Comparative Study about Urban Transportation Policy in Province of Japan and France

Kazuya ITAYA, Toyota Transportation Research Institute (TTRI), itaya@ttri.or.jp

Abstract
This study compares Japan and France about organization, a source of revenue, planning system, and decision making process of urban transportation in province. And it considers the both country's characteristic. So this study shows the suggestion to examine techniques for realizing central city areas in vitality. In conclusion, it effects enough that plural policies in the city center are practiced coherently by administration in France. But in Japan, many people don’t recognize the importance of this. Before public transport passengers decline, policies about transportation in city center area should be practiced by city administrator. 

1. Introduction

Many people thought that public transport was used very well in Japan, and there were many cities that have a little environmental load. However, it has motorizing recently, and particularly central city areas in province become impoverished. Therefore in many cities, some policies to regenerate are carried out, but the city center area in province has been hollowing out in much case. In addition, radical improvement of public transport is not practiced. 
On the other hand, they have once similar experience in France. In France of 1960's, road maintenance was considered more important than public transport, and the service standard of public transport deteriorated greatly. However, in late years many policies for regenerating the downtown area are carried out, and many central city areas are changing. Tramways revive in some cities and centers in those cities are alive with many people. 
Japan and France resemble closely because both countries were with centralism in the past and now are decentralizing in progress. However, policies of these two countries are considerably different now. As a result of this, there is a big difference in conditions of the urban transportation system during the two countries.
The Japanese present conditions have much the similar parts to former French situation. Therefore I think that French experience will be a good model if municipality in Japan wants to realize regeneration of its central area. This study compares Japan and France about organization, a source of revenue, planning system, and decision making process of urban transportation in province and considers the both country's characteristic. I think that this study will show the suggestion to examine techniques for realizing central city areas in vitality.
In this study, I consider about the core of cities more than a population of 100,000 people except capital city and want to think mainly about passenger transport, especially a policy of public transportation particularly in central urban area. 

2. Fundamental Comparison 

At first, I simply gather it up about the background of the district of Japan and France was established.
[Administration System] 
The administration system in France is three levels system of “Région” / Département / Commune. Of these, it is commune that is in charge of transportation of a city mainly. There is commune more than 36000 in French, but the more than half are small with less than a population of 1,000. Therefore many urban areas make urban authority and devise the transport policy and carry it out. 
On the other hand, Japan has two levels system of a prefecture / cities, towns and villages. Merger of cities, towns and villages advances, and they become approximately 1,800 in all over Japan, but these scales vary. As for the transport policy of a city, road maintenance is a role of cities, towns and villages for a long time, but it is about these past several years that they came to cover public transport. Decentralization is in progress, and there are a lot of cities, towns and villages which are not yet concerned with public transport for their subject. 
[Population, Area and Density] 
Cities in Japan have more population than communes in France in average, and cities in Japan have smaller area than communes in France. Therefore, Cities in Japan are much higher at population density than communes in France. At this point, I think, in conditions for public transport, it is good in Japan.
Cities in Japan generally have a small area, and population density rises in populous sake. In addition, each town area is connected, and their borders aren’t clear. Communes in France have a high-density area in their center, and a low dense area opens to the circumference. Each commune area tends to become independent.

3. Organization in Administration about Transportation
[France]
In France, local government is generally in charge of the development and the enforcement about public transport in the city central. The bureau in commune (urban authority) in charge of transportation in a city is called “AOTU” (Autorité Organisatrice des Transports Urbains). 
It is 1982 that AOTU was established for a system. This was the age that Basic Law for French domestic transportation (LOTI, Loi d’Orientation des Transports Intérieurs) was established, and the bureau which managed transportation of a city in this law. The bureau about public transport became AOTU afterward and devised PDU (Plan de Déplacement Urbains, urban mobility plan) and it came to treat transportation in a city mainly on public transport. 
Therefore, it is unchanged now that a main policy object of AOTU is public transport. In not only France but also almost all Europe and USA, public transport generally cannot get profit. It is a role of AOTU that assist the shortage for a fare income. In addition, AOTU is not only making PDU but making route of public transport or setting of a fare standard. However, there are not many cases that actually AOTU oneself operates public transport. AOTU makes a contract and, in the case of most, consigns administration to an enterprise. 
In other words it is AOTU not an enterprise that decide quality and quantity of public transportation in a city in France. AOTU carries out policies considering about much of the public interest characteristics than profit characteristics same as other public service. 
[Japan]
Public transport is undertaking for profit of an enterprise as a general in Japan. In late years, many rail and bus enterprises tend to reduce and abolish the routes that have problems in management. It is thought that public transport in most cities is not profitable in the future.
On this account enterprises performed a policy about public transport such as a route or setting of a rate under supervision of a central government office basically, and the municipality was not able to participate. However, deregulation was carried out of the bus transit in 2002, and the area where there was not a bus route came to occur in cities, towns and villages. In correspondence with this situation, the examples that cities, towns and villages run the bus on their own are increasing. About such a bus, they decide quality and quantity of service. 
There may be such case there are the route of the enterprise and the routes of the cities, towns and villages in the same municipality. Administration in cities can decide the level of service about its bus, but it cannot decide the service level of other buses, only can make the suggestion and a cooperation request on the enterprises. 
In addition, a bureau in charge of road traffic and city planning is not always same as a bureau about public transport in administration. There may not be a bureau in charge of public transport. Therefore every transport policies are practiced individually. However, there are some cities that make a general urban transport plan. 

4. A Source of Revenue about Transport Policies 
[France]
AOTU is the part of a local government, but the ratio to use general finances for a budget is low. Therefore, it may be said that AOTU is independent from the other department in administration. 
The main income source of AOTU is VT (Versement Transport). VT is money that paid by enterprise and administration employ more than 10 person that there are in PTU (Périmétre des Transports Urbain) which is the AOTU’s administration area. VT is the source of revenue which AOTU can use for only urban transportation. In other words, AOTU can decide the purpose for money of VT freely. Because the income by VT shows a big ratio than general finances in a lot of AOTU, therefore AOTU can decide its policies without being kept in administrative other sections. The income by VT is a little less than 50% of the whole source of revenue of AOTU.
Originally PTU showed the area where VT was applied to. VT was a system founded in 1971 when AOTU wasn’t formed yet, but the uses of it were limited to commuter’s transport at first. Now, the uses of VT have become the whole urban transportation. The role of AOTU is collecting VT from PTU, devising PDU which is a plan indicator, and, taking charge of urban transportation policy.
However, because AOTU is one branch of a local government, its budget must be approved in an assembly of urban authority or commune. AOTU looks to be an independent organization, but must receive a check by an assembly in the same way as the other executive department of administration because it is an organization depending on tax and VT. 
[Japan]
Public transport is generally undertaking for profit now in Japan, therefore, the enterprises provide public transport service by its fare income. Concerning about ratio for expense of a fare income, Japanese public transport approximately provides with all expense for a fare income whereas French cities are equal to or less than half. A lot of enterprises of bus have taken assistance of money, but municipalities do not always assist, but a central government office and the prefectures tend to do it. In addition, there are not clear data about expenditure for a bus by city administration, because the bureau of public transport of city is not established yet. 
Although there are the object taxes about road maintenance, there aren’t the object taxes about public transport. The road maintenance policy in Japan is same to the public transport policy in France at the point that both policies have its own object tax. 
In addition, companies in Japan generally bear commuting costs of an employee. And it is common that the family budget bears school commuting costs of students. Enterprises bear the cost of discount for students as custom. Company and Family budget take directly a lot of source of revenues for public transport in Japan.

5. Planning Processes 
One of the most important problems on planning is participation of habitants to planning process. This chapter compares about a method of public involvement.
[France]
The principle of transport policy in urban areas in France is shown in PDU. Administration has basically responsibility for PDU and the individual plans. 
The committee which consisted of local enterprises, person of the third organization, and AOTU (urban authority or commune) repeats discussion on the PDU or individual plans, and it has prior consultation for inhabitants and so on. When the plan is completed, it holds an exhibition or hears opinions of plan contents for all organizations related to PDU. It makes a feasibility study on the basis of public opinions in total, and it submits to assembly. It vote using result of a public feasibility study, and a plan becomes effective if approved. 
It is a big characteristic in France that the system such as public feasibility study (“enquete publique”) or prior consultation (“concertation”) is enforced. 
A process of planning in France is the procedure that administration shows information of own plan for inhabitants. Inhabitants are provided enough opportunity to give their opinion. But these opinions don’t have the guarantee to be taken in the plan. 
In addition, a purpose of PDU is stipulated in LOTI. Those contents are promotion of public transport and reduction of auto traffic, condition of environment and right to transport. 
[Japan]
Cities in France have duty to make PDU, but sties in Japan don’t bear such a duty in the urban area. Of course there are a lot of cities, towns and villages devising its own general urban transport plan. 
The procedure to collect public opinions is often carried out, and cities constitute committee and a public hearing to argue in schedule in itself in most cases in planning process. In addition, the public comment system that is a procedure to collect opinions is made in late times. In this way, the opportunity of inhabitant participation has been increasing. Purpose of urban transport plan considers the transportation disadvantaged persons and environment, but principle of it considers the case of each city. 
About the individual policies, it is often that cooperation with other policies of administration does not go well. In addition, policies about public transport aren’t practiced enough because decentralization is in progress

6. Policy Menus 
[Policy Examples in France]
<Tramway introduction>
In France, it is introduction of tramway that is used as the remedy for environment, and measures for activating the city center area. In many cities, for example, Strasbourg, the new route of tramway was made. In addition, there is not only a streetcar but also a vehicle running with a rubber tire. In each city, many passengers ride tramway, and vehicle travels decrease, and visitors increase, in center. 
<Public Transport Reorganization>
In the case of commencement of tramway, administration reorganizes an existing bus route, and there are many measures to move from city center to destination intelligible and inexpensive. 
< Speed / Approach Limit of Car by Zone>
There are many measures to make car approach prohibited in the part of city center road in Europe and America as well as France. On that occasion it’s promoted a visit except a car and public transport can pass it. In addition, speed control such as zone 30 is used for road safety, too. 
<Parking Management>
The floor space of a parking lot is reduced in center area, and fares are higher than the parking spaces of suburbs. All these policies get adjustment, and they are made considering other policies. City center area don’t have the power to enchant, all these policies will becoming useless, so redevelopment making much of the history is performed at the same time.
[Policy Example in Japan]
<Innovation of Public Transport>
Each enterprise of public transport plans service improvement and introduces IC card, and a lane for exclusive use of a bus and PTPS systems are adopted in Japan.
<Community Bus>
Buses introduced by city administrations are running in many areas in Japan. The route of this bus is according with the needs of a user, and the fare is inexpensive, and there is a popular route. 

Alternatively, there are the district that cars cannot enter in and the road that worked for cars to limit their speed. “Community Zone”, measures for the whole district are taken, too. In this way, about policy menus of urban transport, a big difference has neither France nor Japan except making the tramway. 

7. Travel Behavior
I easily touch it about a difference of a travel behavior of both countries. The ratio of a car for travel behavior of the French whole land is about 84%. However, vehicle sharing rates in a center decrease in the city center that enforced an effective policy for example of Strasbourg. 
A big difference is recognized by the cities in Japan, and it becomes about 18-72%, but the ratio of car of whole land of Japan is about 40%, this is not higher than France. 
A Japanese policy seems to be better when we watch only this numerical value, but it is not always so. It is thought that Japanese car ownership rate continues rising in future, and the use of a car will increase more from now on in a city of the district region which does not have the city center which has some charms. Furthermore, there are many examples that a city center is declining. It is important to prevent this current. 

8. Consideration
There are a lot of common points, but a big difference is seen between Japan and France as having looked to this. I settle conventional contents in this chapter. 
[Background] 
Urban areas in France spread out by low density basically any place other than a center. In contrast, urban areas in Japan are high-density and there is no end. In late years density falls in the suburbs part and maintains only in a center of some cities. We think that it is suitable to administrate public transport in Japan now, but in the future, it will change like the area in France. 
[Organization] 
The charge of a transport policy is almost unified by administration in France, the other, that system in administration is not enough in Japan. This expresses that public transport is a business in Japan, but it is thought that the management of a Japanese public transport enterprise becomes severer and severer when population will decrease in future. It will need the administrative strong initiative. 
[Source of Revenue] 
The source of revenue of transport policy in France is VT, and this is a stable income. But the way of thinking to cover expense with a fare income is maintained in Japan. This difference is big. A beneficiary of public transport is not always only a passenger, but there are many burdens of a passenger under the Japanese present conditions. On this account, because passengers are decreasing now, the transport policy in Japan is provided only an insufficient source of revenue. 
[Planning Process] 
Both Japan and France make much of a thought of local inhabitants. Therefore the process to collect opinions of inhabitants is made. However, a trial to evaluate a policy does not yet root in Japan. Therefore there are not many processes by a person of the third and the planner collects opinions and evaluate by oneself. In addition, information disclosure is insufficient. Because the plan is not accompanied with effect, inhabitants may understand such a state. 
[Policy Menu] 
In France, tramway which route contains a city center starts to run. It is the technique that is not realized in Japan. However, in a part except it, each measure of the two countries does not have a big difference. But, the effect does not appear very much in Japan because Japanese many measures are used alone and do not cooperate with other technique. 
[Travel Behavior] 
Both Japan and France come to have high allotment rate of a car, but there are many more people uses a car in France. It will seem that the use of a car increases more in future if a conventional tendency continues in Japan. In a district department, the conditions will be more serious and will approach the present status in France. 

In this way, the big differences of Japan and France are in the source of revenue for transport policy or the organization. These are affected by whether public transport is concluded as a business. Management of public transport is hard to be concluded. However, it is self-evident that many people are troubled if there is not it. The transport policy in France looks the person who cannot use a car mainly especially, so it works to maintain public transport. LOTI, the low of transport in France, stipulates the right that all people can move. 
In Japan, it will be very likely that public transport is concluded as a business in big cities such as capital Tokyo in future. However, it is very likely that public transport in other cities is not concluded as a business in a district. If so, cities, towns and villages have to maintain public transport then. In 1970's when public transport was not concluded in France, aging was not a problem yet. However, Japanese society suddenly goes old aged from now on. People who go out will decrease before long, and all towns will leave for the decline unless the senior citizen who was not able to drive can have alternative means to move by oneself. 
Such a problem is not yet recognized to be important for many Japanese. Even if all people come to think about the problem seriously if really troubled, it is very likely that it becomes too late. 
It effects enough that plural policies in the city center are practiced coherently by administration in France. In Japan, it will be necessary to appeal to Japanese people for a problem and the solution positively so that many people come to recognize necessity of such a policy.

References
Chantal Duchene (2004): Will Urban Mobility Plans contribute to modifying urban transport policies? , World Conference on Transport Research, Vol.10, No2221, WCTRS 
Certu(1996): Plans de Déplacements Urbains Guide, Certu 
Direction des Transports Terrestres (DTT) (2003): Urban Public Transport in France - institutional organization, Certu