New Urban Public Transportation Systems: Initiatives, Effectiveness, and Challenges
Publication: Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 130, Issue 1
Abstract
Growing traffic congestion, the need to preserve the environment, and the problems of road safety are the main reasons for many cities worldwide to consider new initiatives in public transportation (PT) systems. This work discusses the major elements and challenges around and within the introduction of a new or an improved PT system. The choice between public and private transport is an individual decision that is influenced by government/community decisions. These decisions are often sending mixed signals to the public transport passengers and potential users while failing to recognize system-wide and integration implications. This work attempts to provide the current state of the PT practice and to cover the issues of why or why not to use PT including the willingness to pay, viability and projection perspectives, the effectiveness of new initiatives mostly in Europe and North America, and achieving multimodal service integration. In addition a concluding example is provided with reference to the city of Auckland in New Zealand.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
Auckland Regional Council. (1999a). “A strategy for managing the region’s transport system.” Auckland Regional Land Transport Strategy 1999, Auckland, New Zealand.
Auckland Regional Council. (1999b). “Your ticket to the future.” Auckland Regional Passenger Transport Action Plan (PTAP), Auckland, New Zealand.
British Railways Board. (1996). Passenger demand handbook, London.
Bushell, C. (1996). Jane’s urban public transport system 1995–1996. Jane’s Information Group Limited, Coulsdon.
Ceder, A. (1999). “Efficient design of individual public transport routes.” Transportation science and technology into the next millennium, Hong Kong Society for Transportation Study Publication, Hong Kong, 30–40.
Ceder, A., and Israeli, Y. (1998). “User and operator perspectives in transit network design.” Transportation Research Record 1623, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 3–7.
Ceder, A., and Wilson, N. H. M. (1997). “Public transport operations planning.” Design and operations of civil environmental engineering systems, C. Revelec and A. E. McGarity, eds., Wiley, New York, 395–434.
ISOTOPE. (1997). “Improved structure and organization for urban transport operation in Europe.” Transport Research Fourth Framework Programme, Urban Transport, VII-51, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Brussels, Belgium.
Kottenhoff, K. (1993). “Evaluation of passenger car interiors.” TRITA-TPL-93-11-96, KHT Traffic Planning, Stockholm.
Kottenhoff, K. (1998). “Passenger train design for increased competitiveness.” Transportation Research Record 1623, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 144–151.
Kottenhoff, K., and Lindh, C.(1996). “The value and effects of introducing high standard train and bus concept in Blekinge, Sweden.” Transp. Policy, 2(4), 235–241.
Mackett, R. L., and Babalik, E. (1998). “Increasing the effectiveness of new urban public transport systems.” Proc., World Conf. of Transportation Research (WCTR), Antwerpen, Belgium.
Mead, D., Hill Young Cooper Ltd., Van Tonder, C., and Woodward Clyde NZ Ltd. (1999). “Transport characteristics of intensive urban areas: A discussion paper for the Auckland Regional Council.” Auckland, New Zealand.
PKK Environment & Infrastructure Pty. Ltd. (1999). “The influence of transport investment on urban intensification.” Auckland Regional Council, Final Rep., Brisbane, Australia.
QUATTRO. (1998). “Quality approach in tendering urban public transport operation in Europe.” Transport Research Fourth Framework Programme, Urban Transport, VII-51, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Brussels, Belgium.
Schmidt, L. (1996). “Värdeminsking vid Väderning av Tågkoncept” (Value reduction when evaluating train concepts: A study on comfort, service and timetable factors using the stated preference method). TRITA-IP AR 96-44, ISSN 1104-7437, ISRN KTH/IP/AR-96/44-SE KTH Traffic Planning, Stockholm.
Steer, Davies & Gleave Ltd. (1996/1997). “Research to evaluate passenger investment priorities—intercity: June 1986; Regional services: November 1987.”
Taplin, M.(1997). “A world of trams and urban transit.” Light Rail Modern Tramway, 60 supplement, 1–8.
Viegas, J. M. (1998). “Legal and regulatory options to promote system integration in urban public transport.” World Conf. of Transport Research (WCTR), Antwerpen, Belgium.
Viegas, J. M. (1999). “Public transport in sustainable urban transport policy package: Taking and integral policy approach.” Paper presented at The ECMT/OECD Workshop on Implementing Strategies to Improve Public Transport for Sustainable Urban Level, Athens, Greece.
Yang, T. P. (1998). “Light rail transit and new paradigm in urban public transportation planning.” Proc., 1st Asia Pacific Conf. on Transportation and the Environment, Singapore.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Urban Planning and Development
Volume 130 • Issue 1 • March 2004
Pages: 56 - 65
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Feb 27, 2002
Accepted: Nov 20, 2002
Published online: Feb 19, 2004
Published in print: Mar 2004
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.