Eisenstadt

Changes (a)-(h) were all made for Eisenstadt.

The EEF and SOF optimum set of measures from OPTIMA included fare reduction of 100% (compared to -50% in FATIMA), frequency increases of 100% (compared to - 50% in FATIMA), capacity increases of 10% (compared to -15% in FATIMA), no road pricing (as in FATIMA), parking charges are increases by 149% (compared to - 50% long stay and +115% short stay in FATIMA). This set of measures re-run in FATIMA produced a BOF value of -7.0 compared to 3.9 for the current best run. The main reason for this difference can be found in changes of the transport model used. The biggest effect is produced by the changes in the valuation of time for commuting trips (access/egress and travel time from 17 ECU/h to 5.6 ECU/h and waiting time from 21.8 ECU/h to 11.1 ECU/h). Also the cost function for investments for road capacity have been changed. The newly introduced distinction between long and short term parking also had significant effects on the optimum results.

6.6 Tromsø

For Tromsø changes (a)-(f) above were made with public transport sector operating and capital cost split by time of day. Tromsø did not make a distinction between long and short term parking.

Common features of the best BOF policy and the best OPTIMA EEF policy are that fares should be reduced, road capacity increased to the maximum and land use development should take the dense direction. Peak period frequency is increased in FATIMA while in OPTIMA it is reduced. The new cost function opportunity to differentiate changes with respect to time periods and the new objective function might explain this. The optimisation both in OPTIMA and FATIMA for Tromsø indicated that RP and PCH are alternative measures. The RP in the optimum BOF* of FATIMA implies roughly 2 times the effect on traffic compared to do-min PCH and lies between the RP from the EEF and the SOF optimum of OPTIMA. Bearing in mind that BOF is a weighted average of these two objectives this is reasonable. The BOF value of the best EEF run from OPTIMA is relatively close to the BOF* run of FATIMA.

6.7 Oslo

For Oslo changes (a)-(f) above were made with public transport sector operating and capital cost split by time of day. Oslo did not make a distinction between long and short term parking.

The best EEF set of measures from OPTIMA included fare reduction of 70% (compared to -5% peak and -15% off-peak in FATIMA), frequency reduction of 26% (compared to -15% peak and no change off-peak in FATIMA), capacity increase of 20% (compared to +10 % in FATIMA), road pricing of 1.2 ECU (compared to 5 ECU in FATIMA in both peak and off-peak), a 100% parking charge reduction (compared to no change in FATIMA) and no infrastructure investment (compared to the medium level in FATIMA). This policy mix was re-run in FATIMA and produced a BOF value of 271 compared to 696 for the best BOF run in FATIMA.

The SOF optimum from OPTIMA had 100% reduction in public transport fares, 20% reduction in pt frequency, road pricing of 7 ECU, capacity increase of 20%, parking charge decrease of 100% and the infrastructure investment was included. Re-run in FATIMA this measure combination produced a BOF value of 541.

Filtering the effect of each change was not feasible given the time constraint of the project. However the new operating and capital cost for the public transport sector, the shadow price of public money for positive PVF and the split between peak and off-peak all contributed significant to the new optimal measure mix and new values of the objective functions. For example, the shadow price of public money pushed the pt fares and parking charge up in FATIMA compared to OPTIMA. And it is of course important that we are now maximising a new objective function in FATIMA, i.e. some mix of EEF (EEFP) and SOF.

6.8 Helsinki

Changes (a)-(h) above were all made for Helsinki MA of which the most important were the improvement in the accuracy of calculating the rule of the half values using the unaggregated matrix of 117 zones, model update to basic year 1995 and using

EVA time values with weighted waiting time instead of lower national values used in OPTIMA. Also the introduction of long and short stay parking charges, frequency and operating costs split by time of day as well as fares and road pricing was new in FATIMA. The public transport overcrowding was handled in the same way as in OPTIMA: introducing larger vehicles as the first measure and giving a waiting time penalty for the people still left out as the second measure.

The SOF optima from OPTIMA had free fares for the whole day compared to a 50% reduction (limited for the new model) in both peak and off-peak in the FATIMA BOF optima. Frequency was unchanged in OPTIMA SOF compared to an increase of 25% and 13% in peak and off-peak in FATIMA. Parking fares were increased by 92% in OPTIMA SOF compared to no change for long stay and for short stay in FATIMA BOF. All other measures stay unchanged both in OPTIMA SOF and FATIMA BOF solution. The OPTIMA SOF set of measures gave a BOF value of -62 compared to 183 for the optimum BOF*.

The EEF optima from OPTIMA had a more opposite set of measures than the SOF optima compared to BOF optima. The public transport fares were increased by 25% and frequency decreased by -30%. Parking charges had zero change and road capacity was increased by 10%. This set of measures led to an increase in car kilometres and thus to a penalty in FATIMA objective functions. The BOF=COF=ROF value is -969, but the EEF optima is ranked much higher regarding COF and ROF than BOF in FATIMA.

The optimal BOF solution is not far away from the OPTIMA SOF solution. Separating peak and off-peak measures and thus also public transport overcrowding calculations make the results more detailed in FATIMA and show exactly where the changes are feasible and beneficial. This applies to both public transport measures and parking. The effect of giving more value to the public transport waiting time can be seen in the change from the reduction of frequency in OPTIMA EEF and no change in OPTIMA SOF to an increase in FATIMA BOF solution.

6.9 Torino

In FATIMA changes (a) to (h) were made except for (f). Concerning (d), the costs of capacity variations were changed: compared to OPTIMA there was a costs reduction for implementing the decrease of capacity, due to the used technology for obtaining it (asphalt instead of paving).

Concerning (e) the upper limit for parking charge was changed; it was decreased from +500% to +100%, considered more realistic by the Torino Municipality.

Concerning (h) there were changes in the mobility data: availability of 1996 motorised (public and private) new matrices instead of 1995 ones, so the re- calibration of modal split was necessary.

The EEF optimum set of measures from OPTIMA included fare reduction of 25% (compared to FATIMA optima +100% in BOF*), no frequency changes (compared to +30%), capacity increase of 10% (same as for BOF*), parking charges increase to the

maximum value +500% (compared to +100% which is the limit for FATIMA), while the values for road pricing and the public transport infrastructure are the same as in OPTIMA (no change compared to the do-minimum scenario). This set of measures re- run in FATIMA produced a BOF value of 91 MECU compared to 128 for the best BOF run.

The SOF optimum set of measures from OPTIMA included fare reduction of 50%, frequency decrease of 30%, capacity increase of 10%, parking charges increase to the maximum value, 0 for road pricing and the presence of High public transport infrastructure. This set produces a positive SOF value, but negative value for all the FATIMA objective functions (-271 MECU for BOF, -2271 MECU for COF and ROF).

6.10 Salerno

Changes (a) to (h) (excluding the change (f)) above were made for Salerno.

The EEF optimum set of measures from OPTIMA included fare reduction of 50% (compared to FATIMA optima of +25), frequency increase of 50% (compared to 80% in FATIMA), capacity increase of 10% (compared to no variation in FATIMA), road pricing of 1 ECU (compared to no road pricing policy), parking charges decreases of 50% (compared to a 300% increase), and no public infrastructures as in FATIMA. This set of measures produced a BOF value of 15 M ECU compared to 24 for the optimum BOF* in FATIMA.

The best SOF combination from OPTIMA consisted of free fares, 50% increase in frequency, capacity increase of 10%, road pricing charge of 2 ECU, elimination of parking charge and implementation of the high public infrastructure. This set of measures produced a BOF value of 12.4 M ECU.

Therefore the re-run of the OPTIMA strategies produced BOF positive values, but obviously these values were lower than the FATIMA optimum BOF combination, because of the list of changes showed above. The biggest effect could be produced by the change in the valuation time costs (travel time and waiting time), by the change in some capital and operating costs and by the penalty in time due to the public vehicle overcrowding. In fact in FATIMA the loading of public transport vehicles was taken into account as additional waiting time to be added to the standard waiting time for the public vehicles.