urban transport benchmarking year three urban transport trends in participant cities neil taylor...
TRANSCRIPT
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
Urban Transport Trends in Participant Cities
Neil Taylor
Transport & Travel Research Ltd
Directorate-General for Energy
and Transport
EUROPEAN COMMISSION
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 Indicators1.1 Area of region 1.2 Area of city 1.3 Population of region1.4 Population of city1.5 Geography
2.1: Fixed routes2.2: Flexible routes2.3: Public transport priority2.4: Cycling space in the city
3.1 Car ownership3.2 Public transport fleet3.3 PT Accessibility3.4 Clean Vehicles
4.1 Average speed (private transport)4.2 Average speed (public transport)4.3 Service intervals4.4 Modal split4.5 Total passengers carried4.6 Farebox revenue
5.1 Cost of car use5.2 Cost of public transport5.3 Investment in public transport5.4 Investment in roads5.5 Gross Domestic Product5.6 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…
Correlation Coefficient = 0.1
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Modal share car (%)
GD
P p
er
Ca
pit
a (
in €
)
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
… and use public transport less
Correlation coefficient = - 0.1
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Modal share public transport (%)
GD
P p
er
Cap
ita (
in €
)
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
Metro systems & Critical Mass (1)
Correlation Coefficient: 0.6504
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Length of metro network (in Km)
Po
pu
lati
on
of
cit
y (
in m
illio
ns)
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
Metro systems & Critical Mass (2)
10
1822 23
36 38 39 4043
4649 50
56
63
71
79
87
98
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Kilo
metr
es o
f M
etr
o p
er
1m
illio
n in
hab
itan
ts
Average = 44 km per 1m inhabitants
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
Metro systems - Driving PT use
912
14 14 1518 19
2125
2931
3335 36
47
51
55
78
16
21
42 43 44 45 46 47
53
60
66
41
25
3
8
6462
55
21
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Mo
da
l s
ha
re o
f P
ub
lic
Tra
ns
po
rt (
%)
Average modal share for non-metro cities: 27%
Average modal share for metro cities: 44%
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
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
– Suceava– Bucharest– Budapest
– Gdansk– Warsaw– Prague
• Since we are in Budapest today…
• … It seems appropriate to look at some of
the NMS/Accession city trends!
– Sofia
• 7 cities from NMS/Accession Countries involved
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
Intensity of PT use
91 114 119 126 127171
276340
407452 455
499 511 526
792
1072
219
8865
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Avera
ge n
um
ber
of
PT
tri
ps p
er
inh
ab
itan
t in
2004
Average intensity = 329 trips per person
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
Public transport fares in real termsPublic transport fares in real terms
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
An
nu
al b
us
pas
s as
a p
erce
nta
ge
of
GD
P p
er C
apit
a(%
)
Average proportion for benchmarking cities: 2%
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
Accessibility of bus fleets
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Pro
po
rtio
n o
f b
us
flee
t th
at is
wh
eelc
hai
r ac
cess
ible
(%
)
Urban Transport Benchmarking
Year Three
Km of Road Space per 1000 inhabitants
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Km
of
road
net
wo
rk p
er 1
000
inh
abit
ants
Average length of road network per 1000 inhabitants: 3.8km
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