Evaluating the Impacts of Real Time Passenger Information and Bus Signal Priority in Trondheim Morten Welde, Norwegian Public Roads Administration Trond.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Public Transport’s Contribution to Sustainable Development.
Advertisements

Hertfordshire Congestion Topic Group 11 June 2010.
Mitigation for Air Quality in the Planning System: case study and lessons learnt Dr Clare Beattie.
Introduction to CIVITAS‘ Definition of “Collective Passenger Transport“ and a Snapshot of its Results 13 September 2011 Brussels, Belgium Siegfried Rupprecht,
Institute for Transport Studies FACULTY OF EARTH AND ENVIRONMENT The Economic Evaluation of Transport Projects Seminar Madrid, November 2010 Current.
Improving the Urban Public Transport in Developing Countries: The Design of a New Integrated System in Santiago de Chile Antonio Gschwender
SPUTNIC – Strategies for Public Transport in Cities Strategies for Public Transport in Cities Funded by the EU Project introduction.
University of Belgrade – Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering, Vojvode Stepe 305, Belgrade, SERBIA Phone: +381(11) , +381(11) 3091.
Demonstration Event Linz, May 27 th, 2003 Reinhold Deussner - OIR ALSO Danube – Impacts on a macro-economic level.
1 Integration as a competitiveness instrument for Public Transport in rural areas Helder Cristóvão, José M Viegas Integration as a Competitiveness Instrument.
The effects of major toll-road financed investments in private and public transport infrastructure on public transport – the “Oslo package” Thredbo conference.
TCRP Project J-6, Task 71 Rural Transit Achievements: Assessing the Outcomes of Increased SAFETEA-LU Funding for Rural Transit INTERIM FINDINGS – TOWN.
Public transport framework plan for Buffalo City July, BUFFALO CITY MUNICIPALITY PUBLIC TRANSPORT FRAMEWORK PLAN PRESENTATION August 2008.
Sustainable Transport Management at Local Level: The ARCHIMEDES Project Mette Skamris Holm, City of Aalborg Coordinator ARCHIMEDES The Single Market Act.
CITTA 5 TH Annual Conference on Planning Research Planning and Ageing Think, Act and Share Age-Friendly Cities CiViTAS-ELAN Project Development, Implementation,
1 Status Report on the Bus Systems in the National Capital Region Report of the Regional Bus Subcommittee to the Access for All Advisory Committee April.
Transport Policy as an Enabling Framework for Green Growth in South Africa Ngwako Makaepea Department of Transport 18 May 2010.
Reforming transit Why smaller public transport subsidy is better Francesco Ramella, Ph.D. June 24-26, 2005 Bloomington, Minnesota.
A Brief Comparison on Traffic System Between London and Shanghai Allen Liu, Shanghai Feb. 16 th 2012.
Table reports Working with multi-modal travel planners Copenhagen October, 2008.
CREATING THE CASE FOR MORE TRAVEL CHOICES John Bartels, City of Port Phillip and Ainsley Nigro, GHD Cost Benefit Analysis for Implementing Separated Bike.
Civitas Workshop –Effective solutions for green urban transport 24 April 2012 Athens Alan Lewis, TTR on behalf of: Lars Elgaard Thomsen, Public Transport.
15 th TRB Transportation Planning Applications Conference Tuesday, May 19 th, 2015 – Atlantic City, NJ Integrating Travel Demand Models & SHRP2 C11 Tools:
Seminar 23rd November 2001 Other Policies: Demand Management & Highway Investment Professor Marcial Echenique.
Bus and coach transport for greening mobility Contribution to the European Bus and Coach Forum 2011 Huib van Essen, 20 October 2011.
The Emission Control Challenge Glenn Edge 17 July 2007.
Sustainable travel for Limerick and Area By Professor Lewis Lesley.
2,5 years of free public transport for tallinners June, 2015 Taavi Aas Deputy Mayor of Tallinn.
D/TTAS - Transport policy data needs Transport Statistics Liaison Group 19 th September 2013.
Enav.it Channelling Finance and Innovation to Industry Steps towards the Air Traffic Management system modernisation.
Institute for Transport Studies FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT Wellbeing, Quality of Life and Transport Policy Louise Reardon ITS Research.
CREW Project Research Findings of Diagnostic Country Report (DCR), Ghana Bus Transport Sector.
Innovative ITS services thanks to Future Internet technologies ITS World Congress Orlando, SS42, 18 October 2011.
Presentation to ***(group) on ***(date) 1.  Cities - 11  Highway districts – 3  Ada and Canyon Counties  School districts – 2  Valley Regional Transit.
THE CIVITAS INITIATIVE IS CO-FINANCED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION Promoting Sustainable Urban Mobility with CIVITAS.
Pricing policies for reducing CO 2 emissions from transport Huib van Essen Manager Transport CE Delft.
Accessibility project in Denmark Phase 1 - Collect data, define congestion, establish methods to estimate congestion and the marginal congestion costs.
A least-cost approach to reduce CO 2 - emissions in passenger car transport: This time economics will kill the electric car Amela Ajanovic Energy Economics.
1 More PT with less money – Budget cuts as an opportunity Workshop EMTA – Vienna, October 11th 2013 David van der Spek – Stadsregio Amsterdam.
GNTP Business Forum – The Big Idea – Gary Smerdon-White 18 th September 2012.
Project Information Brief project description Cairo, Egypt Bus Rapid Transit System with potential capacity of 45,000 people per person per direction Phase.
Civil and Environmental Engineering 1 Norway’s toll rings: Full scale implementations of urban pricing Dr. Terje Tretvik - SINTEF, Norway IMPRINT-EUROPE.
TIDE Transferability Methodology TIDE Final Conference Barcelona, September 2015 Birendra Shrestha Senior Traffic Modeller, Transport for London.
Per Gellert /Barcelona Quality for Passengers.
The Sustainable Development The metro of Sofia (Bulgaria) and the rapid bus system in Astana (Kazakhstan)
UITP PTx2 Strategy: What Role for Busses and Recommendations from UITP Istanbul Bus Declaration Kaan Yıldızgöz Senior UITP MENA Center for Transport.
Two years of free public transport in Tallinn February, 2015 Allan Alaküla Head of Tallinn EU Office.
PARKING STRATEGY POLICY DEVELOPMENT Transportation & Asset Management Environment & Regeneration Scrutiny Committee 28 February 2007.
Case study Oslo: PT optimisation under different rules for revenue use REVENUE final conference Brussels 29th - 30th November 2005 Jon-Terje Bekken Institute.
EMTA General Meeting in Copenhagen, 19 April 2013 Espen Martinsen, Strategy Manager The Oslo Packages Experiences from tollring & car users contributing.
BEST on Strategic Planning September 2008 Benchmarking Public Transport Strategic Planning Participants Ruter AS, Oslo HKL, Helsinki Movia, Copenhagen.
Walking between home and school. Leaving home in the morning on your walk to school.
The potential role of ICT options to enhance co-modality and decarbonise passenger transport in Europe Arno Schroten CE Delft The project is partially.
30-Year National Transportation Policy Framework to the Future September 12,
Free Public Transport as growth factor in Tallinn EMTA autumn GM Vilnius, Allan Alaküla Head of Tallinn EU Office.
1 Status Report on the Bus Systems in the National Capital Region Report of the Regional Bus Subcommittee to the National Capital Region Transportation.
14/02/20081 Urban mobility Griet De Ceuster. 14/02/20082 CONTENTS Mobility concepts in a city: technologies in a mobility perspective Challenges for implementation.
City of Joliet - Sustainability City of Joliet Sustainability Initiatives American Planning Association National Conference April 16, 2013.
Impacts of Free Public Transport – An Evaluation Framework Oded Cats Yusak Susilo Jonas Eliasson.
Private Sector Contribution to Economically Sustainable Mobility David Martin, 2 December 2009.
Nottingham Workplace Parking Levy Sue Flack Director for Planning and Transport.
R. Prud’homme (University Paris XII) M. Koning (University Panthéon-Sorbonne) P. Kopp (Panthéon-Sorbonne) Houston, May 18, 2008 PARIS LIGHT TRAIN IS THERE.
ADVANCED TRANSPORTATION AND CONGESTION MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGIES DEPLOYMENT (ATCMTD) PROGRAM 1 Bob Arnold, Director Office of Transportation Management,
The Gauteng Economic Indaba Transport and Logistics Mr Piet Sebola Group Executive Strategic Asset Development Date: 09 th June 2016.
Bus and coach transport for greening mobility
Bike Sharing Systems. EFFECTIVENESS, IMPACT AND ASSESMENT
Long term strategy and structure
Bus services and contracts in London
Financial Analysis - Cost Benefit Analysis
Project Identification
Presentation transcript:

Evaluating the Impacts of Real Time Passenger Information and Bus Signal Priority in Trondheim Morten Welde, Norwegian Public Roads Administration Trond Foss, SINTEF Technology and Society Ørjan Tveit, Norwegian Public Roads Administration ITS World Congress, Orlando, October 16-20, 2011

Objectives To demonstrate that ITS projects can and should be evaluated to demonstrate their effects To prove, using the implementation of real time passenger information and bus signal priority in Trondheim, that ITS based solutions for public transport provide posititive effects and are profitable from an economic point of view To encourage the proponents of ITS solutions in the transport sector that economic evaluation is an asset for securing ITS investments

Presentation outline 1.Background 2.Public transport in Trondheim 3.Hypothesised effects 4.Results 5.Conclusions

2. Public Transport in Trondheim Population: Modal share: Car: 60%, Walking: 20%, PT: 10%, Bike: 10% Total number of bus trips per year: 18 mill. ⅔ of costs covered by ticket revenues Buses, one tram line and trains to and from neighbouring towns and regions Gross subsidy tendering, services planned and managed by PT authority AtB – a subsidiary of the regional authorities

1. Background: Why ITS? ITS based projects are an asset to the transport sector for various reasons: –Enhances mobility –Improves accessibility –Improves traffic safety However, the merits of other types of projects are gauged using economic frameworks such as cost benefit analysis (CBA), but not ITS ITS based projects stand to loose in competition for funds unless its merits can be demonstrated!

Real time passenger information (RTPI) and bus signal priority in Trondheim Introduced in February 2011 All buses and 35 bus stops now have screens which inform passengers of next bus stop (on buses) and expected arrival time of next bus RTPI available on mobile phones and audio systems for the visually impaired also available Bus signal priority in 50 junctions A range of measures are introduced through the ‘Environmental package Trondheim’ to increase the attractivity of public transport

The “Environmental package Trondheim” “Miljøpakke Trondheim” (Environmental package Trondheim) an ambitious programme to improve the environment and Trondheim’s transport system: –Reduce CO 2 emissions by 20 % –Increase walking/cycling/PT by 50 % –Reduce the private car share of all trips to 50 % –Increase the speed of PT by 40 % –Reduce people exposed to harmful road noise by 15 % –Reduce traffic accidents by 20 % Revenues to finance investments in PT, facilities for walkers/cyclists, road projects and subsidies to PT –50 % for roads, 50 % other ‘soft’ measures A toll cordon with tolls $ 1.50 − $ 3.50, depending on time of day

3. Hypothesised effects Hypothesis 1: RTPI will reduce bus dwell time. Hypothesis 2: RTPI will reduce passengers’ wait time. Hypothesis 3: RTPI will increase passenger satisfaction. Hypothesis 4: RTPI will increase the total number of passengers. Hypothesis 5: Bus signal priority will reduce total bus travel time. Hypothesis 6: Bus signal priority will reduce bus delays at signals.

4. Results RTPI Bus signal priority Cost-benefit analysis

Have RTPI reduced bus dwell time? Before RTPIAfter RTPIReductionp-value Bus dwell time Stop 116 sec. 15 sec. − 1 sec Stop 221 sec. 17 sec. − 4 sec Significant? NO

Have RTPI reduced passengers’ wait time? Before RTPIAfter RTPI Reduction p-value Passenger’s wait time Stop 16 min 15 sec 5 min 19 sec − 51 sec Stop 25 min 15 sec 3 min 40 sec − 95 sec Significant? NO/YES

Does RTPI increase passenger satisfaction? (n = 1066) Some results from the survey: –75% of the respondents were satisfied with today’s bus services, 17% was dissatisfied while the remaining 8% had no opinion –42% of respondents felt that bus services had improved while the rest felt that the quality was unchanged. –Over 50% of respondents agree that wait time at bus stops is short, while some 33% feel that average wait time is too long –Over 50% have not experienced any improvements in wait time since 2010, 24% have experienced an improvement, 18% have not formed an opinion, while 7% feels wait time has become worse.

Have RTPI increased passenger numbers?

Conclusions RTPI HypothesisConclusion RTPI will reduce bus dwell time Registrations show reduced bus dwell time. Reults are, however, non-significant and we are thus unable to conclude if the reduction is due to RTPI alone. RTPI will reduce passengers’ wait time Average passenger wait time has been reduced significantly. Passengers also report that experienced wait time is lower after the introduction of RTPI. RTPI will increase passenger satisfaction Customer satisfaction has increased. It is likely that RTPI has contributed to this. RTPI will increase the total number of passengers The number of bus passengers has increased annually since Although RTPI has lead to positive effects for passengers, we can not conclude that this increase is due to RTPI alone.

Has bus signal priority reduced total travel time and bus delays at signals? Although a considerable amount of data was collected and many different types of analyses were carried out it was not possible to achieve a clear and significant answer to Hypothesis 5 and 6. The results point in several directions and the main conclusion from this part of the evaluation is that a long period of study both before and after the implementation is needed and extensive data collection is necessary in order to achieve reliable results. A major challenge in the evaluation was to separate the impacts of the bus priority measure from all other variables, e.g. traffic variations and variations in the number of passengers boarding or leaving the bus stops on the road section studied. The effects of bus signal priority will continue to be monitored in order to enable us to draw final conclusions regarding the effects of this measure.

Conclusions bus signal priority HypothesisConclusion Bus signal priority will reduce total bus travel time Bus signal priority will reduce bus delays at signals Inconclusive!

A cost benefit analysis of RTPI Overall assumptions used in the estimation: –Time frame for analysis: 25 years –Expected life time of investments: 12 years –Discount rate: 4.5% –Average VAT rate: 6% –Marginal cost of public funds: 20% –Benefit per trip when RTPI is available: $ 0.70

CBA results NPV costs NPV benefitsNPV MinMaxMinMax Investment costs(4.8) Reinvestment costs(4.4) Maintenance and operating costs(11.1) Marginal cost of public funds(1.9) Benefits bus passengers NPV(22.2) BCR Low costs, high benefits

5. Conclusions RTPI and bus signal priority are measures well suited to increase the quality of public transport Along with other measures this could increase passenger numbers and encourage modal shift Evaluation by means of CBA demonstrates that RTPI provides significant value for money Thank you!

Evaluating the Impacts of Real Time Passenger Information and Bus Signal Priority in Trondheim Morten Welde, Norwegian Public Roads Administration Trond Foss, SINTEF Technology and Society Ørjan Tveit, Norwegian Public Roads Administration ITS World Congress, Orlando, October 16-20, 2011