Justifying public transport investments: the case of light rail in Jerusalem and TelAviv

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

10
(No Transcript)
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

• Criteria for evaluating lines alternative
• Goals as defined in documents and presentations
  and promotions film
• Stressed by the project directors
• The centrality of problem in each city agenda

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

22
(No Transcript)
23
(No Transcript)