International Transit Studies Program
Report on the First Three Missions, Part 2
ZURICH
Background
The most populous urban region in Switzerland, the canton of Zurich
(pop. 1.2 mil) has been served since 1990 by a transit association called Zuercher
Verkehrsverbund (ZVV). This association comprises more than 40 public and private transit
providers, operating a total of 262 commuter rail, light rail, mountain rail, bus, trolley
bus, and cable car lines and passenger ferries. The network consists of 2,700 route km.
The regional rail (S-Bahn) serves as the main distributor, with 27 station stops inside
the city limits. Neighborhood feeder buses and vans bring passengers to the main stop. The
canton’s goal is to have a bus stop within 300 m of each doorstep.
Since the passage of a 1988 referendum supporting an integrated rail
network, daily public transit passenger totals have increased by more than one-third in
Zurich and by about 14 percent in the ZVV region, to just under 1 million total. The
transit mode share among daily commuters to Zurich has increased from 50 percent to 59
percent in the last decade. Farebox receipts cover 56 percent of the system’s current
annual operating costs, amounting to SFr 800 million ($715 million). The shortfall is
covered in equal parts by the canton and its 171 communities. Calculation of the local
contributions uses a complicated 80/20 formula that takes into account the number of daily
departures from station stops in each community, along with the community’s tax base.
Unlike most transit operators, the Zurich S-Bahn light rail system has
the avowed objective of offering a seat to every passenger. Standing is considered an
exception to be tolerated only for the briefest of periods. This require-ment reflects the
desire for comfortable travel and an amenable egalitarian transit environment for all
passengers, whether they be top government officials, bank presidents, white or blue
collar employees, homemakers, or students.
There is full fare integration throughout the region, which is divided
into 45 tariff zones. About 35 million single, multiple, monthly, and annual tickets are
sold each year. According to a study conducted by an independent research institute
(Social Data of Munich), this works out to about 400 public transit trips per inhabitant
per year, a level well above that registered by other metropolitan regions in western
Europe.
What Makes Zurich Livable?
Zurich offers the most compre-hensive and customer-friendly transit
system of all the cities that the group visited. The policy decision to keep most of the
transit system above ground and to make transit easy to use contributes to its high use.
Because public transit provides a competitive advantage for Zurich, it is supported by the
populace and the government. The various transit agencies focus on transit availability,
speed, and reliability in order to maintain this position.
The region, through the regional transportation agency, coordinates
fares and provides for services through long- range (10-year) contracts with private
contractors. The region also strives for stability in the level of service. In this way,
people who depend on it are not faced with a changed schedule as often happens in the
United States.
The commitment to availability, speed, and reliability necessitates
that the transit agency spend significant resources on providing high-quality information
that is well placed and complete. Meanwhile, it is also striving to provide technological
improvements to ensure that the transit vehicles are moving through intersections and on
main streets without being impaired by traffic lights, cars, or bicycles. It was
interesting to watch a traffic police-officer direct traffic, with the cars definitely
getting second or third priority after trams and pedestrians. The policy of not making
trams wait at traffic lights has improved the speed of trams so that they achieve higher
speeds than cars in the city.
The livability of the city and the level of transit services is also
increased because of a well-designed method of financial participation by the
benefici-aries of transit service. The federal government participates in the
sub-sidization of new transit rail services and facilities. However, it is the
locals’ responsibility to fund current services for both operating and capital costs.
Fares, which recover over 50 percent of costs and are zone-based, provide the bulk of
funding. However, the canton and the individual municipalities must supply the rest. This
approach allows a municipality to establish its own level of support for transit services.
As a policy, however, it must maintain a minimal level of service. In many of the rural or
suburban areas, buses must meet trains that provide hourly service. The system of bus
meeting train has been perfected in Switzerland.
Land use policy has also contributed to the livability of the city by
encouraging dense developments, whether residential or commercial, around transit
facilities. In addition, planners and traffic engineers have been able to increase the
level of transit without having to build roads or acquire right of way. They were
suc-cessful in getting public support to implement their plans because they did not ignore
the car. When they needed space for transit, whether it was a dedicated lane or a complete
street, they made improvements to the rest of the system to improve speed or increase
capacity for the automobile.
A major accomplishment of the Zurich transit agency is the level of use
of the assets of the company, especially the station areas. The largest shopping area in
the central city, outside of the Bahnhoffstrasse, is the large mall at the main railroad
station. The quality and quantity of shops equals that of many large shopping centers in
the United States. The layout of this station, which is extremely accessible, especially
to those people with visual impairments, encourages people to stop and shop before their
trip home. The Swiss Federal Railroad is so successful in this area that 50 percent of
their revenues are from retail and other non-fare revenue sources.
Another major commitment of the Swiss government that improves the
livability of Zurich, and of Switzerland in general, is the commit-ment to use electric
trains throughout the country. This clean fuel does not result in odors at the stations,
making it pleasant to do errands and shopping. It also helps maintain the beauty of the
countryside.
What Could Be Applicable to the United States?
The most impressive program, which also appears to have the highest
level of success, is that of traffic signalization and the tram/bus manage-ment system,
which can easily be implemented in many cities here. The benefits of such a system were so
clear in Zurich that the costs became secondary. Another critical element to providing
quality service that can be implemented here is the "pulse" system of bus
meeting train. This convenience creates a feeling that the passenger is valued. The
barriers to these programs are mostly financial; the long-term benefits of such programs
should be examined carefully.
Another lesson that can be learned from Zurich is that clear roles for
the organizations involved (e.g., local, canton, and federal governments, as well as the
transit agency and the communities) result in better transit service.
FREIBURG
Background
Freiburg (pop. 191,000) enjoys an international reputation as one of
Europe’s most environmental and ecology-minded cities. It pays heed to public art,
amenities, and historic preservation. The business community helps the city pay for the
unique sidewalk mosaics in front of most downtown stores.
For the past 10 years, Freiburg’s light rail system has pioneered
the discounted "environment pass." This has helped change the modal split in
favor of public transport and has become a model for other German cities. More than 4
million environ-ment passes have been sold in the 10 years since it was introduced. Over
this period, the number of passengers carried by the Freiburg public transit system has
more than doubled.
A regional transit association started 3 years ago, covering Freiburg
and three surrounding counties with a comprehensive network of transit lines. It consists
of 3 commuter rail, 5 urban light rail, and 77 bus lines—some 2,000 line km that can
be traveled with a single, transferable flash pass.
The super-sized, triple-articulated light rail transit vehicle—the
backbone of the Freiburg fleet—is 33 m (108 ft) long, can carry 260 passengers, and
has eight powered axles. It connects with the suburbs on its own grassy right of way that
blends into the environment.
The city’s extensive network of bicycle paths, about 410 km at
last count, is used by more than 100,000 bicyclists.
What Makes Freiburg Livable?
The most noticeable feature of this small city is its
"texture." The streetscape, street furniture, pavement variety, and artistic
blend of color, shape, and texture make walking inter-esting. The sidewalks are embedded
with art to keep the pedestrian interested. Flowering plants, trees, and shrubs enhance
the view and promote a feeling of belonging and of being part of the neighborhood. The
bicycle paths are similarly well defined and pleasant.
Car garages are hidden or obscured with rooftop shrubbery and balcony
plantings. These structures, which include some housing, become part of a neighborhood and
are useful without being eyesores. The housing, partly dictated by the historic character
of the city, is close to the street and is built within a rather strict zoning code. New
structures, even though clearly modern, reflect the characteristics of the gothic look and
enhance the texture of the overall environment. Public buildings are primary examples of
architecture that enhances the envir-onment. The policy decision to use public design
competition for these structures contributes to the livability of the city.
The light rail system that bisects the city was designed to provide
easy access while blending with the envi-ronment. The railbed is cobblestone, brick, or
grass, depending on the area that it crosses. This system, combined with a bus network,
aims to provide access to 90 percent of the population with a walking distance of about
300 m to a stop. The residential neighbor-hoods are slowly, but carefully, converted to
Tempo 30 zones through the use of various traffic-calming methods. This commitment to
transit and the environment has made this city an example of a livable community. These
programs have helped the city to decrease traffic accidents by 50 percent and to decrease
the severity of accidents by 60 percent.
In recent years, after the unification of Germany, several mili-tary
bases have been closed. One such base is in the outskirts of Freiburg. The process for
developing this valuable land is a good example of what good planning and regional
cooperation can achieve. The planning process included much public participation; a policy
decision was made that the develop-ment would take place around a light rail line. The
mixed-use community was designed with the best features of a neotraditional approach,
where the residential streets are Tempo 30 zones with the arterial streets feeding to the
rail line. Green spaces are located where they will benefit the most people.
What Could Be Applicable to the United States?
Freiburg shows how to design and implement new development so that it
does not detract from a fragile gothic city. The focus of the city on its magnificent old
architecture has not stopped it from growing and providing new opportunities for industry
and populace. The transit innovations and expansion occurred even in the middle of this
historic environment. This city is a good example of how to improve the infrastructure
without compromis-ing a cultural heritage. The changes made in this city are of human
scale and encourage human interaction.
STRASBOURG
Background
The Strasbourg light rail transit line, inaugurated in November 1994,
has been designed to serve as the mainstay of the metropolitan region’s public
transit system. The region has a population of 435,000, the city about 250,000. The light
rail transit system, described as revolutionary, is expected to dramatically change the
modal split by the 21st century. Prior to its recent introduction, 75 percent of all daily
trips in the region were made by private car, 11 percent by transit, and 15 percent by
bicycle.
To deal with congestion and pollution, the city banned through-traffic
by private cars in 1992. A series of unconventional initiatives were launched, ranging
from a rental bicycle fleet and electric rental cars downtown to a public works department
that uses horse-drawn farm equipment to main-tain forest tracts along the Rhine.
The light rail system consists of 26 low-floor cars built by ABB
Traction Ltd. The cars feature huge picture windows and a spacious interior, have a
capacity of 290 passengers, and are expected to transport 75,000 people each work day
along a 12.6-km route with 18 station stops. More than 1,000 full-sized trees have been
planted and nurtured along the tram route, which is decorated with works by well-known
artists.
The new line traverses the city in a north-south direction, on a 4-min
headway, including a tunnel segment of nearly 1 mi under the main railway station. The
line cost more than $400 million at the current exchange rate, of which the national
government sup-plied about $72 million, the remaining coming from local funds. This action
was part of a new public transit-oriented strategy designed to overcome the pollution and
traffic congestion that has plagued the historic center of the Alsatian region. As a
result, Place Kleber, the central square, which used to be jammed with some 50,000 cars
daily, now has been returned entirely to pedestrian and supertram use.
What Makes Strasbourg Livable?
The city has embraced a vision of itself as a competitive commercial
center. Its movement from a car-dependent, polluted, old city to a modern metropolis with
many large plazas and people-friendly amenities has given it a new character. The planning
and execution of this vision are the major attributes of this livable city.
The city is focusing on improving access and mobility. In addition to
transit and ride-sharing, the city has introduced car-sharing. This concept allows people
who do not use cars extensively to participate in "car cooperatives." These
arrangements in-crease the availability of cars while reducing each individual’s car
costs.
What Could Be Applicable to the United States?
Strasbourg is the only city visited where evidence of transformation
from a congested and polluted city to a more livable, people-friendly city is visible. The
city faced significant deterioration of its architectural marvels because of the recently
achieved mobility of its citizens. The movement toward a new vision for a sustainable
community had to be well defined and executed quickly.
The process that Strasbourg used to achieve its transformation is what
can be transferred to the United States. What happened in Strasbourg is a good example of
"top-down" leadership. Here a visionary political leader, the mayor of the city,
initiated a bold program, which included the intro-duction of pedestrian-only zones,
limitations on cars in the center of town, and construction of a new light rail system and
supporting infra-structure. The infrastructure would create a set of aesthetically
pleasing public spaces that would be supportive of a light rail system. This leader had to
convince a conservative, skeptical popu-lace through extensive education and marketing of
the benefits of this vision. The public eventually supported this vision, which was
comprehensive, well defined, and detailed. The marketing campaign for this project
explained clearly the benefits of the program to all the stakeholders, including
mer-chants, residents, and employees. With-in 6 years, the vision was implemented, and the
populace showed its support by recently re-electing the mayor. The vision was positive,
inspiring, and supported by the people. The obstacle with such a process is, as usual,
finding the money to pay for such a project. This was accomplished in Strasbourg.
LESSONS LEARNED
The findings of the mission are as follows:
- There must be a unified vision of the community’s future, supported by a
complementary action plan and funding. Plans that are inconsistent with the vision must be
discarded if progress is to be made.
- Livable communities favor human scale over grand scale. Direct human
interaction is encouraged.
- Plans and decisions concerning transportation and land use must be made and
implemented on a regional basis. The central city cannot go it alone.
- Individual choice and freedom are strengthened and broadened by investing
substantial public funds in walking, bicycling, and public transportation modes.
- Changes can be implemented that have tremendous effect on the livability of a
community, even with old systems and infra-structure.
- The goals of major capital investments must be clear and derived from, and
supportive of, the service philosophy of the community.
- Consistent and adequate funding must be available to provide high levels of
service and routine replacement and capital renewal of transit systems.
- Transit services from various carriers in a given region must be properly
coordinated.
- Transit systems cannot try to be all things to all people. The markets pursued
must be those where transit is likely to be the appropriate choice.
- High-quality, consistent customer information (especially at the point of
sale—usually the bus or train stop) is essential for useful and used public
transportation systems.
- Electrically operated transit modes are valued for their environmental
contribution to livability, even though they may cost more to operate.
- The bicycle can be a significant factor in the daily commute, even in colder
climates.
HIGH-TECH SOLUTIONS TO TRANSIT PROBLEMS:
MISSION 3,
NOVEMBER 1B 18, 1995
INTRODUCTION
The cities of Asia, whose high population densities have made them
highly dependent on public trans-portation, have been at the forefront of transportation
innovation. To learn about the latest Asian advances in urban transportation, a delegation
of U.S. transit officials embarked on a 2-week study mission to Far Eastern cities in
November 1995.
The study team’s itinerary in-cluded Tokyo, Yokohama, and Nagoya
in Japan, as well as Hong Kong and Singapore. These cities were chosen because of their
established reputation of excellence in public transportation and a record of pioneering
innovative approaches to solving the problems of metropolitan mobility.
While a key purpose of the study mission was to identify practices and
service innovations that could be applicable to the United States, partici-pants were
keenly aware that the differences in the transportation envi-ronments of Asia and the
United States might make a transplantation of certain policies and practices impractical.
For example, the densities of development in the cities of the Far East far exceed those
found in the typical American cities. The high densities create a far greater reliance on
public trans-portation and, conversely, inhibit the use of automobiles. Indeed, Hong
Kong’s transportation system is used so intensively that it requires no public
subsidies and has consistently shown an operating profit. Another disincentive to using
cars in Asian cities is the high price of gasoline, which is three to four times as high
as in the United States. Finally, although the automobile has stretched metropolitan
boundaries, the cities of the Far East remain relatively compact, which encourages
accessible, efficient transit service.
There are also important differ-ences in the policy environments of
Asia and the United States. In the Far East, central government fiscal policies strongly
support public transit and discourage automobile use. In the United States, transit has
never been a strong government priority, and strict automobile controls—of the kind
that have been adopted in Singapore, for example—would be politically im-possible.
Nevertheless, study mission par-ticipants found many examples of
innovative practices and technologies that are potentially transferable to U.S. cities.
The report discusses those opportunities under five headings as follows:
- Metropolitan Rail Systems and AGT
- Urban Bus Systems
- Multimodal Fare Integration
- Automobile Control Policies
- Advanced Traffic Management and Information Systems
METROPOLITAN RAIL SYSTEMS AND AGT
In Asian cities, team members found the following items particularly
noteworthy: (1) the dominant role that rail transit plays in the life of the Asian cities;
(2) the close coordination between rail planning and regional development; (3) the
extensive use of AGT technology (people movers) in providing mobility in new suburban
developments; (4) the symbiotic relationship of suburban (commuter) railways and urban
rail transit as evidenced in physical interconnections and track sharing; and (5) the
large-scale participation of private capital in construction and operation of rail transit
infrastructure.
Necessity of Rail Transit
For Tokyo, Nagoya, and Hong Kong, rail transit is not a luxury—it
is an essential piece of urban infra-structure without which these cities could not
function. In Tokyo, for example, the combined rail system moves about 7.5 million
passengers a day and carries 72 percent of all trips. In Osaka, the rail system carries 61
percent of all travelers, and Nagoya’s rail system carries more than 1 million
passengers each day. In Hong Kong, the 43-km rail transit system carries 2.5 million
passengers daily, and the entire public transit system carries more than 90 percent of all
journeys on trains, buses, minibuses, trams and ferries, making it one of the most heavily
used transit systems in the world. Without these vast metropolitan rail networks, the
economies of these cities would collapse.
Fixed Guideway Transit as a Tool of Regional Development
Rail transit is an integral part of regional development, and all
develop-ment schemes, whether commercial or residential, must include a compre-hensive
transportation plan. To help balance the excessive concentration of activity in the center
of Tokyo, for example, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government has been developing new
subcenters and transportation systems to serve them. Because land is scarce, there is a
strong emphasis on AGT systems running on elevated structures, popularly known as people
movers. People movers reduce right-of-way requirements and allow use of streets during
construction. They are also less costly to build than full-fledged underground heavy rail
systems. One example is the just completed Rinkai (waterfront) New Transit System, a
12-km, 12-station people mover that will be the centerpiece of the planned waterfront
Teleport Town, a new mixed-use "in-town new town" built on reclaimed land in the
Tokyo harbor. The computer-operated rubber-tired people mover will run on 2-min headways
and will have a capacity of 17,000 passengers per hour. Another new subcenter, Tama City,
will have a 16-m monorail line circling the city interconnected with a 93-km network of
lines radiating from the city. The Tokadai Line, serving Tokadai New Town, 14 km north of
Nagoya, is another example. This 7-km people mover system links Tokadai New Town and its
24,000 residents to a commuter rail line. Other AGT systems operate in Kobe (Portliner,
Rokko Line).
Singapore has also embarked on construction of feeder systems using
automated people mover technology. The people movers, 10-km in length, will link housing
estates on the outskirts of the city to suburban rapid transit stations.
System Interconnectivity
Unlike U.S. cities, where rail transit is operated under a unified
management, the Tokyo system is operated by two entities. The Teito Rapid Transit (TRTA)
jointly owned by the national and metropolitan governments, but in the process of
privatization, operates 8 of the capital’s 12 subway lines with a total length of 162
km and 148 stations. The remaining four lines are operated directly by the Tokyo
Metropolitan Government. Suburban services, oper-ated by private commuter railway
companies, are physically intercon-nected to seven of the Teito lines and run on Teito
tracks inside the cities, thus eliminating the need for com-muters to transfer from
suburban to urban trains. This tradition of interconnection and track sharing, which
started back in 1964, extends the metropolitan rail network more than 50 km from the city
center and expands its length to more than 630 km.
"Third Sector" (Daisan) Public-Private Financing of Transit Infrastructure
Many of the aforementioned Japanese projects are being financed by
public-private consortia (Daisan or Third Sector) in which local juris-dictions are
shareholders. At last report, more than 5,400 Daisan ventures have been established in
Japan. They represent capital investment in excess of $10 billion, of which about one-half
is contributed by central government and local public agencies. Each Daisan project can
have anywhere from several to hundreds of private participants. The Tokadai Line, for
example, has been financed by the prefecture (which holds controlling interest), several
banks and public utilities, the private Nagoya Railway Company, Mitsubishi, Toyota, Nippon
Steel, and several other industrial companies. The greatest concentration of Daisan
projects is in Yokohama, the port for the Tokyo area and now the second largest city in
Japan. Yokohama’s Century 21 Port project (Minato Mirai) is one of the largest Daisan
projects, transforming 460 acres of waterfront property into a high-technology urban
center with a huge convention center.
Lessons for the United States
Although AGT technology has been accepted in the United States since
the early 1980s, it has been applied primarily in the context of "downtown people
movers" (e.g., Detroit and Miami) and airport systems (e.g., Atlanta, Chicago,
Orlando, and Houston). The only truly suburban people mover—in Las Colinas,
Texas—has been decommissioned because of high operating costs and inadequate
patronage. Several other suburban people mover projects (e.g., City Post Oak, Texas;
Irvine, California; and Montgomery County, Maryland) have never progressed beyond the
planning stages. However, as our suburban centers expand and increase in density, the use
of people movers may become economically more attractive as internal circulators in
suburban downtowns and suburban feeders to rapid transit.
The concept of track sharing and interconnecting suburban and urban
rail networks is also of potential interest to U.S. cities. Given the expected reductions
in federal transit subsidies, there will be less money available for extensions to
existing light rail systems. Track sharing arrange-ments with commuter rail and other
passenger rail operations may offer a cost-effective way of enhancing the service
potential of light rail systems in U.S. cities and extending their service outreach at a
fraction of the cost that would be involved in building extensions. However, in order to
make track sharing a reality, numerous operational and institutional barriers must be
overcome.
URBAN BUS SYSTEMS
Despite the unquestionable impor-tance accorded to rail transit, bus
services also receive a great deal of attention in Asian cities. The bus systems of
Singapore, Hong Kong, and the Japanese cities all use technical innovation to enhance the
quality of service and attract more riders. Three innovations particularly impressed the
study team: (1) electronic passenger information systems; (2) customized bus services; and
(3) the concept of "key routes."
Electronic Passenger Information System in Singapore
To make transit more customer-friendly, the Singapore transit
provid-ers—Singapore Mass Rapid Transit (SMRT); Singapore Bus Service (SBS); and the
private bus operator, Trans-Island Bus Service (TIBS)—have formed a consortium,
TransitLink, Ltd., for the purpose of integrating fares, routes and customer information.
One element of this venture is the TransitLink Guide—electronic touch-screen kiosks
that provide information on bus fares, routes, and service changes. The kiosks also
provide general information on schools, libraries, hotels, and recrea-tional facilities.
Systemwide installation of the kiosks is to be completed in 1996. A second element is an
electronic passenger information system, to be installed during 1996-97. The system will
display estimated arrival and departure times of the next bus at bus stops and bus
terminals, using an AVL system that will monitor the location of individual buses in real
time throughout the system.
Premier Bus Service in Singapore
Singapore’s "Bus Plus" program, a joint venture of the
public and private bus companies, offers deluxe transit service from residential
subdivisions directly to the CBD to customers willing to pay more for customized service.
The Bus Plus program operates air-conditioned minibuses during peak hours on weekdays, as
well as on-demand "maxi-cab" service.
"Key Routes" in Nagoya
In Nagoya, buses form the major component of the transit system. To
increase ridership, the bus company has developed a "key route" system. The key
routes have dedicated bus lanes in the center median during the morning and afternoon rush
hours and receive extra service enhancements, such as electronic passenger information
sys-tems in bus shelters, bicycle parking facilities, and other passenger amenities. To
date, two of the most heavily patronized bus routes have been converted, resulting in a
23-min reduction in travel time and a 38 percent increase in ridership.
Lessons for the United States
All three service innovations mentioned above are eminently
trans-ferable to U.S. cities. Electronic passen-ger information displays at bus stops have
been made feasible with the advent of AVL technology, which is being deployed by a growing
number of urban bus systems. The remaining obstacle—the high cost of hardwiring bus
stops with dedicated cable links—may soon be overcome with the advent of wireless
data transmission tech-nology. Bus arrival information dis-plays inform waiting passengers
of the arrival time of the next bus and its destination—thus eliminating one of the
most common sources of rider dissatis-faction with public transit.
Customized transit services that target the discretionary transit rider
are also beginning to appear in the suburban communities of the United States. These
services employ smaller capacity vehicles; offer more flexible, demand-responsive service;
and use advanced communications technology to enhance system performance. Three examples
of such services are Houston METRO’s FasTrak; OmniLink in Prince William County,
Virginia; and Seattle’s LINC service.
FasTrak is a jitney-like service designed to complement METRO’s
existing fixed-route bus service and, eventually, to replace unproductive bus routes
altogether. FasTrak vehicles, owned and operated by private entrepreneurs, shuttle along
METRO’s regular bus routes within designated service areas. Individuals may flag
FasTrak vehicles anywhere along the route and be dropped off at destinations up to 3 mi off
the assigned route. OmniLink in Prince William County, Virginia, combines
"flag-stop" routes feeding commuter rail stations and daytime
"flex-route" (i.e., route devia-tion) service. Seattle’s LINC service
provides vans that deliver passengers to any location within the service zone. The vans
operate without specified bus stops, permitting passengers to hail, board, and get off the
bus at any location along their travel path. With more and more U.S. transit systems
exploring "niche markets," there will be increased emphasis on customizing
transit service and providing greater amenities. Electronic passenger infor-mation
systems, flexible routing, and equipping transit vehicles with added creature comforts are
among the bus service enhancements that deserve serious attention.
MULTIMODAL FARE INTEGRATION
Because of the multiplicity of modes and transit service providers,
Hong Kong has a long tradition of multimodal fare integration. The rail transit company
(MTRC) has been using stored-value magnetic-strip fare-cards for the past 20 years. The
fare-cards are accepted on the commuter rail (Kowloon Canton Railway), Citybus, and on
certain bus feeder lines operated by the private Kowloon Motor Bus (KMB). However, the
magnetic-strip technology in use has limited data storage capacity and is running out of
capacity to accommodate complex fare structures.
To meet the demands of an ever-expanding transportation system, these
companies, together with the Hong Kong and Yaumati Ferry, have formed an independent
consortium to develop and implement a "Contactless Smart-card" (CSC) system.
Proximity smart cards combine the stored-value debit card features of
the widely used telephone cards with the "contactless" reading capability of a
supermarket check-out counter. The benefits of smart cards as a transit fare medium are
obvious. They speed up bus boardings, eliminate the need for cash transactions and cash
collections, reduce fraud, have safeguards against theft (when reported lost or stolen,
the card can be electronically "blacklisted" to prevent further use), can
support a more complex regional fare structure, and enable transportation operators to
have more accurate ridership data. The transaction, including card-processor
authentication and data encryption, takes place in about one-third of a second, making it
possible to handle high volumes of passenger traffic without any loss in productivity.
Economics also favor the smart card. Microchip costs have been declining by 30 to 50
percent annually, and the cost per data bit now favors the smart card by a factor of 10.
Finally, smart cards are reliable. The minimum guaranteed life of the cards is 100,000
transactions, or 7 to 10 years. This compares to 120 transactions for the life of the used
stored-value magnetic-strip cards.
The consortium identified several requirements that had to be met in
order to satisfy the transit providers. These requirements were as follows:
- New components had to be integrated into existing equipment and revenue collection
systems without disrupting normal revenue collection operation.
- Downtime because of equipment failure had to be minimized; fault diagnostics and modular
replace-ment of components had to be provided for in order to expedite system recovery.
- Revenue and traffic data had to be secure.
- Each transit provider had to be allowed to determine its own fare policy.
In June 1995, the contract was awarded to develop a CSC system for Hong
Kong. Once the development phase is completed, the consortium will contract with the rail
transit company (MTRC) to manage the system. The major players will be a Central Body
to operate the central clearinghouse and apportion the collected funds among the
participating service providers; Service Providers, who will act as agents for the
sale of farecards and collection of fares; and the Acquirer, who will negotiate
commercial arrangements with nontransport service providers and collect transaction
records with such providers.
The CSC will have the following user-friendly features:
- The card will be accepted on all forms of public transportation, enabling transit users
to transfer from mode to mode with a single fare medium.
- Visual (and, for those with visual impairments, audible) means will be used to inform
the user of the status and value of the transaction.
- Users will be able to verify the remaining stored value and to add value to their
farecards at many convenient locations.
- Users will have a choice of adding value using either cash or electronic funds transfer.
A pre-arranged credit line will enable users to complete a journey even if the card shows
a negative balance.
- The card will have a capability of being used for other transactions, such as telephone,
parking, road tolls, and payment of utility bills.
- To preserve privacy, users will be able to obtain a personalized or an anonymous
farecard; all data col-lected will be treated confi-dentially.
The CSC system is being tested. Full service is expected to begin
toward the end of 1996. The system is designed to handle between 3 to 4 million
transactions per day. Three million smart cards will be in use when the system is fully
operational.
Lessons for the United States
The use of smart cards in the United States has lagged behind the rest
of the world. However, their use is expected to grow rapidly in the future. Proximity
smart cards have found their first application in electronic toll collection (ETC) systems
where they permit motorists to pass through toll gates without stopping. The amount of the
toll is deducted electronically from the stored value in the card. Thirteen toll agencies
in 10 states operate ETC systems; additional systems are planned in another 11 states. The
application of smart card technology to transit is a logical extension of the electronic
fare payment systems. Prime candidates for this technology are large metropolitan
transportation systems, where the stored-value smart card could be used to allow seamless
transfer between transit modes and to pay for highway and bridge tolls, parking charges,
and possibly taxi fares. Some U.S. systems are already conducting pilot smart card
projects.
AUTOMOBILE CONTROL POLICIES
Singapore’s Area Licensing Scheme
In June 1975, Singapore intro-duced a cordon road pricing system called
the Area Licensing Scheme (ALS). Originally aimed at discouraging commuter traffic from
entering the CBD, and applied only to private cars during morning peak hours, its
objective was broadened in June 1989 to include the overall management of traffic
congestion. Now, the ALS covers all vehicles (cars, taxis, delivery vehicles) and the
afternoon as well as morning rush hours.
The Singapore concept involves four components: a restricted zone,
restricted hours, a restricted class of vehicles, and license fees. The restricted zone is
defined by an imaginary cordon drawn around the most congested part of the city. During
the restricted hours (7:30 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.) all vehicles
except transit buses and emergency vehicles have to display "area licenses" to
enter the cordoned area, called the restricted zone. Originally, carpools were given free
entry into the zone. The carpool exemption was revoked with the introduction of the
broadened ALS in June 1989.
A daily license costs $3 Singapore ($1.87 U.S.) for private cars,
taxis, and delivery vehicles and double that amount for company-owned cars, which are
often used to chauffeur senior executives to and from work. Monthly licenses are available
for $60 Singapore ($37.50 U.S.).
Enforcement is carried out by policing entrances to the restricted
zone. Visual inspection is facilitated by windshield stickers that come in different
shapes and colors for different months and types of vehicles. Taking advantage of recent
advances in electronics, Singapore authorities have decided to automate the ALS.
Begin-ning in 1997, an Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system will replace the current
visual inspection of windshield stickers. The system will involve roadside transponders
installed at entry points that will cause units installed in vehicles to deduct the amount
of the toll from a stored-value smart card. Vehicles with no smart card or an insufficient
balance of money on the smart card will be photographed and a collection notice will be
sent to the vehicle owner by mail. With the automation of the system, it will be possible
to apply variable charges varying with the time of day, thereby endowing the system with a
true congestion pricing capability.
Effects of the ALS on Traffic and Modal Split
Initial implementation of the ALS in 1975 resulted in a 44 percent
decrease in inbound morning traffic, from 74,000 to 41,500 vehicles. Subsequently, inbound
traffic began to creep up and eventually reached 60,000 vehicles in 1985. The inclusion of
delivery vehicles in the revised ALS in 1989 resulted in a dramatic 51 percent reduction
in inbound morning truck traffic and a 60 percent reduction in afternoon truck traffic. In
addition, afternoon auto-mobile traffic decreased by 56 percent as a result of the
afternoon restrictions on private cars.
The reduction in truck traffic had a noticeable effect on speeds within
the restricted zone. Afternoon travel speeds increased by nearly 30 percent, from 25 kmh
to 32 kmh. However, truck restrictions caused a deterioration in travel speeds in areas
outside the re-stricted zone, as more delivery vehicles began to use bypass routes.
Average speeds along the ring road, for example, declined from 31 kmh to 19 kmh during the
afternoon peak period, after truck restrictions went into effect in 1989.
Implementation of the ALS also affected modal split. Transit’s
share of work trips into the restricted zone increased from 33 percent in the pre-ALS
years to 69 percent in 1983. The opening of a rapid transit system in 1988 diverted about
11 percent of former bus riders to rail, but the auto/transit modal split remains rough-ly
the same to this day. The volume of carpools as a percentage of all auto-mobile traffic
peaked at 54 percent in the early 1980s and has since declined to 34 percent, probably as
a result of the lifting of the carpool exemption in 1989.
Lessons for the United States
In operation for nearly two decades, Singapore’s ALS has proved to
be an effective congestion management tool. Is Singapore’s experience transfer-able
to the United States? Specifically, can the ALS concept be adapted for use in congestion
management systems (CMS) and other local efforts to manage traffic? The following
impor-tant distinctions between Singapore and U.S. cities must be noted:
1. The Singapore congestion pricing scheme covers a well-defined and
densely populated area of a limited size (725 hectares or 2.8 sq mi). The geographic areas
subject to conges-tion management in American cities are likely to be far more extensive.
The larger the area, the more entry points must be controlled, and the more costly and
difficult it becomes to monitor and enforce a cordon-based congestion pricing scheme.
Thus, even with the advent of ETC, areawide congestion pricing would be far more difficult
to implement in a typical U.S. metropolitan area than in Singapore.
2. The key difference lies in the vastly different political and
institutional environments of the two countries. Evidence so far indicates little public
support for areawide conges-tion pricing schemes in the United States. Faced with what it
per-ceived as lack of local interest in congestion pricing, Congress re-scinded the
Congestion Pricing Pilot Program after 2 years of unsuccessful efforts to mount
con-gestion pricing demonstration proj-ects. A proposal by San Francisco’s
Metropolitan Transportation Com-mission to institute variable pricing on the Bay
Bridge—the first project to be approved under the pilot program—had to be
shelved for lack of a political sponsor.
The only other local initiative the program was able to stimulate was a
series of "pre-implementation studies." Three of these studies involve
evalua-tion of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) "Buy-In" or high-occupancy toll lane
projects in North San Diego (I-15), Orange County (SR 91 Express Lanes), and Houston (Katy
Expressway). Other feasibility studies of congestion pricing are underway in Boulder,
Colorado; Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota; New York State; Portland, Oregon; and Los
Angeles, California.
Crucial to local and state officials’ support of congestion
pricing is the attitude of the public. The Singapore evaluation noted that Singapore
citizens tend to view road pricing "as a necessary nuisance, and grudgingly accept
it." In the United States, experience suggests that public reaction to congestion
pricing would be far less restrained. Charging people for the use of formerly free roads
is likely to provoke intense public outcry, not unlike the reaction provoked by
"taking away" an existing freeway lane to create an HOV lane. Thus, even if the
theoretical benefits of an ALS seemed overwhelmingly persuasive, it is doubtful that state
or local officials could be convinced to implement such a far-reaching scheme, especially
if its primary objective were to limit entry into a CBD.
The Singapore experience is not entirely irrelevant—there are
indica-tions from around the country that there may be a willingness to try differential
tolls on new and existing toll roads and bridges, by experi-menting with differential
peak-hour surcharges and/or off-peak discounts. Although the effect of such experi-ments
would be limited to a single facility or a single corridor, they would throw light on
questions that should be answered before we engage in more ambitious experimentation.
Pilot proj-ects would help to answer such questions as: How would differential tolls
affect ridesharing and transit? What fraction of drivers would shift their travel to
off-peak times, and to what extent would time-sensitive com-muters be willing to pay the
higher tolls? To what extent would traffic be merely diverted to "free"
facilities? Would environmental interests support congestion pricing despite its adverse
effect on low-income population? What other constituencies would support and oppose
congestion pricing, and for what reasons?
These uncertainties can best be resolved by means of carefully
de-signed pilot demonstration projects. Singapore’s experience, especially with its
new ERP system, can help minimize the risk of experimentation and provide a benchmark
against which to measure progress.
ADVANCED TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Japan’s Advanced Traffic Information Service (ATIS)
Barely 6 months after it was formed, Japan’s Advanced Traffic
Infor-mation Service (ATIS) Corporation has become a major supplier of traveler
in-formation in the Tokyo metropolitan region. Formed as a joint venture between the city
of Tokyo and private sector interests, ATIS began to provide real-time information on
traffic conges-tion, travel time, parking lot availa-bility, traffic flow restrictions,
and incidents 24 hr a day. The company plans to add event, weather, and inter-modal
information soon. Information is transmitted over telephone wires, cellular phones and
cable to personal computers and television monitors in homes, offices, and in-vehicle
displays.
The service via telephone line costs 2,000 yen ($20) per month, with a
one-time registration fee of 15,000 yen ($150). Special service, using a dedicated line,
costs $200 per month, with a registration fee of $800.
The decision to go commercial was based on wide public acceptance of
intelligent systems technology by Japa-nese motorists. According to Japanese
transportation officials, ATIS has out-paced radio stations and variable mes-sage signs in
providing information to motorists.
Tokyo’s Traffic Control Center
What may be the most elaborate traffic management center in the world
is in Tokyo. The Tokyo Traffic Control Center, which the study team visited during its
tour of the city, controls about 7,000 traffic signals on line (out of a total of 14,000
signals in the Tokyo metropolitan area). The Center’s computer controls the timing of
green lights to maximize traffic capacity and alleviate congestion by estimating traffic
demands. Preference control over conflicting traffic flow and inflow control to the
congested area are also applied.
The traffic control center provides motorists with information on
con-gestion, travel times between origins and destinations, traffic regulation, and
parking availability through radio broadcasts, variable message signs, fax, and call-in
telephone service. Center personnel monitor traffic 24 hr a day with the help of a battery
of television monitors. The monitors show traffic on arterials and freeways throughout the
vast metropolitan area. Center operators can override the computer to trigger traffic
control functions and provide traffic information from the consoles on their desks. Each
console is equipped with a database showing past and present traffic patterns on a map,
graphs, and charts and can commun-icate with safety, transportation, and police
organizations through telephone and wireless radio. The system includes some 120 computers
on a local area network connected with high-speed fiber-optic cables.
Lessons for the United States
Urban areas in the United States are taking tentative steps to deploy
in-telligent transportation infrastructure. Cities such as Houston, Minneapolis, San
Antonio, Seattle, and suburban
Detroit have instrumented large portions of their freeway networks with
an array of roadway sensors, closed-circuit television cameras, and roadside beacons that
send a continuous stream of data to central traffic operations centers. Personnel in those
centers can monitor traffic, control the timing of signals and detect incidents. U.S.
cities, however, seriously lag behind Japanese cities in their ability to communicate
travel-related information to the public. Although several metro-politan areas can depict
traffic condi-tions and transmit visual images from their video surveillance cameras,
there
is no concerted effort, as there is in Japan, to provide real-time
traffic information to the general public and to motorists in their cars. It has been
argued that U.S. commercial traffic information providers, such as Metro Networks and
Shadow Traffic, keep the traveling public sufficiently in-formed and that investment in
more elaborate information delivery systems, therefore, would not be economically
justified. However, the success of Tokyo’s ATIS suggests that the U.S. appetite for
accurate real-time traffic information may have been under-estimated.
APPENDIX A
Mission Participants And Their Titles And Affiliations At The Time Of The Mission
Mission 1—September 9-25, 1994: Enhancing the Attractiveness of
Public Transit (Europe: London, Manchester, Amsterdam, Paris, Lille,
Stuttgart, Karlsruhe)
Participants
| Mr. Kenneth M. Gregor
(Team Leader) General Manager (retired)
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
Atlanta, GA
Mr. Ronald L. Barnes
Deputy General Manager
Regional Transit Authority
Cleveland, OH
Mr. Allen D. Biehler
Director, Planning, Engineering, Construction
Port Authority of Allegheny County
Pittsburgh, PA
Mr. James F. Buckley
Deputy Administrator
Maryland Dept. of Transportation
Mass Transit Administration
Baltimore, MD
Mr. Kevin E. Desmond
Chief of Operations Planning
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
New York City Transit
Brooklyn, NY
Mr. Rodney E. Ghearing
Assistant Executive Director
Capital Area Transportation Authority
Lansing, MI
Ms. Anne Y. Herzenberg
Chief, Blue Line Operations
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Boston, MA |
|
Ms. Patricia V. McLaughlin Deputy
Executive Officer
Multimodal Planning
LA County Metropolitan Transp. Authority
Los Angeles, CA
Mr. Michael S. Townes
Executive Director
Peninsula Transp. District Commission
Hampton, VA
Mr. Herman Volk
Director, Urban & Community Relations
NJ Transit
Newark, NJ
Ms. Linda S. Watson
Assistant General Manager
Fort Worth Transit Authority
Ft. Worth, TX
Ms. Carolyn D. Wylder
Asst. General Manager
Transit System Development MARTA
Atlanta, GA
Coordinator
Mr. George G. Wynne
Director, International Center
The Academy of State and Local Government
Washington, DC |
Mission 2—May 18-June 4, 1995: Innovative Roles for Transit in
Creating Livable Communities (Europe: Vienna, Salzburg, Munich,
Zurich, Freiburg, Strasbourg)
Participants
| Mr. William M. Millar
(Team Leader) Executive Director
Port Authority of Allegheny County
Pittsburgh, PA
Mr. Michael A. Allegra
Project Director
Utah Transit Authority
Murray, UT
Mr. Douglas L. Brown
Deputy General Manager
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
Atlanta, GA
Ms. Sherry C. Burford
Director
Transit Services of Frederick County
Frederick, MD
Ms. Toulla P. Constantinou
Deputy Executive Director, Planning
Regional Transportation Authority
Chicago, IL
Mr. Ronald L. Freeland
Director, Office of Transit Operations
Maryland Department of Transportation
Baltimore, MD
Ms. Susan J. Hafner
General Manager
Riverside Transit Agency
Riverside, CA
Mr. Jack M. Kanarek
Senior Director, Project Development
NJ Transit
Newark, NJ
|
|
Mr. William Lieberman
Director of Planning and Operations
Metropolitan Transit Development Board
San Diego, CA
Ms. Jill L. Merrick
Senior Transportation Planner
City of Tucson Dept. of Transportation
Tucson, AZ
Mr. Michael H. Mulhern
Chief, Red Line Operations
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Boston, MA
Mr. Robert B. Parks
Manager of Science Planning
Dallas Area Rapid Transit
Dallas, TX
Mr. John R. Post
Deputy General Manager
Tri-County Metropolitan Transit District
Portland, OR
Ms. Karen J. Rae
Deputy General Manager
Niagara Frontier Transit System
Buffalo, NY
Mr. David J. Vozzolo
Director of Planning
Greater Hartford Transit District
Hartford, CT
Coordinator
Mr. George G. Wynne
Director, International Center
The Academy of State and Local Government
Washington, DC |
Mission 3—November 1-18, 1995: High-Tech Solutions to
Transit Problems (Asia: Tokyo, Yokohama, Nagoya, Hong Kong,
Singapore)
Participants
| Mr. Chester E. Colby (Team
Leader) Director
Metro-Dade Transit Agency
Miami, FL
Mr. Gordon A. Aoyagi
Senior Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Montgomery County Government
Rockville, MD
Mr. Michael Bolton
General Manager
Capital Metropolitan Transit Authority
Austin, TX
Mr. Fred M. Gilliam
Deputy General Manager
Metropolitan Transit Authority
Houston, TX
Mr. Joseph E. Hofmann
Senior Vice President
Department of Subways
MTA New York City Transit
Brooklyn, NY
Ms. Gwendolyn A. Mitchell
Assistant General Manager for Public Service
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Washington, DC
|
|
Ms. Gloria Overgaard Manager
of Transit Operations
Metro, King County Dept. of Metro. Services
Seattle, WA
Mr. Harry D. Reed, III
Administrator, Operations and Major Initiatives
Florida Department of Transportation
Tallahassee, FL
Ms. Susan A. Stauder
Special Assistant/Strategic Planning
Bi-State Development Agency
St. Louis, MO
Mr. Wilfred T. Ussery
Board of Directors
Bay Area Rapid Transit District
San Francisco, CA
Mr. John P. Walsh
Deputy Assistant General ManagerC Surface
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
Authority
Philadelphia, PA
Coordinator
Mr. George G. Wynne
Director, International Center
The Academy of State and Local Government
Washington, DC |
Some of these pages may include links to documents in the Adobe PDF format. Please download the Adobe PDF reader if you have not already done so.
