Urban Transport without the Hot Air

[whole diary]

[Red Squirrel]

I^ve just finished reading Steve Melia^s book ^Urban Transport without the Hot Air^, and thought it might be worth airing a couple of his ideas here to see what others think. Among other things, the book sets out to debunk some of the myths that are regularly repeated in the press. With apologies to Dr Melia for anything I may have misunderstood, here goes:

1.   Expanding public transport, on its own, does not bring about significant modal shift or relieve congestion.
We often see new public transport schemes put forward on the grounds that they will get people out of their cars, or reduce traffic. The evidence shows that they don^t; whilst some people will transfer from other modes of transport and start using a new tram service, other motorists will rapidly fill any road space that they free up. Quite a lot of the journeys made on the new scheme will be ^new^, i.e. they would not have been made at all if the new scheme had not been built. And ^other modes^ does not just mean ^car^; it could mean bus, rail, bicycle or foot. And for ^tram service^, you could substitute the terms ^guided busway^ or ^road^.

2.   Better transport links bring economic prosperity
Evidence suggests that this is true for countries without a network of sealed roads. In developed countries, better transport links seem to move economic activity around rather than increase it. Interestingly, there is some evidence that closing roads in towns can increase economic activity.

3.   There is a war against the motorist
If you read the comments underneath almost any online newspaper story about transport, there will often be someone stating that the government or local authority is waging a war against motorists. It is true that in 1997 and 1998 the government passed the Road Traffic Reduction Acts, but in January 2000 the aim of reducing traffic was abandoned and the fuel duty escalator was cancelled. Since then, the duty on fuel has fallen significantly in real terms, whereas rail fares are locked into a formula that insists that they must rise above inflation. If there is a war, then it is against rail, not road!

In essence I think Dr Melia^s main argument is that we can^t improve transport just by building transport systems; congestion is a planning problem rather than a transport problem. Build in a way that makes it easier for people to get around on foot, by bike or by public transport, and they will use these modes.

[simonw]

Well argued.

I have always belied that public transport must be cheap, frequent, clean and direct. Just adding a route will not guarantee use.

One of the issues I have not heard much of is the availability of parking. Over recent years parking has become expensive and hard to find, whilst public transport has not filled the gap this has created. It is also expensive and hard to access.

This should have lead to a massive increase in cycling, and to a degree it has, but again very little sensible planning and construction for safe cycle routes has been done. It is great to paint a 2-foot strip beside a main road, but is not safe.

[Rhydgaled]

Expanding public transport, on its own, does not bring about significant modal shift or relieve congestion.

Given the title of the book, I have to ask whether there is any indication of whether this also applies to transport between towns, not just within them? Heavy rail is generally an inter-urban mode, whereas trams are for shorter-distances.

Assuming the same is true over any distance, I previously asked over in the 'Help Launch New Transport Campaign Group in South West' topic what would be needed to achieve modal shift from cars to public transport:

If a carrot* alone doesn't work, maybe we need a stick to use in conjunction with the carrot?

* Public transport investment

Graham seemed to think so:

More public transport investment, AND a system that discourages driving through pricing of parking and the like.

Discouraging driving by increasing car parking charges sounds a lot like a stick to me.

And now we get to:

If there is a war, then it is against rail, not road!

I don't think it is just a war against rail, rather it is against public transport in general.

Last night, BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) Wales Today had a story which invoked fury in me. Construction has apparently got underway on the new Newtown bypass. Such projects have to be the ultimate carrot for motorists. Another step in the wrong direction; another victory for the private car, another nail in the coffin for public transport.

[Red Squirrel]

Given the title of the book, I have to ask whether there is any indication of whether this also applies to transport between towns, not just within them? Heavy rail is generally an inter-urban mode, whereas trams are for shorter-distances.

Here is what the book has to say about inter-urban travel:

...the vast majority of journeys begin and/or end in urban areas, so the capacity for inter-urban travel will be constrained by the road capacity of towns and cities.

Which seems to be saying that journeys with non-urban start or end points are just the same as those that start or end in cities or suburbs.