 
|
Public transport services
Policy Contribution
Contribution to objectives and alleviation of problems
| Objective |
Massachusetts |
Santa Clarita |
TRL study |
| 
|
|
|
|
| 
|
|
|
|
| 
|
|
|
|
| 
|
|
|
|
| 
|
|
|
|
| 
|
|
|
|
| 
|
|
|
|
 |
= Weakest
possible positive contribution, |
 |
= strongest
possible positive contribution |
 |
= Weakest
possible negative contribution |
 |
= strongest
possible negative contribution |
 |
=
No contribution |
Contribution to alleviation of key problems
| Problem |
Scale of contribution |
Comment |
| Congestion |
|
Low cross elasticities between changes to service levels and modal switch may limit the impact on congestion from an increase in service levels. An increase in service frequency will help combat unreliability amongst public transport users. Mode switching may also reduce road traffic related unreliability. |
| Community impacts |
/ |
Due to possible reduction in traffic levels. |
| Environmental damage |
|
By reducing/increasing car traffic-related emissions. This is likely to outweigh any increase in public transport emissions. |
| Poor accessibility |
|
An increase in the service levels will improve accessibility to goods, services, education and employment for people without a car and some with mobility impairments. |
| Social and geographical disadvantage |
|
An increase in the service levels will improve accessibility to goods, services and employment for the socially excluded with no car available and those that live in the areas served. The effect will be especially important if network coverage is increased for those in areas that had no service previously. |
| Accidents |
|
By reducing traffic volumes. |
| Economic growth |
|
The generalised cost of travel by public transport will be reduced directly by the improved service level. Furthermore, mode switch from car may reduce congestion levels so leading to further reductions in travel time. These two impacts may increase productivity. On the other hand if the improvements require increased subsidy then the necessary increase in local taxes may stifle economic growth. |
|
|
|
|
= Weakest
possible positive contribution, |
|
= strongest
possible positive contribution |
|
= Weakest
possible negative contribution |
|
= strongest
possible negative contribution |
|
=
No contribution |
Appropriate area-types
Area type |
Suitability |
City centre |
|
Dense inner suburb |
|
| Medium density outer suburb |
|
| Less dense outer suburb |
|
| District centre |
|
| Corridor |
|
| Small town |
|
| Tourist town |
|
|
|
|
= Least suitable
area type |
|
= Most suitable
area type |
Text edited at the Institute for Transport Studies,
University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT
|
