An Analysis of the Impacts of British Transport Reforms on Transit Integration in the Metropolitan Areas
AbstractBy the 1990s, many experts concluded that transit privatization in Britain had produced positive impacts on service provision in London, but that deregulation outside of the capital had resulted in a number of negative impacts to passengers, most notably, rising fares, lower service frequencies in some areas, and declining levels of service integration. In an attempt to improve mobility at the local level, the incoming Labour Government effectively devolved transport planning powers to local authorities, requiring that they submit five-year Local Transport Plans in order to receive funding. Empowering legislation specifically identified service integration as a means through which to improve transit and provide a viable alternative to the auto. More recently, however, experts have surmised that local strategies in the Metropolitan Areas (Mets) have yielded limited gains in the area of service integration, in contrast to the experience of London. While some politicians believe that re-regulation of the transit industry in the Mets would automatically resolve integration issues, interview results suggested that there are additional factors that keep transit providers from effectively collaborating with one another. For example, existing competition law prevents transit operators from freely communicating with others, virtually eliminating the prospect of collaborative responses to common concerns. Other factors influencing the level of integration include the ease with which local authorities voluntarily band together to provide service links, and the level of trust that transit operators have in local authorities. In addition, the interviews revealed that the integration of transit is more easily achieved where operators sense that authorities want to engage in horizontal integration and do not have a hidden agenda. Beyond providing a better understanding of transit integration and possible reasons for past failures in the coordination of services, this study suggests ways of encouraging the sort of collaborative planning that can effectively bring together operators to work on improving service links in common areas. Attention to these issues is essential, not only to avoid disruptive, interoperator conflicts, but also to provide the conditions necessary to collectively offer a seamless, integrated transit service that provides significant benefits to passengers and society at large.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University of California Transportation Center in its series University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers with number qt4r88443j.
Date of creation: 01 Jan 2006
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 109 McLaughlin Hall, Mail Code 1720, Berkeley, CA 94720-1720
Web page: http://www.escholarship.org/repec/uctc/
More information through EDIRC
Social and Behavioral Sciences;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Li, Jianling & Wachs, Martin, 2000. "A Test of Inter-modal Performance Measures for Transit Investment Decisions," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt26d5f0h0, University of California Transportation Center.
- McCullough, William S. III & Taylor, Brian D. & Wachs, Martin, 1998. "Transit Service Contracting and Cost Efficiency," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt1x1048tt, University of California Transportation Center.
- Li, Jianling & Wachs, Martin, 2000. "A Test of Inter-modal Performance Measures for Transit Investment Decisions," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt3w18q3kx, University of California Transportation Center.
- Antonio Estache & Gines De Rus, 2000.
"Privatization and Regulation of Transport Infrastructure : Guidelines for Policymakers and Regulators,"
World Bank Publications,
The World Bank, number 15199, March.
- Antonio Estache & Ginés de Rus, 2000. "Privatization and Regulation of Transport Infrastructures: Guidelines for Policymakers and Regulators," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/44116, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Daniel Klein, 1997. "Convention, Social Order, and the Two Coordinations," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 8(4), pages 319-335, December.
- Claude HENRY, 1996. "Concurrence et services publics dans l'Union Europeenne," Cahiers de Recherches Economiques du DÃ©partement d'EconomÃ©trie et d'Economie politique (DEEP) 9608, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des HEC, DEEP.
- Mohring, Herbert, 1972. "Optimization and Scale Economies in Urban Bus Transportation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(4), pages 591-604, September.
- Miller, Mark A. & Englisher, Larry S. & Halvorsen, Rick & Kaplan, Bruce, 2005. "Transit Service Integration Practices: An Assessment of U.S. Experiences," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt5pk4n6j1, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
- Jianling Li & Martin Wachs, 2000. "A test of inter-modal performance measures for transit investment decisions," Transportation, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 243-267, June.
- Rivasplata, Charles R., 2013. "Congestion pricing for Latin America: Prospects and constraints," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 56-65.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Lisa Schiff).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.