Shared transport: Reducing energy demand and enhancing transport options for residents of small towns

Abstract New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions profile is somewhat different from many highly urbanised countries. Just under half of greenhouse gas emissions are associated with agriculture, with much less from transport. However, transport-related greenhouse gas emissions have increased rapidly and at a faster rate than most other sources since 1990. The challenge for New Zealand (and many other countries) is to promote forms of transport which do not contribute to that increase, whilst at the same time ensuring that the residents outside main urban centres have access to employment, education, health, business and other services that may be at some distance. Research into travel by residents of small towns in New Zealand suggests flexible shared transport has considerable potential to enhance the social and economic well-being of the population in small towns and cities. It can enable residents to travel to larger regional centres for necessary services at the same whilst reducing the energy use associated with single occupant vehicles. New digital platforms offer scope for flexible shared transport to overcome the barriers faced by many public transport providers. Therefore, transport policy-makers and planners need to see flexible transport as a key element in a low carbon, socially and economically inclusive transport system, and actively support its expansion.

[1]  Corinne Mulley,et al.  Overcoming barriers to implementing flexible transport services in NSW , 2010 .

[2]  Corinne Mulley,et al.  Flexible Transport Services: Overcoming Barriers to Implementation in Low-Density Urban Areas , 2012 .

[3]  Graham Currie,et al.  New Perspectives and Methods in Transport and Social Exclusion Research , 2011 .

[4]  Paul Logan,et al.  Best practice demand-responsive transport (DRT) policy , 2007 .

[5]  Nir Oren,et al.  Development of an integrated flexible transport systems platform for rural areas using argumentation theory , 2012 .

[6]  John D. Nelson,et al.  Barriers to implementing flexible transport services: An international comparison of the experiences in Australia, Europe and USA , 2012 .

[7]  David A. King,et al.  Why Do Regulated Jitney Services Often Fail? Evidence from the New York City Group Ride Vehicle Project , 2014 .

[8]  K. Lucas Making the connections: final report on transport and social exclusion , 2003 .

[9]  M. Quddus,et al.  A survey of Demand Responsive Transport in Great Britain , 2012 .

[10]  D T Thube,et al.  HDM-4 based optimal maintenance strategies for low-volume roads in India , 2007 .

[11]  Graham Currie,et al.  Investigating links between transport disadvantage, social exclusion and well-being in Melbourne: preliminary results , 2007 .

[12]  B. Gleeson,et al.  Social Disadvantage and Planning in the Sydney Context , 2002 .

[13]  K. Lucas,et al.  Examining the empirical evidence of transport inequality in the US and UK , 2004, Running on Empty.

[14]  Graham Currie,et al.  Exploring forced car ownership in Metropolitan Melbourne , 2007 .

[15]  Stephen Potter,et al.  Demand responsive transport : a review of schemes in England and Wales , 2009 .

[16]  Cristina Pronello,et al.  Emissions of demand responsive services as an alternative to conventional transit systems , 2007 .

[17]  Brendan Gleeson,et al.  Transport Disadvantage and Social Status: A review of literature and methods , 2004 .

[18]  Stephan Winter,et al.  Simulating Demand-responsive Transportation: A Review of Agent-based Approaches , 2015 .

[19]  David A. King,et al.  Introduction to special section on paratransit , 2015 .

[20]  J. Nelson,et al.  DEMAND RESPONSIVE TRANSPORT: TOWARDS THE EMERGENCE OF A NEW MARKET SEGMENT , 2004 .

[21]  Marcus P. Enoch,et al.  INTERMODE: innovations in Demand Responsive Transport , 2004 .