1 / 23

Justifying public transport investments: the case of light rail in Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv

How public transport project are justified?. What are the goals? what is(are) the problem(s)?Who define the problem(s)?. goals and actors. Main actorsTransport expertsUrban planners. GoalsReduce traffic congestionChange modal split (increase / maintain public transport patronage)Develop

hawa
Download Presentation

Justifying public transport investments: the case of light rail in Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Justifying public transport investments: the case of light rail in Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv Galit Cohen-Blankshtain Dept. of Geography and Federman School of Public Policy The Hebrew University, Jerusalem

    2. How public transport project are justified? What are the goals? what is(are) the problem(s)? Who define the problem(s)?

    3. goals and actors Main actors Transport experts Urban planners Goals Reduce traffic congestion Change modal split (increase / maintain public transport patronage) Develop areas Revive/renew urban centers Improve the (urban) environment (Mackett and Edwards, 1998)

    4. Transportation related justification for costly public transport projects Level of demand Bus Light rail metro

    5. Urban development related justification for costly public transport projects Densification Land values Urban revival attracting firms, households and urban activities

    6. More is better? From policymaker perspective, more goals (policy justifications) is better Meeting various interests Potential coalition Seems more efficient: one solution for many problems! Increase the chances that at least one goal is achieved

    7. More is better? From system perspective goals may contradict each other Demand for travel increase in well developed and dense area Developed and dense area has less potential to further densification and development From transport perspective, high level service should be given to areas with high demands From urban perspective, service should be given to places with development potential

    8. Urban development and traffic demand Urban development and densification Maximize transit usage Mass transit Line/system that serves areas with the greatest potential for development ? Mass transit Line/system that serves dense and highly areas

    9. Mutual dependency Urban planners tend to assume that the mass transit will “save” the city center Transport planners tend to assume that changes in land use assures sufficient travel demand

    11. Historical perspective: Railroads development in the UK and the USA Following demand The British system (first railroad on 1830 between Manchester and Liverpool) concentrated at industrial areas to serve goods transport Creating demand The American system, at the beginning also developed at the East Cost, following urban agglomeration. But in the second phase it served as a tool to foster development of the mid and east coast.

    12. Why does is matter? Historically the railroads in the UK and USA had diffrererent characteristics (part of it due to different motivations) Does different justification produce different transit systems? Accompanying policy tools Incentive for the private sector partners Characteristics of the first line Who is served by the system (line)

    13. American railway

    14. Hand-dug excavation on the Scarborough and Whitby Railway, which saw completion in 1885

    15. How can we examine the research question? Examine one mass-transit project and model different systems under different goals Hypothetical Compare two mass-transit systems with different justifications Cannot control for other variables that may affect the differences

    16. Light rail in Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv Two light rail systems currently under constructions The first LRT lines in Israel after many years of “decisions” to build rail in the cities

    17. The systems Jerusalem 8 lines (both BRT and LRT. Total length of the full system is 50 KM(4 KM underground) 75 stations and 31 feeding buses The first line 13.8 KM, 23 stations ( 1 bridge, 1 tunnel), and North-South BRT Tel-Aviv 7 lines (3 LRT, 4 BRT) Total length of the full system is 188KM The first line 27.8 kilometers (9.4 KM under grounded), 33 stations (10 underground

    18. Justifying light rail Jerusalem urban renewal Tel-Aviv relieving congestion

    19. Accompanying policy tools Jerusalem Upgrading streets at the CBD Limiting car access at the city center (eliminating cross traffic) Building a new ‘symbol’ for Jerusalem: Kalatrava bridge Tel-Aviv Upgrading streets Considering option of toll to Tel-Aviv center

    20. Characteristics of the first line Jerusalem Passengers forecast morning peak hour: 23,000 No underground for two main reasons: It is not justified It may hard the city fabric Tel-Aviv Passengers forecast morning peak hour: 38,330 The line goes through very high density corridors. Underground

    21. Who is served by the first line Jerusalem Oriented to Low-middle income residential areas Serves the CBD employment center Tel-Aviv Profile of users is mixture: low and middle class residential areas. Serves 3 different employment centers

More Related