Analysis of the Impacts of British Reforms
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
AN ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACTS OF BRITISH TRANSPORT REFORMS ON TRANSIT INTEGRATION IN THE METROPOLITAN AREAS by Charles Rivasplata Ph.D. Dissertation Transportation Technology and Policy University of California, Davis Committee in Charge: Professor Martin Wachs Professor Daniel Sperling Professor Robert Johnston Spring 2006 An Analysis of the Impacts of British Transport Reforms on Transit Integration in the Metropolitan Areas Copyright 2006 by Charles Richard Rivasplata ABSTRACT An Analysis of the Impacts of British Transport Reforms on Transit Integration in the Metropolitan Areas by Charles R. Rivasplata Doctor of Philosophy in Transportation Technology and Policy University of California, Davis Professor Martin Wachs, Co-Chair Professor Daniel Sperling, Chair By the 1990s, many experts concluded that transit privatization in Britain had produced positive impacts on service provision in London, but that deregulation outside of the capital had resulted in a number of negative impacts to passengers, most notably, rising fares, lower service frequencies in some areas, and declining levels of service integration. In an attempt to improve mobility at the local level, the incoming Labour Government effectively devolved transport planning powers to local authorities, requiring that they submit five-year Local Transport Plans in order to receive funding. Empowering legislation specifically identified service integration as a means through which to improve transit and provide a viable alternative to the auto. More recently, however, experts have surmised that local strategies in the Metropolitan Areas (Mets) have yielded limited gains in the area of service integration, in contrast to the experience of London. While some politicians believe that re-regulation of the transit industry in the Mets would automatically resolve integration issues, interview results suggested that there are additional factors that keep transit providers from effectively collaborating with one another. For example, existing competition law prevents transit operators from freely communicating with others, virtually eliminating the prospect of collaborative responses to common ii concerns. Other factors influencing the level of integration include the ease with which local authorities voluntarily band together to provide service links, and the level of trust that transit operators have in local authorities. In addition, the interviews revealed that the integration of transit is more easily achieved where operators sense that authorities want to engage in horizontal integration and do not have a hidden agenda. Beyond providing a better understanding of transit integration and possible reasons for past failures in the coordination of services, this study suggests ways of encouraging the sort of collaborative planning that can effectively bring together operators to work on improving service links in common areas. Attention to these issues is essential, not only to avoid disruptive, interoperator conflicts, but also to provide the conditions necessary to collectively offer a seamless, integrated transit service that provides significant benefits to passengers and society at large. iii To my beautiful wife, Cristina Elizabeth iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express my appreciation to a number of individuals. First, I would like to thank the Chairs of my Dissertation Committee, Professors Martin Wachs (UC-Berkeley) and Daniel Sperling (UC-Davis), for their ongoing guidance and assistance throughout my time at Davis. In particular, Professor Wachs, a brilliant teacher, researcher, mentor and friend, was central to my development and focus. Thanks also go to Professor Robert Johnston (UC-Davis) for his refreshing insights, as well as to Professors Pat Mokhtarian (UC-Davis) and David Dowall (UC-Berkeley) of my Exam Committee, from whom I had the opportunity to take courses. In addition, I wish to thank the University of California and in particular, ITS-Davis, IGERT and UCTC for their financial support. I also thank ITS-Berkeley and the ITS Library. Next, I wish to thank the individuals that generously assisted and supported me in my research. In particular, I wish to recognize the contributions of David Bayliss, Claire Haigh, Richard Holland, Jim Hulme, Peter Lawson, Bill Tyson and Peter White of Britain; Henry Malbran, Guillermo Muñoz, Javier Pinto and Alan Thomas of Chile; and Yasir Ahmed, Roger Behrens, Roland Lomme, and Andre Ward of South Africa. I also wish to thank Tom Amaroli, Gustavo Collantes, Aaron Golub, Maria Guilarte, Marlene le Roux, Joan Tolentino, Jean-Claude Ziv, and Chris Zegras, for their encouragement. At the San Francisco Planning Department, I wish to recognize the support of Amit Ghosh, John Billovits, Jasper Rubin, Larry Johnston, María Oropeza, Paul Lord and Scott Edmondson. Above all, I especially thank my dear wife, Cristina, and son, Sebastian, for their love, support and understanding. I also thank my mother, Edith; my father, Alfred; my brother, Terry; sister, Edith; and the remainder of my relatives in the Bay Area and Sacramento for their encouragement and support. Finally, I dedicate this dissertation to my wife and to the memory of my paternal grandfather, Antero Rivasplata, who always encouraged me to “study as much as possible.” v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 The Integration of Services 1 1.2 Purpose of the Dissertation 3 1.3 Research Framework 5 1.4 Potential Contribution 7 CHAPTER 2: APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING INTEGRATION 11 2.1 Transit Service Integration 11 2.1.1 Definition 11 2.1.2 Theoretical Importance 13 2.1.3 Economic Considerations 15 2.1.4 Transit System Design 18 2.1.5 Major Theoretical Issues 19 2.1.5.1 Perceptions concerning transit integration 19 2.1.5.2 Benefits and costs of integration 21 2.1.5.3 Importance of integration 22 2.1.5.4 Integration in British cities 26 2.1.5.5 Integration in Europe 28 2.2 Interorganizational Coordination 30 2.2.1 Public Management Approach 30 2.2.2 Collaborative Planning 32 2.3 Transport Planning and Regulation in Britain 35 2.3.1 Prior to Privatization 37 2.3.2 Since Privatization 38 2.3.3 Impacts on Integrated Services 43 2.3.4 Labour Party Response to Integration Concerns 43 2.3.5 Challenges to Implementation 47 2.4 Conclusions 49 CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS 51 3.1 Problem Definition 51 3.2 Research Questions 52 3.3 Principal Research Goals and Objectives 52 3.4 Research Propositions 53 3.5 Research Considerations 54 3.5.1 The Regulation-Integration Link 55 3.5.2 Performance Measures 56 vi TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) CHAPTER 4: TRANSIT INTEGRATION IN PRIVATIZED MARKETS 59 4.1 Santiago, Chile 61 4.1.1 Urban Characteristics 62 4.1.2 Transit Planning and Integration 62 4.1.2.1 Metrobus Program 64 4.1.2.2 Competitive tendering process 66 4.1.2.3 Transantiago 67 4.1.2.4 Future prospects 68 4.2 Cape Town, South Africa 68 4.2.1 Urban Characteristics 69 4.2.2 Transit Planning and Integration 69 4.2.2.1 Corridor strategies 72 4.2.2.2 Competitive tendering process 73 4.2.2.3 System transformation 74 4.2.2.4 Future prospects 75 4.3 Comparative Analysis 76 4.4 Conclusions 79 CHAPTER 5: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION 84 5.1 Overview 84 5.2 Data Collection 88 5.2.1 Historic Data and Existing Transit Patterns 89 5.2.2 Interview Design 90 5.2.3 Interview Format 94 5.2.3.1 Transit operators 94 5.2.3.2 Metropolitan, regional and national authorities 94 5.2.3.3 Transit sector consultant and academic professionals 95 5.2.3.4 Special interest groups 96 5.3 Data Analysis 96 CHAPTER 6: INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE STUDIES 99 6.1 Choice of Case Cities 99 6.2 Description of Case Cities 102 6.2.1 Greater Manchester 102 6.2.2 Tyne and Wear 105 6.2.3 Greater London 108 6.3 Research Focus 112 vii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) CHAPTER 7: STUDY FINDINGS 115 7.1 Interview Results 115 7.1.1 Background Information 116 7.1.2 Physical Integration 117 7.1.3 Fare Integration 119 7.1.4 Information Integration 121 7.1.5 Formal vs. Informal Integration 123 7.1.5.1 Potential benefits of informal integration 126 7.1.5.2 Potential disbenefits of informal integration 128 7.1.6 Other Issues 129 7.1.7 Observations 132 7.2 Transit Industry Data 134 7.2.1 Demand Side Trends 134 7.2.2 Supply Side Trends 136 7.2.3 Industry Trends 140 7.3 Government Policies and Programs 144 7.3.1 National Framework 144 7.3.1.1 Institutional background 144 7.3.1.2 Legislative background 147 7.3.1.3 Funding support 148 7.3.1.4 Transport planning documents 150 7.3.1.5 Integrated transit planning programs 154 7.3.2 European Framework 154 7.3.3 Integrated Service Development 155 7.3.3.1 Fare integration: transit smart cards 155 7.3.3.2 Information integration: real time transit facilities 158 7.3.3.3 Physical integration: interchange facilities 159 CHAPTER 8: ANALYSIS OF THE CASE CITIES 160 8.1 Greater Manchester 160 8.1.1 Historic Transport Policies 160 8.1.2 Transport Planning Initiatives: Local Transport Plan and Bus Strategy 164 8.1.3 Integrated Transit Planning Programs: Integrate Project 167 8.1.4 Smart Card Integration: Future Plans 168 8.1.5 Real Time Information Integration 170 8.1.6 Interchange Facilities 170 8.2 Tyne and Wear 172 8.2.1 Historic Transport Policies 172 8.2.2 Transport Planning Initiatives: Local Transport Plan and Bus Strategy 176 8.2.3 Integrated Transit Planning Programs: Superoutes 180 8.2.4 Smart Card Integration: Future Plans 181 8.2.5 Real Time Information Integration 183 8.2.6 Interchange Facilities 184 viii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 8.3 Greater