BENCHMARKING PUBLIC TRANSPORT EXPERIMENTS INCENTIVES FOR A COMMON EVALUATION

Transcription

1 BENCHMARKING PUBLIC TRANSPORT EXPERIMENTS INCENTIVES FOR A COMMON EVALUATION Katrine Naess Kjorstad and Alberte Ruud, Institute of Transport Economics, Oslo, Norway Torstein A Dahl, Norwegian Ministry of Transport and Communications PREFACE In the period from 1991 to 2000, the Ministry of Transport and Communications in Norway allocated 65.1 million Euro for a trial scheme for improved public transport. The experiments differ with regard to size, scope, the nature of the measures and combinations of measures to be implemented. The purpose of the project was to develop rational and environmentally friendly public transport. The recognition that measures work in a system, and that there are links between the effects of different measures, led the Ministry to shift focus of the experiments from 1996 onwards from largely covering single measures to granting funding to packages of measures. From 1996 until the experiment ended in 2000, the Ministry granted around 11,5 million Euro in Subsidies for developing rational and environmentally friendly transport, popularly known as the Packages of measures. In total, 18 packages of measures have received support. This paper describes the evaluation approach and discusses the benefit of an overall, common evaluation. The objective is to illustrate the incentives developed to ensure a common evaluation plan for all experiments and type of evaluations conducted across cities and using different measures. The Ministry invited county councils to apply for funding bases on politically adopted plans. The packages of measures were financed with joint funding from the Ministry (50 per cent) and local contributors (50 per cent) to ensure that the state funding would encourage targeted use of local funding. The Ministry demanded a basic evaluation for all experiments in order to ensure comparable local evaluations and the possibility to analyse a common database. The final third of the funding from the Ministry were only released when the local evaluation was competed, reported and approved by the Ministry. The basic evaluations, consist of travel surveys with panel selection amongst a representative sample of the population in the areas where the measures are implemented, and a user survey among passengers. Both types of study had to be carried out before and after measures were implemented. The basic evaluation further contains a registration of area data (zonal data), as well as the number of passenger during the trial period.

2 An important premise for the evaluation is that the method is easy to carry out and relatively inexpensive. This has been the focus for the evaluation method being tested in Norway during a period of 10 years, first on single experiments ( ) and then on packages of measures ( ). The evaluation plan can be adopted for other type of measures and for different cities and countries. This paper will discuss the incentives needed to ensure a comparable benchmarking of transport experiments and the benefit of a simplified evaluation plan for a local involvement in the benchmarking process. DESCRIPTION OF THE PACKAGES OF MEASURES WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THE COMBINED EVALUATIONS The packages of measures vary with regard to the types of measures which are implemented and the scope of the measures. Some packages of measures have achieved little in terms of changes to public transport provision in itself (route and frequency changes), while others have put the main emphasis on this area. Some packages have largely involved measures on the infrastructure side, including improvements to bus stops, setting up new bus shelters or improvements at junctions and terminals. 11 of 18 packages have, partly or fully, followed a standardized evaluation approach. These are packages of measures in city areas with a population ranging between and Tønsberg - Extended public transport services in the winter season on stretches of road with a high proportion of cyclists in the summer months. - Better provision for combinations of bicycles and public transport, and interchanges between train and bus. - Renovating bus stops. - Developing interchanges. Hundvåg - Reorganization of the route structure to prioritise main routes, with increased frequency on heavily trafficked roads. - The main routes were supplemented with feeder routes. Drammen region - Coordinating train, bus and taxi provision on one main route, altering a commuter route. - Extending service bus and express bus provision. - Accessibility measures. - Renovating and maintenance of existing bus stops along a test route. Nedre Glomma - Infrastructure- and bus stop work. - Measures to improve accessibility for buses. - A new route which serves shopping centres and residential areas. Larvik

3 - Development of a new route concept. - Renovation of bus stops and the city terminal. - Information and marketing measures. Ålesund - Renovation of bus stops. - Infrastructure measures to improve accessibility for bus traffic. - Profile-raising and information measures. Grenland - Re-organising and updating the route system. - Electronic ticketing and changes of fare structures. - New bus shelters and new information screens at the bus terminals and in the major shopping centres in the area. Lillehammer and Gjøvik - Introduction of a new, high quality regional system (Mjøspilen) with hourly departures between the cities of Lillehammer and Gjøvik. - In Gjøvik, the city bus service has been reorganised. Tromsø - A continuation of a major re-organisation of the bus and fares systems which was introduced in 1997/98. - A new public transport terminal in the city centre (public transport street) and in front of the main entrance to the University hospital. - Real time information systems have been introduced on 2 bus lines. Trondheim - Route changes and an increase in frequency along a number of routes. A total of 1200 to 1300 new departures per week have been introduced. - Journey guarantees and comprehensive marketing of the new services. - Beyond the package of measure, accessibility and infrastructure measures were also introduced and new bus shelters, financed through advertising, were set up in the city. Kristiansand - Develop a land use policy which generates less transport, - Introduction of a main route system (bus Metro) with high frequency, shorter journey times and higher standards of comfort. - Quality bus stops, easy access for buses and real time information ORGANISATION In the majority of cases, the county councils have planned and implemented the packages of measures in cooperation with a group of local participants (municipalities, The Public Roads Administration, bus companies, taxi centrals/local taxi drivers, the Railways Company, NSB (the Norwegian State Railways) and similar bodies. The project management did not necessarily fall to the county council but was appointed on the basis of local considerations. However the county council was responsible for the application and for

4 following up the package of measures with regard to evaluation, reporting and financial control. The fact that many organisations are involved makes co-operation complex. Local players do not initially share the same objectives for participating. Economically more potent players may dominate smaller actors. TOI evaluated the local processes, and the main approach was: Has the process surrounding the experiments had a form that contributes to the fulfilment of local and central objectives for the packages of measures? Have the processes involved in the experiments had an effect on the work of the local players? We see many elements that indicate good processes, contributing towards fulfilling the objectives of the experiments. There are conflicts that affect the processes, and also critical comments on certain elements of the processes. Both negative and positive experiences form important lessons for those working with local projects. The project organisation is significant for the outcome. The evaluation shows a high significance of local interpersonal networks for both the implementation and the outcome. There is a greater chance of successful co-operation and successful results in projects where the local co-operations function well. It is appropriate to follow the principle of natural work distribution : Measures are implemented by the organisation that normally carries out this type of work, in order to use local competence in the best possible way. Finally, in order to achieve good cooperation, organisations need to practice cooperating. HOMOGENEOUS AND COMBINED EVALUATION To answer some central questions it is necessary to gather large amounts of data..a homogenuos and combined evaluation approach is crucial. Large data quantities makes it possible to segment different travelling groups and to identify small effects. A homogenous evaluation makes it possible to identify effects of measures under different conditions. Homogeneous evaluation makes it possible to compare the effects from the different projects and draw general conclusions for different thematic areas through combined evaluation. TOI was been commissioned by the Ministry to develop a common system of baseline evaluation of local measures which ensure the best possible unified basis for comparable analyses of the main aims of the different packages of measures. The basis evaluation

5 The basis evaluation consists of the following surveys and data collection/ registration, figure 1. The standard evaluation scheme Carried out before and after the measures are put into force. User surveys Carried out amongst public transport passengers Travel survey with panel selection Amongst a representativ sample of the population. Registration of area data (zonal data) Describes characteristics of the different transport modes and changes in these factors Registration of passenger numbers Figure 1: Standard evaluation scheme The most important part of the evaluation consist of standard questionnaires distributed to the user group (user survey), i.e users of the new or improved services. The Travel survey with panel selection consist of questions about the respondent's journeys. In addition, the survey consist of questions which identify the respondent's knowledge of and attitudes to public transport, use of transport modes in general and question about transport mode on journeys to work and school. The area data (zone data) describes characteristics of the different transport modes, primarily public transport provision and changes in these factors (frequency, journey time, fares, changes in the external conditions, passengers statistics, etc.). This provides a platform for the analyses of the importance of external conditions. Registration of passenger data has to be as detailed as possible. For example, it is very useful to know which bus route the passenger used on his/hers journey. The data should be collected prior to implementation of the measure, and a while after the implementation. The evaluation of large packages of measures in city areas is relatively comprehensive. The evaluation approach can be adjusted and targeted to fit small scale measures or small areas. However, the main issue is to ask the same (most important) questions and to ensure that the respondents are recruited in the same way. This is important regardless of the comprehensiveness of the evaluation. The evaluation plan is unique in that it can be used to evaluate effects in the same way, irrespective of experiment, city or country. It is also possible to

6 control for different external conditions and it is a useful tool for evaluations of the effects of combined measures. Thereby it is possible to identify the synergy effects. Combined evaluation By putting together the data from a number of packages of measures it is possible to find the effects of different types of measures and the framework conditions which need to be in place in order to achieve the best effects. Ministry the Institute of Transport Economics to carry out the combined evaluation of all the packages of measures based on the local surveys. The aim of the majority of packages of measures is to achieve more effective public transport provision for passengers and the bus companies, as well as getting more people to use public transport. The evaluation system is concentrated around methods which can provide answers to these questions. Two main problems in evaluating the packages of measures are: The extent to which the packages of measures have contributed to better service provision The extent to which the packages of measures have led to a change in transport mode choice In the joint evaluation system for urban packages of measures, the focus was on the following problems: 1. The extent to which the packages of measures have led to passengers changing their choice of transport and/or the whole scope of their journey. 2. How the passengers evaluate the various measures and their evaluation of the different measures (journey time, changing buses, frequency, price etc). 3. The extent to which the measures have won car drivers over to using public transport and the possible net environmental benefit of the packages of measures. 4. The socioeconomic benefit of the project. 5. The extent to which different barriers (physical psychological or informative) limit the effect of the measures. 6. The extent to which the framework conditions for the journey (both the characteristics of alternative forms of transport and the chances of using these as an alternative to public transport) have influenced the effect of these measures. 7. The extent to which synergy effects mean that a combined package of measures has a greater effect than the sum of each individual measure on their own. 8. The extent to which planning, organisation and development of the packages of measures affects the results of the measures and the planning solution which is chosen.

7 BENEFIT OF A COMPARABLE EVALUATION In the compannin paper Before and after studies in a turbulent environment (Kjorstad, K. N. and Norheim, B 2005), more in-depth analyses of the effect of these packages of measures are presented, which take into account the differences in passenger make-up, road users' framework conditions and the differences between the areas. In the following we will present some examples of the benefits we have obtained from the common evaluation format: How we can control for external conditions, i.e. how conditions which are not part of the packages affect the results of the packages. We will illustrate control for external conditions by using analysis of passenger development. How we can compare the different packages of measures across the areas and find conditions which are significant for the effects of similar measures under different framework conditions. We use changes in travel frequency and passenger's satisfaction with the supply as examples. Finding personal conditions important for choice of transport mode. We use changes in access to car, which is crucial for transport mode choice, to illustrate the importance of changes in personal conditions. Passenger development One expressed objective with the majority of the packages of measures which we have evaluated is to increase the public transport modal share. Therefore measures were introduced which were intended to lead to passenger growth and a change in the distribution of modes of transport. We have looked at passenger development in these areas. This shows that in the four areas where the most comprehensive and targeted measures were introduced, there has been a growth in passenger numbers. In the five other areas where the measures were less intense and more spread out, there has been little growth in passenger numbers, and even a decrease in one area. In a number of the local evaluations, therefore, the conclusion was that the measures had not had any great effect, simply because they had only looked at passenger development as a measure of success. However, during the project period, fares rose considerably in some of the areas and this growth had reduced the growth in passenger numbers. Fare increases are a good example of how a change in an external variable - i.e. a variable which has nothing to do with the package of measures can affect passenger development. If we correct for the fare increases, then the increase in passengers will probably be positive in all the areas Thus the packages of measures will have had effects everywhere.

8 % change % change corrected for fare changes Oppland Tønsberg Drammen Ålesund Tromsø Kristiansand Trondheim Grenland Hundvåg -2 Figure 2: Passenger development between the before and after studies. Packages of measures Figure 2 shows passenger numbers before and after the implementation of the packages of measures, and the estimated patronage post implementation if fares were not increased. On average, patronage increased by about 9 percent. Changes in frequency of travel 21 per cent of public transport users say that they now travel more often by bus as a result of the packages of measures while some 70 per cent say that they have not changed their use of the buses

9 Totalt Hundvåg No changes Travel less Travel more Grenland Larvik Kristiansand Trondheim Tønsberg Gjøvik Ålesund Drammen Figure 3: Changes in use of buses. User surveys. Percentages It is primarily public transport users in Hundvåg, Grenland, Kristiansand and Trondheim who say they travel more often as a result of the changes. This indicates that the changes in these cities have affected large parts of the market. In Larvik and Tønsberg on the other hand, the changes have led to the proportion that travel less equalling the proportion who travel more. This indicates that the changes which have been implemented have not been sufficiently targeted or that the measures which have been brought in have not reached large groups of passengers. Public transport users feel that the service has improved If the changes that are brought in do not lead to more satisfied customers, then such measures can, in the worst possible scenario, be discarded. In the packages of measures, a combination of measures is implemented simultaneously. In areas where the emphasis has been on a more effective route structure, numerous measures have been brought in. Public transport users can evaluate individual measures as both positive and negative. At the same time they will weight different measures differently. The first measure of whether the package of measures is successful is how passengers as a whole evaluate the changes in provision.

10 On average for all the packages of measures, half the passengers feel that the service has improved. At the same time the changes will almost always mean that some people will end up with a poorer service. 12 per cent of passengers feel that the provision over all is worse. Totalt Grenland Unchanged Worse Better 71 Hundvåg Trondheim Kristiansand Gjøvik Larvik Tønsberg Ålesund Figure 4: Evaluation of the changes in public transport provision. User surveys. Percentages Two areas stand out positively. At Hundvåg and in Grenland, 70 per cent think that the service is better. In Kristiansand and Trondheim, passengers also feel that the service has improved. Tønsberg and Larvik have succeeded to a somewhat lesser extent. Here there are many who feel that the service is worse rather than better. Large data material makes it possible to analyse on different segments Young people under the age of 26 have increased their use of the bus service to a greater extent than others. Those who travel to work say they have increased their journeys by bus less than others. This may indicate that those who travel to work are and were to a large extent permanent users who travel so often that they cannot increase their use of the bus service unless they start to use the bus for other purposes. This is a challenge for public transport because this will require other types of provision than city-centre based services in the rush hour.

11 At the same time, the analyses show that those who currently travel frequently, i.e. daily or 2-4 days a week, feel they have increased their use of the bus services to a greater extent. This indicates that the measures have affected those who already used public transport and given them a service which has led to them travelling more often, i.e. they have become even more permanent users. Personal conditions One of the conditions which affect the use of transport most strongly is whether people have a driving licence and access to a car. Obviously those who do not have a driving licence or a car cannot use the car as an alternative to travelling by bus. These comprise more than 60 per cent of public transport users and we call them "captive users". 6-7 per cent of the public transport users are "competitive passengers". They choose to use public transport even though they are not competing for the family car. Around 30 per cent of passengers are "potential car users They compete for the family car(s) and one of the main reasons for travelling by public transport is that someone else is using the family car. To increase the use of public transport it is important to reach the "competitive passengers", those who do have an alternative transport mode but choose to use public transport. This is a demanding customer group. At the same time, this group is growing because of the increase in car access in the population. Changes in the people s access to car is crucial for transport mode choice. The changes may seem small, totally. But when we analyse each individual, these changes will effect the results because they have a strong influence for each person and his/hers choice.,. Almost half the population compete with other family members when it comes to using the family's car (fig 5). However, in all areas the competition is reduced in the period between before and after the measures undertaken (Figure 5). This means that they have a better opportunity to choose car whenever they want Not competning Compiting Figure 5: Competition for the familly car(s). Per cent

12 Increased competition No changes Less competition Figure 6: Changes in competition of car in households.per cent In spite of the fact that 40 per cent of the respondents compete for the use of the car in their household, 80 per cent assert that they always have access to a car whenever they need it. Further 13 per cent say that they almost always have access. This indicates that each member of the family has to adjust their travel schedules to other family members needs, or they have to negotiate with each other if several journeys are undertaken at the same time. Yet, the answers probably illustrates the respondent's perception of the situation To find a pattern we have analysed the group which claim that they always have access to a car, and which live in a household with competition. We have found that men are (8 per cent) more likely to state that they always have access to a car than women do. It is also more likely that middle-aged and elderly people state that they always have access to a car than young people. One explanation to the difference between middle-aged/elderly people and young people is that the daily travel routines among middle-aged and elderly people probably are more established. The use of the family s car has finally been distributed, after negotiations within the family. Common evaluation ensures that the differences between the areas are taken into consideration Good knowledge of the market is vital to be able to develop public transport provision successfully. The market is heterogeneous and different groups have different requirements. A service which meets the public's needs is therefore dependent on knowing who the customers are, with regard to age, purpose of journey, frequency of travelling, access to alternative forms of transport etc. There are major differences between the 11 cities concerning the type of passenger make-up with regard to age, usage frequency, why they use public

13 transport and, not least, access to alternative forms of transport. In some of the cities, captive users form the majority of passengers in that young people use public transport for journeys to and from school. In other cities, the proportion of captive users is equally large, but there is a greater proportion of adults who do not have a driving licence or a car. Eight other cities have a high proportion of potential car users while two of the cities have a high proportion of voluntary public transport users These differences in passenger profile will be highly significant for how measures will be received precisely because the measure can be targeted towards a specific passenger group or groups. The results from the combined evaluation show that the effects of implementing measures will be affected by the conditions in the areas. The results from the combined evaluation show that local conditions, the current level of public transport provision and the current passenger make up will all contribute to the effects which can be achieved by implementing measures. This means that measures which have a good effect in one area may have no effect or possibly even negative effects in an other area with different characteristics and a different passenger make-up. This means therefore that it is not possible to copy a measure which has been effective in one area to another area without taking into account the framework conditions under which the measure will be implemented. Thus good market knowledge is required both of one s own area and of the area one intends to copy from. A common evaluation format ensures that these differences are taken into consideration and the probability of the effect of different types of measures in areas with different characteristics can be calculated. INCENTIVE STRUCTURE For most organizations, lack of time, money and knowledge are barriers to carrying out evaluations of public transport experiments. Therefore, it is important to develop an incentive arrangement that encourages evaluation of the experiments and makes the data from the evaluation available for joint analysis. In order to ensure that the evaluation and reporting requirements were followed up locally, different forms of incentives were linked to the finance for the packages of measures. The packages of measures were financed with joint funding from the Ministry of Transport and Communications (50 per cent) and local contributors (50 per cent) to ensure that the state funding would encourage targeted use of local funding. The Ministry demanded a basic evaluation for all experiments in order to ensure comparable local evaluations and the possibility to analyse a common database.

14 In order to ensure local evaluation, the final third of the funding from the Ministry of Transport and Communications was only released when the local evaluation was competed, reported and approved by the Ministry. The Ministry employed Institute of Transport Economics (TØI) to support the local evaluation and to ensure that the common evaluation format was followed. TØI followed up the local evaluations and helped the project workers with local adaptations to the surveys. As mentioned earlier, TØI has developed standard questionnaires for the travel survey and user survey, with the option of making local adjustments and including additional questions in the questionnaire. However, all the adjustments need to be approved by TØI to assure that the surveys are comparable for the common evaluation. This baseline system is documented in guidelines for local evaluation of packages of measures (Renolen 1998). Twice a year, meetings were held with project workers from all the packages of measures, representatives from the Ministry and from TØI. At these meetings, the progress of the projects was discussed and experiences of the different project phases were exchanged. At all the meetings, the requirements for the common evaluation format were considered. Even with relatively close follow up, it was a challenge to carry out a common evaluation system. Some the packages of measures did not follow a common system because they were of a nature which made this difficult. Some of the packages of measures were exempted from participation in the common evaluation for various reasons. Of the 18 packages of measures, 11 followed a common format for evaluation. Through the process we have learnt a greater deal about what works and what could work better. We will mention some experiences which may be useful to others who want to benchmark projects. A major challenge is to ensure that the common evaluation format is actually followed. This includes ensuring that there are enough resources for evaluation and that important elements of the evaluation format are not omitted. Even though it was a requirement that the packages of measures should be evaluated, no financial framework was set for the amount of resources which should be set aside for the evaluation. At one extreme, the costs of evaluation were seen as a necessary evil rather than a tool for leaning more about which measures were effective and which were not. This is linked to a lack of local evaluation competence and because even clearer signals should have been gives about the significance of evaluation. For the Ministry of Transport and Communications, the transfer of experience was an important reason for supporting the packages of measures, while locally the focus was first and foremost on the measures themselves. An unfortunate effect of the lack of evaluation competence locally was that some of the data was lost. Important questions were omitted from the

15 questionnaires because their significance was not recognised. In our combined analyses it is highly important to find connections between framework conditions and use of public transport. Locally however, questions were raised about whether it was necessary to ask about access to a car when the target group was public transport users. Eventually we became better at demanding that all forms which were used in the evaluations should be approved by TOI. Nonetheless, some still slipped though the net and important questions were left out because locally it was felt that other questions of more local interest should be included. Based on our experiences we have some advice which we feel could be of use to others involved in similar benchmarking-projects where a number of areas are to implement similar or dissimilar measures. 1. It should be a requirement that a certain proportion of the project funding should be used for evaluation. The application should contain a separate post for evaluation and the costs of the minimum survey should be known in advance, or added to the amount which is applied for when the application is dealt with by the Ministry. Another solution may be that a central agency controls the use of resources and the implementation of the evaluation. This is the best way to ensure a unified evaluation, as well as relieving the burden on individuals of carrying out the evaluations. However, these advantages must be weighed up against the fact that the local actors may regard this type of central administration as an infringement. 2. The requirement for and the scope of the evaluation must be clearly communicated from the start. Information about the requirements for evaluation should be set out in the announcement for the packages in order to avoid misunderstandings and unpleasant surprises. 3. When dealing centrally with the local applications, an exact evaluation of the size of the project, the measures to be implemented and the expected effect of them should be carried out in order to evaluate how heavy the evaluation needs to be, When the projects are allocated resources, clear information should also be given about the surveys which need to be carried out. 4. It must be ensured that the local actors understand the common evaluation format. This may seem obvious, but it is very important. There is a need for clear guidelines and good advice on how the surveys should be carried out and how the data is to be coded. Individual surveys can also be carried out from the central position. As well as regular meetings, there should be a follow up meeting for all the projects involved. Then it becomes easier for the local actors to ask questions about things they do not understand and simpler to make contact later on. We had a good dialogue with the majority of actors and had several meetings with some of them. However this requires a considerable amount of work from the co-ordinator and resources need to be set aside by the central authority. We have now had two systems of evaluations of trials. In individual measures were implemented, while in packages of measures were

16 brought in. These have been evaluated together, which gives us a great deal of useful information precisely because we have large amounts of data from a number of different areas and different types of measures. Through our experiences with common evaluation it has appeared to us that an evenly data collection over time will give large benefits. This type of evaluation, which needs to be carried out regularly, must be simple, cheap and capable of being linked to a more comprehensive evaluation when bigger measures are to be implemented. A regularly collection of certain key data, collected in the same way in many areas, would be a useful starting point to look at the general development in the public transport sector and identify problem areas. An evenly data collection over time will give better control with long time effects of public transport measures. Bibliography This paper is based on several reports which summarize the results from the evaluations of The Norwegian Trial Scheme ( ) and The Norwegian packages of measures ( ). Some of them are: Fearnley, N. and Nossum, A. (2004) Public transport packages of measures Economic evaluations. Oslo, Institute of Transport Economics. TOI report 738/2004 Hagen, T. (2003) Evaluation of the processes in Kristiansand and the Ålesund area. Combined measures for public transport Oslo, Institute of Transport Economics. TOI report 643/2003. Hagen, T. (1999) Experimental measures for Public Transport. Evaluation of the Process for Development of Public Transport in the Regions of Tønsberg and Drammen. Oslo, Institute of Transport Economics. TOI report 437/1999 Kjorstad, K.N. and Ruud, A (2005 forthcoming). The Norwegian Pacages of measures. Main conclusions from experiments carried out Oslo, Institute of Transport Economics. TOI report. Kjorstad, K. N. and Norheim B. (2005) Before and after -studies in a turbulent environment. Main findings based on 11 different urban public transport case studies in Norway. Paper presented at the ETC 2005, Strasbourg. Kjorstad, K. N. et al (2000) Combined evaluation of public transport packages of measures in Norwegian urban areas /97. Oslo, Institute of Transport Economics. TOI report 497/2000 Kjorstad, K. N. and Norheim B. (1999) Targeted Public Transport Development - Part 1: Experiences from Hundvåg one year later. Oslo, Institute of Transport Economics. Oslo, Institute of Transport Economics. TOI report 450/1999.

17 Norheim, B and Kjorstad, K. N. (2004) Public transport packages of measures Passengers evaluation of service improvements and effect on trip frequency. Oslo, Institute of Transport Economics. Oslo, Institute of Transport Economics. TOI report 736/2004 Norheim, B and Kjorstad, K. N. (2005 forthcoming) Public transport packages of measures People s attitude towards public transport and the effect of service improvements on travel behaviour. Oslo, Institute of Transport Economics. Oslo, Institute of Transport Economics. TOI report. Renolen, H. (1998) Public transport. Practical guidelines for evaluating larger public transport demonstration projects in cities. Oslo, Institute of Transport Economics. TOI report 388/1998 Renolen, H (1998) The Norwegian Trial Sceme for Public Transport. Conclusions from experiments carried out Oslo, Institute of Transport Economics. TOI-report 393/1998. Ruud, A (2005) Packages of public transport measures The effect of information measures. Oslo, Institute of Transport Economics. Oslo, Institute of Transport Economics. TOI report 774/2004 Ruud, A., Kjorstad, K. N. and Lodden, U. (2004) Public transport packages of measures Description of the measures and summary of local results. Oslo, Institute of Transport Economics. Oslo, Institute of Transport Economics. TOI report 735/2004.