A syllabus for transport studies

Road & Transport Research, Jun 2000 by Hutchinson, T P

Abstract

In reviewing the relative merits of bus and rail systems, Hensher (Road and Transport Research, 1999) broadly favoured the bus. The present writer supports this specific conclusion, but even more important is Hensher's emphasis on objective criteria for transport decisions. Suggestions are made in the present paper for how a degree course in transport could emphasise rational decision-making, and examples of technological, operational, political, economic and organisational issues are listed.

INTRODUCTION

Comparing bus and light rail, Hensher (1999, p. 18) concluded:

"Buses, especially bus-based transitway systems, are arguably better value for money..."

Coincidentally, I received two magazines shortly after reading Hensher's article, and found these views in them:

"The benefits of rail passenger and freight services are quite clear: rail is three times more energy efficient than road... rail networks cost less to build and maintain; rail requires only one-third of the land ofa road; rail is more cost effective at handling large volumes (people or freight)..." (Hill, 1999, p. 65).

"The key to success overall will be a good public transport system developed around the existing rail corridors that link Cambridge to... Buses aren't the answer: too expensive, too inflexible, too polluting, too infrequent... In Lille there's a fully automatic light railway ofjust the sort we need..." (Echenique, 1999).

Who is right? What I will argue below is the following:

Hensher is right: buses are better than trains.

Irrespective of whether Hensher's and my judgment is right or wrong, the question is one that can be settled by a rational process of economic analysis.

Transport teaching at universities can and should do more to promote critical thinking and the honest application of techniques of cost/benefit analysis; and I will suggest issues that ought to be on the syllabus.

Before going further, I should say something about myself, so that the reader is aware of the limitations on my expertise. I know something about transport: I did my Ph.D. at the Transport Studies Group, University College London, in the 1970's; I taught transport in the Civil Engineering Department of the University of Adelaide from 1986-1989. But I'm currently an outsider, having been in the Department of Psychology at Macquarie University since 1995, and so my claims about transport are not up-to-date rigorously-researched facts; similarly, when it comes to the design of a transport syllabus, courses following the philosophy that I will suggest could already exist, and I would not necessarily know of them.

BUSES ARE BETTER THAN TRAINS

Three "broad-brush" arguments make the advantage of buses very plausible.

Consider track capacity. How many passengers per hour can pass down a rail track, or down a busway? For a railway, 500 passengers per train x 40 trains per hour = 20 000 passengers per hour. For a busway, 70 passengers per bus x 1000 buses per hour = 70 000 passengers per hour. The costs of the right-of-way are therefore spread over 3.5 times as many people in the case of buses.

Suppose demand is low enough that one track of either rail or busway is sufficient. Bus is superior because less heavy engineering is required and thus the cost is lower, because there is greater penetration (via ordinary roads) to where people want to go, and because many small vehicles (buses) is a more attractive (higher frequency) service than fewer large vehicles (trains).

Consider moving deadweight. How much weight of vehicle is moved per passenger in the case of a full train, and in the case of a full bus? About 1 tonne for the train, and about 0.1 tonnes for the bus.

RATIONAL ANALYSIS

The arguments in favour of buses could be wrong. It might be that rail is much safer than road (even when "industrial" type accidents are included, as well as "vehicle movement" accidents), that rail has environmental advantages (even when the impact of power stations is included, as well as the impact of vehicles), and that the rough arguments above are so approximate as to be utterly misleading.

But more important than whether they are right or wrong is that, to a large extent, they are capable of being answered rationally and objectively. A list can be drawn up of the monetary costs of different transport modes. Nonmonetary factors (e.g., time, environmental impacts, safety) can be added into the the list. Conversion factors can be established to bring everything on to a common scale.

My memory may be at fault, but I think there was a great deal of optimism about this in the 1960's - the assessment of transport projects was being put onto a scientific base, so it was thought, and the influence of special interests on decisions would be weakened. However, in the 1970's there was a series of wellintentioned criticisms of the principles and methodologies employed. Through the 1980's, these criticisms in part improved the process, but in part also weakened public belief in the results. Other agendas took centre stage. And what rushed back to fill the vacuum? The pleading of special interests, so that by the 1990's, the proponents of objectivity were so demoralised they hardly opened their mouths for fear of being ridiculed.