Tag Archives: public transportation

Transit Coordination- how the Europeans do it

This is my proposal for a Ph D Dissertation, some day….

The regulatory, political and organizational structure of effective metropolitan public transit in multi-operator multi-jurisdictional metropolitan areas: can effective models in Western Europe be applied in the United States and elsewhere?

Research Scope and Objectives
Metropolitan areas, both large and small, are typically composed of dozens or even hundreds of small, medium and large cities surrounding one or two major cities. In addition, in many areas of the world, the growth of metropolitan regions has spilled out beyond traditional boundaries. This phenomenon has been noted in the United States for at least 50 years (see, e.g., Gottman, 1961) and has also spread to regions in Europe (see, e.g., Taylor and Pain, 2006) and elsewhere in the world (Florida et al., 2007, identifying some 40 megaregions world-wide). Serving this complex political morass are often: 1) the major city’s public transit system; 2) inter-regional transit operator(s); 3) intraregional (cross-county) public transit operator(s) which are managed by either the major city or other government levels or special districts; and 4) dozens of local bus operators serving the smaller cities at the periphery of the metropolitan area. The worst-case scenario is that each transit agency sets its own fares, plans its own routes, determines its own schedules and independently performs long-range planning for future service extensions. How to organize all of these players into an effective seamless regional transit system? Good models can be found in Zurich and Stuttgart, where a traveler from the suburbs needs only a single ticket to arrive in the city center and then use all transit modes within the city; the total cost is approximately half that of buying each ticket individually and most intermodal transfers are relatively seamless. How did this come about? Who is responsible for decisions that affect different agencies and political entities? What are new institutional arrangements for organizing and delivering public infrastructure and services? This is the essence of this research proposal.
This research is to conduct a comparative study of urban and regional public policy on effective inter-agency metropolitan public transport; specifically, the purpose is to identify the organizational structure that enables the many operators and modes throughout an entire metropolitan area, to be as integrated and coordinated as possible. “Metropolitan public transport” is defined as all the players involved in planning, operating, maintaining, funding, marketing and analyzing fixed-route, scheduled passenger service open to the public, and typically includes several of the following modes: metro/subway, commuter rail, light rail, trams, local buses, express buses, BRT and occasionally cable cars, funiculars and ferries. The objectives of the study are to:
1. Determine appropriate indicators to measure the effectiveness of coordinated and integrated metropolitan public transport, and develop a rating/scoring system for integrated metropolitan public transport.
2. Choose a dozen metropolitan areas and rate the public transport integration by this methodology.
3. Choose three to five of the highly rated metropolitan areas as more detailed case studies.
• For each of the selected case studies, research how transit coordination is achieved with a focus on the legal, institutional and financial mechanisms used to support and carry out said integration.
• Examine the specific structure for decision making for transit coordination in the region.
• Determine if the mechanisms and organizational structures are periodically renewed and/or evolve with time.
4. Evaluate the extent to which the organizational structure(s) and other key organizational and institutional elements identified in the cases is replicable across country lines or are dependent on country-specific laws or culture.
5. Evaluate whether any of the institutional arrangements could be applied to US cities using the San Francisco Bay Area as a case. Identify barriers to transfer of successful transit coordination models to the US and ways to overcome those barriers.
Despite increasing focus in the past decade on smart growth and transit-oriented development, metropolitan areas in the US will continue to be composed of many political jurisdictions and many transit providers. For example, in the 8 million population San Francisco Bay Area, there are three major subcenters (San Francisco, Oakland-Berkeley, and San Jose), 101 separate cities, nine counties, six regional (multi-county) transit agencies, seven countywide transit agencies and 13 city or multi-city bus agencies, plus a ferry agency. In addition, the region has been spilling over its traditional boundaries and now involves significant commutes from three additional counties as well as overlapping commute sheds and other economic activities with the 2.5 million population Sacramento metropolitan region (160 kilometers from Oakland). This emerging megaregion means that even more jurisdictions and agencies have a stake in intra and interregional transit provision.
Every so often, there is a push by politicians and policy makers in the SF Bay Area to consolidate all the transit agencies into one giant operator. However, given the size of the metropolitan area, this approach is unlikely to be feasible. Moreover, the model of a single operator has some significant drawbacks from the perspective of labor relations, resiliency, and responsiveness to localized considerations. Furthermore, the single-operator model is not the solution used by western Europe (or arguably anywhere); these metropolitan areas recognize that local transit operators know their localities best and should remain separate from, although coordinated with, regional transit. (Krauss, 2009). Instead, mechanisms for coordination through regional Public Transport Authorities (PTA) have been established.
With the growth of metropolitan areas as well as megaregions throughout the world, there will be increasing need for effective institutional arrangements for transit coordination. Thus an assessment of effective mechanisms for inter-agency coordination is especially timely, as is an assessment of the transferability of best practices across national borders.
In 2009, I was the recipient of a German Marshall Fund fellowship for which I studied transit-oriented development in Germany and Italy. One of the main conclusions of my policy brief was that the United States needed a bold new approach in order to answer the question: What comes first – high quality mass transit service or denser land uses? I wrote: “The solution? Region-wide master planning for mass transit networks without regard to political boundaries. Just as in 1956, when the federal government committed to funding the Interstate Highway System, the United States needs a similar visionary commitment to plan, construct, and operate efficient, affordable mass transit systems in every urban area [in order to be able to] traverse the metropolitan area via one or more mass transit modes without regard to artificial boundaries.” (DeRobertis, 2010).
In the absence of such a national initiative to spend billions of dollars to plan and fund region-wide mass transit networks, I believe there is still much that can be done to coordinate transit within a metropolitan area. As part of the aforementioned fellowship, I met with representatives of Stuttgart Strassen-bahnen (SSB) and Agenzia Mobilita’ Metropolitana di Torino (AMMT) and learned about the Public Transport Authorities of Stuttgart and Torino. I would now like to pick up where my fellowship left off and study how to optimize metropolitan public transit coordination.
The State of the Art in the Field
Although there has been some research on public transit organizational theory and policy, much of it is over 15 – 20 years old, and the definition of organization varies from study to study. Vuchic (2005) addresses integration of transit services provided by different operators: “the three obstacles to achieving full integration of the multiple transit services are historic, political/legal and organizational”. The first PTA to provide coordinated, integrated metropolitan public transport was in Hamburg Germany, called a “verkehrsverbund” (Vuchic, 2005). Cervero (1998) wrote that a “verkehrsverbund is the ideal organizational approach for providing integrated transit service”. The concept quickly spread to other cities in Germany then western Europe as well as South Africa (Raboroko and Whitehead, 2009) and Brazil (Peixoto, 2009). Indeed there is now an Association of European Metropolitan Transport Authorities (EMTA) which was formed in 1998 to serve as a “venue for exchange of information and best practices” (EMTA 2008). It currently has 30 members and has several publications; EMTA will undoubtedly be an invaluable resource for this research.
Joachim Krauss’ power point presentation (Krauss 2009) explains the Greater Stuttgart Region’s model. The premise is that public transit in metropolitan areas needs three levels: 1) Public Agencies, 2) the Transport Coordinator (PTA), and 3) the Operators. The boundaries between the three levels are drawn differently in every PTA and even within PTA’s. The Greater Stuttgart Region’s PTA, Verkehrs-und Tarifverbund Stuttgart (VVS), coordinates five counties, 179 municipalities and 40+ operators in terms of fare coordination, collection and distribution, schedule coordination and conceptual planning. Half of the Board are representatives of political jurisdictions and half represent transit operators.
In October 2011, the Florence School of Regulation held the First European Urban Transport Regulation Forum on “Role, Functions and Status of Transport Authorities” which I attended. Pedro Abrantes’ presentation explained England’s system of “Passenger Transport Executives” which “provide, plan, procure and promote passenger transport in the six largest English conurbations outside London.” (Abrantes 2011).
Eugene Jud described the excellent transit setting of the metropolitan area of Zurich and strongly recommended it as a case study, and recommended Nash 2001 for further reading (Jud 2011). Cervero (1998) reported Zurich has twice as many public transit trips per capita as London, and its PTA, created in 1990, has been “absolutely indispensable in coordinating tariffs and service”.
Veeneman’s (2002) dissertation studied the organization of metropolitan public transport from an interdisciplinary perspective. He analyzed four cases studies of PTA’s from various perspectives within five disciplines. He identified many performance indicators, some of which may be useful for my research.
Although Vuchic and others indicate that PTA’s are the key to integrated and coordinated transit by multiple transit providers within a metropolitan area, I have found little in the academic or technical literature that describes any performance indicators for the effectiveness of said integration and coordination of public transit. Nor have I seen a comparative analysis of the governance structure of PTA’s or an assessment of which organizational structures might work best in certain regulatory or political environments.
Hypothesis and Methodology
Hypothesis: A metropolitan area Public Transport Authority with a Board of Directors composed of representatives of both small and large operators and the political jurisdictions is the key to providing effective coordinated interagency public transit across large metropolitan regions including megaregions. The organizational structure of the authority must be able to adjust periodically to changes in the size and shape of the region. Lessons learned from studying successful transit authorities in the EU may be applied to improve transit performance in large regions in the US such as the San Francisco Bay Area.
I propose to use qualitative research methodologies primarily using empirical research of comparative case studies. I would conduct informal interviews with staff as well as conduct selected surveys as needed. A combination of exploratory, descriptive, explanatory, and evaluative qualitative methods would be developed in conjunction with research advisors and by consulting standard text books such as Denzin & Lincoln, 2003.
To study this hypothesis, I will first need to answer two related questions in order to identify the case study locations:
1. What Measures of Effectiveness (MOE’s) have been or could be developed to measure effective coordination and integration of public transit service in a multi-operator multi-jurisdictional metropolitan area? Is there an industry standard? Do individual countries have any MOE’s? If not, then I would develop MOE’s using qualitative methods such as interviews with transit authority staff for the key roles of an PTA. I may survey public transportation users, if appropriate.

2. Which multi-jurisdictional multi-operator metropolitan areas have effective coordinated public transit service, as defined in No. 1?

Then three to five case studies would be chosen from those metropolitan areas which meet the effectiveness criteria described above. I would conduct a comparative analysis of these case studies, determining the nature of the mechanism, most probably a PTA, that coordinates interagency public transit. Through interviews, observations, and review of archival documents, I would research how the PTA was created and the legal and other obstacles in its creation. How did each PTA come to exist and become responsible for binding decisions across operating agencies and political entities? When the PTA was formed, who were the “winners” and who were the “losers” of the inevitable power struggle? How did the “losers” get on board? Next, I would compare and contrast the case study PTA’s with respect to the composition of their Boards, their duties and powers, and the pertinent national state or regional laws. Lastly, I would assess these organizational structures for applicability to other countries and to the United States.

Short Bibliography.
Michael Cabanatuan, Chronicle Staff Writer, San Francisco Chronicle, “Transit Agencies Urged to Coordinate Service”, October 27, 2011.
Abrantes, Pedro, 2011, Presentation at the FSR First European Forum on Urban Passenger Transport, October 14, 2011. http://www.florenceschool.eu/portal/page/portal/FSR_HOME/ Transport/Policy_events/Workhops/20111/1stEUrbanTRF.
Cervero, Robert, The Transit Metropolis, Island Press, 1998.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2003). Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Denzin N.K. & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DeRobertis, Michelle, “Land Development and Transportation Policies for Transit-Oriented Development in Germany and Italy – Five Case Studies”, 2010. http://www.gmfus.org/program_related_publications?program.id=12
Ebol, Laura and Gabriella Mazzulla “A methodology for evaluating transit service quality based on subjective and objective measures from the passengers point of view” , Department of Land Use Planning, University of Calabria, Italy, January 2011 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X10000958 – cor1
EMTA, Association of European Metropolitan Transport Authorities, Directory 2008, http://www.emta.com
Florida, Richard, Tim Gulden and Charlotta Mellander, The Rise of the Mega-Region, University of Toronto, October 2007, at http://creativeclass.typepad.com/thecreativityexchange/files/florida_gulden_mellander_megaregions.pdf
Gottman, Jean (1961). Megalopolis: The Urbanized Northeastern Seaboard of the United States. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.
Jud, Eugene, Lecturer, California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo, interview, December 30, 2011.
Krauss, Joachim, powerpoint presentation and interview, staff member of the Board office, SSB, Stuttgart, 2009.
Nash, Andrew, Zurich’s Transit Priority System, Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose, MTI 01-13, FHWA/CA/RM-2000/09, October 2001
Peixoto, Dilson, “The Greater Recife (Brazil) Transport Consortium: The Consolidation of a Transport Authority” Public Transport International Volume 58, Issue 6, UITP 2009
International Association of Public Transport, (UITP) “UITP Position Paper -Developing Public Transport in Low Density Areas through Appropriate Fare Systems” May 2005
Raboroko, Eze and Melissa Whitehead, “Institutional Parameters for Achieving Sustainable Public Transport Integration: The Gauteng Transport Management Authority, South Africa”; Public Transport International Volume 58, Issue 6, UITP 2009
Regional Plan Association (2006). America 2050: A Prospectus. New York, NY: Regional Plan Association.
Taylor, Peter J. and Kathy Pain (2006) , Polycentric Mega-city Regions: Exploratory Research from Western Europe, at http://www.america2050.org/Healdsburg_Europe_pp_59-67.pdf
Veeneman, Wijnand. “Mind the Gap – Bridging theories and practice for the organization of metropolitan public transport”; TU Delft University, PhD dissertation, 2002
Vuchic, Vukan, Urban Transit-Operations, Planning, and Economics, John Wiley & Sons Inc. , 2005.

More about SSB

SSB = Stuttgarter Strassenbahnen AG

Other interesting factoids:

  1. Bikes are allowed, free of charge except mon-friday from 6 am to 8:30 and 4:00 to 6:30 p.m. (The S-Bahn has a similar policy but it charges a fee.
  • 2. SSB now prefers grassy or “lawn” around their tracks instead of hardscape because:
    • more pleasing to the eye
    • better for climate in the city
    • better for global warming
    • better for absorbing and storing moisture
    • easier to maintain
    • okay so not so gorgeous in october, but I am assured that in spring and summer, the green trackways are quite beautiful and much appreciated by the citizens .


  • 3.  50 % of light rail riders own a car, thus have choice
  • 4.   40 % of operating costs are covered by fares
  • Stuttgart-the Motor City that has Supported Public Transportation for Decades

    Stuttgart,  Baden- Wurttemberg,  Deutschland.

    • Hometown of Gottlieb Daimler,  (1834-1900) inventor of the automobile /the internal combustion engine. (Okay history buffs, there was Karl Benz also, from Mannheim; I  think scorekeepers give them a tie, at least the Mercedes-Benz museum does, ( which is in Stuttgart, not Mannheim).)DSCF2432
    • Headquarters of Mercedes-Benz,  Porsche, Bosch. the soccer team plays in the Mercedes-Benz Stadium and other events are held in the Porshe Arena.  I saw a sign that said Bosch Areal- Bosch Area?
    • Affluent.
    • Hilly.DSCF2360

    Why then, in the 1950’s, when cities across Europe and USA were dumping their streetcars  and designing their cities around automobiles (mainly) and buses (sort of), did Stuttgart not only retain its trams, but also proactively look to the future and analyze the options for the best public transportation system for Stuttgart?  The answer to that question will have to be answered by someone else.  (Or maybe in fact it has  already been.  Anybody know if this has been written about? Let me know!)

    I will focus on describing what they chose to do and what it looks like today.

    (See post on SSB for info on the Transit Agency itself, or see blogroll in the margin for their link, in English.)

    First- the  terminology used by the City of Stuttgart:

    • Tram or  Straßenbahn– what we in America would call a streetcar (translates as streetrail)
    • Stadtbahn -(Translates as city rail. It is abbreviated as U-Bahn (U stands for Unabhängig which means Independent as in independent right-of-way).  Will explain how this differs from a tram below.
    • S-Bahn– what we in America call Commuter Rail, except not like Caltrain. They’re electric, and also underground downtown. (S stands for Schnell- fast or faster?) (not to confuse you, but operated by DB)
    • R-Bahn – Regional Rail  – what we don’t  have in America, really, except maybe amtrack in the northeast corridor. (not to confuse you, but operated by DB)
    • Deutsche Bahn- D-BahnDB– Long distance trains are another level of trains- but are not considered part of the City or County  transportation network. In America, we fly.

    It has something to do, as all good (or bad) policy decisions, with the political leadership at the time.   Especially influential was Burgermeister Manfred Rommel, the  mayor of Stuttgart between 1974 and 1996, (only son of that Rommel).  Among other things, he strongly supported giving trams /streetcar  priority at traffic signals; with the subsequent advance in technology in the last 30 years, this is a 100 % effective today.

    Brief history: Beginning in the 1950’s city leaders recognized that the traffic congestion was impeding the effectiveness of the trams on the street; a study was commissioned and delivered in 1959; by 1961 the city was building underground lines for the trams in the city center and had an ambitious plan for an electric underground rail system.  By the late 60’s additional analysis  was performed and concluded that:  1) extending / converting/ expanding these underground lines into a subway/metro would not be best for Stuttgart; the population was and was projected to be too low to support it; and 2) dual service (U-bahn, S-bahn and R-bahn along the same corridor) was eliminated from the plans.

    In 1976, the City decided to upgrade their existing trams (__ km on ___lines)  and have a high quality mostly surface transportation system, incorporating elements of a metro in the dense urban core, where 7 of the 16 lines converge, and upgrading the rest of sytem from “tram” to Light Rail”. This was compatible with the undergrounding that had occurred to-date and had has been incrementally implemented ever since.  As of October 2009, only 8 km of 1.o m gauge remain to be converted.

    Metro Elements

    • A network of lines  (16) that cover the entire city.
    • Each line is numbered and has a distinct color and are shown on all city maps.
    • Level platform boarding.
    • Underground in the center city with multiple platforms for the intersecting lines.
    • Service frequency: every 10 minutes or less
    • Service hours: 4:30 am to 1:30 am.
    • Distinctive signing, real time information.

    Upgrading from Tram to Light Rail -what  does that mean in Stuttgart?

    • Switched from 1.o meter gauge to standard gauge.
    • Increased min horizontal curvature radius from 25 m to 50 m.
    • __ % max grade to 8.5% max grade.
    • 100 % priority at traffic signals.
    • Independent ROW,  (except a few exceptions at the extremities of some lines).
    • Computer controlled with automatic breaking if operator failure.
    • Electronic display destination signs inside the vehicles.

    Other upgrades from the former tram cars:

    • Air-conditioning
    • Wide panoramic tinted windows
    • Outside arm rests
    • Coordinated interior design
    • Upholstered seats
    • Spacious entry ways
    • Space for bikes, wheelchairs and prams
    • Intercom communication with driver
    • Regenerative braking

    The independent ROW was obtained in several ways:

    • historically the tram had operated in an independent or exclusive  ROW;
    • removed street parking;
    • removed travel lane;
    • eminent domain (in American terminology; they need State approval);
    • Flexibility: in some locations, one direction of track has an exclusive row and the opposite direction shares with mixed with traffic.

    As you can see, it was not a simple task to convert from tram to Light Rail. Even when they had the exclusive ROW, new track had to be laid at the new gauge, at cruves  they needed new alignment to meet the larger radius.  New signal equipment was needed at every traffic signal and of course, new vehicles were bought.

    The first full line line to be converted was the U3, which opened for service in 1985.  By 2009, they have  completed 120 line KM, 24o km of track. As each line reopened after the conversion, there was an immediate 20 % increase in ridership. There is one last section, 8 km,  of old tram.

    Of course a transit agency’s job is never done. There are plans to extend several lines, and the first cars bought 25 years ago are now being rebuilt in-house (at a pace of about one a month, €1.5  million each, compared to €5 million new).DSCF2332

    It should be noted that  the initial plan developed in 1979 has been modified as time and conditions changed. For example, when the old army base was converted to a neighborhood (just outside the city limits), part of the project was the extension of the a light rail into the neighborhood.

    Steep steep GENOVA and public transit

    At first glance, Genova may not seem like it has a lot of public transportation, but given the constraints they are forced to deal with, you have to give the city credit. So instead of giving them the award for the world’s shortest metro network, (well, the shortest that I am aware of anyway, 7 stations 5.5 km) I will instead give them an A for effort. Unlike the other five cities I am studying, Genova is really squeezed in between the mountains and the sea. According to ISTAT, (Italy’s statistics website)  Genova is all hills and mountains, no plains. I would guess less than 5% of Genova is flat, (much due to landfill and port activity). It is sort of like Oakland with maybe one-third of the flatlands, and with hills that look more like Hawaii-style mountains than the coastal range we have. Consequently all 600,000 people live in about 65 square kilometers compared to the 240 square kilometers that are in the city limits. That makes it much denser than Milano and Torino, not the other way around. At one point, the city usable width is only 0.5 kilometer, and given that the city has 33 km of coast, one can imagine the long skinny layout of the urbanized area.
    The sea and harbor are almost always in view, given the narrowness of this strip of land and the topography sloping upwards that helps you to see over the land to the west. You are constantly aware of the maritime nature of the city, and can see the cruise ships of the Mediterranean Sea bringing in hordes of tourists, not to mention running into all the tourists in the tourist office, at the cathedral, on the streets and in the restaurants. There are of course many ferries going to and from Corsica, Marseilles, Sardigna, and other seaside towns.

    AMT, the public transportation provider, operates two ferries, one to the airport, (land fill was apparently the best or only option to provide the flat areas needed for runways), and one to the Pegli neighborhood. Terrestrial public transportation is dependent on buses, regular and smaller sizes, trolley buses and the recent expansion (2004) of their Metro from 3 stations to the aforementioned 7 and soon to be nine. This helps many Genovese and tourists travel underground quickly without battling for the limited space on the surface. It is operated by the same agency as the buses and ferries, AMT, and the fares are not only coordinated, they are considered part of the same trip. One ticket  (E 1.2) will get you on the metro and onto a bus or vice versa for up to 90 minutes of travel. The entrance to the metro station has turnstyles but you validate your ticket before you go through using the same type of machine you find on the bus. Unless of course, you have one of the many kinds of passes and subscriptions available. My favorite was the 4-Euro 24 hour pass that came with a little book describing all the things to see in Genova. (I had to read about them since I didn’t have time to see any of them). If I had been with friends, we could have bought a 3-person pass for Euro 7. However if I lived there, my pass would probably be the monthly at Euro 36, which also includes the local trenitalia trains.

    Given the topographical constraints, you might guess that Genova has a cable car or cog system and you would be right. There are three, one cog railway built in 1901, and two funicolare; the one I rode only has a top and a bottom, no stops along the way. It also had no driver, that is, it is totally automated, even though it is only a single track, and there is one spot in the middle that widens to two tracks so the car coming down the hill can pass the car going up the hill. And yes, you ride these with the same ticket within your 90 minutes. Or if you aren’t using the bus, you can buy a cheaper ticket at 0.7 just to ride these funicolare. The other  funicolare has 7 stops and the cog RR has 6. More about all 3 is pasted below in Italian/some translation.

    But I will bet you cannot guess the 5th type of surface transportation. Think vertical, really vertical. Yes ascensore, lifts in England, elevators in America. They have ten elevators as public transportation which again you use your transit ticket to ride.

    Now do you believe that Genova is really steep and really dense?

    Click on Flicker for a album of more pictures of the funicolare, ascesore, and other public transportation shots.

    One view of the Port of Genova

    One view of the Port of Genova

    Funicolare Zecca Righi
    Orario di apertura e capacità: Tutti i giorni.06.40 – 24.00 Capacità: 150 persone
    Frequenza e percorrenza: Frequenza:tra 15 e 20 minuti. Percorrenza: 12 minuti
    Stazioni: 7 stazioni: Zecca, Carbonara, San Nicolò, Madonnetta, Preve, San Simone, Righi
    Caratteristiche: E’ la più turistica delle funicolari, collega il centro città con il parco delle Mura, al Righi, che unisce le fortificazioni genovesi grazie ad una serie di sentieri panoramici.
    Funicolare Sant’Anna (the one I rode)

    Orario di apertura:  Tutti i giorni.07.00 – 00.30

    Hours: everyday 7 am to 12:30 am

    Capacità:30 persone
    Frequenza e percorrenza: Frequenza: corse continuative Percorrenza: 2 minuti
    Stazioni: 2 stazioni:via Bertani (corso Magenta), Portello
    Caratteristiche: E’ la più antica delle funicolari, è entrata in servizio nel 1891 con il sistema di funzionamento ad acqua.
    Ferrovia a cremagliera di Granarolo
    Orario di apertura e capacità: Tutti i giorni. 06.07 – 23.40; Oggi la ferrovia fa servizio solo sul tratto inferiore Principe – via Bari. Capacità: 45 persone
    Frequenza e percorrenza: Frequenza:tra 20 e 30 minuti. Percorrenza: 11 minuti
    Stazioni: 6 stazioni:Principe (Salita San Rocco), Centurione, Bari, Cambiaso, Chiassaiuola,
    Granarolo.Oggi sono aperte solo 3 stazioni: Principe, Centurione e Bari.
    Caratteristiche: E’ una delle tranvie a dentiera più antiche d’Italia; è stata costruita nel 1901,  anno in cui ha iniziato il servizio al pubblico

    Public Transport – Public?

    So the EU is bringing a lot of change to Europe besides the Euro,  even to Public Transportation; in fact is has already begun. Don’t quote me, but as I understand it, all and I mean ALL public transit operations contracts are to be competitively bid in the future. Even at the national level, there will no longer be national railway companies, at least not for long. The Italian law consenting to the EU “decree” was passed in 2001. It will take awhile to implement, obviously, but the first step is breaking out the many functions of these agencies. The former Italian national railway is now four different companies. Pretty soon the process will be to contract work out, essentially using RFPs and bids.

    In Torino, I have just found out,  the reason GTT was formed was to separate the planning  functions, which will remain with public agencies or consortiums thereof,  from the operations. The planning function is now performed by AMM, a new consortium of public agencies in Piemonte. GTT operates the buses trams, interurban and local trains. The employees  at the former transit agency now either work for the operator GTT or the planning agency AMM.  Right now GTT is publicly owned .i.e owned by the city of Torino, but I don’t know how long that will last).  I am still not sure who owns the rolling stock: the city or  GTT (who is owned by the City).

    I was so pleased with the integrated fare structures of all the many types of transit, and the many types of passes.  Maybe there are EU laws or national laws  (or regional laws) that will ensure that this remains the case in the future.  I was assured that public subsidy of public transit was still going to be required in the future. So that is not the issue. It is due to the EU vision of equal access to all markets.

    I wonder if that will or does apply to public utilities, like water, sewage treatment, electricity, garbage collection and other necessary public services?

    In sum, the concept of “privatizing public transit” is taking me by surprise. But maybe there is a big difference between “privatizing” it and making it subject to competitive bidding.

    I will also find out what is happening in Stuttgart and Germany. Will tell you more when I know more.