lable at ScienceDirect

Research in Transportation Economics 22 (2008) 5–11

Contents lists avai

Research in Transportation Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/retrec

Growing patronage – Challenges and what has been found to work

Graham Currie a,*, John Rose b

a Institute of Transport Studies, Monash University, Melbourne, Australiab Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Sydney, 2006 NSW, Australia

Keywords:Public transportRidership growthTravel demand

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: graham.currie@eng.monash.ed

usyd.edu.au (J. Rose).

0739-8859/$ – see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2008.05.003

a b s t r a c t

This paper synthesizes evidence on growing public transport patronage. The paper firstly examinesbarriers to patronage growth before reviewing evidence on endogenous factors (those within the controlof operators and regulators) and exogenous factors (those factors such as socio-economic influenceswhich are not controlled by regulators/operators) which affect public transport patronage. Suggestedbarriers include capacity, network transfers, perceptions and investment/subsidy needs. Evidence ispresented suggesting that reliability, service levels and fares are the principal tools to adopt in growingpatronage. Car ownership, income and population growth, employment and urban sprawl are amongstthe exogenous factors identified as influencing patronage.

� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The public transport sector is currently facing a number ofserious challenges, not the least of which is attracting a largerproportion of the traveling public to use its services. If imple-mented correctly, policies resulting in an increase in public trans-port usage should not only reduce reliance on private motorizedmodes of transport but also result in bringing about many positiveeconomic externalities. For example, increasing public transportpatronage should reduce or hold to a minimum any growth in (i)congestion levels faced by private transport road users, and (ii)pollution levels experienced by wider society, as well as increasethe available options for those who are currently disadvantaged interms of their mobility.

This paper synthesizes evidence from eleven papers presentedin workshop 1A on the theme ‘Growing patronage – challenges andwhat has been found to work’. The papers presented evidence froma wide number of nations, including:

� Australia (Byatt, Oscuro, & Rookes, 2007; Carolan & Stanley,2007; Cliche & Reid, 2007; Cosgrove & Gargett, 2007; Currie &Wallis, 2007; Streeting & Barlow, 2007)� India (Ramanayya, Nagadevara, & Roy, 2007)� Indonesia (Dirgahayani, Harata, & Ohmori, 2007)� Japan (Takahashi, 2007)� United Kingdom (e.g., Bristow et al., 2007; White, 2007).

u.au (G. Currie), johnr@itls.

All rights reserved.

A variety of transport modes were also covered (e.g., buses –Byatt et al., 2007; light rail – Cliche & Reid, 2007). The papersidentified that not all the factors that may increase public transportusage may be under the control of public transport operators. Thisdistinction is presented here also. As well as identifying potentialfactors that may assist in increasing public transport usage, thepapers and subsequent workshop identified a number of potentialbarriers to increasing growth. These are also presented herein.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In the nextsection we outline potential barriers that exist in growing publictransport patronage. Next we discuss potential factors that havebeen identified as improving or increasing public transport usage.In discussing these factors, we outline those which are endogenous(i.e., under the control of public transport providers) and thosewhich are exogenous (i.e., outside the control of public transportproviders). Finally, we provide a brief discussion of these issues andoutline some opportunities that may exist for growing demand forpublic transport.

2. Barriers to growing patronage

Before examining methods to grow patronage, we first examinesome of the barriers that exist in restricting potential publictransport growth. This list should in no way be considered de-finitive, but represents those factors that were identified during theconference.

2.1. Capacity

The existing capacity of many public transport systems is seen asa significant barrier to increasing public transport patronage by

G. Currie, J. Rose / Research in Transportation Economics 22 (2008) 5–116

many. Capacity constraints may exist either geographically (e.g.,they may be city wide or restricted to certain neighborhoods withincities), temporally (i.e., during peak times or weekdays) or both.Various solutions may exist to alleviate different forms of capacityconstraint, however, these are often not only costly, but also tend toincrease the complexity of the public transport system overall. Anyadded complexity will likely increase the burden for the provisionof good coordinated planning required as well as prove detrimentalto the traveling public, at least insofar as their perceptions of thesystem. Independent of the cause or form of capacity constraintfaced, there appears to be little sense in growing public transportpatronage if the system cannot handle the greater demand. Fora detailed study on capacity constraints on transport demand, seefor example, Ferrari (1999).

2.2. Network transfers

One potential barrier to growing public transport usage is theissue of network transfers. Whilst network transfers may decreasetravel times and improve overall network efficiency in the aggre-gate, typically the perceptions of the traveling public are of theexact opposite experience. Unfortunately, a lack of integration innetwork transfers and poor facilities at transfer points are consid-ered to further add to poor perception of public transport modes(see e.g., Dirgahayani et al., 2007). Indeed, evidence exists tosuggest that the number of transfers has a significant impact onindividuals’ preferences for travel using public transport means(e.g., Hensher and Rose (2007) found that individuals undertakingnon-commuting trips were willing to pay Au$1.19 to avoid eachtransfer compared to $6.68 to avoid 1-h of travel time).

2.3. Non-user perceptions

Growth in public transport demand may arise from a number ofdifferent sources: (i) increasing the use of public transport by cur-rent users, or (ii) inducing current non-users to switch to publictransport, for some, if not all of their travel requirements. In eithercase, growth in demand may come about either from a growth inthe total number of trips undertaken, or from switching non-usersfrom private transport to public transport (or some private trans-port trips undertaken by current users to public transport trips).Unless captive for at least some of the trips undertaken, those whocurrently use public transport must perceive some benefit from itsuse. As such, these individuals can be expected to have a betterperception towards public transport than non-users. Thus, it is theperceptions of nonpublic transport users which should be targetedin order to increase public transport usage overall. Unfortunately,changing perceptions and attitudes is often a time consuming anddifficult task (see e.g., Gipps, Brotchie, Hensher, Newton, & O’Con-nor, 1997 or Dallen, 2007 for a detailed discussion of perceptualdifferences between users and non-users of public transport).

2.4. Political decision making (democracy)

One potential limit to growing public transport patronage maylie in the democratic political decision-making environment thatexists in many nations today. In democratic systems of governance,governing political parties are often required to call elections onceevery 3–5 years, asking for a mandate to continue governing. Thisshort cycle of elections often induces a short-term myopic outlookof governance where the goal of political parties is often to win thenext election and not necessarily produce solutions that will pro-vide long-term benefits to the electorate. In terms of providingtransport and in particular, public transport infrastructure, thisshort-term political process may result in second best solutionsbeing followed.

Further, in democratic nations with a free press, governmentsmay be forced to listen to the concerns of its citizens, includingminority parties. Whilst generally such a representation is seen aspositive, in some cases, this may result in substandard solutionsthat benefit the few rather than many. The opposite is also possible,even in democratic nations with a free press, with minorities notable to adequately voice their opinions and needs. In such cases,poorer neighborhoods are often the recipients of substandardpublic transport options, whereas richer areas where publictransport is not as widely required, or used, have access to superiorservices.

Finally, in some instances, the political process may result inundesirable outcomes simply for no other reason than politicalpoint scoring. In multi-party, multi-level systems of government(e.g., in Australia, there exists three levels of government: Federal,State, and Local with two major political parties), there exist thepossibility that different political parties may hold office at differ-ent levels within the system, promoting a lack of co-operation andco-ordination in terms of governance. This may result in a lack offunding for large scale projects, such as the provision of bettertransportation infrastructure, or arguments as to whose re-sponsibility a particular project belongs to. As such, there existmany examples where vital projects have been delayed, or evenabandoned as a result of politics.

This is not to suggest that the democratic political system shouldbe abandoned. Far from making this suggestion, we merely high-light some of the problems that may exist with such systems.Problems may, and indeed do, exist in other forms of politicalgovernance.

2.5. Investment/cost/subsidy needs

In most instances, the provision of public transport is onlypossible at a financial loss. This therefore makes it often difficult toattract private investment without some form of subsidy beingoffered by government. Alternatively, public transport can be pro-vided solely by government without any private investment. Thus,there exists a further political dimension to the provision of publictransport, with the amount of money being available to subsidizepublic transport having to compete with money put into otherareas of public interest such as hospitals and policing.

Further still, there exists a long-standing debate by economistsas to the benefits offered from cross-subsidization measures, par-ticularly as they relate to the provision of public transportation.Many economists argue that cross-subsidization will retard com-petition, thus negatively impacting on the market and as suchshould be avoided. Other economists argue that there exists a socialobligation by government to provide some services that the marketwould otherwise not offer such as public transport, even if suchservices are offered at a loss.

In Japan and the United Kingdom, for example, the past fewdecades have seen the ascendency of those economists who arguefor the prevalence of free market forces. This has largely meant thatmany non-commercial services have been simply removed fromthe market place (for a discussion about the United Kingdom ex-perience, see White, 2007; for the Japanese experience, see Taka-hashi, 2007). Unfortunately, the removal of these non-profitablepublic transport options has resulted in a decrease in the mobilityoptions for the transport disadvantaged, both in Japan and theUnited Kingdom. This has resulted in the creation of non-govern-ment subsidized initiatives in both countries, such as the inclusionof local businesses in supplying buses in Japan (see Takahashi,2007), and innovative programs such as United Kingdom Kick Start(see Bristow et al., 2007).

At the other end of the spectrum, those economists who arguethe need for social service obligation requirements appear to have

G. Currie, J. Rose / Research in Transportation Economics 22 (2008) 5–11 7

won the day in countries such as Australia and to a lesser extent,India. In the Australian case, high government subsidy as well asminimum service levels are prevalent in the provision of publictransport services, however, so to is a high degree of governmentcontrol and regulation. In the Indian case, a need for social serviceshas also been identified, and although there exists some cross-subsidization from government, many privately owned publictransport companies offer services for purely social reasons withminimum government interference (see e.g., Ramanayya, Nagade-vara, & Roy, 2007).

2.6. Infrastructure

The infrastructure requirements for many public transportoptions are often prohibitively expensive to both implement andcontinue to operate. Heavy and light rail, whilst often perceptuallyattractive to the wider public, initially require substantial in-frastructure investment in order to be successful. The same is truefor dedicated bus rapid transit systems. Not only is investmentrequired in rolling stock and the building of stations, etc., but oftenexpensive land acquisition is also necessary in already built envi-ronments in many cities. One possible solution to cost is via the useof private public partnerships (PPPs), although the success of PPPsworldwide in providing public transport has been varied. An al-ternative to such heavy infrastructure investment is the use ofbuses intermingled with regular private transport. This generallyrequires less initial infrastructure investment; however, this optionalso tends to add to congestion, at least perceptually for thosealready using the roads. Further, capacity constraints often arisewith the use of bus systems, thus adding further pressure for theimplantation of light or heavy rail systems.

2.7. Limited human resources

Along with infrastructure investment, the provision of publictransport also requires substantial investment in human capital.Service support staff, management, drivers, etc., all require trainingwhich takes time and costs money. Further still, in many developedcountries, the average age of transport professionals is increasing,which when combined with the ‘graying’ of the population thatmany of these countries are also experiencing, suggests a futureskills shortage (e.g., the proportion of individuals employed in theTransportation sector in Australia in 2001 under the age of 25 was8.59% compared to 7.80% in 2006 whilst the number of individualsover the age of 55 increased from 14.30% to 19.36% over the sameperiod of time (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007)). The ‘graying’of populations also suggests that various industries will be com-peting for a shrinking share of the available workforce which willlikely inflate wages, thus putting increased pressure on keepingprices low and have significant ramifications for countries that areprepared to cross-subsidize public transport services.

2.8. Urban traffic congestion

Whereas urban traffic congestion might be seen as a rationalefor switching to public transport, for many public transport modes,the opposite may be the case. For example, where bus or light railoperations do not have dedicated infrastructure, any traffic con-gestion that exists will impact upon their reliability. As we willargue later, reliability represents a key driver for improving growthin public transport patronage, hence traffic congestion may alsoimpact upon public transport usage. Further, nonpublic transportusers may view bus and light rail as a part cause for congestion,hence resulting in a poor perception of public transport overall.This may further hamper efforts to grow public transportpatronage.

2.9. The car

For many travelers, private transport in the form of automobilesremains the most attractive mode of transport. In most instances,the car is able to offer levels of flexibility and convenience thatmost public transport systems cannot match. Whereas in mostcases, public transport modes are limited to fixed routes andtimetables, private motor vehicles generally allow a wider access totransport destinations with almost unrestricted time constraints.Further, for many trip purposes, private motor vehicles providegreater levels of convenience when compared to public transportmodes (e.g. the ability to easily carry bags after shopping trips orluggage for trips to an airport). Further still, the use of privatemotor vehicles allows a minimization, if not complete avoidance of,direct interaction with other members of the traveling public. Thislack of interaction may induce a heightened sense of safety thatdoes not exist when traveling on public transport. Indeed, recentterrorist acts in London and Madrid may add to a perception aboutthe lack of safety for various public transport options. Of course,this is not to suggest that some individuals may prefer social in-teraction with other travelers, and hence prefer public transport forthis reason.

2.9.1. Bad contracts and institutional arrangementsFinally, poor contract and institutional arrangements have been

identified as a potential barrier to growing public transport pa-tronage. Contracts and institutional arrangements that are per-ceived to be biased towards government or non-profitable willlikely result in a withdrawal of services as well as a lack of privateinvestment in public transport. With a lack of private investment,a greater burden will fall upon government, with all the associatedproblems outlined above. Further, poor institutional arrangementsmay also bring about a hostile environment between transportproviders and government, which may also impact upon serviceprovision, even if such services are not completely withdrawn.Such hostility may also seep into the media, which may sub-sequently impact upon customer and potential customer attitudesand perceptions of the industry as a whole. Further still, somecontracts may restrict incentives for growth and attempt to en-force the status quo. Such situations may arise in areas that areheavily cross-subsidized in an attempt to limit governmentexposure.

3. Factors that may influence public transportpatronage growth

In this section, we outline factors that have been identified asleading to public transport patronage growth, distinguishing thosethat are thought to be endogenous and exogenous.

3.1. Endogenous factors influencing public transport patronagegrowth

Endogenous influences represent factors that are under thecontrol of those institutions that provide public transport (e.g.,operators, governments and regulators). Nine such factors are nowbriefly discussed.

3.1.1. Service level improvement and fare reductionsA number of papers have suggested that service level im-

provements represent one of the most important sources forgrowing public transport usage (e.g., Currie & Wallis, 2007;Streeting & Barlow, 2007; White, 2007). White (2007) attributed54% of the observed growth in London Public transport usage toboth service level improvements and fare reductions, whereasStreeting and Barlow (2007) found that 20% of real growth in public

G. Currie, J. Rose / Research in Transportation Economics 22 (2008) 5–118

transport patronage was attributable to improved service levels.From a detailed meta-analysis, Currie and Wallis (2007) found thatservice levels within the bus industry have on average an elasticityof 0.35 which is comparable to a fare elasticity or �0.4 and a traveltime elasticity of �0.3. For further detailed discussion on optimalpricing for public transport modes, see for example, Jara-Dı́az andGschwender (2005).

The importance of improving service levels for public transportmodes where also highlighted in a case study undertaken by Byattet al. (2007) who demonstrated a 4.4% increase in patronage di-rectly attributable to improved bus service levels. Nevertheless,White (2007) was unable to find any evidence that improved ser-vice levels had a discernable impact on growth in public transportusage outside of London. Clearly a mix of factors was involved inthis case illustrating the need to understand contextual factors inexplaining patronage change.

3.1.2. Congestion chargingThe introduction of a congestion charge in the city of London

has allowed for a detailed analysis of the impact such a chargehas on public transport usage. From 1999 to 2005, publictransport demand has grown by 40% in real terms in London, ofwhich only 2.4% of this growth (i.e., 6% of the total growth ob-served) is directly attributable to the introduction of the con-gestion charge (White, 2007). This is compared to 20.6% growthattributable to fare reductions and service level improvements.Whilst this is not an insubstantial amount, the benefits to publictransport appear limited. Nevertheless, this may in part beexplained by much of London’s public transport being at or nearcapacity (at least perceptually), which may have restricted publictransport growth. Thus, whilst indicative of the influence con-gestion charging may have on public transport growth, somecare needs to be taken in attempting to juxtapose these figuresinto other contexts.

3.1.3. Low floor bus/tramThe introduction of low floor bus/trams has the potential to

significantly improve travel demand for public transport alterna-tives. For example, one study found that 35.6% of existing users and17.3% of potential users noted that the easy access/low floor aspectwas influential in them choosing to use the bus (Walters, 2005). Thefinding that low floor vehicles is important to many travelers hasalso been highlighted in other studies, including Bristow et al.(2007), Cliche and Reid (2007), Currie and Wallis (2007) and White(2007). Currie and Wallis (2007) note that low floor vehicles areimportant in attracting new users, however, are not enough to keepthem if other benefits are not forthcoming, such as improved effi-ciency, cost, convenience and comfort levels relative to othermodes of transport. White (2007) found that the introduction oflow floor public transport options resulted in a 2% growth in publictransport demand in London.

3.1.4. Passenger information systemsReal-time passenger information (RTPI) displays may also result

in improving demand for public transport (e.g., Currie & Wallis,2007; Dirgahayani et al., 2007; White, 2007). RTPI displays are nowin common use, for example, in Adelaide, Bogota, London, SanFrancisco, and Tokyo, providing information to travelers usingbuses, light rail, heavy rail and bus rapid transit (see e.g., Caulfield &O’Mahony, 2007 or Ito, 2006). Of importance to such systems,however, is the level of accuracy of the information provided. If overtime, customers note that the information provided is unreliable(e.g., the arrival times of buses or trains given do not reflect reality),then such information will be ignored or may even result in a de-crease in public transport usage due to the creation of negativeattitudes or perceptions.

3.1.5. Integrated ticketing/pre-pay systems/rapid bus boardingThe introduction of integrated ticketing systems has been

shown to have a number of potential benefits to consumers andtransport providers resulting in increased demand for publictransport services. Such ticketing systems generally allow for ap-parently seamless transfers between modes, thus providing im-proved customer satisfaction levels. Pre-pay ticket systems alsoprovide many benefits. In the United Kingdom, substantial savingsare offered to those using pre-pay tickets, thus allowing cost sav-ings to customers. Further, without the need to pay drivers, sub-stantial boarding time savings can be achieved (from around 5–8 sper passenger to 1–2 s) thus allowing for significantly improvedtravel times and reliability in the services provided (see e.g., White,2007). Further, the introduction of a pre-pay ticketing system mayalso reduce driver–passenger conflict and result in a decrease instress levels for drivers who no longer have to collect fares (see e.g.,Byatt et al., 2007). Such benefits have flow on effects, which maymultiply the advantages gained in terms of growing demand forpublic transport services. Streeting and Barlow (2007) suggestedthat the introduction of integrated ticketing in South EastQueensland might have acted to increase patronage by 5% in 2004/2005. White (2007) suggested simplified fares and pre-paid tick-eting might be related to a 3% growth in patronage in London be-tween 1999/2000 and 2005/2006.

3.1.6. Improved image/quality/marketing/brandingImproved marketing represents another dimension that may

result in growth for public transport services. In many cases, publictransport suffers from a poor image, particularly from non-users,making increasing demand a difficult task. Whereas in most in-dustries, marketing techniques have been successfully applied, thepublic transport industry appears to have been slow in adoptingsuch practices. For example, many in the industry see a bus asnothing more than a vehicle for carrying passengers, whereas a busmight be represented as a bundle of benefits (e.g., ability to travel tounique locations, meet new people and socialize, etc.) when lookedat by a marketer. Further, in highly competitive markets, thereexists the potential to multi-brand services, so as to presenta united image to customers (e.g., in Melbourne, Australia, multipleoperators, both private and public, are all marketed under the onesystem. As such, whilst there are multiple service providers, thepublic recognize only one large organization which appears to beintegrated throughout the entire network; see Carolan & Stanley,2007). In South East Queensland, Streeting and Barlow (2007)attempted a measurement of the likely ‘integration effect’ on pa-tronage. This concerns the impact of introducing an integratedfares, ticketing, service, marketing and communications agencycalled Translink. They suggested the additional effect beyond ser-vice and fare integration benefits might represent a 3.5% growth inpatronage.

3.1.7. Service stability, priority and reliabilityAlong with service level improvements, a number of studies

have identified service stability, and reliability as major sources ofpotential growth for public transport demand (see e.g., Bates, Polak,Jones, & Cook, 2001; Cliche & Reid, 2007; Currie & Wallis, 2007;White, 2007). Within the published literature, two aspects of re-liability are typically distinguished in relation to bus services;scheduled service cancellations, and scheduled services that varyfrom the timetable. Scheduled service cancellations generally resultin a disproportionate increase in passenger waiting time as pas-sengers are made to wait for the next service, resulting in increasedpassenger annoyance and lost patronage. For example, one studyidentified that a 10% random reduction in services operatedresulted in increase average passenger waiting times between 20and 30% (Balcombe et al., 2004). Given evidence that passengers

G. Currie, J. Rose / Research in Transportation Economics 22 (2008) 5–11 9

value this ‘excess’ waiting time at 2–3 times ordinary waiting time,which in turn is valued at 1.5–2 times in-vehicle time, the potentialimpact of unreliable services is substantial. Similar results are ob-served for services not running to timetable (Currie & Wallis, 2007).Of course, the inverse is also true. Improving reliability will alsoimpact on customer perceptions of public transport, as well as theperceptions held by non-users. As such, improving reliability maylead to substantial gains in public transport demand.

3.1.8. Employee motivationRamanayya et al. (2007) and Streeting and Barlow (2007)

identified significant gains achieved via improvements in employeemotivation. Both studies demonstrated that improved training andthe implementation of motivational techniques applied to servicestaff interacting with customers resulted in growth in publictransport demand as a result of improvements in public percep-tions towards the services on offer. Whilst such effects were not aslarge as those observed for factors such as fare level reductions andservice level improvements, growth in demand due to improvedemployee motivation were found. Further research, however, isrequired to identify the proportion of growth that is directly at-tributable to improved employee motivation and whether suchgrowth is spread equally across different transport workers thatcustomers come into contact on a daily basis (e.g., drivers, ticketsellers, etc.).

3.1.9. Urban regeneration/TODA final endogenous factor that has recently been discussed as

a potential aid to public transport patronage growth is that of urbanregeneration and transit oriented development (TOD). Over thepast 50 or 60 years, development of many urban population centershas occurred simultaneously with rapid growth in the use of pri-vate motor vehicles. In part, particularly in many western nations,this has come about due to significant income growth as well asa growing affordability of private motor vehicles. Unfortunately, theoutcome of such development has been the promotion of transportinfrastructure aimed at promoting private transport options ratherthan growing public transport usage. Further, as the gap betweenthe service levels offered between private and public transportoptions increases, perceptions of public transport have suffered,thus eroding the use of public transport even further.

An increasing trend now exists, however, with the urban plan-ning of new and existing population centers tending to incorporateimproved and integrated public transport options. Such de-velopments seek not only to grow reliance on public transport forthose moving into such centers, but also to improve the perceptionsheld by future generations growing up in such areas about publictransport options.

3.2. Exogenous factors influencing public transport patronagegrowth

Exogenous influences upon public transport demand representthose factors that are typically not directly under the control ofthose involved in providing public transport. In this section, wediscuss five such factors.

3.2.1. Car ownership growth and traffic congestionIncreasing levels of car dependency represent one of the largest

threats to growing patronage of public transport modes. For ex-ample, White (2007) reports that car ownership in the UnitedKingdom increased 13% from 1999 to 2004, however, that suchgrowth was not even across the entire nation, with little changeobserved in London. Whilst White was able to disaggregate many ofthe influences on public transport growth achieved in the United

Kingdom, it is worth noting that real growth in public transport inLondon was 40% compared to 8% outside of London.

An observable outcome of increasing car dependence is trafficcongestion. With increasing traffic congestion comes a de-terioration of travel time and travel time reliability along affectednetworks. Travel time and travel time reliability are importantfactors in mode choice, and as such, worsening levels of both havethe potential to make non-affected modes far more attractive topotential users. As such, public transport options that are not af-fected by traffic congestion have the potential to capture significantlevels of the market, provided that they too offer relatively goodlevels of service.

3.2.2. Income and population growthTwo of the main drivers that have been identified as leading to

growth in public transport travel demand are increases in pop-ulation and income levels. With increasing population, the poten-tial base of users from which public transport providers can drawfrom also increase. This therefore increases the possibility ofgrowing public transport demand. Rising per capita incomes,however, typically allows greater choice in trip selection, andhigher potential travel speeds, as urban road networks have de-veloped over time (Cosgrove & Gargett, 2007). As such, increasingincome levels typically shift demand away from public transporttowards greater private car usage, thus decreasing demand forpublic transport options. In support of this, Dirgahayani et al.(2007) note that increasing income levels have resulted in greaterimportance being attached to personal security and less on costwhen it comes to transport demand in Jakarta.

Nevertheless, in an analysis examining travel demand within allAustralian capital cities, Cosgrove and Gargett (2007) found thatincreases in annual travel per person appears to now beapproaching saturation, despite trends for continual income levelsrises. Thus, they predict that the rate of increase in total traveldemand will tend, in the medium term, to more closely equal therate of population growth rather than follow income level trends.

3.2.3. Employment changesThe pattern of employment within urban and non-urban cen-

ters has the potential to significantly influence public transportusage. For instance, within many developing nations there existsa growing movement away from rural areas towards larger pop-ulation centers as many seek greater employment opportunities.Whilst such changes in nation wide population densities may al-leviate public transport supply constraints in some areas, the ten-dency has been for larger cities to quickly experience saturation interms of public transport provision in the face of rapid populationgrowth. Developed nations have also had similar experiences.

Structural changes in national or even more localized economicsystems affecting employment patterns also have the potential toinfluence public transport patronage. Structural economic changesmay influence income levels within whole areas, both negativelyand positively, and result in changes to the socio-demographicmake-up of those areas. Further, changing employment patterns,such as a growth in part time work at the expense of full timeemployment or a movement towards a service-based as opposed tomanufacturing-based economy, may assist in a growing financialindependence for many economically discriminated againstgroups, such as women and youth. This can also manifest itself asa growth in transport demand. Whether such demand will be forprivate or public transport means is debatable, however, it is farmore likely that the demand for the former will be greater.

3.2.4. Urban density/sprawlUrban density has a potential impact upon public transport

usage and demand. Densely populated urban centers have the

G. Currie, J. Rose / Research in Transportation Economics 22 (2008) 5–1110

potential for greater levels of traffic congestion as more individualsare required to move within a limited area. Thus, unless serviced byan already existing public transport network that offers decentservice levels, the private motor vehicle will remain the dominantmode of transport resulting in congestion. On the other hand,shorter trips can be expected to be undertaken in more tightlypopulated areas, thus potentially limiting congestion.

Urban sprawl may also impact upon demand for travel as well asfor specific modes. Trip lengths may be longer in such environ-ments, thus increasing transport costs, but also influencing trafficcongestion levels. Unfortunately, unless the transport system iscarefully planned, the tendency has been for the development ofbottlenecks, where congestion becomes difficult to avoid at certaintimes of the day. Thus, the experience in many cities is that urbansprawl does not necessarily negate the benefits derived fromspreading out trips across the urban centre. This may be particu-larly true if the employment patterns are such that the number oftrip destinations are few.

Typically, it is those within the lower socio-demographic classesof society who are pushed to the edges of urban sprawl. Un-fortunately, it is these groups that are also typically highly repre-sented in terms of public transport users. As such, a number ofimpacts may result from such development. Firstly, lower socio-demographic groups may be unable to pay for the longer trips thaturban sprawl typically require, thus either requiring a greater levelof cross-subsidization, or resulting in growing levels of transportexclusion. Secondly, urban sprawl may result in a diversification ofpossible origin-destinations, thus requiring public transports tocover greater geographical areas. Unfortunately, this too requiresgreater levels of investment on behalf of transport providers ifsome form of minimum service levels are to be maintained. Thisalso puts pressure on the requirement for some form of cross-subsidization, which if not forthcoming, may result in the provisionof poor levels of service and erosion in terms of the perceptions andattitudes held by those who are most likely to use such services inthe first place.

Nevertheless, when planned properly, public transport patron-age can benefit from both urban density growth and urban sprawl.Properly planed TOD centers may help diversify trip origins anddestinations and benefit not only public transport users, but alsononpublic transport users alike.

3.2.5. Fuel price changesRecent trends in world fuel prices have been mostly upward.

This trend has mostly translated into the cost of running a privatemotor vehicle relative to using public transport also increasing. Assuch, public transport becomes more attractive to potential users.Unfortunately, the elasticity of demand for fuel prices is such thatincreasing fuel prices has only a negligible impact on reducingprivate vehicle usage and increasing public transport demand (seee.g., Cosgrove & Gargett, 2007 or Currie & Wallis, 2007). Indeed andexamination of the literature suggests that the short run petrolprice fuel demand elasticity lies somewhere in the range of �0.1 to�0.8 depending on whether one is interested in short run or longrun forecasts and whether the data from which the elasticities weregenerated from were time series or cross sectional (see e.g.,Banaszak, Chakravorty, & Leung, 1999; Goodwin, 1992; Goodwin,Dargay, & Hanly, 2004; Graham & Glaister, 2002; McRae, 1994;Oum, 1989).

4. Discussion and conclusion

In this paper, we have outlined not only a number of sources thathave been found to result in growing demand for public transportservices, but also some potential barriers as well. In detailing thefactors that we believe have the potential to assist (or hinder)

in growing public transport demand, we have separated thesesources into those that are directly under the influence of thoseinvolved in providing public transport services, and those whichare not. The evidence that each of the sources discussed has thepotential to influence public transport demand is provided ina number of papers presented at Thredbo 10 (The InternationalConference on Competition and Ownership in Land PassengerTransport, 2007). Unfortunately, many of these papers were able toidentify the sources of influence, but not quantify the impacts ofeach source on demand. However, some papers were able to de-compose observed growth in public transport demand to allow forsome differentiation in terms of the sources leading to that growth.In particular, Currie and Wallis (2007), Streeting and Barlow (2007)and White (2007) were able to identify in different settings thatservice level improvements and fare reductions represent the twogreatest sources for growing public service demand. Nevertheless,more research is required, and as such, this paper seeks to repre-sent a starting point for future research, where the exact impact onpublic transport demand of each source is quantified.

The list that we have provided is also not definitive, and indeedmay grow in the future. Changing circumstances, such as climatechange, peak oil and technology change may add to the list ofpotential drivers for future public transport demand growth. Fur-ther, public transport planners are increasingly becoming involvedin debates related to travel demand management, urban livabilityand consolidation, social inclusion and social obligations, all ofwhich may bring not only new challenges, but also new potentialsources for growth. Finally, transport planners have been relativelyslow to learn tools for marketing and targeting of their services,however, this appears to be changing as well, which may also resultin growth for public transport demand.

Acknowledgments

This paper reports on presentations given as part of workshop1a of the Tenth International Conference on Competition andOwnership in Land Passenger Transport (called Thredbo 10),Hamilton Island, 13–17 August 2007. We are indebted to all thosewho wrote and submitted papers as part of the workshop. Work-shop participants included Robin Barlow, Abigail Bristow, MartinByatt, Bernie Carolan, Morris Caputi, Dennis Cliche, David Cosgrove,Graham Currie, Puspita Dirgahayani, Liam McKay, Wayne Mount-joy, Bill Rae, Tammana Ramanayya, John Rose, David Royle, MarkStreeting, Yoshinori Takamashi, Alejandro Tirachini, Heather Web-ster and Peter White.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007). Census data. <http://www.abs.gov.au/web-sitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/home?opendocument>. Accessed 30.10.2007.

Balcombe, R., Mackett, R., Paulley, N., Preston, J., Shires, J., Titheridge, H., et al.(2004). The demand for public transport: a practical guide. Transport ResearchLaboratory.

Banaszak, S., Chakravorty, S. U., & Leung, P. (1999). Demand for ground trans-portation fuel and pricing policy in Asian Tigers: a comparative study of Koreaand Taiwan. Energy Journal, 20(2), 145–165.

Bates, J., Polak, J., Jones, P., & Cook, A. (2001). The valuation of reliability for personaltravel. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 37,191–229.

Bristow, A. L., Enoch, M., Zhang L., Greensmith C., James, N., & Potter, S. (2007).Kickstarting growth in bus patronage: targeting support at the margins. InPaper presented at THREDBO 10: The international conference on competition andownership in land passenger transport, 12–17 August, Hamilton Island, Australia.

Byatt, M., Oscuro, G., & Rookes, M. (2007). Improving efficiency: an evaluation ofSydney buses ‘‘Bondi Bendy’’ prepay service. In Paper presented at THREDBO 10:The international conference on competition and ownership in land passengertransport, 12–17 August, Hamilton Island, Australia.

Carolan, B., & Stanley, J. (2007). Marketing of public transport services to achievepatronage growth in a multi-private operator environment. In Paper pre-sented at THREDBO 10: The international conference on competition and

G. Currie, J. Rose / Research in Transportation Economics 22 (2008) 5–11 11

ownership in land passenger transport, 12–17 August, Hamilton Island,Australia.

Caulfield, B., & O’Mahony, M. (2007). An examination of public transport informationrequirements of users. Intelligent Transportation Systems, 8(1), 21–30.

Cliche, D., & Reid, S. (2007). Growing patronage – think tram? In Paper presented atTHREDBO 10: The international conference on competition and ownership in landpassenger transport, 12–17 August, Hamilton Island, Australia.

Cosgrove, D., & Gargett, D. (2007). Long-term trends in modal share for urbanpassenger travel. In Paper presented at THREDBO 10: The international conferenceon competition and ownership in land passenger transport, 12–17 August, Ham-ilton Island, Australia.

Currie, G., & Wallis I. (2007). Effective ways to grow urban bus markets – a synthesisof evidence. In Paper presented at THREDBO 10: The international conference oncompetition and ownership in land passenger transport, 12–17 August, HamiltonIsland, Australia.

Dallen, J. (2007). The challenges of diverse visitor perceptions: rail policy andsustainable transport at the resort destination. Journal of Transport Geography,15(2), 104–115.

Dirgahayani, P., Harata, N., & Ohmori, N. (2007). Barriers towards intermodalityfor pursuing to-work commuters modal shift to bus rapid transit system inJakarta, Indonesia. In Paper presented at THREDBO 10: The international confer-ence on competition and ownership in land passenger transport, 12–17 August,Hamilton Island, Australia.

Ferrari, P. (1999). A model of urban transport management. Transportation ResearchPart B: Methodological, 33(1), 43–61.

Gipps, P., Brotchie, J., Hensher, D., Newton, P., & O’Connor, K. (1997). Journey to work:Employment and the changing structure of Australian cities. Research Monograph3. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

Goodwin, P., Dargay, J., & Hanly, M. (2004). Elasticities of road traffic and fuelconsumption with respect to price and income: a review. Transport Reviews,24(3), 275–292.

Goodwin, P. B. (1992). A review of new demand elasticities with special reference toshort and long run effects of price changes. Journal of Transport Economics andPolicy, 26(2), 155–170.

Graham, D., & Glaister, S. (2002). The demand for automobile fuel: a survey ofelasticities. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 36(1), 1–26.

Hensher, D. A., & Rose, J. M. (2007). Development of commuter and non-commutermode choice models for the assessment of new public transport infrastructureprojects: a case study. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 41(5),428–443.

Ito, Y. (2006). Easy-to-access rail – JR East’s initiatives. Japan Railway & TransportReview, 45, 12–16.

Jara-Dı́az, S. R., & Gschwender, A. (2005). Making pricing work in public transportprovision. In K. J. Button, & D. A. Hensher (Eds.), Handbook of transport strategy,policy and institutions (pp. 447–459). Elsevier.

McRae, R. (1994). Gasoline demand in developing Asian countries. Energy Journal,15(1), 143–155.

Oum, T. (1989). Alternative demand models and their elasticity estimates. Journal ofTransport Economics and Policy, 23, 163–187.

Ramanayya, T. V., Nagadevara, V., & Roy, S. (2007). Impact of employee motivationon passenger satisfaction levels – a case study in the State of Karnataka (India).In Paper presented at THREDBO 10: the international conference on competitionand ownership in land passenger transport, 12–17 August, Hamilton Island,Australia.

Streeting, M., & Barlow, R. (2007). Understanding key drivers of public transportpatronage growth – recent South East Queensland experience. In Paper pre-sented at THREDBO 10: The international conference on competition and owner-ship in land passenger transport, 12–17 August, Hamilton Island, Australia.

Takahashi Y (2007). Provision of Local Bus Services in japan: Focusing on the Rolesfor Local Government and Nonprofit Organisations’ Paper presented atTHREADBO 10: The international conference on competition and ownership inland passenger transport, 12-17 August, Hamilton Island, Australia.

Walters, K. (2005). The Thanet loop: a modernised bus service for Thanet. Un-published Masters thesis. United Kingdom: University of Westminster.

White, P. (2007). Factors behind recent patronage trends in Britain and their im-plications for future policy. In Paper presented at THREDBO 10: The internationalconference on competition and ownership in land passenger transport, 12–17August, Hamilton Island, Australia.