Transcript Slide 1

EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Directorate-General for
Energy and Transport
Urban Transport Trends in
Participant Cities
Neil Taylor
Transport & Travel Research Ltd
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
Introduction
• Background
• Data collected
• Key findings
• EU enlargement context
• Examples from Southern Europe
• New Member State trends
• Key Challenges
• Ideas for NMS cities
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
Background
• First defined in 2003, now in 3rd evolution
• Common indicators → quantitative data.
• Data gathered in yr3 similar to yr 2
• Effective baseline dataset now created
• Aim of yr 3 analysis = delve deeper
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
Data Collected – Common Indicators
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
Area of region
Area of city
Population of region
Population of city
Geography
2.1: Fixed routes
2.2: Flexible routes
2.3: Public transport priority
2.4: Cycling space in the city
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Car ownership
Public transport fleet
PT Accessibility
Clean Vehicles
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
Average speed (private transport)
Average speed (public transport)
Service intervals
Modal split
Total passengers carried
Farebox revenue
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
Cost of car use
Cost of public transport
Investment in public transport
Investment in roads
Gross Domestic Product
Employment
6.1 Traffic accidents
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
Key Findings
1. Higher GDP per capita → Higher Car modal share and
lower PT modal share
2. Urban metro systems most extensive in bigger cities.
Approx. threshold = 40-45km of metro per 1million
population.
3. Metros encourage significantly greater PT use in cities.
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
Wealthier cities drive more…
60000
GDP per Capita (in €)
50000
40000
Correlation Coefficient = 0.1
30000
20000
10000
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Modal share car (%)
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
80
90
100
… and use public transport less
60000
GDP per Capita (in €)
50000
40000
30000
20000
Correlation coefficient = - 0.1
10000
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Modal share public transport (%)
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
80
90
100
Metro systems & Critical Mass (1)
12
Population of city (in millions)
10
Correlation Coefficient: 0.6504
8
6
4
2
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Length of metro network (in Km)
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
400
450
ar
sa
w
R
o
G me
C las
op g
en ow
Ile ha
de ge
Fr n
a
B nc
ud e
ap
e
H st
el
si
nk
V i
ie
nn
M a
ad
B r id
ru
ss
el
P s
ra
gu
N e
ap
le
Li s
sb
o
Lo n
n
B do
uc
n
ha
B re
ar st
ce
lo
S na
tu
t
R tga
ot
te rt
rd
am
of
ia
50
W
S
Kilometres of Metro per 1million inhabitants
Metro systems & Critical Mass (2)
100
90
87
80
79
71
70
63
60
56
Average = 44 km per 1m inhabitants
40
36
22
20
10
8
9
38
39
40
43
46
49
50
30
18
23
10
0
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
le
rm
on
tF
er
ra
O
nd
Pr ulu
es
Em
to
ili Aa n
lb
a
R
om org
ag
n
B a
ris
t
M ol
al
m
B o
e
C lfa
an s
ta t
b
A ria
lic
a
Su nte
ce
C ava
ol
og
B
ne
ie
D
tig
ub
he
l
i m At i n
-B he
is ns
si
n
D gen
re
Th sd
e en
H
ag
u
O e
xf
o
G rd
M da
er ns
se k
ys
id
e
C
60
50
40
30
29
20
18 19
10
8
31
33
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
la
s
B gow
ru
ss
el
s
Ly
on
C
op Ro
en me
h
B ag
ar en
ce
lo
Lo na
nd
o
N n
ap
le
Ile Hel s
de sin
F ki
R ran
ot
te ce
rd
a
M m
ad
r
Pr id
B agu
ud e
ap
e
Li st
B sb
uc on
ha
r
W est
ar
sa
w
80
G
Modal share of Public Transport (%)
Metro systems - Driving PT use
100
90
78
70
55
Average modal share for
metro cities: 44%
60
47
51
Average modal share for nonmetro cities: 27%
44 45
41 42 43
25
21
14 14 15
62
64
66
53
55
46 47
35 36
25
21 21
16
9
12
3
0
Common Indicators – Reporting
• Detailed findings and trends in final report
• Due to be published end summer 2006
• Also identified trends in New Member State
(NMS) & Accession Country cities
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
NMS/Accession Country Cities
• 7 cities from NMS/Accession Countries involved
– Suceava
– Bucharest
– Budapest
– Gdansk
– Warsaw
– Prague
– Sofia
• Since we are in Budapest today…
• … It seems appropriate to look at some of
the NMS/Accession city trends!
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
EU Enlargement - context
• EU Enlargement in 2004
• Slovenia to enter Eurozone Jan 1st 2007
• Rapid economic growth expected…
– Inward investment triggering growth
• Pressure for transport links
– Expected increase in disposable incomes?
• Increase in car ownership?
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
Comparison with Southern Europe
• Athens, Lisbon, Alicante, Palma, Barcelona &
Madrid
• In states which joined EU in 1981 and 1986
• Rapid economic growth followed accession
• Large increases in car ownership & use (Lisbon)
• Unplanned urban development (e.g. Athens)
– Current policies seek to resolve problems of rapid
growth.
– Could NMS cities learn from these experiences?
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
NMS/EU15 city comparisons - 1
• NMS cities generally demonstrate high levels of public
transport modal share (> 50%)
• The real cost of PT can be greater in NMS cities than in
EU15 cities
• Car ownership levels are generally lower in NMS cities.
• BUT: Vast differences also exist between NMS cities
– Prague’s economy relatively strong (> EU15 avg. GDP per Capita)
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
u
Pr lu
es
to
M n
al
m
Em
o
ili Ca
a
R rdi
om ff
ag
n
D a
ub
li
B n
el
fa
B st
re
s
B cia
ru
Th sse
ls
e
Ile Ha
de gu
Fr e
an
Lo ce
M nd
er
o
se n
ys
G ide
la
sg
o
M w
ad
B
uc rid
ha
r
St est
ut
t
B gar
ud
t
ap
es
Pr t
ag
ue
O
Average number of PT trips per inhabitant in 2004
Intensity of PT use
1200
1072
1000
800
792
600
452 455
400
Average intensity = 329 trips per person
200
65
88
119 126 127
91 114
171
526
499 511
407
340
276
219
0
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
P
op rag
en ue
h
B age
ud n
ap
e
A st
th
W ens
ar
St saw
ut
tg
B ar
ol t
og
n
M a
al
m
L o
Th isb
o
e
H n
R ag
ot
t e ue
rd
H am
el
si
n
M ki
ad
r
B
ru i d
ss
el
s
Ly
o
D n
ub
N lin
ap
le
rm L les
o n on
t F do
er n
ra
G nd
da
D nsk
re
B sd
ar en
ce
lo
A na
lic
an
Vi te
e
Su nna
ce
av
a
O
u
Pr lu
es
to
C n
ar
A diff
al
bo
O rg
x
G ford
la
sg
B ow
r
B esc
uc
ha ia
re
B st
ris
t
C
ol ol
og
B ne
M elf
er
a
s e st
ys
id
e
C
Annual bus pass as a percentage of GDP per Capita(%)
Public transport fares in real terms
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
Average proportion for benchmarking cities: 2%
1.5
1
0.5
0
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
NMS/EU15 city comparisons - 2
• Clean Vehicles less apparent in NMS cities’ bus fleets →
trickle down of technology?
• Public transport often inaccessible for people with
reduced mobility (0.3% to 30% of bus fleets)
• Trolley buses and first generation tram systems are most
predominant in NMS cities
• Significantly less road-space in NMS cities – Prague the
exception
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
Bi
e
im Su
-B ce
is av
s
Bu ing a
ch en
Br are
u st
Bu sse
da ls
p
Pr est
a
G gu
la e
sg
o
Br w
is
to
Cl
er
O l
u
m
on Na lu
p
tF l
er es
r
Pr and
es
G to
Ro da n
tte nsk
rd
W a
M a m
er rs
se aw
ys
Br ide
es
At cia
he
n
Ly s
Du on
bl
in
Ca Pa
nt ris
a
He bri
ls a
Lo ink
Ba nd i
rc on
el
on
Ro a
O me
xf
o
Ca rd
rd
Vi iff
e
Al nn
Th ic a a
e nt
Ha e
g
M ue
ad
Be rid
lf
Co L ast
pe isb
nh on
a
Aa gen
lb
Co or
lo g
Dr gn
es e
d
M en
al
m
o
tig
he
Proportion of bus fleet that is wheelchair accessible (%)
Accessibility of bus fleets
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
Bu
ch
Ba are
rc st
el
Su on
ce a
av
Co Bre a
s
pe c
n h ia
a
W gen
ar
sa
Vi w
e
Br nn
us a
se
Pr ls
ag
G ue
da
n
He sk
ls
Co ink
i
Th log
ne
e
Ha
g
Li ue
sb
O on
x
Ca fo
nt rd
ab
ria
So
A fia
Ro the
tte ns
rd
Dr am
es
d
Ca en
Em
G rdif
ili
la
a
C
sg f
Ro le
ow
r
m
m
ag on Ma
Bi na t F lm
o
et
ig - 1 erra
he 0
n
im cit d
-B y a
is vg
si
n
Pr gen
e
St sto
ut n
tg
a
Be rt
lfa
Br st
Bu ist
o
In
ne dap l
r L es
on t
d
M on
ad
rid
Du
Ly
bl
on
in
(U
O
rb A ulu
an al
M
is b o
er
ed rg
se
ys
Ar
id
ea
e
R
(L o )
iv m
er e
po
ol
)
Km of road network per 1000 inhabitants
Km of Road Space per 1000 inhabitants
12
10
8
6
4
Average length of road network per 1000 inhabitants: 3.8km
2
0
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
Key Challenges
• Funding Issues
– Who will fund transport provision in NMS cities?
– Affordability of clean/accessible vehicle fleets
– Involvement in these benchmarking projects
• Investment Pressure
– Will FDI drive the NMS cities’ urban transport agenda?
– Increased road/motorway capacity a priority for investors?
– Links to EU15 rather than other NMS cities?
– Possible need for socially inclusive approach to managing growth
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
Ideas for NMS Cities
• Pre-emptive land-use & transport planning
• Spread investment beyond growth poles
• Maintain a quality public transport alternative
• Apply EU15 good practice examples in NMS cities
• Careful use of restrictive measures:
– Balance the need to attract FDI with development
control
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
Thank you for listening…
Project Contacts:
E-mail: [email protected]
Web:
www.transportbenchmarks.org
Tel:
+44 (0) 1543 416416
Kieran Holmes, Sarah Clifford,
Neil Taylor, Ben Smith
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three