Aims

1. SIETTrieste, 17th June 2009Elisabetta VeneziaDeterminants of the demand for urban transport:results of a case study

2. Aims This paper has a twofold aim: • it focuses on current problems linked to urban passenger public transport and • it presents results of an empirical analysis on a case study.

3. European comparisons-local transport

4. The European framework • Explosive growth in car use • Greater car depedence • Difficulties of collective public transport systems

6. Local public transport Theoretically there are different models: • Free market or deregulated market; • Regulated market; • Closed market.

7. Sweden Finland Norway Regulation models of urban LPT Closed market Starting regulated market Advanced regulated market Free market Estonia Latvia Denmark Lithuania Irland Great Britain Poland Netherlands Germany Belgium Czech Rep. Slovakia Hungary Austria Switz. France Croatia Bosnia Bulgaria Italy Greece Spain Portugal Source: Earchimede (2005)

8. Source: Earchimede (2005)

9. Source: Earchimede (2005)

10. Source: Earchimede (2005)

11. Source: Earchimede (2005)

12. % of urban tr.: high medium low Margin (% of production value) France England Sweden Average: 10,0% Belgium Germany Italy Netherlands Average: 79% low high Degree of satisfaction* * % of satisfied local public transport users Source: Earchimede (2005) Degree of public transport users’ satisfation

13. Urban public transport in Italy At present, the structural reform of the Italian local public transport is aimed at: • a potential re-launching of the sector • the achievement of more general objectives.

14. Urban public transport in Italy The most innovative points are: • the privatisation of operators • regionalisation • service contracts • regulated liberalisation.

15. Current situation • Several obstacles are still hampering the actual implementation of a true competitiveness, • this situation caused several misunderstandings and excessive differences among regional laws. Poor results.

16. Current situation Who is responsible for all this? Probably, the main responsibility is of regions and of local bodies, which managed the local public transport up to date.

17. Reform results • There was no recovery of efficiency loss, • the efficiency gap of local public transport in terms of revenues and externalities due to traffic was not decreased, • the reform has not currently achieved efficiency and effectiveness.

18. Reform results Recently, changes in the legislation on local public services allow the assignment of transport services “in house”. This means that tendering procedures will no longer be compulsory. We are back to monopoly!

19. Reform results European Court of Justice 6.4.2006 on the assignment of transport services “in house” in Bari: “Tendering procedure, no in house assignment for AMTAB”. Good news, then!

20. Suggestions Operators of urban transport service have to take in consideration the exigencies of current and potential users. Operators should abandon the idea that only systematic transport demand use urban buses.

21. Empirical evidence – sample In this context, it could be useful to investigate on a city like Bari with a twofold aim: • Analysis of the current supply of public transport – as perceived by users • Understanding mobility needs and behaviours of population living in Bari and of those who use urban transport in Bari.

22. Empirical evidence – sample Useful information on needs of some user categories, such as pensioners and housewives. Investigation on the eventual knowledge of new mobility sustainable tools. All these elements may help to define: • the expected quality, which pays attention to the expressed needs of users, • the perceived quality, which measures values attributed by the client at the current quality level of transport services.

23. Empirical evidence – sample City: Bari Type of survey: Direct survey, questionnaires on 1886 users. Covered survey time: 7.00-21.00. Composition: the sample is composed by 45% males and by 55% females. Age structure: the age composition of this sample is structured with 32% of users who have an age between 19-29, followed by 29% belonging to the class 30-50, while 16% are over 65, 13% are in the class 51-65 and, finally, 10% is represented by user below 19.

24. Occupational composition

25. Availability of private means - all day

26. Urban transport mode normally used

27. Frequency in the use of buses

28. Reasons for using buses in comparison with other means

29. Vantages from the use of buses in comparison with private means

30. Degree of satisfaction for using buses

31. Aspects of buses services to be improved

32. Main defects of buses

33. Safety on board

34. Opinion on the equity of the bus service price

35. Availability to pay something more for a higher bus frequency

36. Reasons for not using buses

37. Definitive choice for not using buses

38. Scopes for using buses

39. Knowledge of car sharing, car pooling and collective taxi

40. Potential use of car sharing, car pooling and collective taxi

41. Random utility model The random utility model has been used to give an interpretation of data on individual choice related to bus service provided in Bari.

42. Random utility model The individual’s utility of two choices – bus transit and private means – is estimated by binary logistic regression and logistic regression coefficients are used to estimate odds ratios for each independent variable in the model. The values assumed by the dependent variable, as the probability of using buses, are equal to one.

43. Gender Results indicate that females are more likely to be bus users than males. As a matter of fact, women have nearly twice as much the probability of using buses in comparison with males. This aspect has a variety of implications, among which the demand for mobility which is strictly linked to the quality of life of this population segment.

44. Age Figures show that the probability of using buses is particularly important for those belonging to the 19-29 year-old range, followed by respondents who are over the 51year-old range.

45. Availability of other transport means Those who expressed a higher probability of using buses are those who always have a car. This is a very good indication because for the future these figures are underlying propensities for changing behaviour.

46. Main reasons for using buses Due to the very high congestion in the city centre, buses guarantee more punctuality than private means – mainly due to congestion and parking problems - and therefore respondents would be more in favour of using collective modes.

47. Frequency If frequency is considered, those who would like to use buses are, quite reasonable, those who now use buses every day.

48. Scopes As for scopes, transit due to: • leisure activities and • school/working activities are almost one and a half times more important than those who would like to use buses for shopping.

49. Main advantages from potential use Respondents indicate, as advantages, “no parking problem” and the fact that this transport mode is cheaper in comparison with alternatives. So, individuals would behave rationally with regard to the choice between public and private transport.

50. Results and conclusions The survey and the empirical analysis suggest that one best direct option is simply not to improve congestion. One can simply suggest increasing the space allocated to buses and thus reducing the road space allocated to car traffic. So doing, at least, buses can guarantee affordable services, although some other general improvements are requested, such as a higher frequency.