation • Extensive urban road infrastructure • Government policies towards roads and public transport7 Suburbanization: 2000 Journey to Work A. Total Trips (in millions of daily trips) 53.8 (52%) 49.0 (48%) Total Jobs 37.4 (36%) 9.2 (9%) 28.2 (27%) Central City 65.4 (64%) 44.6 (43%) 20.8 (20%) Suburbs Total Homes Suburbs Central City Homes in: Jobs in: B. Share of 1990-2000 Increase Jobs in: 65% 16% Suburbs 14% 5% Central City Suburbs Central City Homes in: C. Public Transport Mode Share John Attanucci 1.201, Lecture 7 Fall 2008 Jobs in: 2% 6% Suburbs 6% 14% Central City Suburbs Central City Homes in: John Attanucci 1.201, Lecture 7 Fall 2008 8 The Car-Road System* High car ownership levels • 600 cars per 1000 population High car usage • 10,000 veh-km per capita annually Low taxes, fees and user charges for car ownership and use • Sales taxes range from 5-8% • Users pay only 60% of road infrastructure costs in US • Petrol taxes are from 10-20% of European levels Urban parking supply is relatively widely available and often free • 380 parking spaces per 1000 central city workers in 10 largest US cities • 95% of car commuters enjoy free parking Highly developed urban road system • 6.6 metres of road per capita in 10 largest US cities; 3 times European levels * Source: The Urban Transportation Crisis in Europe and North America, by John Pucher and Christian LeFevre, 1996.Public Transport Funding by Source (2005, in $ billions) Capital Operating Fares --- 10.3 (32%) Other directly generated 3.3 (27%) 5.0 (16%) Local 2.7 (22%) 6.7 (21%) State 1.6 (13%) 7.5 (24%) Federal 4.8 (39%) 2.3 (7%) Total 12.4 billion 31.7 billion Source: American Public Transportation Association, Transit Facts 2007 (for 2005) John Attanucci 1.201, Lecture 7 9 Fall 2008 John Attanucci 1.201, Lecture 7 Fall 2008 10 A Critical Assessment • Public transport has been stabilized • Many new rail initiatives in operation or under construction • Some real success stories: New York City, Houston, Seattle • Institutional change is occurring slowly • Retention of political supportJohn Attanucci 1.201, Lecture 7 Fall 2008 11 Arguments Supporting Public Transport • Equity: access for those who cannot or do not choose to drive • Congestion: the need for a high-quality alternative • Land use influence: public transport is necessary, but not sufficient to change trends • Environmental: car technology strategies are more effective • Energy: car technology strategies are more effective John Attanucci 1.201, Lecture 7 Fall 2008 12 Other Arguments Supporting Transit • Economic: private expenditures for autos may be alternatively used to improve local economies and quality of life • Transit allows agglomeration of economic activity in cities: • New York, Boston, San Francisco, etc. could not have developed without transit • The contribution of earlier investments in heavy rail is not valued appropriately • New investments will have a lasting impact – thus the need for a long viewJohn Attanucci 1.201, Lecture 7 Fall 2008 13 Other Arguments Supporting Transit • Transit is contributing to decreasing external costs of transport in cities: • accidents • impacts on human health • congestion • noise • global warming John Attanucci 1.201, Lecture 7 Fall 2008 14 Other Arguments Supporting Transit • The key is the enhancement of the quality of the urban space • Public Transport can be a catalyst for this processSix Organizational Models MODELS Unregulated Regulated Competition Threatened Competition Private Monopoly Public Monopoly Contracting Out F U N Regulation Minimum Yes Yes* Yes Yes Yes* Financing PR PR PR PR PU PR & PU C Planning PR