Assessment Cover Sheet

Assessment Title Assignment 2

Programme Title: BILM

Course No.: TL7303

Course Title: Urban Public Transport

Student Name: Zainab Abbas

Student ID: 201400141

Tutor: Kym Channell

Due Date: 11th/12/2017 Date submitted: 11th/12/2017

By submitting this assessment for marking, either electronically or as hard copy, I confirm the following:
 This assignment is my own work
 Any information used has been properly referenced.
 I understand that a copy of my work may be used for moderation.
 I have kept a copy of this assignment
 I have read and/or attached the Turnitin Originality Report

Do not write below this line. For Polytechnic use only.

Assessor: Kym Channell Date of Marking:

Grade/Mark: 92/100

Comments: Overall has been very well done. Could have converted ridership numbers to
percentages of pop using PT to give a better idea of demand as this would have taken
onto consideration the different population levels

TL7303 Urban Public Transport

Assignment 2
Marks available: 100 (Final mark awarded as %)
Course weighting: 35%
Learning outcomes 1. Analyse the relationship of urban form and public transport in terms of
assessed: financing, revenue, selection, function, organization and ownership.
2. Compare the principal roles of urban public transport by different modes
(road, rail and water)

Submission deadline: Saturday 9th December, 2017 before 23:59 (Moodle –Word Document)

Assignment.

2000 words

(A) Construct a comparative index in table form, using multiple criteria for comparing urban public
transport systems. Be sure to provide the list of criteria you use for your comparative index and
explain why you chose those criteria. (25 marks)

(B) Apply your comparative index to compare 3 cities worldwide with over 5 million inhabitants from 3
different continents. (25 Marks)

(C) Apply your comparative index to compare 3 cities worldwide with under 2 million inhabitants from at
least 3 different continents. (25 Marks)

(D) Provide a short summary that compares what types of urban public transport appear to work best in
the two groups (B and C) above, and suggest why this is the case. (15 Marks)

Note:

This assignment should be written on this document (a Word document - do not PDF the file) and appropriately
formatted; headings and subheadings should be used, you should use either Calibri or Arial font (size 11 – excluding
headings and subheadings), your work should be double-spaced and pages should be numbered. Remember to
reference your work (including in-text referencing) at all times using the APA format.

Submissions – Use this document as the template for your submission! Please submit the whole document
including cover page, instructions, your report and the rubric via Moodle. All assignments will be checked for
plagiarism and originality using Turnitin. All submissions must be saved using the following naming convention
(failure to do this may result in your assignment not being marked):

 First Name_ID number_ Assignment 1

 E.g. Ahmed_20109090_Assignment 1

BILM Assignments – Rules & Guidelines

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY & HONESTY: When submitting this assignment you are confirming that you have adhered to
Bahrain Polytechnic’s policy on academic integrity and honesty including using APA referencing appropriately. Any
violation of this will be dealt with as stipulated in the policy.
LATE SUBMISSIONS: Late assignments are deducted 5 marks from your achieved mark for each 24 hour period after
the due date. For example, an assessment which has been graded as 73% will be reduced to 68% for the first 24
hours late, and to 63% if late for a further 24 hours and so on. This applies to every day of the week including the
weekend and all public holidays. Assignments which are submitted so late as to receive a negative mark will receive
a final mark of zero.

EXTENSIONS: On application, in writing, tutors may approve an extension up to a maximum of two (2) days
(including the weekend and public holidays) for an individual assignment. Applications for extensions must be
received no later than 72 hours (3 days) before the due date. Only one extension per course will be given. Please
note that extensions will not be given for group work, tests or exams.

WORD LIMIT: All assignments have a required word limit which we permit a variation of +/-10%. For example an
assignment with a 2000 word limit means that you can submit between 1800 to 2200 words. These words come
from the main body of your writing i.e. your introduction to your conclusion. We do not include title pages, contents
pages, reference list or appendices. In-text referencing is included in the word count. Submissions which are
substantially under the word limit will receive a low mark for failing to answer the question fully. If a submission is
over the word limit, the tutor will simply stop marking at that point where it is 10% over (e.g. 2200 words for an
assignment with a 2000 word limit). You will not receive any marks for work that is submitted outside of the
maximum word limit.

Marking will be as per marking rubric

Please refer to the generic Course Guide or your tutor is you require further clarification of the above points.
Table of Contents

............................................................................................1
Introduction:...............................................................................................................................................................5
Criteria selected: .........................................................................................................................................................5
Ticketing-system .....................................................................................................................................................5
Subsidies ................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Integrated-systems .................................................................................................................................................6
Demand .................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Environmental issue ................................................................................................................................................6
Comparative Index A:..................................................................................................................................................7
1. Ticketing system ..............................................................................................................................................8
2. Subsidies .........................................................................................................................................................8
3. Integrated-system ...........................................................................................................................................9
4. Demand-(ridership) ......................................................................................................................................... 9
5. Environmental issues ..................................................................................................................................... 10
Comparative Index B: ................................................................................................................................................ 11
1. Ticketing-system ........................................................................................................................................... 11
2. Subsidies .......................................................................................................................................................12
3. Integrated-system ......................................................................................................................................... 12
4. Demand-(ridership) ....................................................................................................................................... 13
5. Environmental issues ..................................................................................................................................... 13
Summary: ................................................................................................................................................................. 14
Introduction:
This assignment aims to analyse public transport and urban form relationship, with regards to financing,

revenue, function, selection and organization. It will include a comparative index of certain public transport systems

criteria. These criteria will then be applied to compare 3 cities with over 5 million inhabitants and 3 cities with under

2 million inhabitants. A short summary highlighting the types of urban public transport, which appear to work best in

the two mentioned group of cities will also be provided.

Criteria selected:

Ticketing-system

Ticketing-system is a mean of payment for passengers and fares collection for operators. Establishing easy

and understandable ticketing-system is essential to increase the attractiveness of PT and thus increase the travellers

share. The system basis should be coherent and are with a reasonable number of tickets, considering users’ travel

patterns such as students or seniors. Tickets should be widely available, as the ease and convenience of purchase will

attract more passengers, for instance they can be obtained online or on-board (Civitas, 2010). Integrated ticketing

is where a passenger can board more than one PT vehicle to complete his journey by introducing a ticket valid for all

vehicles. This provides an incentive to travel, makes the PT highly accessible and promotes intermodality, which Commented [A1]: good

increases passenger’s satisfaction (Mezghani, 2008).

Subsidies

Government subsidies allow operators to set prices at a cost recovery level, while services would still remain

affordable for beneficiaries. Subsidy make up losses and thus reduce fares. This potentially promotes PT use and

result in a modal shift from private vehicles. However, operating agencies should consistently work to improve

system inefficiencies instead of relying on the subsidy to manage operations (Cropper, 2012). Subsidizing PT is

important to balance financial sustainability with affordability, particularly to lower-income population. Meeting

both goals is challenging. As a result, some cities use low PT fare levels, requiring high subsidy levels, while others

use higher fares, which are more sustainable but pose a risk of excluding cities poor’s from the transport services Commented [A2]: good

(Goeverden, 2006).
Integrated-systems

There is a potential need to transfer between different PT modes for a journey to be completed. Therefore,

PT is more appealing and most efficient when planned and operated as an integrated system. The integration

dimension involves the various PT modes, routes and operations being developed together to support transferring in

a minimum travel time and cost (Fang, 2015). For instance, connections need to be established between services

“bus to bus, bus to train” in a way they complement each other, with consideration to waiting and walking times and

safety. Furthermore, interchanges should have park&ride facilities and walking-paths to promote mode transfer to

PT. Successful integration of these dimensions maximizes ridership and revenue and in return reduces costs and

subsidies (Charles, 2014). Commented [A3]: Good

Demand

Rapid urbanization have resulted in increased PT demand on which the mobility of sizeable population

depends. According to the UN, in 2009 half of the population lived in urban area and this is expected to grow to

reach 70% in 2050 (ANDREI, 2016). This reflects the importance of PT to passengers like workers and leisure

travellers, who have different travel frequencies and time. Consequently, PT demand is time-dependent and is

higher in the morning “peaks” and sparse in the evening “troughs”. However, maintaining an acceptable rate of

usage is essential for operators maintain financially sustainable operations (Pardo, "n.d."). PT demand is affected by

several factors including traveller’s characteristics of income, age or travel purpose and the availability of private

vehicles (Polat, 2012). Commented [A4]: Good

Environmental issue

PT has a positive impact on air quality especially in heavily congested urban areas, where air quality poses

serious threats to residents. With the improvement of public transit, several eco-friendly vehicles have been

introduced. For instance, gas-powered buses are being replaced by electric buses powered by renewed-energy.

Trains powered by electricity are also more environmentally friendly, as it boast 76% lower greenhouse gas

emissions per passenger mile than an average car (Shroff, 2016). Despite the benefits to using PT, there are some

drawbacks. For instance, noise and carbon monoxide emissions produced as a result of operating have direct

harmful effects in addition to damaging the environment to build the infrastructure needed to operate these modes Commented [A5]: good

(Rodrigue, 2017).
Comparative Index A:
This comparative index will compare the three cities of Singapore, NYC and London, all with over 5 million

inhabitants.

Criteria Singapore NYC London

Population (2016) 5.607 million 8.538 million 8.788 million

Modes of transport - MRT - Subway - Rail system (Underground, Overground,

- LRT - Buses Light Railway and local train)

- Buses - Buses

- Tram

Ticketing system - Contactless stored value - Magnetic stripe card - Contactless card
smartcards
- Flat-fare, “same fare irrespective of - Paper ticket
- E-payment system, promotes
travelled distance” for subway and bus - Zones, peak and off-peak based fares for
cards use with CEPAS technology
- Free transfer within two hours rail system
issued by any card issuer for
- Integrated ticketing system - Integrated ticketing system for all PT
transit purposes (MOT, 2014)
- Tickets available at Metro stations modes
- Distance- based travel
- Options include single-ride, pay-by-
- Integrated ticketing system
ride, unlimited 7day and unlimited
- Cash payment
30day passes (MTA, "n.d").
- Tickets are widely-available

Subsidies - Investing in infrastructure, from - Metrocard discounts - - London government spends over

2010-2015, about $14 billion has - Place based subsidies instead of people £5bn on PT subsidies (Wyporska, 2017).

been deployed (Liang, 2015) based - Unequal subsidies

- Fare concessions, allowing card - Insufficient subsidies, resulting in - Elderly, disables freedom pass

holder to pay basic bus and train resorting to increasing fares. In 2013, - Seniors 66years or older and commuters

services at a subsidized rate the base fare raised to $2.50, from $2.25 with qualifying disability are eligible for

and to 2.75$ in 2015 (FITZSIMMONSJAN, freedom pass (TFL, "n.d.")

2015)

Integrated system - Integrated land use and - NYC buses provide service between - Free transfers in some cases. For

transport planning LaGuardia Airport, Manhattan and example, in either direction between

- 8 integrated transport hubs, Queens with connection to the subway Hammersmith (Circle/H&C) or

where commuters can transfer to and reach neighbourhoods far from the Hammersmith (District/Piccadilly) (TFL,

their connecting trains or buses subway (Laguardia, 2017). "n.d.").

(LTA, 2017). - Transfers can be made between bus - Integrated ticketing system whereby a

- Integrated ticketing system and subway within 2hours. single card can be used on all transport

- 8 in 10 households are within - Lack of transfer announcement, real- services across London.

10- minute walk of a rail station time information and maps. - Single management of most PT, allowing

(Sun, George Sun) - Integrated ticketing system better planning and investment (Wilcox,

2014).
Demand - In 2015, almost six out of 10 - NYC transit systems carry about 33% of - 44% of people in London commute to

Singapore residents take PT to all transit riders in the country work by PT (Wilcox, 2014).

work, which is about 58.7% (Lee, (MacKechnie, 2017).

2016).

Environmental issues - Increasing PT capacity to reduce - Resilient rail fasteners that reduce - The use of hybrid buses to improve air-

energy use. noise pollution quality

- Trains fleet runs on electricity - Hybrid buses - The fleet is being renewed

and generates zero air polluting

emissions (Prakash, 2010).

1. Ticketing-system

Singapore offers cash or contactless-smartcards “EZ-link” payment. Automated-smartcards ensures quicker

entry and exit, since transaction is completed within 0.2seconds. Tickets are integrated, widely-available and are

obtained from vending-machines at stations, stores. The distance-based-fare improves PT connectivity, as regardless

of transfers made, commuters only pay for the total travelled-distance (LTA, 2017). However, in NYC flat-fares are

charged to attract long-journeys commuters (Alexander, 2015). A Metrocard must be purchased from a vending-

machine at subway stations to use both subway and bus, pay-by-ride is $2.75 and express bus is $6.50 (NYC, "n.d."). Commented [A6]: can also pay using coins on buses

Conversely, London PT is paid by paper-ticket, for the rail-system only and Contactless-cards “Oystercard” for all PT

modes. Bus and trams journeys cost £1.50, regardless of time or distance and free transfer is within 70 minutes of

paying (Wood, 2016). For rail peak, off-peak and zones determine the fare. For instance, travelling from zone1 to

zone2 cost £2.90 during peaks and £2.40 off peaks (TFL, "n.d."). Commented [A7]: good

2. Subsidies

Singapore government invested in PT infrastructure like rails, MRT stations, in addition to buying PT vehicles

(Chia, 2017). This made PT services operate largely without direct subsidies. Moreover, a concession scheme was

introduced for students, low-wage workers, elderly and disables (LTA, 2017). Conversely, NYC provides a MetroCard

discount for 65 years or older commuters or people having qualifying disability. The discounted fare is $1.35 (MTA,

"n.d."). Subsidies are not directly given to people of low-income, but to the transit authority and constitutes of about

$3 billion annually (MacKechnie, 2017). London subsidies entrench inequality as the richest 10% of households
receive £294 per year, which is nearly double the subsidy of £162 the poorest 10% of households receive Commented [A8]: should also discuss amount in direct
subsidies to London Transport

(Anonymous , 2015).

3. Integrated-system

Singapore towns were located around mass transit stops, which include commercial and community services in

addition to housing. Interchanges were transformed into lifestyle hubs, where commuters can shop before

commuting to their destination (Dotson, 2013). Additionally, fares are integrated whereby commuters pay the same

fare, regardless of transfer numbers made (MOT, 2014). NYC allows transferring between bus and subway.

Nevertheless, modes are not linked by real-time information and maps representing the two services together are

not available (Denaro, 2016). Consequently, since 2002 subway ridership grew by 24.7%, but buses ridership

dropped by 20% (Orcutt, 2016). Planning of London rail services was integrated with the overall system, improving

transfers between rail systems, trams and buses and linking the capital with other cities (Wilcox, 2014). Moreover,

commuters are allowed to transfer in some cases without being charged (TFL, "n.d."). Commented [A9]: Good

4. Demand-(ridership)

In 2016, Singapore MRT daily-ridership has increased to 3,095,000 from 2,879,000 in 2015. The LRT daily-

ridership grew from 153,000 in 2015 to 180,000 in 2016. Moreover, buses ridership in 2016 reached 3,939,000, up

from 3,891,000 in 2015 (DATA.GOV.SG, 2017). For NYC the subway average weekday ridership was 5,650,610 in

2015 and increased to 5,655,755 in 2016. Whereas, average buses ridership in weekdays decreased from 2,070,386

in 2015 to 2,038,119 in 2016 (MTA, 2017). In London, annual bus journeys in 2015 reached 2,314m, which increased

to 2,262m in 2016. For the underground, annual ridership has also increased from 1,349m in 2015 to 1,378m in

2016. Light Railway passenger journeys grew from 117.0m in 2015 to 122.3m in 2016. Additionally, the tram annual

ridership raised from 27.0m in 2015 to 29.5m in 2016 (TFL, 2016). Commented [A10]: You could also convert these figures into
percentages of pop using PT. this would take into account the
different pop levels of the cities
 5. Environmental issues

Singapore increased PT capacity to reduce journey’s numbers and thus reduce energy-use. A single-bus carries

up to 90 passengers and a six-car train carries up to 1600 passengers. This made the bus uses 9 times less energy and

the train uses 12 times less energy than a car (MOT, 2014). Singapore encourages greener forms of commuting to

lower carbon emissions by investing in sheltered cycling and walking infrastructure at MRT stations (LTA, 2013). PT

noise affect community’s health. Therefore, in 2015, NYC installed more than 15,721 resilient-rail-fasteners that

reduce noise pollution by absorbing vibration from wheel-rail interaction (MTA, "n.d."). 1672 of buses are hybrid

and NYC is planning to change the entire fleet, which will approximately reduce 575,000MT of CO2 emissions yearly

(Aber, 2016). Half of London pollution is caused by road transport. Consequently more than 2,500 hybrid electric

buses started operating across London and around 5,000 are set to be upgraded to meet low emission standards of

cutting air pollution by 95% (TFL, 2017). Commented [A11]: Good

Comparative Index B:
This comparative index will compare the three cities of Adelaide, Barcelona and Calgary, all with under 2
million inhabitants.
Criteria Adelaide
Population (2016) 1,324 million
Modes of transport - Bus
- Metro
- Tram
Ticketing system - Electronic smart card
- Paper ticket, can be bought
on board
- Integrated tickets
Subsidies - Concession cards, providing
concession fares on Adelaide
Metro services.
- Free connector bus and Tram
service options for the system
to be socially inclusive
Integrated system - Tickets can be used on all PT
vehicles
- 23 interchanges, some with
park and ride facility
- Real-time information of all
PT vehicles to support mode
transfer
Demand - Most rides are for work and
educational purposes
Environmental issues - Tindo electrical bus powered
by solar-power and operate in
urban area
- Plans to replace current train
fleet with electrical trains to
reduce emissions
1. Ticketing-system
Adelaide PT services are all paid by a Metrocard, which is an electronic-smart card for multiple-trips or a
Metroticket, a paper-ticket for infrequent users (AdelaideMetro, 2017). Tickets are acquired from InfoCenters,
metrocard agents and vending-machines (AdeliadeMetro, 2015). A Metrocard peak-trip costs$3.62 and an interpeak
Barcelona
1.609 million
- Metro
- Bus
- Tram
- Integrated tickets
-Wide variety of ticket that provides
unlimited journeys, but increases the
system complexity.
- Tickets are widely available.
- Available online with 10% discount
- Single bus or tram tickets can be bought
on-board
- Infrastructure investment
- Special discounts to families,
unemployed, students and youth
- Disables and 60years or older commuters
travel free with Targeta-rosa-metropolitana
card (TMB, "n.d.").
- Integrated fare system removed
changeover charges.
- single line of information to support
transfer
- Interchanges connect directly to the rail
network
- Free transfer to all modes can be made
within 1hour and 15minutes
(BarcelonaHome, 2013).
- About 30% of total journeys are made
using PT
- Introducing hybrid buses to reduce air
pollution
- Plans to renew the bus fleet to electrical
buses
Calgary
1.239 million
- Buses
- LRT
- Train
- Integrated tickets
- Paper tickets
- Cash payment accepted on bus by
depositing in the fare box
- Different fares for adults (age 18 and
older) and youth ( age 6 to 17)
- Free pass for children ages 5 and under.
- Low-income-transit fare program
- Free travel for children under 5
- Discount to low-income commuters
given based on salary
- Lack of integration between private bus
services and Calgary Transit systems.
- Park and ride facilities to link commuters
and encourage mode transfer
- Transfer between modes is within 90
minutes of first validation (CalgaryTransit,
2015)
- Easy system access by walking a few
blocks, cycling or utilizing Park and Ride
lots.
- Decrease in PT ridership in 2015
- To reduce air-quality impact, city transit
buses are not parked with its engine
operating for more than 5minutes
(CalgaryTransit, 2015).
- CTrain run on renewed power, which
makes it environmentally friendly
costs$1.99, whereas a paper-ticket is $5.40 in peaks and $3.50 off-peak (AdelaideMetro, 2017). Barcelona Hola-pass

offers unlimited integrated journeys on all PT network over 2days, costing €14.50, 3days costing €21.20, 4days

costing €27.50, or 5days and costs €33.70 (TMB, "n.d."). Tickets are purchased at metro stations, customer-service

centers and online (TMB, "n.d."). Calgary PT ticketing system is integrated and includes one-time use cash-fares

costing $3.25 for adults and $2.25 for youth, or tickets bought in books of 10 costing $32.50 for adults and $22.50 for

youth. These are obtained from vending-machines at train stations. Monthly pass allowing unlimited ride is available

for $101.00d to adults and to youth for $70.00 (CalgaryTransit, 2015). Tickets are purchased online, customer-service

centers and city-hall cashiers (CalgaryTransit, 2015). Commented [A12]: If discussing ticket prices should show them
as a percentage of average weekly income as this would take into
account the different income levels between the cities

2. Subsidies

Adelaide offers concession cards to students, disables and their companions, those who receive an eligible

Centre-link payment like Widow Allowance or Sickness Allowance and seniors. Children under the age of 5 travel free

(AdelaideMetro, 2017). Adelaide provides free city connector bus serving the city and North Adelaide and Free tram

services from the Entertainment-Centre to South-Terrace (Adelaide, "n.d."). Barcelona invested 265.5m in the period Commented [A13]: Also direct subsidies by the Govt to
Adelaide metro

1998-2001 in the underground and bus infrastructure (MTA, "n.d."). For fares to remain affordable, in 2017, the City

Council put in 10 million euros to cover PT costs (Maite, 2017). A low-income-transit-fare program was designed to Commented [A14]: Good

provide discounted fares for Calgarians, who need financial assistance and discounts are given based on their

income. Senior citizens 65 years or older are given a yearly pass for $95.00 and low-income seniors can get it for

$15.00. Children under 5 travel for free (CalgaryTransit, 2014). Commented [A15]: Any direct subsidies by govt?

3. Integrated-system

Adelaide PT is completely integrated, tickets are used on all modes, which ease travel. Convenient connections

are provided through interchanges, many of feature park&ride and bike storage facilities. Transfers are freely made

within two hours (Anonymous, 2017). Real-time arrival information are available online and at stations to support

transfers (AdelaideMetro, 2016). Conversely, Barcelona PT have 33 interchanges, 9 of them connect directly to the

rail network to boost interconnections (Schmidt, 2014). There is one information system, representing plans of the

entire network and available at stations (MTA, "n.d."). Calgary private bus service is not integrated with Calgary

Transit schedules, fares, and services resulting in long walks to and from regional bus and thus restrict ridership

(AECOM , 2009). However, there are bike-storage racks and 31 park&ride facilities at train stations and several bus Commented [A16]: Good

terminals to link commuters and encourage mode transfer (CalgaryTransit, 2015).

 4. Demand-(ridership)

Adelaide PT is predominately used for work and education purposes. More females than males use PT

(Somenahalli, 2013). 220,000 journeys each weekday and 65 million journeys a year are made using PT (Shandi,

2016). Barcelona annual total trips by bus in 2015 was 287.26M, whereas the total annual rail transport was

481.60M (FlippingBook, 2015). 29.3% of the total trips were made using PT (BCT, 2015). However, Calgary buses

and trains saw 110.27million rides in 2014, nevertheless, ridership has decreased to 109.97million in 2015 Commented [A17]: Good but could convert to percentages of
population usingg on daily basis

(HOWELL, 2016).

5. Environmental issues

Adelaide electric-powered Tindo bus saved more than 70,000 kg of CO2-e in 1year. Its batteries are recharged by

solar-power, which makes it a zero-emission system (RareConsultation, 2010). As electric-trains produce less

Greenhouse Gas, Adelaide is planning to purchase 50 electric train by 2018 (GOST, "n.d."). Conversely, since 800,000

trips are completed by bus, the operator introduced twenty-five new hybrid buses, which consume 81% less energy

than a diesel bus and thirty-five compressed natural gas buses in 2012, achieving emission reductions of 30% (Airuse,

2013). Calgary LRT uses 100% wind-generated electricity as a power source, which makes it environmentally friendly

(CalgaryTransit, 2015). Moreover, Calgary buses use premium quality low sulphur diesel fuel, which makes them

clean-burning (CalgaryTransit, 2015). Folding bikes are allowed on-board to encourage green commuter links to the

transit services (CalgaryTransit, 2015). Commented [A18]: Good

Summary:
To determine which city has best PT system, attention must be paid to how well the 5 criteria were adopted by the

cities in the two categories. With regards to Table A, the three cities of Singapore, NYC and London implemented

integrated-ticketing scheme that support seamless travel and result in customer satisfaction, since better journey

planning is achieved. All cities have accomplished acceptable ridership increases from 2015-2016. However,

Singapore has followed certain policies that made its PT works best. Different from NYC and London, Singapore has

significantly invested in PT infrastructure. Consequently, a large PT network was provided, which situated a mass-

transit stop no more than 500meters from any location (Pardo, "n.d."). Moreover, Singapore PT is highly integrated

with land use planning, providing access to a good mixture of residential, industrial and commercial developments at

interchanges (LTA, 2013). In peak-hours, more than 85% of journeys are completed within 45minutes and the

frequency of the train is 2-3minutes (Kuang, "n.d."). In relation to Table B, other than Barcelona and Calgary, Commented [A19]: Good

Adelaide integrated ticketing system is easy to understand, with reasonable number of tickets, resulting in 70million

of fares revenues per year (Webster, 2006). All cities fare is fairly inexpensive. Nevertheless, Adelaide provides

concession fares to several cases, which makes its PT socially inclusive. Furthermore, the availability of real-time

information in 33 stops, running of the environmentally-friendly Tindo bus and the provision of free tram or bus

connector made Adelaide PT stands out. Commented [A20]: Good

References
Aber, J. (2016). Electric Bus Analysis for NYC City . Retrieved from
http://www.columbia.edu/~ja3041/Electric%20Bus%20Analysis%20for%20NYC%20Transit%20by%20J%20Ab
er%20Columbia%20University%20-%20May%202016.pdf

Adelaide, C. o. ("n.d."). Free Public Transport Options. Retrieved from http://www.cityofAdelaide.com.au/explore-

the-city/city-travelling-transport/public-transport/free-public-transport-options

AdelaideMetro. (2016). Real-Time Arrivals. Retrieved from https://www.Adelaidemetro.com.au/timetables/nearest-

stops

AdelaideMetro. (2017). Concession Cards. Retrieved from https://www.Adelaidemetro.com.au/Tickets/Concession-

Cards

AdelaideMetro. (2017). Fares. Retrieved from https://www.Adelaidemetro.com.au/Tickets/Fares

AdelaideMetro. (2017). Tickets. Retrieved from https://www.Adelaidemetro.com.au/Tickets

AdeliadeMetro. (2015). Where to buy. Retrieved from https://www.Adelaidemetro.com.au/Tickets/Where-to-buy

AECOM . (2009). Calgary Regional Transit Plan. Retrieved from

http://Calgaryregion.ca/dam/Website/reports/General/Regional-transportation/Regional-transit-plan---
November-20--2009.pdf

Airuse. (2013). Public Transport Network in Barcelona: Measures to improve air quality. Retrieved from
http://airuse.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/B7-2-ES-TMB-mesures.pdf

Alexander, B. (2015). Why does the NYC subway charge a flat fee while the Washington D.C. subway charges a
variable fee based on distance? Retrieved from https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-New-York-subway-
charge-a-flat-fee-while-the-Washington-D-C-subway-charges-a-variable-fee-based-on-distance

ANDREI, A.-C. (2016). PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF LOCAL PUBLIC TRANSPORT VS. PRIVATE Competition. Retrieved from
http://conferinta.management.ase.ro/archives/2016/PDF/1_10.pdf

Anonymous . (2015). Taken for a Ride - How UK public transport subsidies entrench inequality. Retrieved from
https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/taken-ride-how-uk-public-transport-subsidies-entrench-inequality

Anonymous. (2017). Adelaide: Public Transportation . Retrieved from https://www.tripadvisor.com/Travel-g255093-

s303/Adelaide:Australia:Public.Transportation.html

BarcelonaHome. (2013). The Barcelona Metro Guide. Retrieved from http://barcelona-home.com/blog/the-

barcelona-metro-guide/
BCT. (2015). Barcelona Data sheet 2015. Retrieved from
https://bcnroc.ajuntament.barcelona.cat/jspui/bitstream/11703/98451/1/barcelonaenxifreseng-
160225091712.pdf

CalgaryTransit. (2014). Calgary Transit Funding and Fare Strategy Review. Retrieved from
https://www.Calgarytransit.com/sites/default/files/content/PDF/transit-fare-strategy-review-final-report-
feb-2014.pdf

CalgaryTransit. (2015). Accessing. Retrieved from https://www.Calgarytransit.com/getting-around/riding-us/transit-

101/accessing

CalgaryTransit. (2015). Bikes on Transit. Retrieved from https://www.Calgarytransit.com/getting-around/bikes-

transit

CalgaryTransit. (2015). Commitment to the environment. Retrieved from https://www.Calgarytransit.com/about-

us/commitment-environment/air

CalgaryTransit. (2015). Environmental Benefits. Retrieved from https://www.Calgarytransit.com/getting-

around/riding-us/environmental-benefits

CalgaryTransit. (2015). Fares and Passes. Retrieved from http://www.Calgarytransit.com/fares-passes

CalgaryTransit. (2015). Fares and Passes: Where to buy? Retrieved from http://www.Calgarytransit.com/fares-
passes/where-buy

CalgaryTransit. (2015). Paying. Retrieved from https://www.Calgarytransit.com/getting-around/riding-us/transit-

101/paying

Charles, P. P. (2014). What is successful transport integration? Retrieved from http://www.transport-

futures.com/what-is-successful-transport-integration/

Chia, J. (2017). Regulating Public Transport Fares in Singapore – What Can We Afford? Retrieved from
http://lkyspp2.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Regulating-Public-Transport-Fares-in-Singapore.pdf

Civitas. (2010). Innovative ticketing systems for Public Transport. Retrieved from
http://civitas.eu/sites/default/files/civitas_ii_policy_advice_notes_10_ticketing.pdf

Cropper, M. a. (2012). Public Transport Subsidies and Affordability in Mumbai, India. Retrieved from
https://www.hindawi.com/journals/usr/2012/865972/

DATA.GOV.SG. (2017). Public Transport Utilisation - Average Daily Public Transport Ridership. Retrieved from
https://data.gov.sg/dataset/public-transport-utilisation-average-public-transport-
ridership?view_id=3619b55d-d1c2-4891-8b43-97b192bcb0c4&resource_id=552b8662-3cbc-48c0-9fbb-
abdc07fb377a
Denaro, A. (2016). There are free transfers between the NYC Subway and the city's buses. Retrieved from
http://www.citymetric.com/transport/there-are-free-transfers-between-new-york-subway-and-citys-buses-
so-heres-map-showing-all

Dotson, P. B. (2013). Urban Transport Institutions and Governance and Integrated Land Use and Transport,Singapore
. Retrieved from https://unhabitat.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/06/GRHS.2013.Case_.Study_.Singapore.pdf

Fang, S. Z. (2015). Public Transport Service Optimization and System Integration. Retrieved from
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/23489/Public0transpo0d0system0integrati
on.pdf?sequence=1

FITZSIMMONSJAN, E. G. (2015). M.T.A. Is Raising Fares and Tolls; One Subway or Bus Ride Will Cost $2.75. Retrieved
from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/23/nyregion/mta-raises-fares-subways-and-buses.html

FlippingBook. (2015). Rail transport Year 2015. Retrieved from

http://doc.atm.cat/ca/_dir_transmet/xifres2015/files/assets/basic-html/page-3.html#

Goeverden, P. R. (2006). Subsidies in public transport. Retrieved from

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.526.4244&rep=rep1&type=pdf

GOST. ("n.d."). Sustainable Adelaide. Retrieved from http://www.ppt.asn.au/pubdocs/newconnbudgetfinweb.pdf

HOWELL, T. (2016). Transit ridership down 4.8 per cent this year, says Calgary transportation boss. Retrieved from
http://Calgaryherald.com/news/traffic/transit-ridership-down-4-8-per-cent-this-year-says-Calgary-
transportation-boss

Kuang, L. C. ("n.d."). Singapore approach to developing a sustainable integrated transport system. Retrieved from
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANTRANSPORT/Resources/340136-1170259767877/kuang.pdf

Laguardia. (2017). Getting to and from by Public Transit. Retrieved from http://laguardiaairport.com/getting-to-
from/by-public-transit/

Lee, P. (2016). More Singaporeans take bus, MRT to work: government survey. Retrieved from
http://www.straitstimes.com/Singapore/more-Singaporeans-take-bus-mrt-to-work-government-survey

Liang, L. Y. (2015). Parliament: Government spends $4b a year on transport infrastructure and subsidies. Retrieved
from http://www.straitstimes.com/Singapore/transport/parliament-government-spends-4b-a-year-on-
transport-infrastructure-and-subsidies

LTA. (2013). Land Transport Master Plan 2013. Retrieved from

https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltaweb/corp/PublicationsResearch/files/ReportNewsletter/LTMP2013
Report.pdf

LTA. (2017). CONCESSION CARDS. Retrieved from https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/public-transport/mrt-

and-lrt-trains/train-fares-and-travel-cards/concession-cards.html
LTA. (2017). INTEGRATED TRANSPORT HUBS. Retrieved from https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/public-
transport/system-design/integrated-transport-hubs.html

LTA. (2017). TRAIN FARES & TRAVEL CARDS. Retrieved from https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/public-
transport/mrt-and-lrt-trains/train-fares-and-travel-cards.html

MacKechnie, C. (2017). NYC State Public Transit Funding. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/new-york-
state-public-transit-funding-2798672

Maite, M. (2017). Public transport prices remain unchanged for 2017. Retrieved from
http://eldigital.barcelona.cat/en/public-transport-prices-remain-unchanged-for-2017-2_442544.html

Mezghani, M. (2008). Study on electronic ticketing in public transport. Retrieved from

file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/EMTA-Ticketing%20(1).pdf

MOT. (2014). Enhancing Public Transport. Retrieved from https://www.mot.gov.sg/About-MOT/Land-

Transport/Sustainable-Transport/Enhancing-Public-Transport/

MOT. (2014). Fares & Payment Systems. Retrieved from https://www.mot.gov.sg/About-MOT/Land-

Transport/Public-Transport/Fares---Payment-Systems/

MTA. ("n.d"). Fares & MetroCard. Retrieved from http://web.mta.info/metrocard/mcgtreng.htm

MTA. ("n.d."). INTEGRATED PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM IN BARCELONA. Retrieved from

file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Surveys_integration_Barcelona_case_study%20(3).pdf

MTA. ("n.d."). NYC City Transit Noise Reduction Report. Retrieved from
http://web.mta.info/nyct/facts/noise_reduction.htm

MTA. ("n.d."). Reduced-Fare. Retrieved from http://web.mta.info/nyct/fare/rfindex.htm

MTA. (2017). Introduction to Subway Ridership. Retrieved from http://web.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/

NYC. ("n.d."). Local Transportation. Retrieved from https://www.nyu.edu/new-york/living-in-new-

york/Transportation.html

Orcutt, T. D. (2016). Turnaround: Fixing NYC citie's buses. Retrieved from http://transitcenter.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/07/Turnaround_Fixing-NYCs-Buses-20July2016.pdf

Pardo, C. F. ("n.d."). CHAPTER 4 - SUSTAINABLE URBAN TRANSPORT. Retrieved from

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/susdevtopics/sdt_pdfs/shanghaimanual/Chapter%204%20-
%20Sustainable%20urban%20transport.pdf

Pardo, C. F. ("n.d."). Sustainable Urban Transport. Retrieved from

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/susdevtopics/sdt_pdfs/shanghaimanual/Chapter%204%20-
%20Sustainable%20urban%20transport.pdf
Polat, C. (2012). The Demand Determinants for Urban Public Transport Services: A Review of the Literature. Retrieved
from http://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=jas.2012.1211.1231

Prakash, B. (2010). Go Green with SMRT: Using Public Transport in Singapore. Retrieved from
http://www.ecowalkthetalk.com/blog/2010/06/22/go-green-with-smrt-using-public-transport-in-Singapore/

RareConsultation. (2010). Bus technologies in Australia to 2020 and beyond. Retrieved from
file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Bus+technologies+in+Australia+to+2020+and+beyond_Rare+Consulting_7
+Sep+2010%20(1).pdf

Rodrigue, D. J.-P. (2017). The Environmental Impacts of Transportation. Retrieved from

https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/ch8c1en.html

Schmidt, M. (2014). Exploring the city with public transport. Retrieved from
http://www.barcelonacheckin.com/en/r/barcelona_tourism_guide/articles/guide-barcelona-transport.php

Shandi. (2016). Public Transport. Retrieved from https://documents.mx/documents/public-transport-

56ed1c1dd056a.html

Shroff, J. (2016). Public Transportation and Its Impact on the Environment. Retrieved from
https://jaishroff.wordpress.com/2016/11/24/public-transportation-and-its-impact-on-the-environment/

Somenahalli, S. (2013). Public Transport usage in Adelaide. Retrieved from https://ac.els-

cdn.com/S1877042813045710/1-s2.0-S1877042813045710-main.pdf?_tid=900ad1b0-de3e-11e7-b951-
00000aab0f6c&acdnat=1512974774_869d2cd3c567d2ee37f9fb91eb3e109c

Sun, G. (George Sun). Sustainable Land Transport System. Retrieved from

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/3756sun.pdf

TFL. ("n.d."). Free travel with a Freedom Pass. Retrieved from https://tfl.gov.uk/fares-and-payments/adult-discounts-
and-concessions/freedom-pass?intcmp=1742

TFL. ("n.d."). Out-of-Stations Interchange. Retrieved from https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/out-

of-station-interchanges

TFL. ("n.d."). Peak and off-peak times. Retrieved from https://tfl.gov.uk/fares-and-payments/fares/peak-and-off-

peak-times

TFL. (2016). Annual Report and Statement of Accounts. Retrieved from http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-annual-report-
and-statement-of-accounts-2016-17.pdf

TFL. (2017). TfL and the Mayor announce more fully-electric bus routes to cut toxic emissions. Retrieved from
https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2017/july/tfl-and-the-mayor-announce-more-fully-electric-
bus-routes-to-cut-toxic-emissions
TMB. ("n.d."). Barcelona travel cards Hola BCN! Retrieved from https://www.tmb.cat/en/barcelona/fares-metro-
bus/barcelona-travel-card-hola-bcn

TMB. ("n.d."). Integrated tickets and multi-journey tickets. Retrieved from https://www.tmb.cat/en/barcelona/fares-
metro-bus/integrated-tickets

TMB. ("n.d."). Point of sale. Retrieved from https://www.tmb.cat/en/barcelona/fares-metro-bus/points-sale

Webster, H. (2006). Public Transport. Retrieved from

http://www.bitre.gov.au/events/2008/files/2008_Transport_Colloquium_heather_webster.ppt

Wilcox, N. N. (2014). Delivering change: Making transport work for cities. Retrieved from
http://www.centreforcities.org/reader/delivering-change-making-transport-work-for-cities/tfl-model-
transport-investment-management-uk-cities/

Wood, S. (2016). A GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING TICKETING FOR LONDON PUBLIC TRANSPORT. Retrieved from
https://www.meininger-hotels.com/blog/en/a-guide-to-understanding-ticketing-for-London-public-
transport/

Wyporska, W. (2017). Trains are too expensive. But transport’s real problem is subsidies for London. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/16/trains-too-expensive-transport-problem-
subsidies-London

TL7303 2016/17 Assignment 2 Marking Rubric for Urban Public Transport

30% of final grade

 Met criteria to an Met criteria to a very Met criteria to a Did not meet
excellent standard good standard satisfactory criteria
Report Mark standard
Writing A B C F
25 marks (21.25 - 25) 25 Marks (17.5 - 21) 25 Marks(15 – 17.25) 25 Marks(0 – 14.75)
15 Marks (12.75 -15) 15 Marks (10.5 -12.5) 15 marks (9 – 10.25) 15 marks(0 – 8.75)
10 marks (8.5- 10) 10 marks (7 -8.25) 10 Marks (6 – 6.75) 10 marks(0 – 5.75)

Constructed a You have comprehensively You have mostly You have somewhat You have provided little 25
comparative constructed a comparative constructed a comparative constructed a or no comparative index
index using index with a list of multiple index with a list of some comparative index with a list of multiple
multiple criteria and provided multiple criteria and with a list of some criteria and provided
criteria sufficient support for your provided sufficient multiple criteria and little or no support for
criteria support for your criteria provided some your criteria
25 Marks support for your
criteria
Applied You have comprehensively You have mostly You have somewhat You have provided little 22
comparative populated your populated your populated your or no population to your
index three comparative index with 3 comparative index with comparative index comparative index of
cities over 5 cities with more than 5 the 3 cities with more with 3 cities with the 3 cities worldwide
million million inhabitants and than 5 million inhabitants more than 5 million with more than 5
inhabitants provided detailed and provided some inhabitants and million inhabitants and
justifications for their justifications for their provided few provided no
25 Marks position. position. justifications for their justifications for their
position. position.
Applied You have comprehensively You have mostly You have somewhat You have provided little 22
comparative populated your populated your populated your or no population to your
index three comparative index with 3 comparative index with 3 comparative index comparative index of 3
cities under 2 cities with less than 2 cities with less than 2 with 3 cities with less cities with less than 2
million million inhabitants and million inhabitants and than 2 million million inhabitants and
inhabitants provided detailed provided some inhabitants and provided no
justifications for their justifications for their provided few justifications for their
25 Marks position. position. justifications for their position.
position.
Comparative You have comprehensively You have mostly You have somewhat You have provided little 14
summary for summarized and identified summarized and summarized and or no summary and not
cities over 5 the common public identified the common identified the identified the common
million and transport systems that work public transport systems common public public transport systems
under 2 million best in cities over 5 million that work best in cities transport systems that that work best in cities
and cities under 2 million over 5 million and cities work best in cities over 5 million and cities
15 Marks inhabitants and provided under 2 million over 5 million and under 2 million
detailed justifications as to inhabitants and provided cities under 2 million inhabitants and
why you think so. some justifications as to inhabitants and provided no
why you think so. provided few justifications as to why
justifications as to you think so.
why you think so.

Fully complies with APA Complies well with APA Adequately complies Little or no APA 9
Assignment reference guidelines. reference guidelines. with APA reference referencing.
clearly laid out Information is clearly Information is well guidelines. Information is not well
and follows presented, flows presented, flows Information is presented, does not flow
APA reference appropriately and can be appropriately and can be somewhat well appropriately and/or not
guidelines clearly understood. mostly understood. presented, flows easily understood.
appropriately and can
10 marks be mostly
understood.
Total 92