Public Transport

Explaining the Benefits of Public Transport

In my trip to New Zealand last week, one of the key talking points was the challenge of communicating the many benefits of public transport to the public. Therefore, it was timely to come across this report on the benefits of New Jersey (NJ) Transit, the third largest transport system in the United States.

Key Takeaways

• The system moves more than 720,000 people every weekday, 139 million bus trips and over 60 million rail trips each year. Nearly 9% of commuter trips in New Jersey are by bus or train.
• Without NJ Transit, the state’s road network would need to absorb over 2.5 billion additional vehicle miles each year.
• Projected statewide, NJ Transit produces between $12.7 billion and $13.8 billion per year. Total net benefits, subtracting operating costs, are between $9.84 billion to $10.94 billion.
• Benefits include:
  • Road Maintenance: When fewer trips are taken in private vehicles, there is less wear on road infrastructure.
  • Traffic Congestion: When trips are taken on transit instead of private vehicles, congestion is reduced. Across the state, 2.6 billion miles are travelled on NJ Transit.
  • Air & Noise Pollution: Reduced Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) corresponds to reduced emissions.
  • Agglomeration Benefits: Arise from more compact land use patterns.
  • Crashes: Also associated with more or less VMT.
  • Alternative to Car Ownership: Residents avoid the cost of owning and operating a vehicle.
• For every dollar spent on operations, the system returns four to five times that value in benefits.

Comment

In the US, 84% of people support transit, yet only 4% use it. The problem is that the 84% see the benefits for other people, not for themselves. We need to find ways of communicating the benefits of public transport to non-users.

Whilst deriving the benefit-cost ratio of public transport is useful, it will not be understood, nor resonate with the average person. We need to find better ways of communicating the benefits that people can readily relate to and understand.

The best way to secure an increased social license for spending on public transport is to get more people using public transport.

What Next?

Do you have a compelling way of explaining the benefits of public transport to the wider public? Please email me if you have. I would love to see great examples.

Freight

Lessons from NYC: Creating Supportive E-Cargo Bike Regulations

The demand for deliveries is putting increased pressure on our transport networks and increasing emissions. One solution is to utilise e-cargo bikes rather than motor vehicles. This article and practitioner paper from the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) describe how New York City (NYC) established a supportive regulatory environment for e-cargo bikes.

Key Takeaways

• The NYC Department of Transportation (DOT) launched the Commercial Cargo Bicycle Pilot in 2019 to test the feasibility of formal commercial e-cargo bike regulations.
• After a successful 1-year pilot, the Commercial Cargo Bicycle Program was made permanent.
• In March 2024, the City announced new rules and formalised the program by legalising pedal-assist e-cargo bikes up to 48” and dedicating more curb space for cargo bikes to load and unload goods.
• In April 2025, NYC DOT launched the city’s first microhubs on the Upper West Side as part of a new Smart Curbs program to further incentivise e-cargo bike deliveries.
• The Department of Transportation’s legal team, Freight Mobility Unit, Bike Unit, and Parking Unit collaborated to build a regulatory framework focused on incentives, not restrictions.
• The pilot program launched with a flexible set of regulations. The NYC DOT developed a loose letter of understanding for delivery partners which allowed the City to terminate the agreement if any terms were violated.
• The rules include vehicle specifications, speed limits, where they can load, unload or stage, education & enforcement and data sharing.
• Allowing cargo bikes to not pay the meter was a significant “carrot” for bringing big industry partners to the table.
• Key lessons for regulators: be flexible, create a clear regulatory framework, supportive infrastructure is required, not just rules and use data to quantify success.

Comment

E-cargo bikes are a great solution for reducing the negative impacts of growing demand for deliveries but they need to be supported to get delivery firms to switch.

What next?

What is your city's strategy for reducing the impacts of deliveries?

Road Pricing

Who Pays for Roads When Cars Don't Burn Fuel? Australia's RUC Dilemma

The conversion of motor vehicles from internal combustion engines (ICEs) to Electric Vehicles (EVs) is leading to reductions in taxes put on fuels. To compensate, governments are taking a serious look at Road User Charging (RUC).

New Zealand recently announced its intention to imlement RUC for all vehicles, whilst Australia's recent productivity roundtable signalled it was under serious consideration.

In Australia, a couple of papers have recently been released discussing RUC - this paper from the Transport Australia Society (TAs) and this paper from Professor David Hensher at the Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies (ITLS) at the University of Sydney.

Declaration: I made a small contribution to the ITLS paper.

Key Takeaways

• TAs proposes a three-layered road user charging model:
  • Base Layer: Charges per kilometre travelled, scaled by vehicle weight.
  • Emissions Layer: Additional charges based on vehicle emissions, with exemptions for electric vehicles.
  • Congestion Layer: Time- and location-based charges to manage peak demand in urban areas.
• This model is designed to improve equity, incentivise low-emission travel, and reduce congestion—while maintaining revenue neutrality at rollout to support public acceptance.
• States would set and collect road user charges, with revenue hypothecated for transport infrastructure and demand management.
• Fuel excise would be phased out and replaced by variable demand-based charging.
• Road tolling would be gradually integrated into the broader charging system.
• In some states with large rural areas with low population density, there may be pressure to establish differential distance-based road user charge rates for urban and rural areas. This should be discouraged due to the perverse distortions it creates.
• Whilst the TAs paper focuses on what an RUC framework should be, the ITLS paper also considers the political practicalities of implementing an RUC.
• The ITLS paper highlights the problems associated with starting an EV-only RUC based solely on odometer readings - it will slow EV uptake and lack a congestion-reducing element.
• It is also possible to get stuck with an odometer reading approach and that further reform to tackle congestion delayed indefinitely.
• It would be preferable to move to a full RUC regime for all vehicles sooner rather than later, but the politics of this will be much more challenging.

Comment

The Australian government has stated a desire to move to RUC, but without slowing the uptake of EVs. To achieve this, it must ensure that the relative benefits of EVs versus ICEs are not reduced.

This would rule out an RUC for EVs only without compensating policies, such as tax reductions for the purchase of EVs, increased funding for EV charging infrastructure or increasing the costs of ICEs, which will be politically difficult.

Another consideration is the technology. The only country in the world that currently has a full RUC is Iceland, and it has used odometer readings. No technology solution with time and location data has yet been proven at scale, increasing the implementation risks on a policy that already faces significant political risks.

A time and location-based system will inevitably raise privacy concerns, and these must be carefully addressed to maintain social license.

What next?

Do you have a policy for how EVs should contribute to the cost of roads moving forward?

Quick Adventures in Transport Wonderland

Here is what else I came across this week:

• A few years ago, Mobility As A Service (MaaS) was all the rage. Since then, many attempts to get it working have failed. Here is Professor David Hensher explaining what has gone wrong and where MaaS might go from here.
• ​Here is a 10 minute video on California High Speed Rail
• ​Vienna is getting rid of its Euro a day travel pass.​
• ​Ticketless train travel to be trialled in the UK​

Blog

Why Conservatives Should Champion Public and Active Transport

This week, my blog explained why, due to their values, conservatives should be championing public and active transport.

Innovation

Helping Autistic Drivers

​How blue envelopes are helping autistic drivers.​

Tool

Micromobility Data

A new tool exploring micromobility data.