Benchmarking London’s Public Transport Systems: An International ComparisonSecond UK Transport Practitioners MeetingStephen Bennett (MVA) and Keith Gardner (TfL)7 July 2004

Presentation

Benchmarking conceptRecent MVA studiesResearch methods and issuesKey findingsThe future of bus benchmarking

Benchmarking

A structured approach used to identify actions that lead to superior performance

Comparing operational performanceUnderstanding best practiceAttaining measurable performance improvements

The Benchmarking Process

Based on UITP Urban Transport Benchmarking Initiative website (www.transportbenchmarks.org)

Implement Findings

AnalysePerformance Differences

+

Identify Best Practices

+= Narrowed Performance

Gaps & Tangible Performance

Improvements

Self Analysis+

Successful Benchmarkin

g =

Benchmarking provides opportunities for:

Identifying areas for improvementBest practice transfer and implementationStructured information exchange and networkingInformed dialogue with stakeholdersSetting challenging and yet realistic performance targetsProcess improvements, identified through case studies

Public Transport Benchmarking

CoMET and NOVA programmesRun by Railway Technology Strategy Centre at Imperial College, LondonObjective: identify/disseminate best practiceCoMET group: Berlin, Hong Kong MTRC, London, Mexico, Moscow, Paris, New York, Sao Paulo, and TokyoNOVA group: Glasgow, Hong Kong KCRC, Lisbon, Madrid, Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Singapore

Benefits Achieved

Increases in line capacity, through dwell time and passenger managementReliability improvements, by adopting world best practice in maintenance methodsReduction in station staff, through station management rationalizationLife cycle cost savings, through asset replacement programmes by experimenting with life extension methods used in other railways

Recent MVA Studies (2003)

International Public International Public Transport Funding Transport Funding StudyStudyFor TfL (Fares Analysis)Aims:To make an objective comparison between London and comparable cities of costs of operating and sources of funding for public transportTo update and expand on previous work by London Transport in 1998

Comparable Cities Comparable Cities StudyStudyPart of London Buses Strategic ReviewAims:To compare role played by the bus in London with that in similar cities across the worldTo provide a wider perspective on the role and performance of buses in London

Recent MVA Studies (2003) contd

International Public International Public Transport Funding Transport Funding StudyStudyCities: London, Birmingham, Manchester, Tyne and Wear, Glasgow, Paris, New York, Hong Kong, TokyoModes: Conventional bus, metro and light rail, and commuter rail servicesIssues: Operating costs, fare revenue, operational data, and funding sources

Comparable Cities StudyComparable Cities StudyCities: Manchester, Birmingham, Paris, Berlin, New York, Singapore, Hong KongModes: Bus onlyIssues: Urban form and structure, transport networks, role of the busFocused particularly on certain aspects of bus operations, and performance against a number of key indicators

Research Methods

Literature reviewInternet search, of data and publications available onlineDirect contact with representatives of organisations holding relevant information (questionnaire)

Research Issues

Definition of city areaDefinition of public transport modesComparison of data from different yearsComparison of data in different currencies‘Hidden’ subsidiesLogic checking issues

Time/Resource Constrained Research

There’s a lot of information out there:There’s a lot of information out there:Specify focused, realistic requirements and identify key sourcesUse draft tables/charts to aid this processStart with all guns blazing:Start with all guns blazing:Use all means available simultaneously to gather all available informationThen refine search to fill gaps and clarify definitionsThis is only the beginningThis is only the beginning::Second phase to absorb and compare information is essential to explain and understand differences

Key Findings

Main mode sharePublic transport mode sharePublic transport operating cost per passenger-kilometrePublic transport operating cost per vehicle-kilometrePublic transport fare revenue per passengerPublic transport fare revenue per vehicle-kilometreCost recovery ratioSources of funding for public transport

NB: This excludes a lot of data produced (eg trend data), and is pre congestion charging in London

Main Mode Share (Trips)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Man

ches

ter

New

Yor

k

Birm

ingh

am

Tyne

and

Wea

r

Gla

sgow

Par

is

Lond

on

Toky

o

Hon

g K

ong

Public SharePrivate Share

Public Transport Share (Passengers)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%To

kyo

New

Yor

k

Par

is

Lond

on

Hon

g K

ong

Tyne

and

Wea

r

Man

ches

ter

Gla

sgow

Birm

ingh

am

Bus shareMetro shareRail share

Operating Cost Per Vehicle-Kilometre

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.00Bi

rmin

gham

Tyne

&Wea

r

Man

ches

ter

Gla

sgow

Paris

Hon

g Ko

ng

Lond

on

New

Yor

k

Toky

o

£ 20

01/0

2 pr

ices

BusMetroRail

Fare Revenue Per Passenger

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.50

Paris

Toky

o

Birm

ingh

am

Hon

g Ko

ng

New

Yor

k

Gla

sgow

Tyne

&Wea

r

Man

ches

ter

Lond

on

£ 20

01/0

2 pr

ices

Bus

Metro

Rail

Fare Revenue Per Vehicle-Kilometre

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.00

Birm

ingh

am

Man

ches

ter

Tyne

&W

ear

Gla

sgow

Par

is

New

Yor

k

Lond

on

Hon

g K

ong

Toky

o

£ 20

01/0

2 pr

ices

BusMetroRail

Cost Recovery Ratio

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00Lo

ndon

Birm

ingh

am

Man

ches

ter

Tyne

&Wea

r

Gla

sgow

Paris

New

Yor

k

Hon

g Ko

ng

Toky

oRev

enue

/ope

ratin

g co

st

BusMetroRail

Cost Summary (Bus Only)

1

23

ParisNew YorkLondon

LowestCost Per Passenger

LowestCost Per Kilometre

HighestCost Recovery Ratio

Cost Summary (Bus Only)

SingaporeManchesterBirminghamHong KongLondonBerlinParisNew York

LowestCost Per Passenger

LowestCost Per Kilometre

HighestCost Recovery Ratio

Sources of Funding for PT

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%Lo

ndon

Paris

New

Yor

k

Birm

ingh

am

Man

ches

ter

Tyne

and

Wea

r

Gla

sgow

OtherEmployersSpecific Taxes/TollsGovernment GrantFare Revenue

The Future of Bus Benchmarking

TfL and STM Montreal proposals to establish international bus benchmarking groupObjectives

Establish a system of measures for internal managementUse the system of measures to identify best practiceSupport decision making within the organisationsProvide comparative information for senior management and government

The proposed benchmarking process:

Annual cycleSmall group of participants (5-10)Board-level commitment – “benchmarking must be a central, not peripheral activity”Strict confidentiality agreementOne annual meeting and one management meeting, held by a host organisationExpert groups

Benchmarking Framework

Built around a standardised set of performance measures, known as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

Enable direct comparisons between systems to be madeProvide internal motivation within the organisationsProvide information for external use with stakeholders

Benchmarking Framework contd

Five proposed KPI categories

Growth and learningCustomersInternal processesSafety and securityFinancial

Case studies to identify best practices which could be emulated

Proposed Timescale

Commencement of second annual cycle

Summer 2005

Initial case studies2005

Six month review meetingWinter 2004/05

Phase One development with members

From Summer 2004

Kick-off meetingJune 2004

Initial developmentOn-going

TaskPeriod

Thank You