Transactions on the Built Environment vol 30, © 1997 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 What is the best public transport system? An instrument to compare urban public transport systems using transportational, environmental and social criteria J.T.A. van der Loop^ & G.C. de Jong^ 1: Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Transport Research Centre (AW), The Netherlands, P.O. Box 2: Hague Consulting Group, The Netherlands. Abstract Plans to improve urban public transport systems are currently developed in many urban areas in the Netherlands by local authorities. Until now these projects are financed largely by the national government. Several public transport systems (eg. busway, light rail) can possibly contribute to the solution of existing problems. These systems may have very different costs and benefits, and every local situation can have different characteristics. To facilitate and improve the proces of decisionmaking, an instrument has been developed which makes it possible to compare alternative solutions for specific projects. Results of studies applying this instrument are presented. 1 Introduction Because of an increasing demand for transport and a decline of the accessibi- lity of urban areas by car, plans are developed in several urban areas in the Netherlands for the improvement of public transport to be an alternative for car use. To improve public transport, several systems are possible, eg. tram, light-rail, Guided Light Transit (GLT), electronically guided bus, (mechani- cally) guided bus or buses on free infrastructure (busway). These systems can have different consequences on travel conditions for passengers, on the costs for central and local authorities and for public transport companies, on environmental and safety aspects, on the spatial and economic development of urban areas, etc.. To facilitate comparison of these different systems on those criteria for a specific project, an instrument has been developed. We start with a description of the formal decisionmaking process with respect to infrastructure plans. Next, a description will be given of the Transactions on the Built Environment vol 30, © 1997 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 206 Urban Transport and the Environment for the 21st Century instrument as developed. Furthermore, results will be presented from three studies carried out recently to improve public transport: a network of public transport in Eindhoven, a corridor south of Amsterdam and the corridor between The Hague to Rotterdam. Finally, the work we are carrying out at the moment will be described. The focus of this will be on the inclusion not only of more conventional systems such as regional train, metro and shared taxi in the instrument, but also of a set of automated people movers. 2 The process of decisionmaking The formal process of decisionmaking about transport infrastructure includ- ing public transport infrastructure has been laid down in the Long-term Programma of Infrastructure and Transport (MIT) and is structured in three phases: exploration of the problem, study and development of a plan and realisation. In the Netherlands, local and regional authorities are in the position to develop plans and submit them to this process of decisionmaking. Decisions about substantial financial contributions to the larger projects of public transport infrastructure are taken at a central level. The instrument for comparing public transport systems is developed for use as a tool in this process of decisionmaking. In this process not only authorities at different levels, but also public transport companies, experts and others play a role. During the first phase (exploration of the problem) a decision is made to study the problem, the causes and possible solutions. The study area or corridor of interest is defined. During the second phase a detailed study takes place and plans are developed, comprising the following steps. After making a list of the possible measures to solve the problem, fore- casts are made of the effects of these measures. This requires network design, simulations with a transport model to assess the likely substitution from car to public transport and an estimation of the operating and invest- ment costs. To realise substitution, in general an integrated package of measures is necessary, including not only measures to improve public transport, but also measures such as town planning, parking policy, traffic pricing, etc.. Secondly, public transport systems can be compared with each other as alternative solutions to the problem. For this purpose the instrument as developed can be used. Application of this instrument requires data which are described in the preceding step. The policy of the central government is to move responsibilities for this step in the future from central to regional and local authorities. Thirdly, a comparison can be made between different projects of infra- structure at a central level. For this purpose another instrument has been developed some years ago (PIOV, a model to compare investments in public transport). Many data gathered in the two preceding steps can also be used to apply PIOV to compare the results of different projects with each other. Transactions on the Built Environment vol 30, © 1997 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 Urban Transport and the Environment for the 21st Century 207 After these steps, in the second phase of development of a plan the project can be studied in further detail. Next, a decision can be taken about the implementation and realisation of the project. 3 The instrument to compare public transport systems The instrument is available in the form of a user-friendly PC program, that national, regional and local authorities can use*. In the instrument several public transport systems (up to 8-10 in a single evaluation) can be compared in a systematic way. The final main outcome of the instrument is a ranking of public transport systems: which is the best one for a particular area/corridor from a societal point of view, which one comes second, etc.? For every system there is also a quantitative outcome: the success probability (the chance of being better than another system), which is in the range [0,1]. Table 1. Criteria used in for comparing public transport systems impacts on costs and rev- regional environmental administrative travellers enues impacts impacts impacts -travel times -investment -space con- -emissions -technical -travel cost cost sumption -noise complexity -probability of -operating cost -barrier effect -visual effect -flexible having a seat -revenues -impact on -traffic safety expansion of distribution of -punctuality capacity -comfort employment -construction -safety in pub- and population in phases lic transport -disruption -response to -image during con- emergencies struction -exclusion of future options The main part of the instrument is a multicriteria analysis; a partial cost- benefit analysis serves as an input to the multicriteria analysis. The criteria used in both analyses are listed in Table 1. The selection of which criteria to include was based on the objectives completeness and avoidance of double-counting, and on the constraints imposed by the available data. The criterium scores for each public transport system in a particular case can be inserted on the basis of local knowledge, but for most criteria default scores can also be used. Some of the criteria are expressed in monetary terms (changes in travel cost for travellers, revenues for public transport com- panies, operating cost, investment cost). For other criteria (travel time changes) generally accepted monetary conversion factors exist\ Both groups of criteria are included in a cost-benefit analysis. The outcome of this, using a 30 year planning horizon, is one of the criteria in the multicriteria analysis. Most other criteria are expressed in the form of rankings: on criterium X, Transactions on the Built Environment vol 30, © 1997 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 208 Urban Transport and the Environment for the 21st Century tram scores better than GLT, which scores better than busway, etc.. The method used in the multicriteria analysis is the 'regime-method', which can take into account both quantitative and qualitative criteria, and which can handle either quantitative or ordinal criterium weights^. A default set of weights for the criteria has been defined, based on interviews with policymakers and experts. The interviews showed a remark- able degree of agreement on the relative importance of the various factors that play a role in decisionmaking on public transport systems. The Ministry of Transport is considering to use a fixed standard set of weights for its own evaluation of investment projects. In this set of weights, operating and investment costs will be relatively important. Local or regional authorities using the program can also define their own (quantitative or qualitative) weights, if they think this can be justified in their specific situation. 4 Case-study: improving public transport in Eindhoven In the Eindhoven region in the south of the Netherlands, local public transport is carried out by (diesel)buses, using busways with exclusive rights- of-way in some smaller parts of the network and having priority at most traffic lights. The long term plans envisage a high-quality public transport network with mostly segregated infrastructure and modern equipment on eight main axes. The case study concerns a comparison of the following alternatives to