sustainable urban mobility and public transport final
TRANSCRIPT
UNITTED NATIO
SUSTA
PUBLI
1
ONS ECON
AINABL
IC TRAN
NOMIC CO
E URBA
NSPORT
OMMISSIO
AN MO
T IN EC
ON FOR EU
OBILITY
CE CAPI
UROPE
Y AND
ITALS
2
February 2015
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE)
Transport Division
3
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) is one of the five United Nations regional commissions, administered by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). It was established in 1947 with the mandate to help rebuild post‐war Europe, develop economic activity and strengthen economic relations among European countries, and between Europe and the rest of the world. During the Cold War, UNECE served as a unique forum for economic dialogue and cooperation between East and West. Despite the complexity of this period, significant achievements were made, with consensus reached on numerous harmonization and standardization agreements. In the post‐Cold War era, UNECE acquired not only many new Member States, but also new functions. Since the early 1990s the organization has focused on analyses of the transition process, using its harmonization experience to facilitate the integration of Central and Eastern European countries into the global markets. UNECE is the forum where the countries of Western, Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia and North America – 56 countries in all – come together to forge the tools of their economic cooperation. That cooperation concerns economics, statistics, environment, transport, trade, sustainable energy, timber and habitat. The Commission offers a regional framework for the elaboration and harmonization of conventions, norms and standards. The Commission’s experts provide technical assistance to the countries of South‐East Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States. This assistance takes the form of advisory services, training seminars and workshops where countries can share their experiences and best practices.
Transport in UNECE The UNECE Inland Transport Committee (ITC) facilitates the international movement of persons and goods by inland transport modes. It aims to improve competitiveness, safety, energy efficiency and security in the transport sector. At the same time it focuses on reducing the adverse effects of transport activities on the environment and contributing effectively to sustainable development. The ITC is a:
Centre for multilateral transport standards and agreements in Europe and beyond, e.g. regulations for dangerous goods transport and road vehicle construction at the global level;
Gateway for technical assistance and exchange of best practices;
Promoter of multi‐country investment planning;
Substantive partner for transport and trade facilitation initiatives;
Historic centre for transport statistics. For more than six decades, ITC has provided a platform for intergovernmental cooperation to facilitate and develop international transport while improving its safety and environmental performance. The main results of this persevering and important work are reflected in more than 50 international agreements and conventions which provide an international legal framework and technical regulations for the development of international road, rail, inland water and intermodal transport, as well as dangerous goods transport and vehicle construction. Considering the needs of the transport sector and its regulators, UNECE offers a balanced approach to and treatment of facilitation and security issues alike.
4
TableofContents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 1: Sustainable urban mobility and public transport development .............. 11
1.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 12
1.2. Objectives and challenges of urban transport and mobility ....................................... 12
1.3. Demand for urban transport and quality of service ................................................... 14
1.4. Urban transport and traffic congestion ....................................................................... 18
1.5. Urban transport and road safety. ................................................................................ 21
1.6. Urban transport and environmental pollution including climate change. ................ 23
1.7. Cycling and walking: the “facilitators” of co‐modality and well‐being. .................... 27
Chapter 2: Urban Mobility and Public Transport situation in ECE capitals ................. 30
2.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 31
2.2. Urbanization level and demand for urban transport and mobility in ECE capitals ... 33
2.2.1. Urbanization level ................................................................................................... 33
2.2.2. Demand for urban transport and mobility in ECE capitals ....................................... 40
2.3. Urban public transport accessibility, comfort and urban traffic congestion ............. 46
2.3.1. Urban public transport accessibility ........................................................................ 46
2.3.2. Urban public transport comfort .............................................................................. 53
2.3.2. Urban traffic congestion ......................................................................................... 58
2.4. Urban transport and road safety ................................................................................. 61
2.5. Urban transport and environmental pollution including climate change ................. 65
2.6. Cycling and walking in capital cities ............................................................................ 69
2.7. Urban transport and financing .................................................................................... 72
2.7.1. Affordability of public transport .............................................................................. 72
2.7.2. Public transport profitability ................................................................................... 77
2.7.3. Financing urban public transport and Economic growth ......................................... 82
2.7.3.1 World Bank .......................................................................................................... 85
2.7.3.2. European Investment Bank .................................................................................. 87
2.7.3.3. Asian Development Bank. .................................................................................... 91
2.7.3.4. European Bank for Reconstruction and Development .......................................... 92
2.7.3.5. Additional sources for funding public transport ................................................... 92
Chapter 3: Profiles of capital cities ................................................................................ 95
3.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 96
3.2 Profiles ........................................................................................................................... 97
Yerevan ................................................................................................................................. 97
5
Vienna ................................................................................................................................... 98
Baku ...................................................................................................................................... 99
Minsk .................................................................................................................................. 100
Brussels ............................................................................................................................... 101
Sofia .................................................................................................................................... 102
Ottawa ................................................................................................................................ 103
Zagreb ................................................................................................................................. 104
Nicosia ................................................................................................................................ 105
Prague ................................................................................................................................ 106
Tallinn ................................................................................................................................. 107
Paris .................................................................................................................................... 108
Tbilisi ................................................................................................................................... 109
Athens ................................................................................................................................ 110
Athens ................................................................................................................................ 111
Budapest ............................................................................................................................. 112
Reykjavik ............................................................................................................................. 113
Dublin ................................................................................................................................. 114
Rome .................................................................................................................................. 115
Astana ................................................................................................................................. 116
Riga ..................................................................................................................................... 117
Vilnius ................................................................................................................................. 118
Chisinau .............................................................................................................................. 119
Amsterdam ......................................................................................................................... 120
Oslo ..................................................................................................................................... 121
Warsaw ............................................................................................................................... 122
Bucharest ............................................................................................................................ 123
Moscow .............................................................................................................................. 124
Belgrade ............................................................................................................................. 125
Bratislava ............................................................................................................................ 126
Ljubljana ............................................................................................................................. 127
Bern .................................................................................................................................... 128
Ankara ................................................................................................................................ 129
London ................................................................................................................................ 130
Chapter 4: Conclusions and recommendations........................................................... 131
4.1. Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 132
6
4.2. Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 134
Quality and safety of public transport: ........................................................................... 134
Traffic congestions and pollution: ................................................................................... 136
Cycling and walking ........................................................................................................ 136
Affordability of urban transfers ...................................................................................... 136
ListoffiguresFigure 1.1. Sustainable urban transport system, supply of infrastructure and services ...................... 13
Figure 1.3. Public Transport demand by income .................................................................................. 15
Figure 1.4. Urban travel by purpose and by time ................................................................................. 17
Figure 1.5. Urbanization impacts on public transport use .................................................................... 19
Figure 1.6. Comparison of International traffic fatalities and public transport .................................... 22
Figure 1.8. Greenhouse gases efficiency per passenger‐mile travelled ............................................... 25
Figure 2.1. Sustainable urban mobility and public transport pillars ..................................................... 32
Figure 2.2. Global Urban and rural populations by development group, 1950‐2050 .......................... 33
Figure 2.3. Aggregated urban and rural populations in 36 ECE member States, 1950‐2025 ............... 33
Figure 2.5. Urban and rural populations in 36 ECE member States, 1990‐2020 .................................. 35
Figure 2.6. Relation between urban and rural population in 36 ECE countries ................................... 37
Figure 2.7. Total, urban and capital population in 36 ECE member countries, 2011 ........................... 38
Figure 2.9. Demand for urban transport: public and motorized private transport in ECE 30 capitals,
2011 ...................................................................................................................................................... 40
Figure 2.10. Relation between rides with urban public and private motorized transport in 27 ECE
capitals, as per size of capital area (1), size of the capital population (2) and capital density(3) ........ 41
Figure 2.11. Demand for urban public transport, per mode of transport, in 30 ECE capitals, 2011 .... 43
Figure 2.12. Share of public transport modes in the provision of service in 30 ECE capitals, 2011 ..... 43
Figure 2.13. Changes in use of urban public transport modes between 2009 and 2011 in 26 ECE
capitals .................................................................................................................................................. 44
Figure 2.14. Demand for urban public transport in ECE capitals in relation to average annual wage at
country level, 2011 ............................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 2.15. Number of urban public transport options in 33 ECE capitals, 2011 ................................ 47
Figure 2.16. Public transport options versus passager volumes, 2011 ................................................. 48
Figure 2.17. Length of urban public transport network in relation to the size of the metropolitan area
and its population, capitals grouped by their population density, 27 capitals, 2011 ........................... 48
Figure 2.18. Length of the public transport network versus passenger volumes, 2011 ...................... 49
Figure 2.19. Number of stations of urban public transport network in relation to the size of the
metropolitan area and its population( capitals grouped by their population density) 2011 .............. 50
Figure 2.20. Place capacity of urban public transport network in relation to the size of the
metropolitan area and its population( capitals grouped by their population density) 2011 ............... 51
Figure 2.21. Bus frequency, number of buses circulating in peak hours in relation to the size of the
metropolitan area and its population ( capitals grouped by their population density) 2011 .............. 52
7
Figure 2.22. Speed of the main public transports modes (bus, tram and metro) in selected ECE
capitals .................................................................................................................................................. 53
Figure 2.23. Bus average age in 25 capitals, 2011 ................................................................................ 54
Figure 2.24. Availability of ITS for passenger information in urban public transport options in 29 ECE
capitals, 2011 ........................................................................................................................................ 55
Figure 2.25. Availability of ITS for passenger information versus passenger volumes, 2011 ............... 55
Figure 2.26. Availability of options for urban public transport ticket purchase, average number of
options for all modes, 29 capitals, 2011 ............................................................................................... 56
Figure 2.28. Number of ticket purchase options versus passenger volumes, 2011 ............................. 57
Figure 2.29. Length of metropolitan roads in relation to the size of the metropolitan area and its
population, capitals grouped by their population density, 22 capitals, 2011 ...................................... 58
Figure 2.30. Average daily number of cars on metropolitan roads, capitals grouped by their
population density, 21 capitals, 2011 ................................................................................................... 59
Figure 2.31. Bus average speed and differences in speed, capitals grouped by their population
density, 23 capitals, 2011...................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 2.32. Number of cars on metropolitan roads in relation to the bus average speed, capitals
grouped by their population density, 2011 .......................................................................................... 60
Figure 2.33. Transport fatalities and injuries in urban areas in 14 ECE member countries, 2010 ....... 61
Figure 2.34. Transport fatalities and injuries in urban areas and in total, 14 ECE member countries,
2010 ...................................................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 2.35. Transport fatalities and injuries in urban areas per 100,000 urban inhabitants, 13 ECE
member countries, 2010 ....................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 2.36. Urban public transport fatalities and injuries in ECE capitals, 20 capitals, 2011 .............. 62
Figure 2.37. Public transport fatalities and injuries per 100,000 inhabitants of ECE capitals, 20
capitals, 2011 ........................................................................................................................................ 63
Figure 2.38. Injuries and fatalities per urban public transport mode for ECE capitals, 2011 ............... 64
Figure 2.39. Injuries and fatalities at the urban public transport stations per mode, 2011 ................. 65
Figure 2.40. Emissions of CO2 per capita in ECE capitals, 36 capitals, 2009 ......................................... 66
Figure 2.41. General CO2 city emissions and ratio of public to private motorized trips ...................... 66
Figure 2.43. Concentration of air pollutants – PM10 and PM2.5 ‐ in ECE capitals, 2011 ........................ 67
Figure 2.42. Concentration of air pollutants – SO2 and NO2 ‐in ECE capitals, 2011 ............................ 67
Figure 2.44. Concentration of PM10 versus ratio of public to private trips, 2011 ................................. 68
Figure 2.45. Bicycle use in ECE capitals per 1000 population, 19 capitals, 2011 .................................. 69
Figure 2.46. Length of bicycle lanes in ECE capitals, 2011 .................................................................... 70
Figure 2.47. Changes in relation between rides with urban public transport to private motorized
transport by rides with bicycle in 18 ECE capitals,................................................................................ 71
Figure 2.48. Price and affordability of single bus, tram or trolley tickets in ECE capitals, 2011 ........... 72
Figure 2.49. Price and affordability of monthly bus, tram or trolley tickets in ECE capitals, 2011 ...... 73
Figure 2.50. Relation between bus single and monthly fares in ECE capitals, 2011 ............................. 74
Figure 2.51. Relation between bus single ticket fare and monthly wage at the country level in ECE
capitals, 2011 ........................................................................................................................................ 75
Figure 2.52. Relation between bus monthly ticket fare and monthly wage at the country level in ECE
capitals, 2011 ........................................................................................................................................ 75
Figure 2.53. Relation between bus monthly ticket fare and monthly wage at the country level in ECE
capitals, 2011 ........................................................................................................................................ 76
8
Figure 2.54. Passenger transported annually per one employee for bus, tram and metro service,
2011 ...................................................................................................................................................... 78
Figure 2.55. Number of total bus employees and bus drivers to bus fleet in operation during peak
hours, 2011 ........................................................................................................................................... 79
Figure 2.56. Number of total tram employees and tram drivers to tram fleet in operation during peak
hours, 2011 ........................................................................................................................................... 79
Figure 2.57. Employees’ distribution between administration, technicians and drivers for bus service,
2011 ...................................................................................................................................................... 79
Figure 2.58. Employees’ distribution between administration, technicians and drivers for tram
service, 2011 ......................................................................................................................................... 79
Figure 2.59. Employees’ distribution between administration, technicians and drivers, aggregated for
bus, trolley, tram and metro services, 2011 ......................................................................................... 80
Figure 2.60. Use of the available bus fleet, 2011 ................................................................................. 81
Figure 2.61. Use of the available tram fleet, 2011 ................................................................................ 81
Figure 2.62. Use of the available metro fleet, 2011 ............................................................................. 81
Figure 2.63. Economic growth through investments in public transport ............................................. 82
Figure 2.64. Pricing and Financing Urban Transport ............................................................................. 84
Figure 2.65. Number and Value of ADB projects in Transport ............................................................. 91
Figure 2.66. EBRD’s modal distribution of 2012 transport approvals .................................................. 92
Figure 4.1. Quality of urban public transport in ECE capitals ............................................................. 132
Figure 4.2. Possible deviation in quality of public transport in ECE capitals, 2011 ............................ 133
ListofboxesandtablesBox 1.1. Congestion Charge, London, England ..................................................................................... 20
Box 1.2. Traffic Safety Plan 2013‐2020, Copenhagen, Denmark .......................................................... 22
Box 1.3. The Urban Adaptation Support Tool, European Union ........................................................... 26
Box 1.4. Bicycles come back to Paris, France ........................................................................................ 27
Box 1.5. A framework for designing and implementing a targeted transport subsidy program .......... 84
Table 2.1. World Bank’s projects in ECE region .................................................................................... 85
Table 2.2. EIB projects in ECE region ..................................................................................................... 88
Table 2.3. Additional source for financing public transport projects, examples from ECE capitals ..... 93
Table 4.1.Scores on quality of public transport .................................................................................. 138
9
INTRODUCTION
Cities, which are hubs connecting various markets, will continue to grow, especially if they are governed to address the various diseconomies that come along with the growth. These diseconomies are usually related to increasing costs of land, labor, housing, accessibility or pollution. The conditions that can facilitate the growth and make sure that such is sustainable are established often with the legal and regulatory frameworks at the state level. However, these frameworks need further complementary policies at the city level to help create even more favorable conditions for enterprises to do business and for citizens to enjoy a good quality of life. The complementary policies are related to public infrastructure and services provided at the city level, in particular: transport, housing, water and sanitation, waste management as well as access to work, information, education, i.e. access to opportunities. Urban transport policies should be oriented at enhanced mobility for ensuring better accessibility to the various “markets”. At the same time, they should help reducing the transport externalities such as traffic congestion, road crashes and environmental pollution. Many cities across the globe and the ECE region continue, however, to face challenges in reducing externalities. Due to traffic congestions the markets accessibility within urban areas deteriorates rather than improves. Road crashes and pollution cause not only large costs but also reduce the quality of life of citizens and hence impact negatively their well‐being. While challenges are faced, a knowledge base is developed to help authorities in implementing policies to foster more sustainable systems for urban transport and mobility. It addresses the role of public transport and non‐motorized transport for urban mobility and transfers. It specifies how the quality of public transport and its infrastructure and networks as well as the infrastructure for non‐motorized transport can impact the preferences for citizen’s mobility. It further shows the conditions necessary for preventing a false distribution of demand for mobility and urban transfers between the various transport modes. The implementation of the available knowledge base supplies material for analysis to understand the degree of success and its underpinning conditions. It then helps to work out practical solutions for implementation scaled to the circumstances and size of a different city. To this end, this study promotes both the available knowledge base and the lessons learned from its application. For the latter, it offers the results from the analysis of the urban transport systems in 36 ECE capital cities and draws attention to various features of the systems that may require changes for making the systems more sustainable. The analysis looks, in particular, at the demand for urban mobility and its distribution between the different transport modes vis‐à‐vis the accessibility and comfort provided through urban public transport. It looks into the traffic congestions, road safety and environmental pollution including climate change as well as the popularity of the non‐motorized transport for urban mobility. It further considers the affordability of urban transport. The study is developed for the benefit of authorities at the different levels with the aim to provide them a knowledge and experience sharing tool on sustainable urban transport system and its application at hand. It is structured in the following way:
10
Chapter 1: reviews the existing knowledge base related to sustainable urban transport and mobility and draws attention to crucial issues for consideration in the process of system development,
Chapter 2: evaluates to an extent possible the degree to which various ECE capital cities were able to ensure sustainable urban mobility and transport. This chapter also identifies some weak points that may require further attention and actions,
Chapter 3: provides the profiles of 36 ECE capital cities on urban transport and mobility, and
Chapter 4: provides conclusions from the analysis given in chapter 2 as well as lists several recommendations for consideration by the authorities at various levels on how to further improve urban transport and mobility.
CHan
HAPTnd pu
TER 1ublic
: Sustrans
tainasport
11
able udeve
urbanelopm
n mobment
bility
12
1.1. Introduction
A developed country is not a place where the poor people have cars but it is where the rich people
use public transport (Mayor of Bogota). Development of sustainable urban mobility and public
transport networks leads by all means to radical improvement of citizens’ quality of life. It improves
access to markets and job opportunities, to education, to health care services, to leisure, to the
things citizens need in everyday life; Citizens that use public transport walk more. Walking increases
fitness levels, leading to healthier citizens and less strain on the health care systems. Quality of life
is also affected by commuting times. In several cities commuters often travel more than an hour to
and from work. This is time lost in their life.
While sustainable urban transport system should better handle the negative externalities, at the
same time, it should be providing its main function, which is the enhanced mobility, including for the
poor and vulnerable groups, which was an important element of the Millennium Development
Goals.
In the existing reality the urban transport systems often fail in addressing the negative externalities.
As a result of it, the traffic congestions deteriorate the accessibility. The air pollution and accidents
impact negatively the quality of life in the cities and thus decrease the well‐being of their citizens.
As it is being pointed out in ECE’s publication on Transport for Sustainable Development1
Government institutions and planning processes should emphasize accessibility over mobility. The
process of achieving more sustainable urban transportation systems designed with the principle of
accessibility at their core is dependent on the participation of all stakeholders in cities, the
authorities, the private sector and the citizens, along the lines of principles of democracy. A
successful process will depend on effective governance of land use and transportation, where new
housing and commercial planning will entail simultaneous transportation systems design, careful
neighborhood design, strategic infrastructure investments, and fair, efficient and stable funding.
In this context, it is crucial to address the issues that are key to establishing the sustainable transport
systems, so that the traps in the development process are better understood and successfully
avoided.
1.2. Objectives and challenges of urban transport and mobility
Whether or not cities, which are hubs connecting markets such as those on labour, investment,
education, commerce, recreation and health care, etc. , can prosper depends, among others, on the
accessibility of these markets. The accessibility, in turn, is influenced by the availability of an efficient
and effective transport system. What is an effective and efficient urban transport system? It is one
that can satisfy the numerous and diverse requirements of the metropolitan mobility, including
minimizing travelling time between various locations, while at the same time internalises
externalities to positively affect the well‐being and the quality of life of the citizens of that area.
Among the most apparent externalities are traffic congestion, traffic accidents and environmental
pollution including climate change.
1 UN ECE, Transport for Sustainable Development, 2011
The larg
external
Introduc
possible
financia
to provi
collectiv
meet th
Figure 1.1. S
Source: ECE
The dev
to meet
options
populati
effective
mobility
hence c
individu
The effo
as both
demand
quality
characte
ger the met
lities and the
cing and sus
e task. This
l resources,
de, what is
ve/public and
e mobility de
Sustainable u
E Transport D
velopment of
t the mobilit
created th
ion between
e and efficie
y and throug
reate deman
al or collecti
orts directed
already exi
d distribution
of service in
eristics (e.g.
tropolitan ar
erefore for tr
staining an e
requires th
both limited
considered,
d non‐moto
emand (figur
urban transp
Division
f the infrastr
ty demand is
rough availa
n the various
ent transport
h it influenc
nd for what
ve and non‐
to creating
ist, should b
n depending
n terms of
seat availabi
rea, the gre
ransport disr
effective and
hat the app
d capital inp
the right co
rized transp
re 1.1.).
port system,
ructure and
s not the en
able infrastr
s modes of t
t system. Th
e the shifts
is considere
motorized tr
the right tra
be taken in
g on triggers
networks an
ility), seem t
13
eater is its c
ruptions.
d efficient tra
ropriate aut
uts, into rele
ombination b
port modes,
supply of inf
networks, th
nd of the cha
ructure and
ransport, th
he authoritie
between var
ed the right c
ransport mo
ansport supp
parallel. A t
s such as m
nd routes, f
to be a good
complexity a
ansport syst
thorities tra
evant transp
between the
as well as e
frastructure
hus creating
allenging tas
networks c
is in itself m
es also need
rious transpo
combination
des.
ply and dem
the same ti
obility patte
frequency, a
d starting poi
and the pot
tem is theref
ansform the
port infrastru
e various mo
easy transfe
and services
g the urban t
sk. While the
can influenc
may not be su
to create a
ort modes (f
n between th
mand side, or
me, good u
erns, the lev
s well as th
nt in this wo
tential for t
fore not an
available l
ucture and n
otorized indiv
rs between
s
transport sup
e available t
ce the shift
ufficient to c
relevant cu
figure 1.2.). T
he various m
r rather recre
nderstandin
vel of incom
he soft perf
ork.
transport
easy but
and and
networks
vidual or
them to
pply side
transport
s of the
create an
ulture for
They can
motorized
eating it,
ng of the
me or the
ormance
14
Furthermore connectivity should be ensured among different public transport modes with the
national transport networks. Good connectivity is a prerequisite for efficient functioning of urban
and national transport systems. Efficiency of urban transport for various transport modes depends
on their interconnectivity and connectivity with national transport, especially in urban areas where
people may choose to live outside the metropolitan areas and to commute every day. Often, these
commuters are actually using the national or regional transport. No wonder that transport terminals
started to become commercial centres where a number of daily life services are provided. Beyond
the fact that these terminals became extra revenue sources for railways and for metro operators
they facilitate commuters’ life by covering daily needs while commuting.
1.3. Demand for urban transport and quality of service
An increase in income generates a rise in demand for goods and services except for inferior goods.
For the latter, the increase in income will cause the demand to fall. This is linked with income
elasticity of demand, which is positive for normal and luxury goods and services while negative for
inferior ones. The concept is purely relative, which means that under certain circumstances any good
or service could become an inferior one. This means that even a luxury good or service can become
inferior over time. Typically, inferior goods and services exist if in a consumer perception, there are
superior goods and services available. The superior good or service would serve the same purpose
but provide more satisfaction, comfort or be of better quality, etc.
Since the demand for urban transport will increase taking into account that cities attract people to
move in as they offer higher earning possibilities, the concept of superior goods and services should
be carefully considered in urban mobility and transport today. This is because the modes of
transport considered by consumers to offer superior urban mobility service would be those to
absorb most of the demand for mobility.
Historically driving a car used to be perceived as a service superior to that offered by public
transport, cycling or walking. However, it is less the case now, due to increasing parking constraints
in city centres together with the attached cost implications, as well as due to diminishing time
efficiency when Public Transport vehicles can move on dedicated lanes, while the rest of the traffic is
stopped in the jam. In certain circumstances, a consumer today may or may not perceive a car to be
a superior choice for urban mobility.
An analysis done by Buehler and Pucher (20122) on the demand for public transport in Germany and
the United States – two countries with a relatively high income per capita – shows that public
transport has been far more successful in Germany than in the United States with much greater
growth in overall passenger volumes and trips per capita. Even controlling for differences between
the countries in demographics, socio‐economics, and land use, logistic regressions show that
Germans are five times as likely as Americans to use public transport. Moreover, public transport in
Germany attracts a much broader cross‐section of society and for a greater diversity of trip
purposes. The authors explain the success of German public transport by the application of a
coordinated package of mutually supportive policies that include: (1) more and better service, (2)
attractive fares and convenient ticketing, (3) full multimodal and regional integration, (4) high taxes
2 Ralph BUEHLER and John PUCHER, Demand for Public Transport in Germany and the USA: An Analysis of Rider Characteristics, Transport Reviews, Vol. 32, No. 5, 541–567, September 2012
and res
develop
The pro
policy c
citizens,
support
and a ca
geograp
develop
The case
relativel
level of
various s
The dem
for low‐
quality t
transpor
high inc
potentia
The stud
demand
3 Todd Litm4 America5 Ibidem 6 Ibidem
strictions o
ments.
vision of a h
learly affect
including t
ing policy pa
ar being the
phical covera
ment public
e of German
y high incom
income dep
studies3,4.
Figure 1
Source: L
mand for bas
‐income pop
transport se
rt‐oriented d
come is rea
ally much gre
dies prove th
d Furtherm
man, Evaluatingn Public Transp
n car use,
high quality
s the perce
the more a
ackage expla
favoured m
age and dis
transport an
y shows tha
me is achiev
pending on t
1.3. Public Tr
ittman T.5, A
ic quality tra
pulation, whi
rvice (such a
developmen
ached. More
eater in tota
he case for in
ore, even if
g Public Transitportation Assoc
and (5) l
public trans
ption of the
ffluent ones
ains the con
mode for mo
stances, spa
nd citizens’ w
t public tran
ved. The dem
he quality o
ransport dem
APTA 2007, 2
ansport servi
ich after init
as e.g. expre
t) tends to
eover, the d
l than for a b
nvesting into
f, as suggest
t Benefits and Ciation (APTA), 2
15
and‐use po
sport service
e car superio
s. Converse
tinuing strug
bility. Howe
tial planning
willingness to
nsport does n
mand for pu
of service off
mand by inco
20126
ice (such as e
tial increase
ess commute
increase wit
demand for
basic service
o high quality
ted in othe
Costs, Best Prac2012 FACTBOO
olicies that
e in Germany
ority for urb
ly, the lack
ggle of publi
ever, it shou
g and oldne
o use their p
not need to
ublic transpo
fered (figure
ome
e.g. sporadic
declines as
er buses or
th income u
a high qua
.
y urban publ
r studies7, c
ctices GuidebooOK
promote c
y combined
ban mobility
k of high qu
ic transport
uld be noted
ess of cities
rivate cars.
become an i
ort can henc
e 1.3.). This v
c bus routes)
incomes ris
frequent rai
ntil from a m
ality public
ic transport
changes in i
ok, 2013
compact, m
with car de
among the
uality servic
in the Unite
that factors
s directly af
inferior servi
ce vary for t
variation is s
tends to be
es. Demand
il transit, wit
medium to m
transport s
to make it a
ncome affec
mixed‐use
eterrence
German
ce and a
ed States
s such as
ffect the
ice when
the same
shown in
greatest
for high
th public
medium‐
ervice is
mode in
ct public
16
transport demand either directly (positive impact) or indirectly through increased car ownership
(negative impact), the indirect impact may be negligible for urban public transport. This is because
car owners may still choose to use public transport for urban mobility instead of the car, or use both.
The latter will be the case when connecting by car to a suburban public transport hub for a ride to
the city centre. The issue lies therefore in establishing high quality urban public transport as a good
alternative to car travel. However, a factor that will make car users to continue using their cars
despite the high quality of urban public transport is culture. Driving an expensive car in many
societies is a status quo directly connected in most of the cases with social recognition. Urban public
transport can overpass the culture barrier through promotion and education focused on the positive
effects that citizens and the societies have while using public transport.
What are thus the features that characterise high quality service for urban public transport? To such
count in particular:
(a) Good accessibility:
Urban public transport offers good accessibility if it connects the locations where the citizens
live with locations where they go to work, study, shop or go for recreation or medical care.
These connections can be direct or interconnected within urban public or national public
transport networks but they need to offer an overall satisfactory ride time. Moreover, these
connections need also to be adequate in terms of options, capacity and intermodality they
offer, expressed respectively by number of means of transport in the network and the
number of multimodal nodes with which they are interconnected and by number of seats
and circulation frequency. Sustainable accessibility requests public transport connection
with other transport modes such as bicycles and cars or walking through providing dedicated
routes to access to the stations and parking infrastructure at the stations.
(b) High reliability:
Urban public transport is reliable if it runs in accordance with the itineraries. Both the
departure time from the station and the ride time between the stations to ensure the
interconnectivity need to keep to the itineraries.
(c) Appropriate comfort, safety and aesthetics
Urban public transport is comfortable, safe and appealing if the means of transport are in
appropriate technical and safety condition, clean, air‐conditioned or heated, and protect
from outside noise, etc. Moreover, the stations infrastructure should be such that protects
from unfavourable weather conditions and it is separated from traffic to prevent from traffic
injuries or fatalities. Availability of real‐time information and monitoring in the vehicles and
at the stations provided through intelligent transport systems (ITS) also adds to comfort and
safety. So does the different variety of options for purchasing tickets. The vehicles and the
stations should further have agreeable visual appearance and aesthetics.
7 Johan Holmgren, An analysis of the determinants of local public transport demand focusing the effects of income changes, 2013, Sprienger
Providin
public tr
the serv
time of
home‐to
trips ma
distribut
For the
hour of t
The hig
comfort
vehicles
transpor
time inf
level at
cause th
therefor
vehicles
howeve
compari
cities ha
of the po
ng a high qu
ransport plan
vice and min
the day with
o school trip
ainly occurrin
tion of dema
latter, it sho
the day.
Figure 1
Source: ad
Travel", in
Edition, Ne
h quality fe
t, safety and
and infrastr
rt flow with
formation to
which the p
he demand f
re to look f
and keep t
r, it may be
ison to car u
ave tried sett
opulation. Th
uality public
nner needs t
imizing the
h two peak
s and vice ve
ng in the afte
and depends
ws the perce
1.4. Urban tr
dapted from
n S. Hanson
ew York: The
atures, inclu
aesthetics,
ructure inclu
priority traf
o passengers
passengers w
for mobility
for solutions
the ticket fa
of particula
se is still neg
ting fares fo
hese subsidi
transport is
to find optim
costs of op
hours aroun
ersa. The de
ernoon and s
s hence from
entage of a p
ravel by purp
Barber, G. (
n (ed) The G
Guilford Pre
uding those
depend on t
uding solutio
ffic signalisa
. At the sam
would consid
shifting from
s that secur
ares at an a
ar importanc
gligible. To b
r cost‐recove
es, however
17
s a challengi
mal solution b
peration. The
nd 8h00 and
mand for m
social/recrea
m the time o
particular pu
pose and by t
(1995) "Aggr
Geography o
ess, p. 92.
under acce
the finances
ns such as th
tion for pub
me time, how
der the ticke
m public tran
e investmen
affordable le
ce for cities,
balance the
ery and offe
r, have not al
ing task. In
between sati
e demand fo
17h00 corre
obility varies
ational trips a
of the day an
rpose travel
time
regate Chara
of Urban Tr
essibility (op
s available to
hose offered
blic transpor
wever, the ti
et fare to be
nsport to oth
nts into pub
evel. This wo
where the p
needs for ec
ring targeted
lways lead to
terms of ac
isfying the m
or mobility is
esponding to
s also by pur
are prevalen
nd purpose o
of all travels
acteristics of
ransportatio
tions and a
o invest into
d by ITS, e.g.
rt vehicles, o
icket fare sh
e affordable.
her modes. T
blic transpor
ould be imp
proportion o
conomic and
d subsidies f
o the intende
ccessibility, a
maximum dem
s unequal du
o home‐to‐w
rpose, with s
nt in the even
of travel (figu
s occurring p
f Urban
on, 2nd
dequacy), re
the urban t
for improvin
or for provid
hould not ex
Too high p
The authorit
rt infrastruct
portant for a
of public tran
d social susta
for specific s
ed results be
an urban
mand for
uring the
work and
shopping
ning. The
ure 1.4.).
per every
eliability,
transport
ng public
ding real‐
ceed the
rices can
ties need
ture and
all cities,
nsport in
ainability,
segments
ecause of
18
difficulties with accurately identifying the target population, potential abuse of the subsidy, and
large errors of either exclusion or inclusion of the target population.
1.4. Urban transport and traffic congestion
The land that can be transformed into roadways is limited especially in the city centres. Therefore, as
cities grow and their roadways cannot be expanded anymore, the volume of urban traffic needs to
be managed within the given roadway capacity. Any surpassing of that capacity leads to traffic
congestion – the most apparent transport externality.
Traffic congestions are quite costly, e.g. the costs of delay and extra fuel burned in congestion in the
498 urban areas analysed in the United States were estimated at US$ 121 billion for 20118. These
costs were up 5 times since 1982, when they were at the level of US$ 24 billion. Furthermore, the
extra fuel burned causes unnecessary release of carbon dioxide, hence adding to the overall bill
issued by congestion that societies have to pay in the end.
The challenge with congestions is that they tend to maintain equilibrium9: traffic volumes grow until
congestion delays discourage additional peak‐period car trips on a particular traffic corridor and
make travellers to change route, travel time or shift to other mode of transport. Short‐term increase
in flow is soon filled with latent demand for travel by car on that traffic corridor and the same
congestion equilibrium is returned to.
A way to tackle congestions is therefore by implementing solutions that would decrease the point at
which the equilibrium is reached. Such is not a roadway expansion, as a greater roadway capacity
would invite more motorists to use their cars, and thus move the equilibrium upwards instead of
downwards. The need is to provide alternative options to car mobility that would be attractive
enough to the motorists to shift to that alternative mode in a long‐term. The important aspect is
that the mode cannot be perceived as inferior compared to car, since in that case the downward
move would not be achieved or it would be negligible only.
To make motorists to give up on their cars, a high quality public transport is necessary. A research10
about Australian, European and North American cities on congestion relief from high quality public
transport suggests that it is valued at an average of $0.45 (Aus$2008) per marginal public transport‐
vehicle km of travel, if both travel time and vehicle operating costs are considered. The relief can
span however from $0.044 to $1.51 with higher values for urban areas or rather urban traffic
corridors with greater degrees of traffic congestion.
Another study by Nelson, et al (2006)11 using a regional transport model to estimate Washington DC
public transport system benefits to users and congestion‐reduction benefits to motorists, advices
8 2012 Urban Mobility Report and Appendices, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/report/ 9 Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (2013), Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs 10 Md Aftabuzzaman, Graham Currie and Majid Sarvi (2010), “Evaluating the Congestion Relief Impacts of Public Transport in Monetary Terms,” Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 1‐24; at www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT13‐1.pdf. 11 Peter Nelson, Andrew Baglino, Winston Harrington, Elena Safirova and Abram Lipman (2006), Transit in Washington, D.C.: Current Benefits and Optimal Level of Provision, Resources for the Future (www.rff.org); at www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF‐DP‐06‐21.pdf.
that rail
the com
The ana
attracte
miles in
were no
delay of
The stud
howeve
transpor
An inte
analysis
relief. T
dimensi
urban tr
The mu
factors
factor, c
12 Ibidem 13 Todd Lit14 Md AftaTraffic Con
transport g
mbined benef
alysis done
d an averag
the small ur
ot transporte
f almost 865
dies and ana
r also show t
rt is able to a
resting piec14 exploring
This is a f
ons of the m
ransport dat
ltivariate da
affecting c
car‐deterrenc
tman, Victoria T
abuzzaman, Grangestion Relief
enerates co
fits of rail an
for the 498
e number o
rban areas to
ed by public
million hour
alyses prove
that the grea
attract moto
Figure 1.5. U
Source: Littm
ce of inform
elements aff
factor analy
measured ele
a for a broad
ta analysis s
congestion r
ce factor and
Transport Polic
aham Currie anImpact Of Tran
ngestion‐red
d bus transp
8 urban are
of passenger
o about 2.9 b
transportat
rs or about a
the case fo
ater the urba
orists (figure
Urbanization
man T13
mation can b
fecting impa
ysis to iden
ements from
d internation
shows three
relief: publi
d urban‐form
cy Institute (201
nd Majid Sarvi (2nsit,” Cities, Vo
19
duction bene
port significa
as in the U
trips in 201
billion in the
tion systems
15 per cent
r public tran
an area and
1.5.).
n impacts on
be found in
acts of the co
ntify the u
m the readily
nal spectrum
major dime
ic transport
m factor.
13), Evaluating
2011), “Exploril. 28, Is. 1
efits that exc
ntly exceed t
United State
11 ranging fr
e very large o
s they would
increase in t
nsport to be
more conge
public trans
n another
ongestion
underlying
y available
m of cities.
ensions of
t‐oriented
Public Transit B
ng The Underly
ceed rail sub
total public t
s12 shows th
rom about 2
ones. Overal
d have contr
the total del
a remedy fo
estion‐prone,
sport use
Benefits and Co
ying Dimension
More use o
less
bsidies. Furth
transport sub
hat public t
21 million pa
l, if these pa
ributed an a
ay.
or congestio
, the more th
osts
s Of Elements A
of public tra
congestion
hermore,
bsidies.
transport
assenger‐
ssengers
dditional
ons. They
he public
Affecting
ansport
n
A regres
the stro
model a
congest
scale pu
further
policies.
cities.
An impo
develop
alternat
the stro
apply to
much m
as inferi
deterren
mobility
Box
London
cities a
pricing
city‐wi
vehicle
Prior to
betwee
cent, a
daily, r
£123 m
increas
travel
2007 a
additio
ssion model
ongest impac
also provide
ion relief im
ublic transpo
increase if
. This combin
ortant messa
ment, due t
ive to car mo
onger the lar
o main traffi
more successf
ior service. F
nce policies
y, and therefo
1.1. Con
n is the larg
around the g
g plan with a
ide emission
es.
o the charge
en £2–4 mil
and approxi
reducing glo
million ($24
sed 45 per
time has dec
and it cont
onal environm
proves that
ct of car‐det
es a quantita
pact. The pu
ort systems
the public‐t
nation of the
age for auth
to traffic con
obility, attra
rger and mo
ic corridors
ful in attract
Finally, a co
prove to b
ore keeping
ngestion
est city to h
globe. Londo
a doubling o
n‐based tolls
e, London dr
llion ($4–8 m
mately 70,0
obal warmin
43 million) a
cent as peo
creased due
inues to gr
mental bene
all the thre
terrence fac
ative link be
ublic transpo
have signif
transport‐or
ese policies
horities from
ngestion, is
cts motorist
ore congesti
for mid‐size
ting and kee
mbination o
e most succ
the car traff
n Charge
have adopted
on expanded
f the conges
s that are sp
rivers spent 5
million) ever
00 fewer ve
g carbon dio
are raised fo
ople are swit
to congestio
ow even no
efits.
20
e dimension
ctor followed
etween city
ort‐oriented
ficant conge
iented polic
would also
m this consid
a no go one
ts to give up
on‐prone an
e and smalle
ping motoris
of public tra
cessful in th
fic within the
e, Londo
d congestion
on the succ
stion zone, i
purring mor
50 per cent o
ry week. Sin
ehicles enter
oxide emissi
or public tr
tching to bu
on pricing. B
ow. London
ns positively
d by transit‐
variables, i
factor is str
estion reduc
cies are com
prove succe
deration is t
e. The availa
their cars fo
n urban area
er cities. The
sts compare
nsport‐orien
he shift from
e roadways c
n, Engla
n pricing and
cess of its gro
ncreased fee
e rapid ado
of their time
nce 2007, co
red the exte
ions by 16 p
ansport imp
us transport
Bicycle use h
n’s emission‐
influence co
‐oriented fa
its transport
ongest for b
ction benefit
mbined with
ssful for mid
hat car‐focu
ability of pu
or urban tran
a is, althoug
e high qualit
ed to public t
nted policies
m car to pu
capacity.
and
d its success
ound‐breakin
es for motor
ption of cle
e in traffic ja
ongestion ha
ended conge
per cent. Ea
provements.
ation in Lon
had increased
‐based toll
ongestion re
ctor. The re
t characteris
big cities. The
ts. The bene
h the car‐de
ddle‐size and
used urban t
blic transpo
nsfers. This re
gh this rule
y public tra
transport co
combined w
blic transpo
has inspired
ng 2003 con
r vehicles, an
eaner, fuel e
ms, costing t
ad dropped
estion pricin
ch year mor
Bus ridersh
ndon becaus
d by 43 per c
incentives p
lief, with
egression
stics and
eir large‐
efits can
eterrence
d smaller
transport
ort, as an
elation is
can also
nsport is
nsidered
with car‐
ort urban
d other
gestion
nd new
efficient
the city
21 per
ng zone
re than
hip has
se their
cent by
provide
21
However, reducing the number of cars entering cities by introducing congestion charges may not cut
congestion as much as estimates have claimed. Poor traffic management schemes, lack of co‐
ordination of road works and traffic lights re‐phasing, lack of accommodating parking policies and
poor interconnections among the different public transport means can be some of the reasons that
contribute to congestion. Congestion charging schemes could be successful when they are being
implemented as supplement to sustainable public transport policies and not as stand‐alone measure
against congestion. Furthermore, it may not be the first measure to take in an urban and mobility
reform.
1.5. Urban transport and road safety.
The socioeconomic costs of road traffic injuries are estimated to be about 2% of a country’s gross
domestic product (GDP). For EU countries alone, this means about €180 billion – twice the annual EU
budget (2004). Furthermore, accidents are the most important category of external cost of transport
in Europe: €158 billion a year or 2.5–3.0% of GDP in 17 Member States15. It is therefore in the
authorities’ interests to substantially improve road safety.
Traditionally, road safety policies aim to reduce the likelihood of
road crashes and their severities by improving road
infrastructure; educating road users, improving vehicle
technology and enforcing well designed traffic rules. While these
are important actions, equally important should be a focus on the
promotion of safer modes, such as public transport, and by
reducing exposure16. Studies show that cities and regions with
less private car travel have lower rates of crashes and fatalities17. Cities with high public transport
mode shares tend to have lower citywide traffic fatality rates18 (figure 1.6.). Sustainable form of
urbanisation (e.g. higher density and better street connectivity that allow for lower speed) can also
improve road safety19.
Furthermore, the relation is also confirmed in other analyses, e.g. an analysis by Karim, Wahba and
Sayed (2012)20 of Vancouver region traffic crash data. They found that area crash rates decline
significantly with increasing bus stop density, percentage of public transport‐km travelled relative to
total vehicle‐kms travelled, and walking, biking, and public transport‐commute mode share. Their
modelling indicates that a strategic transport plan that encourages use of alternative modes tends to
reduce total, severe, and property damage collisions.
15 World Health Organization, Economic cost of transport‐related health effects 16 EMBARQ, The Role of Sustainable Transport in Traffic Safety, 2013 17 Kenworthy et al. 1997. Indicators of transport efficiency in 37 global cities: a report of the World Bank. Perth, W.A.: Institute for Science and Technology Policy, Murdoch University. 18 Bhalla et al. 2007. A Risk‐Based Method for Modeling Traffic Fatalities. Risk Analysis, vol. 27, no.1. 19 Dumbaugh and Rae. 2009 Safe Urban Form. Journal of the American Planning Association, 75: 3, 309‐329. 20 Md. Ahsanul Karim, Mohamed M. Wahba and Tarek Sayed (2012), Evaluating the Safety Estimates of Transit Operations and City Transportation Plans, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting (www.trb.org); at http://amonline.trb.org/1slsr0/1slsr0/1.
More use of public transport
leads to less road fatalities
and accidents!
This co
internat
Public t
congest
21 Jeffrey Sustainabin Newma
Box
The tra
betwe
initiati
1.
3.
5.
Figure 1transpo
onsideration
tional data a
transport –
ions but also
Kenworthy a
ility and Technan and Kenwort
1.2. Tra
affic safety p
een 2013 and
ives:
Safe
streets
Copenhage
innovation
Cooperatio
coordinatio
1.6. Compariort
Source: Ken
gives anot
vailable, cra
the high q
o the decreas
nd Felix Laubology Policy, Dithy (1999).
affic Safe
plan has the
d 2020, whic
en
n
on and
on
ison of Intern
nworthy and
ther import
ash rates dec
uality one –
se in road fat
e (2000), Millistributed by th
ety Plan
objective of
h should be
2. T
4.
t
6.
22
national traff
Laube 20002
tant messag
cline with in
– influences
talities and i
ennium Cities he Internationa
2013‐20
halving the
achieved thr
The city’s co
road users
Procuring sa
transport
Contribution
outside sour
ffic fatalities
21
ge for auth
creased pub
s thus posit
njuries.
Database Forl Union of Publ
020, Cop
number of tr
rough implem
ompetent
afe
n from
rce
and public
horities. As
blic transport
tively not o
r Sustainable Tic Transport (w
penhage
raffic fataliti
menting a se
confirmed
t use, see fig
nly the dec
Transport, Instwww.uitp.com);
en, Denm
es and injuri
et of actions
by the
gure 1.6.
crease in
titute for analyzed
mark
es
under six
1.6. U
The tran
carbon d
portion
powered
Ove
Ex
Ac
•
•
•
•
•
•
Source
http:/
tySafe
Urban trans
nsport secto
dioxide (CO2
of these rel
d by fossil fu
erview of ini
xisting initiativ
accident a
dangerous
ongoing o
footpaths
cooperatio
the coordi
traffic safe
projects as
targeted d
turning ch
ctivities that s
targeted d
Education
programm
competen
informatio
how to ge
developing
with priva
that requi
the safest
setting sta
procuring
(including
increased
regional c
increased
Movia, tax
drivers
e: City of Copen
//subsite.kk.dk/
ety/TrafficSafet
sport and e
or is respons
) and other g
leases and e
uels combust
itiatives:
ves
analysis and id
s locations (bl
peration and
and street fu
on with the Co
ination of info
ety audit of bo
s well as on th
dialogue with
hildren into co
should be dev
dialogue with
al Institutions
mes and in driv
t road users
on to newcom
t around safe
g a digital spe
te providers a
re that service
on the marke
andards regard
road transpo
ISO certificat
cooperation o
ampaigns
cooperation w
xi drivers and
nhagen /
/sitecore/conten
ty.aspx /
nvironmen
sible for a p
global warm
emissions is
tion engines,
dentification o
ack spots)
maintenance
rniture
openhagen Po
ormation and
oth concrete r
he planning le
schools aimed
ompetent road
veloped
people in You
s, on youth ed
ving schools to
mers and touri
ly
eed map in coo
and setting sta
e vehicles are
et
ding traffic sa
rt services and
ion)
on nationwide
with the bus c
other comme
nt/Subsites/City
23
tal pollutio
portion of a
ing pollutant
attributed t
, end that do
of
of roads,
olice about
control
road
evel
d at
d users
uth
ducational
o develop
sts, about
ordination
andards
among
fety when
d supplies
e and
company
ercial
yOfCopenhage
on including
ir pollutants
ts that contr
to the older
o not meet (y
Initiatives re
investment
• reconst
intersec
spots)
• reducti
and in s
• broad m
solution
• improv
• extensi
complia
• implem
conseq
future r
Initiatives th
to influence
• 40 kmh
Copenh
• use of f
of Cope
• registra
n/SubsiteFrontp
g climate ch
s release as
ribute to clim
r type of ro
yet) the new
equiring a high
truction of the
ctions and str
on of speed o
speed zones
measures (min
ns)
ing crossing p
ve use of dyn
ance with spe
mentation of p
uent influenc
roads
hat the City of
h as a general
hagen
fixed speed ca
enhagen
ation of emerg
page/LivingInC
hange.
well as em
mate change.
oad vehicles
emission lim
her level of
e most dange
retches of roa
on individual r
nor standard
points for pede
amic signs to
eed limits
pilot projects w
e on the desig
f Copenhagen
speed limit in
ameras on the
gency room d
Copenhagen/Cit
ission of
. A major
that are
mits.
rous
d (black
roads
physical
estrians
ensure
with
gn of
n will try
n
e streets
ata
tyAndTraffic/Ci
24
In the urban areas traffic, which is characterized by short but also slow, stop and start journeys, the
air pollutants emissions as well as carbon emissions are much higher per km compared to free‐flow
longer journeys. This argues for separation of cyclists from motorized transport.
Air pollution is of particular concern in the urban areas, as the typical levels of air pollutant
concentrations found in urban areas today could cause serious and quantifiable health damage.
Logically, the higher the air pollution levels, the worse the associated health problems and their
costs to the societies need to pay. The exposure to harmful levels of air pollution, as studies show
(EEA, 2013), is significant, in particular for some pollutants in the EU countries, let alone other
countries
The authorities have therefore an important role to play in
leading actions also in urban transport to fight air pollution and
climate change.
The various studies conducted22,23 show that public transport
provides energy conservation and emission reduction benefits.
In terms of CO2 emissions, assuming average occupancy rates
for the various transport modes, even in the United States, whose public transport is characterized
on average by low occupancy rates, a conventional bus will be minimum 15% CO2 more efficient per
passenger mile/km travelled compared to a conventional sedan car. This ratio increases several
times in favour of the bus if compared to bus occupancy in peak hours. Similarly, for air pollutants, a
conventional bus also achieves better results than a conventional car per passenger mile/km
travelled.
Even if quantifying emission impact is a rather challenging task, due to several different pollutants
and many possible combinations of vehicles, engines and driving conditions, it is evident that the
public transport advantage over cars grows with its increasing ridership. Application of policies
aimed at increasing the ridership of public transport can therefore turn today only successful in
cutting the level of emissions and making the public transport more energy efficient per passenger
mile/km travelled.
Public transport with high occupancy rate will keep its absolute emission advantage as long as zero
tailpipe emissions road vehicles are marketable and commonly used24, what will bring the transport‐
related problems of air pollution and CO2 emissions in urban areas to a rather negligible level. Public
transport will further keep its relative emission advantage as long as green energy will not be the
dominant energy source. When planning public transport to help addressing air pollution and
climate change, authorities should remember about a number of issues. The vehicle fleet, in
particular for buses, should be renewed regularly so that advantages from the technology
22 Robert J. Shapiro, Kevin A. Hassett and Frank S. Arnold (2002), Conserving Energy and Preserving the Environment: The Role of Public Transit, APTA (www.apa.com) 23 Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath (2008), Environmental Life‐cycle Assessment of Passenger Transportation: A Detailed Methodology for Energy, Greenhouse Gas and Criteria Pollutant Inventories of Automobiles, Buses, Light Rail, Heavy Rail and Air v.2, UC Berkeley Center for Future Urban Transport, (www.its.berkeley.edu/volvocenter/), Paper vwp‐2008‐2; at www.sustainable‐transportation.com and http://escholarship.org/uc/item/7n29n303#page‐36 24 The European Commission aims that cities be free from conventionally fuelled cars by 2050 in terms of passenger km in urban areas.
More use of adequate public
transport leads to less emission
develop
hydroca
carrying
travelled
minimiz
land use
in a high
Figure 1
Source:
Moreov
decreas
establish
infrastru
resistant
in parti
infrastru
Road: ‐
25 Transit 26 Ibidem
ment and
rbon and n
g a limited n
d than a co
e if not avoi
e planning po
h‐occupancy
.8. Greenhou
Chester and
er, with reg
ing the impa
hment of e
ucture, inclu
t to the effe
cular take i
ucture:
High temper
cooperative res
change are
itrogen oxid
number of
onventional c
d a low‐occu
olicies aimin
public trans
use gases eff
Horvath 200
gard to clim
act of transpo
effective and
uding for the
cts of extrem
into accoun
ratures may
search program
e attained,
des (NOx) em
passengers
car, hence b
upancy bus c
ng at rather c
port service2
ficiency per p
0826
mate change
ort on climat
d efficient
e various pu
me weather
t the know
cause dama
m, public transp
25
e.g. hybrid
missions com
(figure 1.8.)
bus routes a
circulation. I
compact citi25.
passenger‐m
e, this work
te change bu
urban trans
ublic transpo
events cause
wn vulnerabi
ge to road p
portation’s role
electric bu
mpared to a
) is more p
and itinerar
In this regar
es are those
mile travelled
k is not on
ut also about
sport system
ort modes, b
ed by climat
lities of the
paving (melti
in addressing g
us could he
diesel bus.
olluting per
ies should b
d, it should
e, which wou
ly about m
t adaptation
m requires
be built so t
e change. Th
e two main
ng of road su
global climate c
elp cut sign
A conventi
r passenger
be planned
be kept in m
uld enable a
itigation an
to it. In this
that the n
that it is re
he authoritie
types of t
urface),
change, March
nificantly
onal bus
mile/km
so as to
mind that
nd result
d hence
context,
necessary
asonably
es should
transport
2009
26
‐ Strong rainfall resulting in local flooding, when the capacity of the drainage systems is
exceeded to remove excess water, may cause structural damage to roads,
‐ Strong rainfall may cause erosion of embankment of road and landslides.
‐ thaw
Rail / Metro: ‐ Icing of electric tractions may cause disruption of power supply for tram, trolley or train,
‐ Extreme heat may cause track damage,
‐ Strong rainfall resulting in local flooding, when excess of drainage system capacity, may
cause structural damage to railroad,
‐ Strong rainfall may cause erosion of embankment of railroad and landslides.
In addition, since various infrastructure systems such as energy supply, flood control and transport
networks, often function as a whole or not at all, in order to avoid failures leading to potential
disasters, the design threshold – “tipping point” – should not be considered separately for the
Box 1.3. The Urban Adaptation Support Tool, European Union
The tool is part of the European Commission’s initiative of “Mayors Adapt” ‐ the Covenant of Mayors Initiative on Climate Change Adaptation. The Urban Adaptation Support Tool provides practical guidance and knowledge support to the signatories of the initiative as well as to any other interested cities, towns or stakeholders in Europe and beyond and supports urban adaptation decision‐makers, practitioners and interested stakeholders with a quick‐start step‐by‐step guidance through the adaptation planning and implementation cycles. It also facilitates easy access to in‐depth, expert information and data by providing a comprehensive up‐to‐date database of literature and information sources for each step of the urban adaptation cycle. The Urban Adaptation Support Tool is dynamic and constantly evolving, based on users' needs and feedback. It has been created through a stakeholder consultation process and aims to develop further in line with user needs. The Urban Adaptation Support Tool consists of six steps that together help users to: • explore risks and vulnerabilities to current and future climate, • identify and assess adaptation options, • develop and implement a climate change adaptation strategy and/or action plan, and • monitor its results. Under each step, several questions are listed that need to be answered in an adaptation planning and implementation process. A general summary of the issue is given for each question, followed by a quick answer and a list of links to relevant knowledge materials and tools for deeper understanding, as well as specific guidance relevant to urban areas. At the end of the list there is a link to the general Adaptation Support Tool, which provides broader relevant adaptation information not specifically targeted for application in urban areas. Source: European Climate Adaptation Platform / http://climate‐adapt.eea.europa.eu/tools/urban‐ast/step‐0‐0 /
various
system c
The pro
resilient
redunda
Flexibilit
tipping
consequ
making
redunda
1.7. C
Before t
that wer
era has
beginnin
urban, w
looks dif
continuo
driven b
to lower
27 UN Hab
Box 1
Paris ha
Bikes”).
the city
proving
made on
Vélib is
commun
widenin
decrease
emission
Source: In
infrastructur
characterisin
moted appr
t as well as r
ancy.
ty means tha
point and th
uences of an
compartme
ancy is about
Cycling and
the motoriza
re the domin
not lasted to
ng of the 20t
while the bic
fferent in d
ous to be th
by lack of aff
r income gro
bitat, Planning a
1.4. Bicy
s revolution
People pay
and they c
more popu
n these bikes
just one com
nity life in pu
g sidewalks,
e in private
ns.
stitute for Tran
re systems b
ng the interc
roach to clim
reducing its v
at adjustmen
hus be furth
n extreme w
nts so that
t spare facilit
d walking: th
ation era, it
nant forms o
oo long, as eth century ma
cycle become
developing co
he dominant
ordable and
oups27.
and design for s
cles com
nized bike sh
a low fee to
an return th
lar than ant
s.
mponent of
ublic spaces.
, and adding
e vehicle tra
nsportation and
but together
onnected sy
mate proofin
vulnerability
nts to infrast
her adapted
weather even
an infrastru
ties that com
he “facilita
was walking
of short dista
especially in
ade the car a
e predomina
ountries, in
form of mo
accessible a
sustainable urb
me back
haring with i
use the bicy
hem to any
ticipated. As
Paris’ new m
. Paris is prio
g new lands
affic by 20 p
d Development
27
with the low
stems of infr
g of infrastr
y to weather
tructure can
to the chan
nt can be ea
ucture failur
mpensate for
tors” of co‐
g and, with t
ance transpo
North Amer
a favoured fo
antly a childr
particular, in
obility . This
alternatives,
an mobility, Glo
to Paris
ts individua
ycles from on
station they
s of Novemb
mobility plan
oritizing ped
caping and
per cent an
Policy, 2013/ h
west tipping
rastructure a
ructure is ab
r extreme ev
easily be ma
nging climate
asily restore
e can be lim
r the failing o
‐modality a
the developm
rtation in th
ica the auto
orm of trans
ren toy or me
n Africa and
however is
with many p
obal report on
s, France
lized mass t
ne of the ma
y wish. “Fre
ber 2007, m
n that uses t
estrians by r
raised cross
nd a nine pe
ttp://www.veli
point of any
as a whole.
bout making
vents by com
ade to increa
e. Resilient m
ed. Compart
mited to a c
of other infra
and well‐bei
ment of safe
e developed
mobile revo
sportation w
eans for pas
Asia, where
largely not b
pedestrians a
human settlem
e
ransit system
any bicycle p
eedom bikes
more than 11
ransportatio
renovating p
swalks. Thes
er cent red
ib.paris.fr/
of the infras
it more flex
mpartmentali
ase its initial
means that
mentalizing
certain area
astructure.
ing.
e bicycle, als
d world. The
lution startin
hether urba
ss‐time. The
e walking an
by choice, bu
and cyclist b
ments 2013,
m called Vél
parking statio
” in Paris fi
1 million trip
on innovation
public square
e improvem
uction in ca
structure
xible and
izing and
design’s
negative
is about
. Finally,
o cycling
bicycling
ng at the
n or sub‐
situation
d cycling
ut rather
belonging
lib (“Freedom
ons located i
ll the street
ps have bee
n to revitaliz
es and plaza
ments led to
arbon dioxid
m
in
ts,
en
ze
s,
a
de
28
An increasing consciousness in the developed world about the value of physical exercise, energy
efficiency in transport– the bicycle being the most energy‐efficient mode of transport – and about
the need to protect the environment, made as well as continues to make people to return to
bicycling and walking for short‐distance urban travel.
The promotion of cycling and walking for everyday physical activity is a win‐win approach. It does
not only promote health but can also lead to positive environmental effects, especially if cycling and
walking replace short car trips. There is a large potential for active mobility in European urban
transport, as many trips are short and would be amenable to be undertaken on foot or by bicycle28.
Nevertheless, to attract people to cycling and walking, these types of transport have to be safe and
convenient.
The safety aspects are linked to the infrastructure, in particular, the availability of good quality
pedestrian pavements and dedicated bicycle lanes, which are separated from the motorized
transport infrastructure and the provision of safe crossings. The safety aspects can be further
associated with the protection from noise and pollution.
The convenience aspects can be associated with prioritization of walking and cycling and hence short
waiting times at intersections with the motorized infrastructure, underground passages for
motorized transport rather than for the non‐motorized one, availability of parking infrastructure for
bicycles, suitable connection to public transport stations. In addition, the visual appearance and
aesthetics of the non‐motorized infrastructure should not be underestimated.
The adequate land use planning policies favouring non‐motorized over motorized transport are a key
issue in providing safe and convenient walking and cycling types of mobility for short distance trips,
while good connections to public transport could help ensuring the intermodal use of walking or
cycling with public transport for longer distance trips.
The benefits of such approach can be substantial. Safe cycling and walking, replacing car trips, can
positively impact transport safety in terms of less vehicle crash. This can further have a positive
impact on environment, as both cycling and walking are non‐polluting forms of transportation. The
good connection of cycling and walking with public transport and the provision of services from
public transport to cyclists and walkers – spaces inside P.T. means that accommodate bicycles, no
more than ten minutes walking distance among stops etc ‐ can further improve public transport
efficiency. Thus public transport by offering integrated services to cyclists and walkers will make
more citizens using its services, stop using their private cars and therefore decrease congestion.
Last but not least, walking and cycling have a significant positive impact through increased physical
activity on the health of the population. In Austria, e.g. the modal share of cycling is 5%, with an
average length of trips of 2 km (2009). It is estimated that this level of cycling saves 412 lives every
year through regular physical activity. The corresponding average savings for Austria from this
reduced mortality are estimated to amount to €405 million per year. In England, the costs of
inactivity were estimated in 2002 to be €3–12 billion, including those to the health system, days of
absence from work and loss of income due to premature death. This excludes the contribution of
physical inactivity to overweight and obesity, whose overall cost might run to €9.6–10.8 billion per 28 THE PEP / http://www.unece.org/thepep/en/welcome.html
29
year. In Switzerland the direct treatment costs of physical inactivity are estimated at €1.1–1.5 billion
per year. Based on the mentioned examples, physical inactivity can be estimated to cost a country
about €150–300 per citizen per year29.
An important message from this consideration to cities administrations is that a return to cycling and
walking as dominant forms of transportation for short distance trips on their own or as connecting
trips to public transport network is very beneficial for the individuals and even more for the sociality.
It is also possible to achieve. This requires that cycling and walking are made safe and convenient.
This in turn requires implementation of adequate land use planning policies.
29 World Health Organization data and statistics, www.who.org
Chasitu
apter 2: Uuation in E
Urban MobECE capita
bility and Pals
Public Tran
30
nsport
31
2.1. Introduction
Sustainable urban transport has a vital role to play in contributing to sustainable development of
cities and in ensuring the well‐being of their citizens. It has to satisfy the numerous and diverse
requirements for the metropolitan mobility, including minimizing the travelling time between
various location, while at the same time it needs to internalize the externalities caused by transport.
Introducing and sustaining an effective and efficient urban transport system is a challenging task.
While there is no‐one‐size‐fits‐all approach, as cities differ due to their size, micro‐climates,
structures, degree of urbanization and wealth, degree of exposure to extreme weather conditions,
they have to introduce the solutions that would best address their local circumstances for
sustainable development and urban transport.
In this context it is interesting to review the achievements of the ECE capital cities in applying
sustainable urban transport solutions as a major component to their sustainable development.
The review looks first at the urbanization level in ECE countries and the urbanization related
perspectives for the ECE capital cities. It examines the demand for urban transport and mobility and
how it is distributed between the different transport modes. It assesses the quality of urban public
transport in terms of its accessibility and comfort. It further looks into urban traffic congestions, road
safety and environmental pollution including climate change. Also, cycling and walking as types of
non‐motorized transport as well as affordability and financing for urban public transportation are
reviewed (figure 2.1.).
The review is based on the data collected with a survey on urban transport and mobility that was
circulated to the authorities of ECE capital cities in October 2012. The survey was returned by 36
capital cities30, while four more cities31 provided more general descriptions with some data on their
urban public transport networks.
The degree to which the questions of the survey were answered by the authorities differs and hence
it was not possible to analyze every element selected for review for the group of 31 or even 35
capital cities.
In addition, data such as on wage level or urban road crash injuries and fatalities or air pollution or
climate change have been used from other sources, including such as ECE own statistical database,
European Environment Agency database, United Nations Statistical Division database. Yet some
data, like e.g. such necessary to examine the demand for motorized and non‐motorized transport
were estimated based on modal spilt information available for many of the cities of the European
Union region32.
30 Armenia‐Yerevan, Azerbaijan‐Baku, Belarus‐Minsk, Belgium‐Brussels, Bulgaria‐Sofia, Canada‐Ottawa, Croatia‐Zagreb, Cyprus‐Nicosia, Czech Republic‐Pragha, Estonia‐Tallinn, Georgia‐Tbilisi, Greece‐Athens, Hungary‐Budapest, Iceland‐Reykjavik, Ireland‐Dublin, Italy‐Rome, Kazakhstan‐Astana, Latvia‐Riga, Lithuania‐Vilnius, Republic of Moldova‐Chisinau, Netherlands‐Amsterdam, Norway‐Oslo, Poland‐Warsaw, Romania‐Bucharest, Russian Federation‐Moscow, Serbia‐Belgrade, Slovakia‐Bratislava, Slovenia‐Ljubljana, Switzerland‐Bern, Turkey‐Ankara and United Kingdom‐London
31 Austria‐Vienna, France‐Paris, Germany‐Berlin, Tajikistan‐Dushanbe,
32 Data on modal split available from http://epomm.eu/tems/cities.phtml
Furtherm
respond
(decima
Figure 2.1
Source:
more, the a
dents. No fur
l errors).
. Sustainable
ECE Transpo
nalysis trust
rther validat
e urban mob
ort Division
ts the correc
ion process
bility and pub
32
ctness and v
has been im
blic transport
validity of th
mplemented
t pillars
he data pro
other than t
ovided by th
technical co
e survey
rrections
F
S
W
2.2. U
2.2.1. U
The wor
century
Figure 2.3. Ain
Source: ECE T
World Urban
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1950
Population (000s)
Urbanizatio
Urbanization
rld urban po
the world u
Figure 2.2.2050
Source: UN
ggregated un 36 ECE mem
Transport Di
nization Prosp
1975
Urban populatio
on level and
n level
opulation is
rban popula
Global Urba
NDESA, World
urban and rurmber States,
vision based
pects: The 20
2000
n Rural po
d demand fo
expected to
tion will like
an and rural
d Urbanizati
ral populatio1950‐2025
d on data from
011 Revision
0 202
opulation
33
or urban tra
o increase su
ly be the siz
Essen
grow
the
popu
declin
the c
and a
mode
Majo
years
differ
popu
been
only
durin
deve
been
populations
ion Prospects
ons
m
n
25
ansport and
ubstantially
e of the curr
ntially, the
wth will be co
less deve
ulation is ex
ne slightly.
changes, res
a decrease in
erate.
or disparities
s in the lev
rent develop
ulation in th
seeing a st
reach the
ng the nex
loped regio
exceeding t
by developm
s: The 2011 R
d mobility i
over the ne
rent total po
lion’s shar
oncentrated
eloped regi
xpected, at
In the more
spectively a
n rural popu
s have been
vel of urba
pment grou
he less dev
trong increas
level of the
xt five yea
ons, the urb
the rural one
ment group,
Revision
in ECE capit
ext decades.
opulation (fig
re of the e
in the urban
ions, whos
the same
e developed
n increase
lations will b
n existing fo
nization am
ps. While th
veloped regi
se since 198
eir rural po
ars. For th
ban populat
e already sin
1950‐
tals
By mid‐
gure 2.2).
expected
n areas of
se rural
time, to
d regions
in urban
be rather
or many
mong the
he urban
ions has
80, it will
opulation
he more
tion has
nce 1950
S
(figure 2
Taking a
been mu
show un
The tren
situation
populou
in numb
and only
years, it
widenin
most po
Figure 2.4. U
Source: ECE
33 The tren
2.2.) and the
a look at the
uch steeper
ninterrupted
nds change,
n is mainly
us compared
ber the rural
y in mid‐198
has been re
g in South‐E
opulous coun
Urban and ru
Transport Di
nd is based on a
difference h
e situation in
over years c
continuatio
, however, i
presenting
to the othe
population i
0 in South E
elatively flat
Eastern Euro
ntries, like e.g
ral populatio
ivision based
aggregation of
has been con
n the ECE reg
compared to
n since 1950
if the typica
the trend i
r three sub r
n late 1950
astern Europ
over the las
ope. The situ
g. the South‐
ons aggregat
d on data fro
data for 36 ECE
34
ntinuously in
gion (figure
the decline
0.
al ECE sub r
n Western
regions. The
in Central an
pe. While the
t two decad
ation in the
‐Eastern Eur
ted per ECE s
om World Urb
E countries
creasing.
2.3.)33, the i
in the rural
regions are
Europe and
latter ones
nd Eastern Eu
e difference
es in the firs
sub regions
rope and Tur
sub regions,
banization P
ncrease in u
population.
analyzed (f
North Ame
saw urban p
urope, Cauca
was widenin
st two sub re
s is neverthe
rkey.
1950‐2025
Prospects: Th
urban popula
Both of thes
igure 2.4.).
erica, which
population e
asus and Cen
ng in the sub
egions but co
eless impact
e 2011 Revis
ation has
se trends
The ECE
is most
xceeding
ntral Asia
bsequent
ontinued
ed by its
sion
35
Therefore, it is interesting to look at the trends in various countries separately (figure 2.5.).
Figure 2.5. Urban and rural populations in 36 ECE member States, 1990‐2020
Source: ECE Transport Division based on data from World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision
Tota l Urban Rura l 1990 2010
Armenia 2.07 1.78
Azerbai jan 1.16 1.15
Belarus 1.94 2.94
Georgia 1.22 1.12
Kazakhstan 1.29 1.16
Moldova 0.88 0.88
Russ ian Federation 2.76 2.80
Tajikis tan 0.46 0.36
Bulgaria 1.97 2.64
Croatia 1.18 1.36
Romania 1.14 1.12
Serbia 1.02 1.27
Turkey 1.45 2.39
Cyprus 2.01 2.37
Czech Republ i c 3.04 2.77
Estonia 2.46 2.27
Hungary 1.93 2.22
Latvia 2.25 2.10
Li thuania 2.09 2.03
Poland 1.58 1.56
Slovakia 1.30 1.21
Slovenia 1.02 1.00
Austria 1.92 2.07
Belgium 26.64 38.24
Canada 3.27 4.14
Denmark 5.60 6.57
France 2.85 5.77
Germany 2.72 2.82
Greece 1.43 1.58
Iceland 9.63 15.00
Ireland 1.32 1.62
Ita ly 2.01 2.15
Netherlands 2.19 4.80
Norway 2.57 3.79
Switzerland 2.73 2.79
United Kingdom 3.57 3.88
Central Europe
Western Europe
and
North America
Population change1990‐2020, 1990=100 Urban to RuralRegion
Eastern Europe, Caucasus
and Central A
sia
South‐Eastern
Europe
Country
36
Looking at the time period between 1990 and 2020, the majority of countries from the Eastern
Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia and from South Eastern Europe and Turkey, as well as nearly half
the countries from Central Europe have been dropping in total population. Most of these countries
have been seeing decreases in both rural and urban population, with the latter one being even
steeper, which resulted in lower rates of urbanization in 2010 compared with 1990. The explanation
for such a development can be the migration of population related with the collapse of the
communist system and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the early 1990, and in later years,
for countries that joined the European Union, the job migration to Western Europe and for the
Eastern European and Central Asian countries, the job migration to Russian cities. Usually, the urban
population is considered less tied to the ground, which can explain its stronger migration.
There is also a number of countries in these regions, in which the increase in rural population was
stronger than in urban population and hence the urbanization rate decreased. Such a development
may be explained by urban population, in particular from the bigger cities, moving for living to the
vicinities of the cities, which often are registered as rural areas.
In the case of the Western European countries the total population is increasing mainly as a result of
growth in urban population. In a number of cases also the rural population’s growth has been
positive. In each case, however, the urbanization rate further increased between 1990 and 2010.
While there are different trends in the 36 ECE countries under review, it needs to be noted that in all
but two cases (Republic of Moldova and Tajikistan) the urban population exceeds that one in rural
areas (figure 2.6.). In more than two third of cases the urban population was in 2010 at least 50%
higher with the most extreme situation in Belgium and Iceland, where the urban population was
respectively 38 and 15 times higher than rural population, which makes more than 90% of these
countries total population living in areas with urban status.
Figure 2
Source: E Furtherm
relativel
1990 to
some co
The m
populati
(Yerevan
well abo
more ce
attractin
other en
Switzerl
there ar
2.6. Relation
ECE Transpo
more, in a n
y high urban
2010, e.g. in
ountries from
metropolitan
ion (figure 2
n, Tbilisi, Rey
ove 10% (Par
entralized a
ng the vario
nd are coun
and, where
re other citie
between urb
rt Division b
number of c
nization rate
n France, Ice
m the other s
population
2.7.). For sm
ykjavik, Ljubl
ris and Londo
country is
ous enterpris
ntries with m
the populat
s with the ro
ban and rura
based on dat
countries, in
es, urban pop
eland, the Ne
sub regions s
particularly
maller count
ljana or Dush
on) or aroun
with the ca
ses, while the
more decent
ion of the c
ole of major
37
al population
ta from Worl
particular W
pulation has
etherlands o
such as Belar
in capitals
tries, the sh
hanbe). For s
nd 10% (War
apital city b
e jobs they c
tralized or f
apitals is un
business or i
n in 36 ECE co
ld Urbanizati
Western Eur
s increased s
r Norway. Si
rus, Bulgaria
takes a maj
hare of urba
some bigger
rsaw and Mo
being the m
create attrac
federal struc
der 6% of th
industrial hu
ountries
ion Prospects
ropean ones
substantially
imilar develo
or Turkey.
or share in
an inhabitan
countries th
oscow). The r
ajor busines
ct workers to
ctures, like C
he urban po
ubs.
s: The 2011 R
s, which had
y between th
opment took
the countrie
nts can exce
hat share ma
rate is the hi
ss and indu
o move ther
Canada, Ger
opulation, an
Revision
d already
he period
k place in
es urban
eed 50%
y be also
igher the
stry hub
re. At the
rmany or
nd where
Figure 2
Source: Moreov
expecte
product
under re
Central
Central
2.8.).
If in the
rate the
regions
that the
income
outputs
rural po
employe
between
2.7. Total, ur
ECE Transpo
er, since ur
d that coun
(GDP). This
eview and i
Asia sub‐reg
and South‐E
group of sam
en correlation
rather than
e developed
level which
while living
opulation us
ed or self‐em
n low urbani
rban and cap
ort Division b
ban areas a
ntries with
s correlation
t is even m
gions. Howe
Eastern Euro
mple countri
n seems to e
in the devel
regions pos
allows them
in relatively
sually has n
mployed in re
zation rate a
pital populati
based on da
are consider
higher urba
n is indeed v
ore visible f
ever, there i
pe or Weste
ies belong su
exist. The co
oped ones, s
ssess the ne
m to work in
y distant rura
no opportun
elatively low
and low econ
38
ion in 36 ECE
ta from Wor
red to be th
nization rat
visible when
for the coun
s no correla
ern Europe a
uch with rela
rrelation fin
such as the E
ecessary infr
the agglom
al areas or s
nities for co
productivity
nomic develo
E member co
rld Urbanizat
he motors fo
tes achieve
n putting to
ntries of the
ation when
and Turkey,
atively low le
ds hence ap
ECE region. T
rastructure a
erations tha
maller town
ommuting to
y agriculture
opment can
ountries, 201
tion Prospec
or economic
higher leve
gether all th
e Eastern Eu
putting toge
as well as N
evel of GDP a
plication mo
This can be e
and the pop
at produce th
ns. In the dev
o urban are
activities, h
be rather str
1
ts: The 2011
c developme
el of gross d
he 36 ECE c
urope, Cauca
ether countr
North Americ
and low urba
ore in the de
explained by
pulation ach
he highest e
veloping reg
eas for wor
ence, the co
rong there.
Revision
ent, it is
domestic
countries
asus and
ries from
ca (figure
anization
eveloping
y the fact
ieved an
economic
ions, the
k and is
orrelation
Figure 2.8. C
Source: ECE
For the
issue of
successf
able to a
internat
other ha
being.
An effe
minimiz
Correlation b
E Transport D
ECE countri
f whether or
fully they are
achieve this
tional levels
and, they ca
ctive and s
ing the disec
between urb
Division
ies, whose u
r not they w
e able to min
goal, on the
in attracting
n be attract
sustainable
conomies rel
banization ra
urbanization
will develop
nimize diseco
one hand, t
g new and m
tive places fo
urban trans
lated to mar
39
te and the le
rate, apart
further and
onomies in o
heir agglome
maintaining
or living whi
sport system
kets accessib
evel of GDP p
from a few
d in a sustai
operation of
erations can
existing bus
ch offer the
m and mob
bility within
per capita, 2
exceptions,
inable way w
their agglom
stay compe
inesses that
population
ility play an
agglomeratio
011
is already h
will depend
merations. If
titive at nati
t create jobs
high degree
n important
ons.
high, the
on how
they are
ional and
s. On the
e of well‐
t role in
2.2.2. D
The ECE
populati
wealth,
mention
system a
The dem
(Ljubljan
the capi
the seco
capitals
Figure 2.9. D
Source: ECEFor the
equal o
Reykjavi
there is
transpor
Demand for
E capital agg
ion or the ge
etc. Theref
ned above to
and mobility
mand for mo
na) to 1300 t
ital agglome
ond case mo
still has to b
Demand for
E Transport Dmajority of t
r in favor o
ik) where th
no correlat
rt in the mor
urban tran
glomerations
eographical a
fore, the an
o provide a m
y in ECE capit
otorized tra
trips or more
ration make
ore than 3 tr
be born in m
urban transp
Division the ECE capit
f public tran
he private m
tion confirm
re populous
sport and m
s vary amon
area they co
nalysis made
more clear a
tals, rather th
nsport range
e (Paris) (figu
es as few as
rips are mad
ind. .
port: public a
tals, the dem
nsport (figur
otorized tra
ming higher
and dense c
40
mobility in E
ng each oth
ver and the
e needs to
and relative p
han consider
es from 200
ure 2.9.). The
one trip eve
de every day
and motorize
mand for mo
re 2.10.). Th
nsport dom
demand for
apitals.
ECE capitals
her at every
resulting de
be put in r
picture of th
ring absolute
0 trips per c
e first value
ery second d
y. However t
ed private tra
otorized pub
here are how
inates. At th
r public tran
y level, whet
nsity, histor
relation to t
he situation w
e numbers.
capital capita
means that
ay througho
the differenc
ansport in EC
lic and priva
wever also c
he same tim
nsport versu
ther the siz
ical developm
those chara
with urban t
a per annum
an average c
out the year,
ce in size of
CE 30 capital
te transport
capitals (Ott
e, as the da
us private m
e of the
ments or
cteristics
transport
m or less
citizen of
while in
f the two
ls, 2011
is either
awa and
ta show,
motorized
Figur
re 2.10. Relacapidens
tion betweenitals, as per ssity(3)
n rides with usize of capita
41
urban publical area (1), siz
c and privateize of the cap
e motorized tpital populat
transport in 2tion (2) and c
27 ECE capital
With reg
50 trips
it means
the seco
Source
gard to the d
per capital c
s that an ave
ond case the
e: ECE Transp
demand for
capita per an
erage citizen
demand rea
port Division
urban public
nnum (Reykj
uses urban
aches almost
42
c transport in
avik) to mor
public trans
t 2 trips per d
n ECE capita
re than 650 t
port once ev
day.
ls, it ranges
trips (Budape
very week du
from as few
est). In the f
uring a year,
as some
first case,
, while in
Figure 2.11.
Source: ECE
Figure 2.12.p
Source: ECE
. Demand for
E Transport D
Share of puprovision of s
E
r urban publ
Division
blic transporservice in 30
lic transport,
rt modes in tECE capitals
43
per mode of
the s, 2011
f transport, i
More tha
sample r
transport
trip per d
capital cit
may be e
several ca
not availa
transport
result co
performan
transport
With rega
modal spli
bus servic
in 30 ECE cap
an half of
reach the
at a level o
day during
tizens (figur
even better
apitals data
able for all t
networks
onfirms a
nce of the
networks pr
ard to urba
it, the dema
ce accountin
pitals, 2011
the capitals
use of the
of nearly or
a year per
e 2.11.). Th
in reality s
on passenge
the modes o
in operatio
rather su
many urba
roviders.
an public t
nd is mainly
g for 50 per
s in the
e public
above 1
average
his result
since for
ers were
of public
on. The
uccessful
n public
transport
with the
r cent of
44
all the passenger trips (figure 2.12.). The bus is the most popular mode at the aggregated ECE level
because this is the mode of public transport offered in each ECE capital under review and it has the
highest network length of all the modes. There are, however, cases of capitals where other modes
are more in demand e.g. metro (Berlin, Brussels, Moscow or Prague), tram (Amsterdam, Bern or
Zagreb), light train (Paris) or other modes such as minibus service (Ankara or Tbilisi), measured in the
actual number of passengers.
The demand for urban transport can vary over years for different reasons. Due to the fact, however,
that urban population, and especially that in capital cities, is expected to grow, a public transport
network losing demand might be an issue of concern, in particular, if the demand is at relatively low
level compared to private motorized transport.
Figure 2.13. Changes in use of urban public transport modes between 2009 and 2011 in 26 ECE capitals
Source: ECE Transport Division In the ECE capitals (figure 2.13), there are cases where public transport has been losing passengers
in the sample period 2009‐2011. While this is a too short period for drawing meaningful conclusions,
City Bus Trolley Tram Metro Other All means
Baku
Minsk
Brussels
Sofia
Ottawa
Zagreb
Pragha
Ta l l inn
Paris
Tbi l i s i
Athens
Budapest
Reykjavik
Rome
Astana
Riga
Vi lnius
Os lo
Warsaw
Bucharest
Moscow
Belgrade
Bratis lava
Ljubl jana
Bern
Ankara
the dem
should t
decline i
from the
data ha
backgro
Furtherm
carefully
tram or
a public
might be
Figure 2
Source:reality s Finally, i
public t
populati
mand levels
then follow t
in demand fo
e ECE capita
ave not bee
und indicatin
more, cases
y watched. S
metro capac
transport m
e of concern
2.14. Demancountry
ECE Transposince the pas
interesting r
ransport ver
ion of the ca
should be
to reverse th
or all public
als that prov
en provided
ng the transp
, where cer
Such can be a
city, as part
mode would
and need to
d for urban py level, 2011
ort Division, ssenger volum
esults are sh
rsus annual
apitals (figur
carefully wa
he negative
transport m
vided passen
for all the
port service
rtain modes
a controlled
of an urban
lose deman
o be tackled.
public transp
For a numbmes have no
hown throug
average wa
re 2.14). This
45
atched, and
trends. From
odes can be
ger data. At
transport
provision wi
s gain while
undertaking
public trans
nd to private
port in ECE ca
er of ECE caot been repor
gh a compilat
age at the c
s compilatio
the causes
m the three
noticed in A
t the same t
modes (abs
ith the releva
e the other
g when e.g. a
sport infrastr
e motorized
apitals in rel
pital cities thrted for all th
tion of ECE c
ountry level
n discards th
for decline
years obser
Athens, Pragu
ime, for Rom
sence of spa
ant mode).
loose dema
a bus line ca
ructure deve
transport m
lation to ave
he demand lhe modes
capitals as pe
l and presen
he equation
s identified.
rvation, a co
ue, Rome an
me and Zagr
arklines on
and, should
apacity is rep
elopment. If
odes, such a
rage annual
level is highe
er demand f
nting the siz
: ‘high incom
. Actions
ntinuous
d Zagreb
reb, such
a green
be also
placed by
however
a change
wage at
er in
for urban
ze of the
me = low
46
public transport use’, as it shows that a relatively small capital city with a high level of income (Bern)
can achieve higher demand for public transport use per capita than a much more populous capital
where the population disposes of comparatively lower income (Ankara or Athens). It shows
furthermore that capital cities of similar population and comparable income can vary substantially in
the level of demand for urban public transport. The next sections analyze therefore the various
features of public transport and its quality as well as the available infrastructure that may help to
understand better the different levels of public transport demand in the various ECE capitals.
2.3. Urban public transport accessibility, comfort and urban traffic congestion
2.3.1. Urban public transport accessibility
The demand for urban public transport service should be proportional to the accessibility it provides:
better accessibility should translate into higher demand. The challenge is however that accessibility
is not only about connecting the various A and B but also doing it with satisfactory ride times and at
adequate frequency while offering sufficient places in the vehicles. Therefore, there is a need for a
rather good public transport network design with preferably various mode options interconnected
with each other.
To this end, public transport accessibility is assessed in terms of options and capacity offered by the
network. The latter is then assessed with regard to the length of the public transport network,
number of places both sitting and standing for passengers, number of stations in the network and
circulation frequency. Also the speed, at which the various modes travel, is reviewed. There are no
data unfortunately to assess the interconnectivity or reliability of the network.
With regard to the options, ECE capital cities offer from one to several options of public transport
modes. The basic mode of transport, as already mentioned, is bus. The other major one can be
trolley, tram, metro, light or urban train. There are also other modes, which usually carry far less
passenger volumes compared to the major ones, apart from a few cases mentioned earlier.
With a few exceptions, the larger the capital city especially in terms of population but also the
geographical size, the more urban public transport options it offers (figure 2.15.).
Figu
Sou This rela
at least
one cap
ure 2.15. Nu
urce: ECE Tra
ation is conf
five options
pital (Baku)
mber of urba
ansport Divisi
irmed in the
of urban pu
offer minim
an public tra
ion
e ECE region
ublic transpo
mum four op
47
ansport optio
. The capital
rt modes. Th
ptions. The d
ons in 33 ECE
l cities above
hose above 1
difference in
E capitals, 20
e 2.5 million
1.5 million in
n options p
011
n inhabitants
nhabitants ex
rovided is e
s offer all
xcept for
especially
visible in
whereas
The com
especial
At the s
capacity
Fi
Figure 2.1
Source: E
n cities below
s others prov
mpilation of
ly if peer citi
ame time, a
y that is prov
igure 2.17. Lemd
16. Public travolumes, 2
CE
w 1 million i
vide four (Br
the data sho
ies offering m
s already me
vided with th
ength of urbmetropolitandensity, 27 ca
ansport optio2011
nhabitants.
atislava, Riga
ows that the
more option
entioned, th
em.
an public tra area and itsapitals, 2011
ons versus pa
48
Certain capit
a) or even fiv
e availability
s do reach h
e issue is no
ansport netws population,1
assager
tals (Astana,
ve (Bern) var
y of options
tha
vol
tran
cas
Bel
res
to
cap
opt
the
ach
dem
wh
ava
wo
for
intr
be
igher deman
ot just about
work in relatio, capitals gro
, Ljubljana) o
rious public t
may or may
t impacts
umes carrie
nsport (figu
es (Baku wi
grade with
ults are ver
public tran
pita. In other
tion and Riga
e capital city
hieves highe
mand. Ther
ere bus se
ailable option
uld be to in
public
roduction of
worth a rel
nd for public
the options
on to the sizeouped by the
offer only bu
transport mo
y not be an
s the p
ed with the
ure 2.16.).
ith two opt
four optio
ry similar in
nsport dem
r (Ljubljana w
a with four
y with more
er public t
refore, for
ervice is t
n and the po
ncrease the
transport
a second m
evant consid
transport.
offered but
e of the eir population
us service
odes.
element
assenger
e public
In some
ions and
ons) the
relation
and per
with one
options),
e options
transport
a city
he only
olicy goal
demand
t, the
ode may
deration,
t also the
n
Sou In term
transpor
other pu
disperse
capitals
for both
Another
differen
use (Ber
passeng
Looking
have rel
higher p
transpor
In term
differen
can be d
kilomete
similar
transpor
that on
or recre
of the p
Figure
Sourc
urce: ECE Tra
s of the len
rt capacity, c
ublic transpo
ed capitals sc
with the den
h measureme
r interesting
ces between
rlin, Brussels
ger volumes
then at the
latively simil
public trans
rt network.
s of the nu
ces between
detected in t
er. The cities
results for
rt stations is
one hand wo
ation places
ublic transpo
2.18. Lengthpassen
ce: ECE
ansport Divisi
ngth of the
capital cities
ort capacity e
core better p
nsity betwee
ents (figure 2
g observatio
n the various
s, Moscow) h
(Athens, W
example br
ar length of
sport deman
umber of sta
n number of
the capital ci
s with the de
both measu
not a guara
ould allow th
and, on the
ort modes.
h of the publnger volume
ion
network, a
with higher
elements are
per 1000 po
en 900 to 1,6
2.17.).
n is that in
s cities. For t
have a relati
arsaw). This
rought under
f network pe
nd, this can
ations of th
f stations m
ities with the
ensity betwe
urements. A
ntee for a hi
he citizens to
other hand,
lic transport es, 2011
49
as well as w
population
e measured
pulation. Fo
600 inhabitan
n every den
the highest d
ively shorter
s may provid
r the option
er both meas
n speak in f
e urban pu
easured per
e population
en 900 and 1
At the same
igher deman
o find a stati
, would not d
network vers
with other e
density achi
per capital s
r the length,
nts per squa
sity sample
density samp
r network th
de the expla
Mo
sho
ach
tra
The
sec
ver
inte
wh
len
sec
pop
be
hig
car
can
of
s analysis (Lj
surements. R
favor of a
blic transpo
r square kilo
n density abo
1,300 inhabi
time, a re
nd. A right nu
on in a vicin
delay the tra
sus
elements ass
eve better sc
square kilom
, it is interes
re kilometer
group ther
ple group, ci
han cities wit
anation why
oscow) po
orter public
hieve relati
nsport dem
e metro case
cond densit
rsus Tbilisi)
eresting cas
hich scores
ngth per sq
cond high
pulation. Th
explained
ghest volume
rried with m
n have the m
all the pub
jubljana ver
Rememberin
more optio
ort network
ometer and
ove 2,500 in
tants per sq
latively high
umber of sta
ity of their w
ansfers due t
sessed unde
cores if the l
meter while t
sting to note
r reach simila
re are relat
ities with hig
th bus domi
y some cities
ossessing r
transport
ively higher
mand (figure
e is also visib
ty sample
. Furtherm
se is that o
highest in t
uare kilome
hest per
his phenome
by the fa
es of passen
inibus servic
most flexible
lic transport
sus Riga), bo
ng that Riga
ns‐diversifie
(figure 2.19
per 1000 po
habitants pe
uare kilomet
h network o
ations should
work, living, s
to too freque
er public
length or
the more
that the
ar results
ively big
gh metro
nating in
s (Berlin,
relatively
network
r public
e 2.18.).
ble in the
(Prague
more, an
of Tbilisi,
terms of
eter and
1000
enon can
act that
ngers are
ce, which
network
t modes.
oth cities
achieves
ed public
9.), large
opulation
er square
ter reach
of public
d be such
shopping
ent stops
As far a
there ar
densest
compare
Oslo). In
interval
120 plac
calculate
Figu
So
as total capa
re relatively l
cities (figur
ed to per 10
n term of pl
of 40 to alm
ces. Hence,
ed for at leas
ure 2.19. Numsizepop
ource: ECE Tr
acity of the
large differe
re 2.20.). Th
000 populat
lace capacity
most 300 plac
in the majo
st 10 per cen
mber of statie of the metrpulation densi
ransport Divi
network ( p
nces betwee
hese are mu
tion. The dif
y per 1000
ces per 1000
ority of case
nt of the met
ions of urbanropolitan areity) 2011
ision
50
population a
en the cities,
uch more vis
fference can
population,
population,
es the total
tropolitan po
n public tranea and its po
nd size of M
in particula
sible when
n be as muc
the variatio
with the me
capacity of
opulation.
sport netwoopulation( cap
Metropolitan
r in the samp
measured p
h as 175 tim
n is more fl
ean of some
the public t
rk in relationpitals grouped
n area )is co
ple of the po
per square k
mes (Brusse
lat and is w
130 and a m
transport ne
n to the d by their
ncerned,
opulation
kilometer
ls versus
ithin the
median of
etwork is
Figu
So At the s
achievin
The tota
an idea
the day.
and half
cities. In
number
bus serv
Ottawa,
ure 2.20. Placthepop
ource: ECE Tr
same time, a
ng higher dem
al place capa
how much o
. Looking at
f a bus for
n general, c
of circulatin
vice is the on
Tallinn, War
ce capacity oe metropolitapulation densi
ransport Divi
as for the n
mand for the
acity is closel
of the total p
the bus serv
1000 popula
ities that of
ng buses dur
nly (Astana,
rsaw) score h
of urban puban area and ity) 2011
ision
number of st
e public trans
ly related to
lace capacity
vice (figure 2
ation. As in
ffer relativel
ring the pea
Reykjavik) o
higher in this
51
blic transportits populatio
tations, high
sport service
frequency o
y is made av
2.21.), on av
other cases
ly high tota
ak hours. It s
or a dominat
s compilatio
t network in on( capitals gr
h total capac
e.
of service du
ailable durin
verage there
s, relatively
l place capa
should be no
ting public t
n.
relation to throuped by the
city itself is
ring peak ho
ng the highes
is one bus p
large differe
acity have a
oted, howev
ransport ser
he size of eir
not a guara
ours, hence p
st demand p
per square k
ences exist
lso a relativ
ver, that citie
rvice (Belgra
antee for
providing
eriods of
kilometer
between
vely high
es where
de, Oslo,
Figu
Sou When it
satisfact
private c
The ave
offer (fig
and in t
average
average
ure 2.21. Busof pop
urce: ECE Tra
t comes to t
tory level for
car.
rage speed v
gure 2.22.). I
two cases (B
speed may
speeds driv
s frequency, the metropopulation dens
ansport Divisi
the speed w
r the passeng
varies largel
In quite a nu
Bucharest an
keep car driv
ing their cars
number of bolitan area anity) 2011
ion
with which p
gers so that
y between t
umber of cap
d Ljubljana)
vers attache
s even in con
52
buses circulatnd its popula
public transp
they would
the various E
pitals buses t
even below
d to their ca
ngested citie
ting in peak ation ( capital
port carries p
choose publ
ECE capitals
travel with a
w 15 km/h, w
ars, as they a
es.
hours in relals grouped by
passengers,
ic transport
for the sam
an average s
which is rath
re usually ab
ation to the sy their
such should
modes rathe
e type of mo
peed below
her slow. Su
ble to achiev
size
d be at a
er than a
ode they
20 km/h
ch a low
ve similar
Fig
S
2.3.2. U
Whethe
Comfort
intellige
purchas
gure 2.22. Spa
Source: ECE T
Urban public
r or not a pe
t can be asse
nt transport
ing tickets.
peed of the mnd metro) in
Transport Di
c transport
erson becom
essed with p
t system (IT
main public tn selected EC
ivision
comfort
mes a user of
proxies in te
TS) for pass
transports mE capitals
53
public trans
erms of aver
senger infor
odes (bus, tr Tra
tha
cas
tra
spe
tim
ave
km
Mo
Me
tra
ECE
ser
spe
how
Rom
this
A
tra
Lju
dec
tra
port can dep
rage age of t
mation and
ram ams achieve
an buses. T
ses (Athens
ms travel w
eed than 20
me, there are
erage speed
/h (Belg
oscow, Sofia
etro is th
nsport mode
E capital c
vice, it trav
eed of over
wever two
me) where m
s average sp
low averag
nsport m
bljana) may
creasing the
nsport (figur
pend on com
transport ve
of the num
yet a lowe
There are o
and Dublin
with higher
0km/h. At th
e several ca
d falling be
grade, Bu
and Zagreb)
he fastest
e, and in ma
cities offer
vels with an
30 km/h. T
cases (Brus
metro does n
eed level.
ge speed o
modes, (Bu
y be a ca
e demand fo
re 2.13.).
mfort that it p
ehicles, availa
mber of opt
er speed
only two
n) where
average
he same
ases with
elow 15
ucharest,
.
public
ajority of
ing this
average
here are
sels and
not reach
of public
ucharest,
ause for
or public
provides.
ability of
tions for
For the
vehicles
passeng
For all th
an incre
Vilnius).
increasin
account
particula
In terms
is provid
that rep
Taking a
options,
provided
ITS may
even be
launchin
Figure 2.23
Source: E
first indicato
are equipp
gers for the m
he cities wit
easing trend
Hence, wh
ng age of the
in cases of
ar lines rathe
s of ITS availa
ded for all or
ported absen
as an examp
, and compa
d with either
y have a pos
etter proven
ng, which ma
3. Bus avera
ECE Transpor
or – age of b
ped with tec
majority of tr
h the younge
(figure 2.13
ile the data
e fleet and a
a persisting
er than for th
ability for pa
r almost all p
nce of ITS fo
ple Riga tha
ring to its pe
r three of th
sitive impact
if a positive
ay be availab
ge age in 25
rt Division
buses – it ca
hnology and
rips in nearly
est fleet, exc
.), though su
a available d
a decreasing
decrease in
he whole bu
assenger info
public transpo
r passenger
t does not
eer capital ci
ree (Tallinn)
t on increasi
e change in
ble in a numb
5 capitals, 20
54
an be applie
d systems th
y all the capit
cept for one
uch had bee
do not allow
demand for
passenger d
s network.
ormation, in
ort modes (f
information
provide ITS
ities in the B
) or two of th
ng the dem
demand wo
ber of cities.
011
d in this con
hat increase
tals.
case (Bucha
en also for c
w to establis
r service, the
demand, whi
the majority
figure 2.24.).
n at all (Chisi
with any of
Baltic states (
hree (Vilnius
and (figure
ould be show
ntext assumi
the passen
them
cond
vehic
In m
cities
the b
youn
cases
avera
below
nearl
the
years
in thi
air‐co
becam
produ
that,
arest) the pa
ities with an
sh any corre
e aging fleet
ich often ma
y of the capit
There have
inau, Nicosia
f its four pu
(Tallinn and
s) public tran
2.25.). This
wn in a city
ing that mor
ger comfort
m such
ition, l
cle, etc.
most of the
s that provid
bus fleet is r
g with 80 pe
s having a fl
age age aro
w 10 yea
y 50 per cen
average ag
s (figure 2.23
is period a lo
onditioned
me a
uct, it is e
such buse
ssenger num
n older fleet
elation betw
should be ta
ay be more v
tal cities suc
been only fo
a, Riga and Y
ublic transpo
Vilnius), whe
nsport mode
correlation
before and
re recent
t, among
as air
low‐floor
e capital
ded data,
relatively
er cent of
eet with
ound or
ars and
nt below
ge of 6
3.). Since
ow‐floor,
bus
standard
expected
es carry
mber had
(Astana,
ween the
aken into
visible on
h system
our cities
Yerevan).
ort mode
ere ITS is
options,
could be
after ITS
Figu
Sourc
The maj
options
easy acc
Figure 2.25.
Source: EC
ure 2.24. Avaopt
ce: ECE
jority of EC
for ticket pu
cessibility of
Availability passenger v
CE Transport
ailability of ITtions in 29 EC
E capital cit
urchase on a
tickets to pa
of ITS for pavolumes, 201
Division
TS for passenCE capitals, 2
ties, for who
average for a
assengers.
assenger info11
55
nger informa2011
om data are
all the transp
ormation vers
ation in urban
Fu
th
hig
inf
is,
pr
bo
sta
ho
re
Th
in
op
wh
inc
pu
of
e available,
port modes
sus
n public tran
urthermore,
e impact ma
gher the m
formation sy
i.e. real
rovided in t
oth in the v
ations or
owever not
gard to pres
he comfort c
terms of
pportunities
here limite
convenient
urchase may
f users of the
offers minim
(figure 2.26.
nsport
it is expec
ay potentiall
more advan
ystem for p
time info
he vehicles
vehicles and
stops. Da
t available
sent any corr
an be also e
f the num
for ticket p
ed accessib
options fo
y reduce the
e public trans
mum three
.), which sug
ted that
ly be the
nced the
assenger
ormation
only, or
d at the
ata are
in this
relation.
evaluated
mber of
purchase,
bility or
or ticket
number
sport.
or more
ggests an
Figu
201
Fig
So
favorite
case, pro
be quite
website
ure 2.27. Ava
1
ure 2.26. Avaav
ource: ECE
options, it is
ovided that
e expensive
and mobile
ailability of o
ailability of overage numb
s less popula
ticket machi
for launchin
services, alre
ptions for ur
options for uer of options
ar for bus, w
ines should b
g, in particu
eady availab
rban public tr
rban public ts for all mode
56
whose netwo
be available
ular in comp
ble in a few c
ransport tick
transport tices, 29 capita
ork has many
at the majo
arison with
capital cities.
ket purchase,
ket purchaseals, 2011
The
opt
sub
the
tra
2.2
ma
tro
me
can
pur
driv
cer
wo
sen
han
tick
me
am
y more stops
rity of stops,
more mode
, for bus, tro
e, e availabi
tions does n
bstantially
e various
nsport mode
7.). Usually,
in modes l
lley, tram
etro, the d
n be about t
rchase wit
ver, whic
rtain modes
uld not ma
nse. On th
nd while p
ket machine
etro statio
ong one of t
s. In the bus
, such solutio
rn ways like
olley, tram or
lity of
not differ
between
public
es (figure
, for the
like bus,
m and
ifference
he ticket
th the
ch for
(metro)
ke much
e other
providing
es at the
ons is
the most
network
on might
through
r metro tickeets,
Sou
Figur
Sou
rce: ECE
compilat
ticket pu
e 2.28. Num2011
rce: ECE Tran
tion of seve
urchase optio
ber of ticket 1
nsport Divisi
eral capital c
ons (figure 2
purchase op
ion
ities shows,
2.28.), among
ptions versus
57
at the same
g them ticke
s passenger v
e time, that
t purchase t
volumes,
While t
options
may hav
level of
transport
visible a
the sam
can be
Buchares
considere
have the
public tr
although
a little
public tr
terms of
it is Buch
higher re
offering
ticket pu
the more r
hrough inter
the availab
for ticket p
ve an impact
demand fo
t, such is
among the
ple. The o
that of So
st, which
ed peer citi
e same nu
ansport opt
Sofia has r
bit more a
ransport net
length and
harest that
elative dema
on averag
urchase opti
rich cities off
rnet.
bility of
purchase
t on the
or public
not so
cities in
nly case
ofia and
can be
es. They
mber of
ions and
relatively
ccessible
twork in
stations,
achieves
nd while
ge more
ons. The
fer more
2.3.2. U
The dem
of the m
public tr
the citie
congest
passeng
impacte
To start
length o
Again, li
presenti
The ECE
11 kilom
metropo
1000 po
populati
dominat
S
Urban traffic
mand for urb
metropolitan
ransport to c
es the avail
ion, such a s
gers. This ho
ed by the traf
with, it is int
of roads per
ike in the ca
ing cities gro
capital citie
meter (Bruss
olitan surfac
opulation (fi
ion density
ted by privat
Figure 2.29.
Source: ECE
c congestion
ban public tr
area of a c
compete wit
lable road c
situation can
wever can
ffic congestio
teresting to
r square kilo
ase of public
ouped per po
es vary largel
sels) to less
e area or 6
gure 2.29.).
groups for
te motorized
Length of marea and its22 capitals,
n
ransport serv
ity. The mor
th that moto
capacities h
provide opp
only be ac
ons.
assess the ro
ometer of th
c transport c
opulation de
ly with regar
than half a
kilometer (O
Two cities
r both mea
d transport (f
metropolitan rs population, 2011
58
vice can be i
re car friend
orized private
ave been r
portunities fo
hieved, if th
oad capacity
he metropol
capacity, it is
nsity.
rd to the roa
kilometer (
Ottawa) to a
(Ottawa and
surements
figure 2.10.).
roads in rela, capitals gro
inversely pro
ly a city, the
e mode of tr
reached mak
or the urban
he urban pu
y provided in
itan surface
s more mea
ad capacity t
Bratislava) p
again less the
d Reykjavik)
are those,
.
ation to the souped by the
oportional to
e more diffic
ransport. On
king the cit
n public trans
blic transpo
the ECE cap
area and p
ningful to p
hey offer. It
per one squa
e half a kilo
that score
whose urba
ize of the meeir population
o the car frie
cult it can be
the other h
ties prone t
sport to attra
rt is not itse
pital cities in
per 1000 po
rovide a com
can span fro
are kilomete
meter (Mosc
highest wit
an transport
etropolitan n density,
endliness
e for the
and, if in
to traffic
act more
elf highly
terms of
pulation.
mpilation
om some
er of the
cow) per
hin their
tation is
For othe
of the s
relativel
the ratio
In terms
some of
they wo
an avera
lane roa
The com
Budapes
congest
territory
centers
Fi
Sou
er high scorin
second mod
y moderate
o in favor of t
s of use of r
f the cities (A
ould complet
age length d
ad counted b
mpilation fur
st, Chisinau,
ions. Furthe
y of the city,
or along the
igure 2.30. Ath
urce: ECE
ng cities, the
de (Brussels
for the road
the urban pu
oad capacity
Astana, Brus
tely block th
dimension of
both direction
rther shows
, Dublin, Os
ermore, sinc
also these c
main traffic
verage dailyheir populat
eir public to
, Oslo, Prag
d capacity (B
ublic transpo
y, the averag
ssels, Minsk,
e city roads
f the car of 4
ns (figure 2.3
that many c
slo, Ottawa,
ce roads and
capitals men
c corridors.
y number of cion density, 2
59
o mortised p
gue). On the
udapest, Chi
ort.
ge daily num
Moscow), if
if they were
4,5m and he
30).
cities with th
Reykjavik a
d demand f
ntioned abov
cars on metr21 capitals, 2
rivate transp
e other han
isinau, Minsk
mber of cars
f all the cars
e of a single
ence 440 car
he exception
and Tallinn)
for roads is
ve can be pr
ropolitan roa2011
port ratio ha
nd, those ci
k, Moscow, T
in the traffi
s were on ro
lane. This is
rs covering o
n of a few (
) are relativ
not evenly
one to traffi
ads, capitals
as also been
ities whose
Tbilisi, Warsa
ic is so large
oad at the sa
when assum
one kilomete
Ankara, Ams
vely prone t
y distributed
c congestion
grouped by
n in favor
score is
aw) have
e that for
ame time
ming that
er of one
sterdam,
to traffic
d on the
n in their
F
in nume
(figure 2
of cars i
in a daily
available
travels t
all capita
The low
public tr
quite a
and its
peak ho
transpor
congest
may
competi
transfer
There se
potentia
in incre
public
decreas
in the tr
enforcin
move ev
Figure 2.31.
Source: ECE
erous cases, i
2.32.). The av
n traffic with
y traffic per
e roads, wh
there at high
als.
w speed of
ransport (fig
number of
further decr
ours indicate
rt is affecte
ions. In suc
face diffi
ing with car
s.
eems theref
al for a num
easing the d
transpor
ing the num
raffic by tak
ng it. The sep
ven if the roa
Bus averagegrouped by
E Transport D
inversely pro
verage level
h a clear exc
kilometer of
hile the bus
hest speed of
f on‐ground
gure 2.22.) in
ECE capitals
rease during
s that public
ed by traffic
ch a case, it
iculties in
rs for urban
fore to be a
mber of cities
demand for
rt while
mber of cars
king measure
parated ded
ads are block
e speed and dtheir popula
Division
oportional to
of bus spee
ception in on
f
s
f
d
n
s
g
c
c
t
n
n
a
s
r
e
s
es such as m
dicated lanes
ked by the tr
differences ination density,
Figure 2
Source
60
o the numbe
d is higher fo
ne case (Asta
marking dedi
s should allo
raffic caused
n speed, capy, 23 capitals,
2.32. Numberbus avepopulat
e: ECE Transp
r of cars per
or capital cit
ana), which h
icated lanes
ow the on‐gr
by private m
itals , 2011
r of cars on merage speed, tion density,
port Division
If urban ro
this may w
of the pub
they do
dedicated
are visible
capital citie
few cases
Oslo, Otta
speed dec
peak hou
from a re
There are
where th
declines
relatively
Ljubljana, M
The averag
r kilometer o
ties with rela
has a rather
for public t
round public
motorized tra
metropolitancapitals gro2011
oads are co
well impact th
blic transport
not tra
lanes. Such
for a numbe
es (figure 2.3
s (Ankara, C
awa, Reykja
creases dur
rs by a fe
elatively hig
however al
he speed
from alre
low level (
Moscow).
ge speed of
of metropolit
atively lower
large numbe
ransport mo
c transport m
ansport mod
n roads in relouped by thei
ongested,
he speed
t buses if
avel on
impacts
er of ECE
31.). In a
Chisinau,
avik) the
ring the
w km/h
gh level.
so cases
further
eady a
Brussels,
buses is,
tan roads
r number
er of cars
odes and
modes to
des.
lation to the ir
Figu
So
Figu
So
2.4. U
ure 2.33. Tra14
ource: ECE Tr
ure 2.34. Train t
ource: ECE Tr
Urban trans
nsport fataliECE member
ransport Divi
nsport fatalitotal, 14 ECE
ransport Divi
sport and ro
ities and injur countries, 2
ision
ities and injuE member cou
ision
oad safety
uries in urban2010
uries in urbanuntries, 2010
61
n areas in
n areas and 0
When it
mobility
understa
countries
the goa
injuries.
understa
helps, or
this objec
There is
number
injuries f
areas wh
At the sa
that whe
constitut
from 30%
injuries,
negative
a share o
transport
countries
In order
away the
achieving
objective
relative
fatalities
The urba
one cou
below 5
inhabitan
persons
for the
2.35). T
performi
the ben
improve
objective
comes to ro
and transpo
and how clos
s and cities
l of zero
It is imp
and how urb
r the lack of
ctive.
s unfortuna
of fatalitie
from road tra
hen looking a
ame time, it
en it comes t
te for the m
% to 40% of a
however, t
for urban tr
of between
t injuries f
s (figure 2.33
to better
e particular
g the zero f
e, it is more
numbers, s
per e.g. 100
an transport
ntry (Roma
5 persons
nts. The inju
per 100,000
majority o
here are c
ng countries
nchmark on
working
e”.
oad safety an
ort, it is impo
se or maybe
are from a
road fatalit
portant to
ban public t
f it hinders a
ately still
es and man
ansport in EC
at absolute n
is interestin
to the fatali
majority of c
all road fatal
their ratio
ransport, wh
55% and 65
for the maj
3 and figure
understand
countries a
atalities and
important to
uch as inju
0,000 popula
fatalities fo
nia) are ar
per 100,000
uries are be
0 urban inh
of countries
clearly some
s and they s
n how to
toward the
nd urban
ortant to
e far the
achieving
ties and
further
transport
achieving
quite a
ny more
CE urban
numbers.
ng to see
ties they
countries
lities. For
is more
ich takes
5% of all
jority of
2.34.).
how far
are from
d injuries
o look at
ries and
tion.
or all but
round or
0 urban
elow 300
habitants
s (figure
e better
hould be
further
e “zero
Urban
unfortun
fatalities
although
cities,
zero pu
and or in
At the
capital c
of the s
large ab
fatalities
on boar
public
counted
for such
urban tr
the met
Figu
Sourc While so
perform
public tra
nately not
s and inju
h there a
which have
blic transpo
njuries (figur
same time,
cities at the
scale that r
bsolute numb
s and injurie
rd or at the
transport.
d for all mod
h as metro a
rain, for whi
ro station.
ure 2.36. Urb
ce: ECE
ome cities h
mer cities in p
ansport is
free from
ries either,
are capital
e reported
ort fatalities
re 2.36.).
, there are
e other side
report quite
bers of both
es, whether
stations of
They are
des, i.e. also
and light or
ch not all ac
ban public tr
have clearly
public transp
ccidents may
ransport fata
space for im
port safety, i
Figure 2.
Source:
62
y fall under
alities and inj
mprovement
i.e. those wh
35. Transpor100,000countrie
: ECE Transp
the category
juries in ECE
t and should
hich achieve
rt fatalities a0 urban inhabes, 2010
ort Division
y of road ac
capitals, 20
d follow the
the “zero o
and injuries ibitants, 13 E
cidents e.g.
capitals, 201
practice of
objective”, it
in urban areaECE member
injury at
11
the best
is fair to
as per
provide
100,000
When it
Brussels
cases pe
not a ba
using pu
and fata
for the
network
Figure 2.37
Source: EC
a more rela
0 capital inha
t comes to
s), they are a
er 100,000 c
ad result, wh
ublic transpo
alities on boa
majority of
ks providea m
7. Public transinhabitants
CE Transport
ative picture
abitants (figu
urban pub
around or be
capital inhab
hich suggest
ort in any of t
ard per main
cities that p
more extend
sport fatalitis of ECE capi
t Division
e of the saf
ure 2.37.).
lic transpor
elow 1 case p
bitants for th
s that safety
the ECE capit
n transport m
provided da
ed service a
ies and injuriitals, 20 capi
63
ety situation
rt fatalities,
per 100,000 c
he majority o
y is not an is
tals that prov
modes, the m
ta (figure 2
and carriy mo
ies per 100,0itals, 2011
n by showin
except for
capital inhab
of capital cit
ssue that wo
vided data.
most cases a
.38.). This re
ost of the pa
000
ng the fatalit
two capita
bitants. The i
ties in the sa
ould discoura
Comparin
between
injuries in
public tra
injuries in
100,000
urban
populatio
the majo
transport
small frac
accidents.
confirm t
public tr
means of
Furthermo
absolute
are with buse
esult is not
assengers in
ties and inju
l cities (Ast
injuries are b
ample. This
age passeng
g the
road fatalit
n urban ar
nsport fatal
n capitals, b
of respectiv
or the
n, it is visible
rity of citie
accidents
ction of all t
. The
the assumpt
ransport is
mobility.
ore, looking
numbers of
es followed
surprising s
many of the
uries per
tana and
below 30
is clearly
gers from
numbers
ties and
reas and
ities and
both per
vely the
capital
e that for
es public
are a
the road
numbers
tion that
a safe
g at the
f injuries
by trams
since bus
cities.
Figure 2.3
Source: ECE The inju
are, how
group of
Finally, s
unfortun
motorize
time, th
capitals
urban m
8. Injuries an
E
uries at the s
wever, a few
f cities that p
since there a
nately not p
ed transport
e main poin
that provide
mobility can h
nd fatalities p
stations are n
w exceptions
provided dat
are no data
possible to v
t in favor of
t from this a
ed data in t
have a positiv
per urban pu
not that com
s (Moscow, P
ta (Figure 2.3
for all road
verify a likel
the first one
analysis is th
his context.
ve externalit
64
ublic transpo
mmon for an
Prague for b
39.).
injuries and
ly correlatio
e should in g
at urban pub
Consequent
ty, i.e. it hel
ort mode for
y of the mai
bus, Riga for
fatalities fo
n that cities
eneral have
blic transpor
tly increasin
lps improvi
ECE capitals,
in public tran
trolley), at
r the capita
s with ratio
less road ac
rt is overall
g the role o
ng urban ro
s, 2011
nsport mode
least for the
l cities availa
of public to
ccidents. At t
safe in all of
of public tran
ad safety.
es. There
e sample
able, it is
o private
the same
f the ECE
nsport in
Figure 2.
Source: E
2.5. U
Transpo
emit, is
environm
emission
cities an
understa
The ECE
capita. T
than hal
mainly t
are citie
.39. Injuries a
ECE
Urban trans
ort, due to la
s among th
mental impa
ns causing c
nd compare
and whether
capital citie
These emissi
lf a metric to
the capital ci
s from all th
and fatalities
sport and e
arge depend
he main se
acts, in parti
climate chan
them vis‐à‐
r public trans
s reach very
ons caused a
on per capita
ities from Ea
e sub‐region
s at the urba
nvironmen
ence on inte
ectors that
cular air pol
nge and poll
‐vis their ur
sport helps i
y different va
at the city le
a (Dushanbe
astern Europ
ns.
65
an public tran
tal pollutio
ernal combu
contribute
lution. In th
lutants conc
ban transpo
n combating
alues in emis
vel spanned
) (figure 2.40
e, Caucasus
nsport statio
on including
ustion engine
to climate
is context, it
centration in
ort situation
g climate cha
ssions of gree
in 2009 from
0.). At the m
and Central
ons per mode
g climate ch
e vehicles an
change an
t is importan
n ambient a
. It would a
ange and imp
enhouse gas
m 15 metric
inimal side o
Asia. At the
e, 2011
hange
nd due to ga
nd cause si
nt to see the
ir in the EC
also be impo
proving air q
ses in metric
tons (Ottaw
of the scale t
opposite sid
ases they
ignificant
e level of
E capital
ortant to
uality.
tons per
a) to less
there are
de, there
Fig
S
Figu
Sou The sha
capital c
34 This figu(C02 emiss
gure 2.41. Gm
Source: ECE
ure 2.40. Em
urce: UNSTAT
re of urban
cities. Not kn
ure is indicativesions are of 200
General CO2 cmotorized trip
Transport Di
missions of CO
TS
transport in
nowing these
e only, assumin09, while the ra
city emissionsps
ivision
O2 per capita
the CO2 em
e shares ma
g that both valatio is based on
s and ratio o
66
a in ECE capit
mission level
kes it difficu
ues are not cha 2011 data)
of public to p
tals, 36 capit
per capita ca
ult to establi
anging substant
rivate
tals, 2009
an be differe
sh any corre
emission l
public versu
modes o
general e
capita for
minimal us
(Reykjavik)
much lowe
with a rela
public tr
Moscow). C
and sim
locations
Vilnius)
substantive
emission le
The main
generation
tially from year
ent between
elations betw
levels and
us private m
f transpor
mission le
a city tha
e of public t
can be lo
r compared
atively high
ransport (
Cities of sim
milar geog
(Riga, Talli
can also
ely in te
evels (figure
sources of
for electri
r to year
n the ECE
ween the
use of
motorized
rt. The
vel per
at has a
transport
ower or
to cities
usage of
Warsaw,
milar size
graphical
inn and
o vary
rms of
2.41.)34.
f energy
city and
F
are also
urban tr
Regardin
particula
PM2.5),
are abo
concent
recomm
2.43.).
measure
concent
matter w
through
solid a
combust
energy,
sectors.
this wo
further
modal s
transpor
Figure 2.42. Cc
Source: ECE
at city leve
ransportation
ng the conc
ate matter
nearly all c
ove or wel
tration l
mended by W
Therefore
es to
tration of
would need t
out the se
and liquid
ted, in part
industry an
For the tran
uld imply t
improveme
split in favo
rt, but also
Concentratiocapitals, 201
E and EEA
el and not fo
n only.
entrations o
(PM10 and
capital citie
l above the
levels a
WHO (figure
e, furthe
limit the
particulate
to be applied
ectors where
fuels are
ticular in the
nd transpor
nsport secto
the need fo
ent of the
our of publi
to increase
n of air pollu1
or
of
d
es
e
s
e
er
e
e
d
e
e
e
rt
or
or
e
c
e
utants – SO2
Figure 2
Source
67
and NO2 ‐in
2.43. ConcenECE cap
e: ECE and E
n ECE
ntration of aipitals, 2011
EEA
heating pu
these differ
When it
concentrati
in the at
majority o
have
concentrati
(SO2) and
(NOx) in at
the levels r
World He
(WHO). Th
capitals of
States, whi
countries
transition d
combatting
concentrati
pollutants
the CO2 em
ir pollutants
urposes may
rences.
comes
ion of air p
mospheric
f ECE capit
decreased
ions of sulfu
of nitrogen
mospheric a
ecommende
ealth Orga
ese are ma
f the EU
le the capita
with econo
do face chall
g the
ion of the
(figure 2.42.
missions, th
– PM10 and P
y explain
to the
ollutants
air, the
tal cities
the
r dioxide
n oxides
air below
ed by the
anization
ainly the
member
als of the
omies in
lenges in
high
ese two
.). As for
e values
PM2.5 ‐ in
the shar
In gener
to highe
was to b
vehicles
to vehic
normally
dominat
While t
transpor
the repl
clearly h
When it
change
is resist
tempera
infrastru
without
re of environ
ral, the capit
er degree tha
be found in
‐ such equi
cles used in
y achieve lo
ting.
Figure 2.4
Source: E
the necessa
rtation, the
acement of
help cities to
t comes to
prevention b
ant to extre
atures, extre
ucture to ex
which it cou
nmental frien
tals of Weste
an those fro
the transpo
pped with m
the other ca
ower polluta
44. Concentr
ECE and EEA
ary data is
promotion o
private moto
decrease th
climate chan
but also adap
eme weathe
eme snow fa
xtreme weat
uld not be co
ndly vehicles
ern Europea
om Central o
ort sector on
more fuel eff
apitals. Furt
ant concent
ration of PM
unavailable
of more fuel
orized trips b
eir climate c
nge and urb
ptation. This
er events an
lls etc.) caus
her events
onsidered as
68
s in the vehic
n countries
of South‐East
ly, such cou
ficient engine
hermore, cit
trations com
M10 versus rati
e to provid
l efficient te
by public tra
change and e
ban transpor
s work is abo
nd its effect
sed by climat
is crucial to
a good qual
cle fleet .
have been a
tern Europe
uld be the av
es ‐ in West
ties with mo
mpared with
io of public t
de a more
echnologies f
ansport ones
environment
rt, it is not
out ensuring
ts (e.g. local
te change. T
provide for
ity one.
able to limit
(figure 2.44
vailability of
ern Europea
ore public tr
h cities whe
o private trip
conclusive
for transport
s or by walkin
tal footprint.
only crucial
that the tra
lized floodin
The resistanc
r high reliab
their concen
4.). If the exp
lower‐age t
an capitals co
ransport trip
ere private t
ps, 2011
analysis fo
t vehicles, a
ng and cyclin
to work on
nsport infras
ng, very high
ce of public t
ility of the
ntrations
planation
transport
ompared
ps should
trips are
or urban
s well as
ng would
n climate
structure
h or low
transport
network,
The tran
events a
of the p
which th
Another
adaptati
with reg
2.6. C
Cities ca
and pro
trips. In
promote
In this c
motorize
A good i
populati
make on
champio
using bic
nsport infra
and related e
public transp
he infrastruc
r proxy indic
ion. Howeve
gard to the re
Cycling and
an ensure a
mote cycling
n connection
ed for the lo
context, it i
ed transport
indicator of
ion. The dat
n average a
ons in bicycl
cycles (Bern)
Figure 2.4
Source: E
structure re
effects leadin
port service.
ture is adapt
cator could
er, due to th
esistance of
d walking in
more sustai
g and walkin
n with urba
nger trips.
is important
t and in prov
success in pr
ta show that
trip by a bic
e use with o
).
45. Bicycle u
ECE
esistance co
ng to closure
Unfortunate
ted to climat
measure th
he absence o
the urban tr
n capital citi
nable transp
ng as a type
an public tra
t to view ho
viding the ne
romoting cyc
t for the ma
cycle (figure
one of two
se in ECE cap
69
uld be mea
e of roads fo
ely such data
te change.
e infrastruct
of data, it is
ansport syst
ies
port system
of the non‐m
ansport, how
ow successf
cessary infra
cling is an av
ajority of ECE
2.45.). At th
(Amsterdam
pitals per 10
sured by th
or urban tran
a are not av
ture investm
s not possibl
tem to climat
if they prov
motorized tr
wever, cycli
ful the ECE
astructure fo
verage daily
E capitals le
he same tim
m, Berlin) or
00 populatio
he number o
nsport in gen
vailable to an
ments relate
le to provide
te change.
vide the nec
ransport, in p
ing and wa
capitals are
or it.
number of b
ss than one
me, there are
one of four
on, 19 capita
of extreme
neral or stop
nalyze the d
d to climate
e empirical e
essary infras
particular fo
lking can
e in promot
bicycle trips
person of 1
e cities that
persons on
als, 2011
weather
pping any
degree to
e change
evidence
structure
r shorter
also be
ing non‐
per 1000
10 would
are clear
average
Fig
Sou
When it
data are
the citie
For citie
Ottawa
also whe
gure 2.46. Len
urce: ECE For the
howeve
separate
with m
infrastru
on‐grou
separate
should b
When it
assessm
main pu
comes to th
e provided fo
es with highe
es having pro
and Warsaw
en measurin
ngth of bicyc
infrastructu
r on the qua
ed from mot
otorized tra
ucture at inte
nd passages
ed infrastruc
be more succ
t comes to
ment could b
ublic transpo
he infrastruc
or just a lim
est bicycle us
ovided data,
w. The same
g the bicycle
cle lanes in E
re, it is not o
ality of bicycl
torized trans
ansport or
ersections w
s for cyclist
cture that p
cessful in ach
the use o
be based on
rt stations. S
ture for cycl
ited number
se per 1000 p
the longest n
e cities have
e lanes per le
ECE capitals,
only its lengt
le lanes is no
sport infrast
pedestrians
with roads is g
ts and pede
provides mor
hieving highe
of bicycles i
n availability
Such data are
70
ing, i.e. avai
r of ECE cap
population.
network of b
not only th
ength of met
2011
th that is im
ot available.
tructure and
s. It is also
given priority
estrians. It w
re safety an
er demand fo
in combinat
y of bicycle
e however ab
lability of cy
ital cities an
bicycle lanes
he longest ne
tropolitan ro
mportant but
It is unknow
d pedestrians
o unknown,
y: short wait
would be ex
d convenien
or both cycli
tion with pu
parking infr
bsent.
ycling lanes, i
d that data
is in Oslo fo
etwork in ab
ads (figure 2
also its qua
wn, whether
s sidewalks
whether w
ting time for
xpected tha
nce for cycli
ng and walk
ublic transpo
astructure a
it is unfortun
are not prov
ollowed by Br
bsolute num
2.46.).
lity. The info
the bicycle l
to prevent c
walking and
crossing, co
at cities with
sts and ped
ing.
ort for long
and its occu
nate that
vided for
ratislava,
mbers but
ormation
lanes are
collisions
d cycling
nvenient
h clearly
destrians,
ger trips,
pancy at
S Finally,
private
(Amster
anymore
transpor
Reykjavi
The cyc
analyzed
For othe
Figure 2.47.
Source: ECE
it is interest
trips. If the
rdam, Berlin,
e for urban
rt trips and
ik and Tallinn
ling and wa
d, take an im
ers, the pote
Changes in rprivate mot
ting to verif
e bicycle tr
, Bern and O
mobility (fig
bicycle trip
n).
lking, althou
mportant sha
ntial needs t
relation betwtorized transp
fy how the u
ips are add
Oslo), for w
gure 2.47.). T
ps to privat
ugh the seco
are in urban
to be still dis
71
ween rides wport by rides
use of bicyc
ded to publ
hich motor
There are se
te motorized
ond type of
n transport s
scovered.
with urban pus with bicycle
cles impacts
ic transport
rized private
everal other
d transport
the non‐mo
system, at le
ublic transpoe in 18 ECE c
the ratio of
t trips, ther
transportat
cities for wh
trips visibly
otorized tran
east in a num
rt to apitals,
f public tran
re are sever
tion is not p
hich the rati
y improves
nsport has n
mber of ECE
nsport to
ral cities
prevailing
o: public
(Ottawa,
not been
capitals.
Fig
So
2.7. U
2.7.1. A
The pub
In theor
fares are
cities), s
As far as
trolley o
provide
capital c
be purch
35 There ametro ser
gure 2.48. PriEC
ource: ECE T
Urban trans
Affordability
blic transport
ry, the lower
e not provid
such analysis
s the afforda
or tram tick
relatively a
cities. There
hased with t
re no differencrvice has in a nu
ice and afforCE capitals, 2
Transport Div
sport and fi
y of public t
t fare price a
r the price th
ded (congest
cannot be d
ability of pub
kets35, which
ffordable bu
are vast diff
the average
ces in prices for umber of capita
rdability of si2011
vision
inancing
ransport
among othe
he higher dem
ion and toll
done.
blic transport
h are mainly
us, trolley o
ferences bet
monthly wa
public transpoals a different fa
ingle bus, tra
72
r elements d
mand it shou
fees in urba
t is concerne
y capitals of
or tram serv
tween the ci
ge at the co
ort service proviare.
am or trolley
determines t
uld attract fo
an areas are
ed, the cities
f the Weste
vice (figure 2
ities in the n
untry level.
ided by bus, tra
y tickets in
the demand
or public tran
would ho
quality
provided.
poor serv
demand t
for a high
the situati
cities need
of the p
where t
assessed v
The dem
transport
on the fa
motorized
public tra
be analyz
of a pr
(gasoline,
e.g. con
expenditu
of a publi
ticket. It
reviewed
between s
center in
ride fare
parking, g
Since, ho
not that co
s with highes
ern Europea
2.48.) comp
number of si
It can span f
am or trolley. O
for public tr
nsport. This
old only if t
of servic
A low pric
vice can att
that a good
er price. To
ion in the EC
ds to be seen
price and
he price
versus incom
mand for
can further
res for using
d transport
ansport. Suc
ed as mont
rivate vehi
parking an
ngestions
ures) versus t
ic transport
could be
for a sin
suburban are
view of th
e versus c
gasoline and
owever, the
mmon in EC
st fares of sin
n countries,
ared to som
ingle tickets
from as few
Only
ransport.
however
he same
e was
ce for a
ract less
d service
this end,
CE capital
n in view
demand,
is also
me.
public
r depend
g private
t versus
ch could
hly costs
cle use
nd other
or toll
the costs
monthly
further
gle ride
ea to city
he single
costs of
d others.
parking
CE capital
ngle bus,
, do still
me other
that can
as some
Figu
So
400 tick
Ljubljana
There is
high abs
London)
The cap
day of a
In gener
that is m
public tr
ure 2.49. Pricin E
ource: ECE Tr
kets (Bucha
a).
very similar
solute fare
) as compare
pital inhabita
month.
ral, the appro
more focused
ransport use
ce and affordECE capitals,
ransport Divi
rest) to mo
r situation w
levels in a n
ed with othe
ants may ne
oach of prov
d on regular
rs to also use
dability of mo2011
ision
ore than 2,
ith the mont
number of c
r cities with
ed to spend
viding relativ
r commuters
e this type o
onthly bus, t
73
000 tickets
thly tickets f
capitals, the
low monthly
d from as lit
vely more aff
s. The oppos
of transport.
tram or trolle
(Amsterdam
for bus, trolle
ir service is
y fares (Chisi
tle as aroun
fordable mo
site approac
ey tickets
m, Ankara,
ey or tram (f
still relative
nau, Sofia).
nd one perce
wage for
(Bern, Bru
to as muc
more (B
Sofia).
Furthermo
adopted d
to mont
tickets (fig
cities that
clearly
tickets
Prague or
relative lo
tickets (10
of a mont
second
(Belgrade,
Vilnius) th
level not
fares: som
for one m
finally a
(Amsterda
where mo
in the inte
using bus,
average b
times ever
almost 4 t
nthly tickets
h encourage
Brussels, D
figure 2.49.)
ely affordab
ent of their
the month
ussels and L
ch as six pe
Belgrade, C
ore, the capi
different app
hly versus
gure 2.50.). T
have a prici
favoring
(Bern, Bu
r Rome), w
ow number
0‐20) equals t
thly one. Th
group of
Minsk, Ta
hat set pric
favoring any
me 40 single
onthly one.
group o
m, Astana, C
onthly tickets
erests of inh
, tram or tr
between 2
ry day in a m
times every
s can be seen
es more the
Dublin or
. Despite
ble (Oslo,
monthly
ly ticket
Ljubljana)
ercent or
Chisinau,
ital cities
proaches
s single
There are
ng policy
monthly
ucharest,
where a
of single
the price
here is a
f cities
allinn or
ces at a
y of the
e tickets
There is
of cities
Chisinau)
s will be
habitants
rolley on
and 3
month or
working
n as such
irregular
Both ap
transfer
good alt
inexpen
commut
While ci
to find
analyzin
A compi
which th
ratio: fa
There ar
Minsk, T
other on
ratio fo
howeve
Figure 2.5
Source: E
proaches m
s is done by
ternative to
sive month
ting to work.
ties may ada
out if the c
ng the fares t
ilation of ECE
he prices sta
re to wage
re such capit
Tallinn). The
ne is well be
r both fares
r more accur
50. Relation 2011
ECE
ay be a goo
y cycling and
a car ride i
ly ticket se
.
apt various s
capital cities
to monthly w
E capital citie
and out (fig
for both sin
tals for whic
re are also s
elow the oth
s seems to
rate if the w
between bus
d choice de
d walking (A
n case the b
eems to be
strategies to
offer comp
wages.
es per ratio s
ures 2.51. a
gle and mon
ch this ratio i
such, whose
her capitals (
be just righ
ages in the c
74
s single and
pending on
Amsterdam),
bicycle cann
the right
single versu
paratively to
single or mon
nd 2.52.). T
nthly tickets
is well below
ratio for on
Amsterdam,
ht (Ottawa,
capitals were
monthly fare
specific circ
relatively in
ot be used.
strategy to
s monthly ti
oo high or to
nthly fare to
here are cap
s are well ab
w the other c
ne of the fare
, Bucharest)
Sofia, Vilni
e considered
es in ECE cap
umstances.
nexpensive s
On the oth
discourage
cket pricing,
oo low pub
average wa
pital cities (O
bove the rati
capitals for b
es is well ab
. Finally ther
us). This co
.
pitals,
If a large nu
single ticket
er hand, a r
driving for
, it can be int
lic transport
ge shows ca
Oslo, Zagreb
ios of other
both fares (L
bove wherea
re are capita
ompilation w
umber of
offers a
relatively
r regular
teresting
t fares if
pitals for
b) whose
capitals.
Ljubljana,
s for the
als which
would be
Fi
Sou
Fi
Sou
igure 2.51. Rle
urce: ECE
igure 2.52. Rle
urce: ECE
elation betwevel in ECE ca
elation betwevel in ECE ca
ween bus singapitals, 2011
ween bus monapitals, 2011
75
gle ticket far1
nthly ticket f1
re and month
fare and mon
hly wage at t
nthly wage a
the country
at the countrry
When it
London)
findings
tram an
The cap
achieve
compara
Fi
So Looking
transpor
favor of
congest
and rela
attractin
For the s
seems to
charged
though
transpor
t comes to m
) they are s
and relation
d trolley fare
pitals that of
higher dem
able. A numb
igure 2.53. Rle
urce: ECE
at two capit
rt of similar
f one or th
ions and pu
atively less e
ng more dem
second coup
o mainly diff
and use of
having man
rt is higher in
metro fares,
lightly highe
ns between
e.
ffer compara
mand for p
ber of cases
elation betwevel in ECE ca
tal cities wit
r quality, wit
he other city
blic transpor
expensive p
mand to publ
ple of cities b
fer based on
f bicycles wit
ny more bicy
n Rome.
, in the case
er than for
single and m
atively lower
public transp
of similar ca
ween bus monapitals, 2011
h high avera
th little diffe
y. The main
rt fare price
ublic transp
ic transport.
belonging to
the data tha
th Berlin cha
ycles on the
76
e of a few c
the bus, tra
monthly fare
r fares (ratio
port if othe
pitals prove
nthly ticket f1
age wage (Br
erences for
n difference
s. Brussels h
port fares. B
.
a group of t
at were mad
arging relati
e roads. As
capitals (Am
am and troll
es do not diff
o fare to wa
er public tr
the price‐de
fare and mon
russels and O
the various
es between
has more ca
Both these e
the larger me
de available i
vely more f
a possible c
sterdam, Bu
ley fare. At
fer from tho
age), should
ansport fea
emand princi
nthly wage a
Oslo), they se
quality elem
them seem
rs per km of
elements ma
etropolis (Be
in terms of p
or a single p
consequence
ucharest, Mo
the same t
ose provided
normally be
atures are r
iple (figure 2
at the countr
eem to have
ments some
m to be in t
f metropolit
ay speak in
erlin and Rom
public transp
public transp
e demand fo
oscow or
time, the
d for bus,
e able to
relatively
2.53.).
ry
e a public
etimes in
terms of
an roads
favor of
me), they
port fares
port fare
or public
77
For another couple of capitals belonging to a group of smaller‐medium size capitals (Riga and
Tallinn), both seem to offer similar quality of public transport with exception of ITS in favor of Tallinn
as mentioned already in this report under comfort‐ITS example. The other differences are relatively
more congested roads, less bicycle use and relatively higher fares in Riga versus Tallinn. While the
congestion should speak in favor of Riga in attracting demand for public transport, the already
mentioned ITS and the cheaper fares seem to attract more users to public transport in Tallinn even
despite more popularity of cycling for transfers.
Finally, while the availability of data does not allow to review many parameters for the fourth couple
of capitals (Sofia, Zagreb), Sofia having a more accessible public transport network at a cheaper fare
and providing ITS for passenger information for all mods is able to achieve higher demand for public
transport. The combination of better accessibility at a lower fare may be crucial in this context.
The fare level is clearly an important element to impact the demand for public transport. It has to be
however considered in connection with the profitability of the public transport provider as well as
the inhabitants’ purchasing power.
In first case, if the charged fares are far below the level to ensure the break‐even point for the
business, the demand may decline in medium to longer term due to inability for continuous
restoring of the vehicles fleet and infrastructure, which inevitably would result in deterioration of
service. This will happen unless the local governments are able to take over the investment costs.
In the second case, if public transport fares are too expensive relatively to the income of the city
inhabitants, the demand will stay rather limited too. Provided that the operation is above break‐
even point, it would give space for fare cut. In an opposite situation – below break‐even – the costs
of operation need to be reviewed with the objective of finding savings to decrease the level of
break‐even point.
2.7.2. Public transport profitability
A provider optimizing the cost of operations has better chances to achieve profit. Among main
elements of costs that can be assessed are, inter alia, such related to employees’ salaries, holding of
depots and garages, fuel costs, etc..
To this end, the optimization can be assessed through a number of indicators such as: number of
customers (public transport passengers) per employee, number of employees (of whom drivers) per
vehicle stock, employees’ distribution between administration, technicians and drivers, use of
available vehicle stock, age of buses, etc.
When it comes to passenger volumes per employee indicator, there are quite some differences
noticeable between the ECE capitals, despite a limited number of cities that provided data. For the
bus service the difference is 5‐6 times more passengers per employee, for the tram service some five
times and for the metro service 5‐9 times (figure 2.54.). Certain cities (Riga, Tbilisi) achieve relatively
low indicator value for bus and tram service (Riga) and for bus and metro service (Tbilisi). There are
capitals with mixed values (Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia) and high value (Rome).
employe
passeng
Figure 2.54
Source: EC
ees per vehi
gers per one
. Passenger tram and m
CE Transport
cle operated
employee: R
transported metro service
t Division
d during pea
Riga for bus a
annually pere, 2011
78
ak hours are
and tram, At
r one employ
e exactly tho
hens for tram
yee for bus, The relat
passenge
suggest
level may
service re
Therefore
review
employee
the fleet.
for bus
since for
only two
necessary
For the
majority
some fo
vehicle i
hours o
drivers (
are howe
reach a v
per vehi
(Chisinau
(Zagreb).
For the
are on
employee
in use.
certain c
rather m
Buchares
for som
Riga) the
be inexp
operation
2.56.).
The capi
relatively
ose with low
m, Chisinau a
tive low nu
ers per emplo
that the e
y be too high
endered.
e it is intere
the num
es versus th
Such has be
and tram
r the metro
o cities prov
y data.
bus serv
of the citi
our employ
n use duri
of whom
figure 2.55.
ever also ci
value of 6 em
icle of who
) to 70% are
tram servic
n average
es hired per
However, w
ities the inc
moderate (
st, Moscow,
me others
high increa
plicable in t
n needs
tal cities th
y high num
w value of nu
and Zagreb f
mber of
oyee can
employee
h for the
esting to
ber of
e use of
een done
service,
o service
ided the
ice, the
ies have
ees per
ng peak
2‐3 are
.). There
ties that
mployees
om 30%
e drivers
ce, there
more
r vehicle
while for
crease is
Brussels,
Tallinn)
(Athens,
se might
terms of
(figure
hat have
mber of
umber of
for bus.
Figu
Sou
Figu
Sou
Certain
or repai
hired fo
2.57.). F
driving,
re 2.55. Numdrivpea
urce: ECE
re 2.57. Empadmfor b
urce: ECE
capital cities
rs and maint
or other pur
For tram serv
while the av
mber of total vers to bus fleak hours, 201
ployees’ distrministration, bus service, 2
s have a rela
tenance. For
rpose then d
vice, for thre
verage is 1 dr
l bus employeeet in operat11
ribution betwtechnicians 2011
atively high n
r bus service,
driving while
ee cities (At
river per two
ees and bus tion during
ween and drivers
79
number of e
, for two citie
e the averag
hens, Dublin
o employees
Figure 2
Source
Figure 2
Source
employees h
es (Chisinau
ge is 2 drive
n and Riga) o
(figure 2.58
.56. Numbertram drduring p
e: ECE
.58. Employeadminisfor tram
e: ECE
ired for adm
and Riga) ev
ers per thre
only one pe
.).
r of total tramrivers to trampeak hours, 2
ees’ distributstration, techm service, 20
ministrative f
very second p
ee employee
r three emp
m employeesm fleet in ope2011
tion betweenhnicians and 11
functions
person is
es (figure
loyees is
s and eration
n drivers
Looking
relativel
two cap
account
quite lim
in both c
Another
fleet in u
minimum
in posse
reserve
There ar
reserve
(Ankara,
80% of t
peak ho
For tram
Riga, Wa
fleet full
Fig
Sou
at the aggr
ly high numb
pitals (Mosco
for almost
mited to draw
cities.
r interesting
use. The flee
m depot or
essing a fleet
for cases of
re however
fleet or the
, Chisinau), w
the bus fleet
urs (Amsterd
m service (fig
arsaw and Za
ly during pea
gure 2.59. Emtetra
urce: ECE
regated figur
ber of emplo
ow and Tbilis
90% of all m
w more data
cost area to
et that is not
maintenance
t of which th
breakdowns
quite a num
e unused fle
who operate
t in operatio
dam, Buchar
gure 2.61.), f
agreb). The a
ak hours.
mployees’ disechnicians anam and metr
res for bus,
oyees are hir
si) the numb
metro emplo
a‐proven con
o review is t
t operated d
e costs. To t
he large maj
s, etc.
mber of ECE
et is relative
e less than 6
on, with seve
rest and Reyk
four cities ha
average figur
80
stribution bend drivers, agro services, 2
tram, trolle
red as techni
bers are mad
oyees. While
nclusions, th
hat one rela
does not gen
this end, pub
jority is in d
capital cities
ely large. Fo
60% of their
eral cities op
kjavik).
ave 60% or le
re is 70% wit
tween adminggregated fo2011
ey and metro
icians in a nu
de by technic
e the sampl
he technician
ated to vehic
erate any in
blic transpor
aily operatio
s, from thos
or bus servic
bus fleet. T
erating more
ess of their t
th two cities
nistration, or bus, trolley
o service, it
umber of cit
cians hired i
e of cities t
ns’ number s
cle fleet in p
come while
rt providers s
on and minim
e that provi
ce (figure 2.6
he average,
e than 90% o
tram fleet in
(Bern and B
y,
is noticeab
ies (figure 2.
n metro serv
hat provided
seems to be
ossession ve
it generates
should be in
mum fleet is
ded data, w
60.), there a
at the same
of their buse
operation (M
Bucharest) us
le that a
.59.). For
vice who
d data is
too high
ersus the
s costs as
nterested
s kept as
where the
are cities
e time, is
es during
Moscow,
sing their
Figu
So
Figu
Sou
ure 2.60. Use201
ource: ECE
their ur
Zagreb.
ure 2.62. Use
rce: ECE
e of the avail11
rban public
e of the avail
lable bus flee
transport co
lable metro f
et,
osts and as
fleet, 2011
81
Figu
So
Fin
ar
lev
ca
th
sit
W
pr
tra
of
he
m
op
th
inc
Al
cit
a conseque
ure 2.61. Use
urce: ECE
nally for me
re majority o
vel of 80% o
apitals (Baku
an 20% of
tuation.
When it com
resented in
ansport com
f buses are b
ence the bu
ore fuel‐e
perating old
e impact of
creased leas
l in all, it see
ties there is
ence decrea
e of the availa
etro service
of cities that
or more. The
u and Tbilisi
it, which i
mes to the
the section
mfort – figure
below the av
uses should
efficient en
er buses, th
the cost sav
sing costs for
ems that for
s a good po
se the fare
able tram fle
(figure 2.62
t use their f
ere are howe
) who use o
is quite an
e age of f
n 2.3.2 urba
e 2.22. – ne
erage age of
be equipp
ngines. For
hey should
vings on fue
r new buses.
r a number o
otential to
level, e.g. R
eet, 2011
2.), there
fleet at a
ever two
only less
unusual
fleet, as
an public
arly 50%
f 6 years,
ped with
r cities
evaluate
ls versus
of capital
optimize
Riga and
2.7.3. F
Public t
transpor
accessib
sustaine
Furtherm
(includin
develop
a signif
analysis3
public tr
for a ye
operatio
addition
over 41,
dollars
operatio
the job
approxim
volume)
domesti
corporat
and loca
The sou
local bo
36 Econom
inancing ur
ransport sho
rt is an essen
bility. Investm
ed over time,
travel and v
switching fr
reduced tra
direct trave
business op
effects;
business p
skills, enab
expanded t
additional
indirect imp
on spending
cost saving
affect comp
more, capit
ng purchase
ment of infr
ficant source36 indicates t
ransport cap
ar. Public tr
ons and mai
nal source of
,000 jobs are
of annual
ons. Other e
impacts. C
mately $3.6
), which pr
ic product, o
te income. T
al tax revenu
rces of fundi
orrowing, loc
mic impact of pu
rban public
ould be ava
ntial factor s
ment in pub
, can potenti
vehicle own
rom automo
affic congest
el cost saving
perating cost
roductivity g
led by redu
ransit service
regional bus
pacts on sup
g of worker
s and other
petitiveness i
tal investm
s of vehicles
rastructure a
e of jobs.
that, per bill
pital, nearly
ansport ope
ntenance of
f jobs. The sa
e supported
spending
economic im
Correspondin
billion of ad
rovides $1.
or “value ad
This addition
es.
ing for public
cal taxation,
ublic transporta
transport a
ilable for all
social inclusio
blic transpor
ially affect th
ership cost
biles, leading
tion for thos
gs for busines
t savings asso
gained from
ced traffic c
e areas; and
siness grow
pplies and in
wages. At a
r productivit
in internatio
ment in pu
s and equip
and support
In the Uni
lion dollars o
24,000 jobs
erations (i.e.,
f vehicles an
ame analysis
for a year, f
on public
mpacts are a
ng to the 3
dded busines
8 billion o
ded”) ‐‐ incl
nal economic
c sector inve
, and servic
ation investmen
82
nd Econom
l citizens. Ac
on. Therefor
rtation expa
he economy
savings for
g to shifts in
se traveling
sses and hou
ociated with
m access to
congestion a
th enabled
nduced impa
national lev
ty impacts c
nal markets.
blic transp
pment, and t
ing facilities
ted States
of spending
are support
, manageme
d facilities) a
s indicates th
for each bill
transportat
associated w
36,000 jobs
ss output (sa
of GDP (gro
luding $1.6
c activity ge
estments ma
e charging.
nt, American pu
mic growth
ccessibility f
re, more inve
ands service
by providing
public trans
consumer s
by automob
useholds;
reduced co
broader lab
and
by
acts
vel,
can
.
ort
the
) is
an
on
ted
ent,
are
hat
ion
ion
with
s is
ales
oss
billion of wo
nerates nea
y include tra
Public expe
ublic transporta
Figure
Sourc
for all neigh
estments are
and improv
g:
sportation pa
pending;
bile and truc
ngestion on
our markets
orker incom
rly $500 mil
ansfers from
enditures on
ation investmen
e 2.63. Econothroupubli
e: UNECE
bourhoods t
e needed to
ves mobility
assengers an
ck, leading to
wages and r
s with more
e and $0.2 b
lion in feder
central gove
n urban tran
nt, 2009
omic growthugh investmeic transport
to public
improve
y, and, if
nd those
o further
reliability
e diverse
billion of
ral, state
ernment,
nsport in
ents in
83
capital cities may be fully financed by the central government. More generally, and almost
exclusively in noncapital cities, the main responsibility for financing will rest with the regional or
municipal government with some degree of participatory funding from the central government.
Local borrowing may be secured against general municipal revenues or occasionally against toll
revenue. Some municipalities are at least as creditworthy as their national governments and may be
able to issue bonds of their own.
Where public transport service is franchised to the private sector, the financing of vehicles and their
supporting infrastructure normally become the responsibility of the franchisee. The main difficulty in
this context is that unless the contracts are well defined, and of reasonable duration, it may be
difficult for a private operator to finance the necessary vehicles.
Public‐Private‐Partnerships (PPP) financing schemes could be a financing solution for urban
transport projects. However, as the Asian Development Bank (ADB) finds there are major gaps that
can be reduced only through robust and persistent efforts:
• the legal, regulatory, and institutional frameworks within which private sector participation
via PPPs is enabled and the authorization, treatment, and use of debt is allowed to operate;
• local variables (e.g., the size, tax base, accounting and debt management) which, in their
current form, severely limit local governments’ ability to tap financial markets;
• enabling arrangements (credit enhancement mechanisms, credit rating systems) that
enhance the borrowing and repayment capacities of local governments;
• technical and managerial capacity of cities to become financially credible and accountable.
Figure 2
Source:
Targeted
With inc
subsidy
World B
key aspe
Box 1
Source: Wo
2.64. Pricing a
World Bank,
d subsidies p
creasing pre
schemes is
Bank based o
ects of imple
1.5. A fraa targ
orld Bank, Targ
and Financin
, UNECE
present a sol
essures for c
not only po
on two recen
ementation w
ameworgeted tr
geted subsidies
ng Urban Tra
ution to the
cities to ach
ossible, but a
nt supported
which are the
k for deansport
Public Transpo
84
ansport
dilemma of
hieve both t
an affordabl
d analyses in
e basis of the
signing at subsidy
rt Nodes , 2014
affordable p
the design a
e and smart
n Buenos Air
e five‐step fr
and impy progra
4
prices and fin
and impleme
t way to use
res and Bogo
ramework pr
plementm
nancial susta
entation of
e city resour
otá identified
resented in B
ing
ainability.
targeted
rces. The
d several
Box 1.6.
85
The European Union on the other hand has been promoting Public Service Obligation contracts and
through this recognising that imposing low tariffs, extended networks and frequency can bleed
operator if these costs are not recovered. In other words the demand for services by the
Government that the operator otherwise would not meet if it is left to its financial considerations,
are in need of compensation.
2.7.3.1 World Bank
World Bank has been increasingly involved in urban transport projects. Within the WB funding, the
share of urban transport related investments rose from 10% ($893 million) in FY 2011 to 19% in FY
2013 ($1billion), with four new urban transport projects approved. A capacity building program for
Leaders in Urban Transport Planning has been developed to create awareness amongst leaders
about the need to plan for urban transport in a comprehensive and holistic manner rather than
through construction of high cost facilities alone. The program seeks to create an understanding of
the need to combine supply side measures with demand side measures and also the need for
integrating urban transport planning with several dimensions such as land use, environment, social,
energy and other issues. In FY 2013 the program trained 250 participants from 20 countries.
Table 2.1. World Bank’s projects in ECE region
Project Title Country Project
ID
Commitment
amount Status
Approval
Date
Second Regional Development
Project Georgia P130421 30.0 Active
November 6,
2012
Regional Development Project Georgia P126033 60.0 Active March 20,
2012
AF ‐ BISHKEK &OSH URBAN Kyrgyz
Republic P122811 15.8 Active
January 12,
2012
Regional and Municipal
Infrastructure Development
Project
Georgia P110126 40.0 Active October 2,
2008
Bishkek and Osh Urban
Infrastructure Project
Kyrgyz
Republic P104994 12.0 Active
March 18,
2008
Second East‐West Highway
Improvement Georgia P094044 35.0 Closed
December
18, 2007
Istanbul Municipal
Infrastructure Project Turkey P100383 322.15 Closed
June 28,
2007
86
MUNICIPAL SERVICES PROJECT Romania P088252 131.7 Closed July 13, 2006
National Urban Transport
Improvement Project
Russian
Federation P133201 119.0 Pipeline
Second Regional and
Municipal Infrastructure
Development Project
Georgia P147521 45.0 Pipeline
Source: World Bank
World Bank has invested or is planning to invest in five projects in Georgia. One project is on the
pipeline, one is closed and three projects are ongoing. The total budget of the projects – approved
and forecasted – is 210 US$ millions. The development objective of the Second Regional
Development Project for Georgia is to improve infrastructure services and institutional capacity to
support increased contribution of tourism in the local economy of the Imereti region. There are two
components to the project. The first component is infrastructure investments in urban regeneration
of Tskaltubo and tourism circuits' development. The activities will help improve livability and
hospitality in a culturally‐informed manner, enhance attractiveness for visitors, revitalize the urban
nucleus, and attract increased volume of private sector investments around the medical and spa
tourism cluster. The second component is institutional development. The objective of the Regional
Development Project for Georgia is to improve infrastructure services and institutional capacity to
support the development of tourism‐based economy and cultural heritage circuits in the Kakheti
region. There are two components to the project, the first component being Infrastructure
Investment. The second component is the institutional development. The objective of the Additional
Financing for Regional and Municipal Infrastructure Development Project (RMIDP‐AF) is to improve
the efficiency and reliability of selected municipal infrastructure and service; and assist in restoring
infrastructure, services and improving housing conditions of conflict‐affected people in Georgia. This
will include: 1) rehabilitating additional municipal infrastructure throughout the country; and 2)
preparing strategic development plans for a selected number of cities in support of municipal and
regional development program of Georgia.
In addition, the Bank has invested in two projects in Kyrgyz Republic. The total budget of the
projects is 27.8 US$ millions. The objective of the Additional Financing (AF) for the Bishkek and Osh
Urban Infrastructure Project (BOUIP) is to improve the living conditions in selected semi‐informal
settlements (novostroiki) in Bishkek and Osh, the two largest cities of the Kyrgyz Republic, by
increasing the availability of basic infrastructure to the residents of these areas. It will also help
continue the successful municipal and social infrastructure investments supported by the World
Bank to the country's twenty‐three small towns under the Small Towns Investment Capacity Building
Project (STICBP).
In Turkey the Bank invested in one project. The project introduced changes in the Turkey Istanbul
Municipal Infrastructure and accompanying amendments to the project's legal documents. The
restructuring serves to align the project with the evolving priorities of the Istanbul Metropolitan
Municipality. The restructuring : (a) expanded the scope of improvements in solid waste
87
management and rehabilitation and clean‐up of creeks; (b) removed retrofitting and construction of
buildings, fire stations and emergency housing associated with urban transformation.
The Municipal Services Project aims to assist Romania to meet European Union environmental
directives in the water and wastewater sector, thereby improving the quality and coverage of water
and wastewater services. The project will have three components: a) Component 1, urban services in
Bucharest municipality, which will include provision of urban services ‐ water, sewerage, drainage,
and road surfacing ‐ in priority neighborhoods; b) Component 2, urban services in Arad municipality,
which will include provision of urban services ‐ sewerage, drainage, and road surfacing ‐ in priority
neighborhoods.; and c) Component 3, consulting services to prepare for water and wastewater
projects in 11 counties.
Finally, the National Urban Transport Improvement Project in Russian Federation has two
components: Component 1: Development of a National Framework for Improvement of Urban
Transport Systems (estimated $5 million IBRD Loan, $5 million Borrower funds and $1.1 million GEF
Grant). This component will support development of a national framework for urban transport,
which would provide an enabling environment for municipalities to improve the condition and
quality of their urban transport systems and to develop the institutional and technical capacity. To
that end, this component would support the following activities: (i) Refinement and adoption of a
national strategy for urban transport improvements; (ii) Introduction of high‐priority legal reforms;
(iii) Creation of a Federal Urban Transport Center; (iv) Development and delivery of an urban
transport learning program for policy‐makers and practitioners in all Russian cities by the Federal
Urban Transport Center; and (v) Development and dissemination of toolkits by the Federal Urban
Transport Center. Component 2: Pilot Program for Urban Transport Improvements (estimated $100
million IBRD loan, $100 million Borrower funds and $5.5 million GEF Grant). This component will
support urban transport pilot projects in three cities, with co‐financing by participating cities (the
amount to be determined). Candidate areas for pilot projects would include (i) improvement of
traffic management systems, potentially including advanced technologies of intelligent
transportation systems (ITS), (ii) improvement of public transport infrastructure, vehicles and
services, (iii) development and implementation of a city‐wide parking plan, (iv) improvement of road
traffic safety and non‐motorized transport, and (v) implementation of various TDM measures. Pilot
projects will be selected by municipal administrations, based on their long‐term transport strategy
Public Disclosure Copy and investment programs.
2.7.3.2. European Investment Bank
The EIB has supported a wide range of projects in urban public transport sector. Total of 41 loans
approved: €4.2 billion ($5.4 billion) of investment; 45% of lending to public transport, of which 33%
to urban transport and 12% to rail. A key area of intervention is increasing the capacity of public
transport networks through the construction or rehabilitation of infrastructure such as metro and
tramway lines and rapid transit bus systems and the acquisition of rolling stock for all transport
modes (suburban rail and metro services, trams, trolleybuses and buses). In recent years, projects
have also been developed with the help of ELENA, a joint Commission‐EIB initiative that helps local
authorities prepare energy efficiency projects, including urban public transport schemes.
Investments in specific equipment to improve the quality of public transport, such as electronic
ticketing, traffic management and communication systems, are also supported by the Bank.
88
Over the last five years the EIB has helped part‐finance:
a. 32 metro networks
b. 4 urban rail projects
c. 48 tramways
d. 48 rail projects
e. 27 high‐speed rail projects.
During 2012 EIB approved a number of urban transport projects, including one large metro
extension (Dnepropetrovsk in Ukraine) and one new metro line (Warsaw in Poland). In addition, the
EIB invested in various smaller tramway schemes, in particular in Poland. These extensions of lines
and new lines provide more capacity, safety and efficiency, and encourage modal shift from cars and
buses.
Table 2.2. EIB projects in ECE region
Date of entry Title Country Sector Status
16/12/2013 BERLIN INTERURBAN RAILWAY
NETWORK "RING" Germany Transport Under appraisal
Contract for provision of transport services including the procurement, testing and licensing as well as
operation and maintenance of new rolling stock to be used on the Berlin "Ring S‐Bahn" rail network with an
approximate total transport service provided of 9.4m train‐km.
13/11/2013 MARSEILLE TRANSPORT URBAIN II France Transport Approved
Le projet a pour objectif de financer plusieurs composantes du programme d’investissements en transports
publics de la Communauté Urbaine de Marseille (MPM) pour la période 2013‐2016. L'opération permettra
d'améliorer la qualité de service de l’ensemble des modes du réseau de transport public de l'établissement
Public de Coopération Intercommunale (EPCI).
06/11/2013 CITY BY‐PASS ZWETTL Austria Transport Approved
Design, construction, financing, operation and maintenance of a by‐pass road around the city of Zwettl, district
capital in the State of Lower Austria, within a PPP Availability Scheme. The project will enhance the road and
transport network of the city, alleviating its growing traffic by redirecting HGV and substantially reducing the
related levels of congestion, emissions and noise. This will also lead to an improved quality of life for the
inhabitants.
14/10/2013 SOFIA METRO PHASE III (FWL
20060411) Bulgaria Transport Under appraisal
The project is a major allocation under the structured programme loan "Bulgaria EU Funds Co‐Financing 2007‐
13" (20060411) and concerns the 3rd phase of Sofia's metro extension. The works to be co‐financed hereunder
comprise the extension of the current metro line 1 from Tsarigradsko schosse to (i) Sofia International Airport
through the residential area Drushba (lot 1) and to (ii) Sofia's largest residential area Mladost and its business
park (lot 2).
08/10/2013 CZESTOCHOWA URBAN
PolandTransport
Signed
89
INFRASTRUCTURE II Industry
The project focuses on financing small and medium‐scale investment schemes, mainly in the fields of urban
renewal, transport, health and education in Czestochowa. The project will contribute to the implementation of
a sustainable development strategy of the City of Czestochowa, and in particular, to the improvement of the
urban infrastructure such as the internal road network and public transport as well as public buildings (schools,
public housing, social care centres, and cultural amenities).
28/08/2013 BRATISLAVA URBAN TRANSPORT Slovakia Transport Under appraisal
The project concerns the financing of different investment schemes in the City of Bratislava within its
framework development plan, mainly in the field of public transport. Most of these schemes are expected to
be complemented by EU grant support from the Structural Funds. The project includes a new tramway line
linking the city centre with the most densely populated residential area, Petržalka. It will upgrade the old
bridge of Starý Most over the Danube for use by trams, pedestrians and cyclists. The upgraded bridge will be in
line with Danube Convention and will increase traffic capacity on the river. The project will also include
upgrade of tram tracks, trolley bus lines, new rolling stock of trams and trolley buses, and a new depot for
rolling‐stock.
01/07/2013 URBAN TRANSPORT MAINZELBAHN Germany Transport Signed
Extension of a tram line by 9.2 km from Mainz Central Station to Mainz Lerchenberg and acquisition of
additional trams. The project will increase the efficiency and quality of public transport services in Mainz and
thereby support sustainable transport solutions in line with EU objectives.
28/06/2013 NAHVERKEHR GRAZ Austria Transport Signed
Upgrade and extension of tram infrastructure, rolling stock and buses. The selected investments will improve
the quality and service level of the sustainable transport modes, in particular buses and tram.
27/05/2013 NICE TRANSPORT URBAIN II France Transport Under appraisal
Construction de la ligne de tramway Ouest‐Est permettant de relier l’aéroport et le centre administratif au
port, 11,3 km (dont 3,2 km en tunnel), en desservant tout l'hypercentre, avec 20 stations, matériel roulant,
parcs relais. Améliorer les conditions de la mobilité dans le périmètre de la métropole avec un impact positif
sur la qualité de vie, la compétitivité économique et l’environnement.
27/05/2013 LILLE METROPOLE MODERNISATION
DU METRO France Transport Signed
Le projet consiste en un programme d'évolution et de modernisation du métro, destiné à résoudre l'ensemble
des problèmes actuels pour les trente prochaines années. Le doublement des rames et des quais permettront
d'accueillir l'évolution du trafic prévue.
14/05/2013 EE PUBLIC TRANSPORT BARCELONA Spain Transport
Energy Under appraisal
Framework loan to finance small to medium‐size schemes included in the promoter's investment programme
to improve the energy efficiency and operation of the existing public transport network. The proposed loan
will contribute to capitalising on the existing ELENA (European Local ENergy Assistance) facility in place with
Transports de Barcelona, which is dedicated to the Electrobus project (the first large scale program in Europe
to retrofit existing diesel and GNC buses into hybrids), improving the leverage effect of EU resources on EIB's
90
lending for climate action.
03/05/2013 TRAMWAY DE LIEGE PPP Belgium Transport Approved
The project consists of the construction of the first phase of the first tramway line of Liège. It will be 11.4 km
long with 21 stations, and includes the construction of a new depot as well as the acquisition of 19 trams.
14/02/2013 SZCZECIN TRAMWAY INFRAST
(FL2012‐0399) Poland Transport Under appraisal
The project consists of modernisation of 13 km of tram tracks and catenaries, construction of additional tram
track and modernisation and extension of an existing tram depot (Pogodno) in the city of Szczecin, in the north
west of Poland. The project is part of the Integrated Plan for Public Transport Development for 2007‐2015,
adopted by the Szczecin City Council on 25 January 2010.
06/03/2012 DNIPROPETROVSK METRO
COMPLETION
Ukraine Transport S Signed
The project consist of extending the existing metro line in Dnipropetrovsk by 4.0 kilometres and
adding 3 stations. This would bring the metro service to the city centre to serve areas of high urban
density and activity.
30/07/2010 Odessa Public Transport Ukraine Transport Under
appraisal
The project consists of (i) the reconstruction of approximately 14 km of tracks on the tram line that
runs between the historic city centre of Odessa and its major satellite residential district; (ii) the
purchase of 16 articulated, semi‐low floor trams and (iii) the modernisation of the tram depot.
Azerbaijan plans to open new subway stations in the capital Baku in 2014 to tackle the transport
problems of the big city. The decision was made after growing traffic jams turned into an urban
challenge for Azerbaijan’s government and Baku population. Baku Metro put pressure on the
government to adopt a 20‐year‐old program for developing the metro stations across the capital.
The 46‐year old Baku Metro operates 23 stations in two lines – Red and Green with the total length
of 34.6 kilometers. Under the new program, the number of subway lines is planned to increase from
two to five , its length up to 119 kilometers and the number of stations up to 76 by 2030.
In order to improve rail passenger service quality and efficiency in Riga and outside the capital city,
Latvian Railway (LDz) plans to modernize 16 railway stations, in the framework of the project Rail
passenger infrastructure upgrade/passenger information & CCTV system installation – monitoring &
contract management. This will ensure sustainable operation of the railway Riga urban and
suburban public transport system and, at the same time, reduce environmental pollution. This
project also received the support of the Latvian government, being declared of national interest.
In early 2014, Kyiv metro received the eight five‐car trainsets, ordered in 2013. The subway cars
comply with the technical requirements for fire safety and environmental requirements established
by Ukrainian legislation. .
F
S
2.7.3.3.
ADB’s tr
member
work in
total of
investm
low 2%
Sustaina
support
more th
other As
Figure 2.65. N
Source: ADB
Asian Develo
ransport sect
r countries.
2012 include
26 loans/gra
ents, and se
% (between
able Urban T
ing the deve
an 280,000 p
sian cities inc
Number and
opment Ban
tor support i
Guided by i
ed three new
ants and 45
rving 23 cou
2000 and
Transport p
elopment of
persons per
cluding Astan
Value of AD
k.
is changing t
its Sustainab
w projects fo
technical as
untries. More
2009). Imp
roject (appr
f a BRT corr
day. Lessons
na, Davao, D
DB projects in
91
to meet the
ble Transpor
or Buss Rapid
ssistance pro
e than 20% o
lementing s
roved in 200
ridor which o
s from Lanzh
Dhaka, Jinagx
n Transport
new challen
rt Initiative O
d Transit (BR
ojects were a
of lending wa
sustainable
09) is ADB’s
opened in D
hou are being
xi Ji’an, Ulaan
ges facing th
Operational
RT) and two
approved, to
as for urban
urban tran
s first BRT
December 20
g used to dev
nbaatar, and
he Bank’s de
Plan (STI‐OP
for metros.
otaling $3.9
transport, u
sport: The
project. It h
012 and now
velop BRT sy
d Yichang.
eveloping
P), ADB’s
In 2012,
billion in
up from a
Lanzhou
has been
w carries
ystems in
2.7.3.4.
Europea
Reconst
Develop
the dev
reliable
systems
operatio
market
econom
social ne
to the n
individu
subsecto
railways
transpor
the pas
more th
investm
the large
signed
Dneprop
extensio
institutio
for new
phase o
in Burga
2.7.3.5.
There ar
projects
increase
European Ba
an Ban
ruction
pment (EBR
velopment
and secur
in its c
ons which
principles
mic, environ
eeds and are
eeds of indu
al. Spannin
ors – avia
s, roads, ship
rt and logis
st five years
han doubled
ents. In urba
est of the six
in 2012
petrovsk
on project, c
onal and com
low‐floor tr
f financing t
as, Bulgaria, a
Additional so
re examples
s: such as em
e in land valu
ank for Reco
nk for
and
D) supports
of efficient,
re transport
ountries of
h embody
s, balance
mental and
e responsive
ustry and the
ng all key
tion, ports,
pping, urban
stics – over
s EBRD has
d its annua
an transport,
x operations
was the
Metro
o‐financed w
mmercial str
rolleybuses i
o the Yereva
as a complem
ources for fu
of ECE capit
mployer tax,
ue due to pub
nstruction a
r
d
s
,
t
f
y
e
d
e
e
y
,
n
r
s
l
,
s
e
o
with EIB, wh
rengthening
n the City o
an Metro Co
ment to EU f
unding public
tal cities that
tolls, public
blic transpor
Figure 2.
Source:E
92
nd Developm
ich will see
of the metr
f Balti, Mold
ompany. Fina
financing.
c transport
t use additio
c‐private par
rt investmen
.66. EBRD’s mapprova
EBRD
ment
Line 1 of the
o company.
dova and alo
ally, EBRD fin
nal sources f
rtnerships or
ts.
modal distribals
e metro com
EBRD is also
ongside the E
nanced an im
for financing
r the instrum
bution of 201
mpleted, with
o providing f
EIB, agreed a
mportant BRT
g the urban t
ments to cap
12 transport
h parallel
financing
a second
T project
transport
pture the
93
Table 2.3. Additional source for financing public transport projects, examples from ECE capitals
Capital city Additional source for
financing
Project
Berlin Grants from private sector Construction of stations of S‐Bahn (stations
servicing newly contracted housing complexes)
Copenhagen Land sales along metro line
Real estate taxes
Ørestad‐Copenhagen metro line
Dublin Betterment levy scheme
Selling of real estate
development rights
Luas cross city: the extension of the light rail
network
London Congestion charge General investment in transport services beyond
the contribution to the operation
Commercial sponsorship Barclays Cycle Hire
Emirates air line
Business rate supplement as
tax increment
Selling of real estate
development rights of surplus
land and on top of new
stations
Community infrastructure levy
London Crossrail
Madrid Public‐private partnership:
concession for the
construction and operation of
infrastructures
Light‐rail lines n Sanchinarro, Pozuelo de Alarcón
and Boadilla del Monte, the metro extension to the
new terminal 4 at the airport
Betterment levy as capture of
increase in land value
Parla tramway or the extension of metro line 1 to a
new residential area called PAU de Vallecas
Grants from private sector Construction of metro station Ronda de la
Comunicación (the station provides the access to
the grant providing enterprise facilities)
Oslo Car toll Public transport investments
94
Paris Employer tax “versement
transport”
General investment into public transport
Re‐allocation of office tax Grand Paris project involving construction of four
new automatic metro lines around Paris and
expansion of two existing lines of Paris Metro, with
the aim of providing direct connectivity between
suburban districts without having to travel through
the city center, while also linking important
transport hubs in the city
Commercial sponsorship Velib public bicycle
Warsaw Commercial sponsorship Installation and maintenance of new bus stops
sheds
Cha
apter 3: Pr
rofiles of ccapital citiies
95
3.1. I
The profthe city’ The prof
Where aundersto
Introduction
files for the ss urban tran
file has seve
Section Section It furtheavailable
Section tickets f
Section transportranspor
applicable, itood as “not
n
selected ECEnsport system
n sections:
1: Provides t
2: Specifies ter provides the parking fac
6: Details thor the bus se
7: Informs art and of nonrt system mo
t is specified reported”.
E capital citiem.
the name of
the data on the period focilities.
e costs in Unervice.
bout actionsn‐motorized ore sustainab
whether dat
96
es have been
the country
the capital cr tourist visit
Sfoit
Sotl
Stma
nited States d
s taken to furtransport orble.
ta were not m
created to p
and the cap
ity’s size, pots and their n
Section 3: Illufaded imagesof urban pubmages indicatransport in o
Section 4: Spof the lines ptransport moength of the
Section 5: Prthe distributmodes of pua pie chart.
dollars of sin
rther improvr other actio
made availab
provide infor
pital city and
pulation andnumber as w
ustrates thros the existingblic transportate the modoperation.
pecifies the leprovided withodes. It furthe cycling lane
ovides the inion of passenblic transpor
ngle or one h
ve the qualityns aimed at
ble by indica
rmation at g
its Seal.
d populationwell as the nu
ough coloredg options fort. The coloures of public
ength in kiloh the variousher specifies es.
nformation angers amongrt illustrated
hour and mo
y of urban pmaking the u
ating “NR” to
lance on
density. umber of
d or r modes red
meters s public the
about g the through
nthly
ublic urban
o be
Arm
Po
Densi
Tour
N
N
Distribmo
Actio
‐ ‐
Minibus47%
3.2 P
menia YSize: 227 km
opulation: 1.122
ity: 4,942 inhab
rist Season: July
Number of Tour
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
ns taken to i
Purchase Repair of
Me10
b
%
Profiles
Yerm
2
2 million
bitants/km2
y ‐ October
rists: NR
king: 60
ngers among ransport:
mprove the
of new busethe trolley in
Bus40%
Trolley3%
tro0%
revExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
es and increanfrastructure
vanans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
ase of bus free and constr
97
Transport in Ye
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
equency of sruction of ne
erevan:
O TROLL
1,324
12,1
NR
1,200
NR
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
service (implew segments
Yerevan
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
emented) of reticular
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$0
N
sport:
net (implem
GHT AIN
MIN
750
10
NR
750
0.25
NR
mented)
NIBUS
Aus
Po
Densi
Num
N
Distribmo
Actio
stria VSize: 415 km
opulation: 1.757
ty: 4,237 inhab
Tourist Season
mber of Tourists
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
NR
ns taken to i
NR
Vienm2
7 million
bitants /km2
n: NR
s: 8 million
king: NR
ngers among ransport:
mprove the
nnaExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
a
ans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
98
Transport in V
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
ienna :
O TROLL
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
Vienna
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$2
N
sport:
GHT AIN
MIN
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2.6
NR
NIBUS
Aze
Po
Dens
Touris
Num
N
Distribmo
Actio
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
M
erbaijan
Size: 2,130 k
opulation: 2.122
sity: 996 inhabi
t Season: May
mber of Touristsmillion
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
ns taken to i
ConstructReconstruImprove tIncrease o
Metro24%
n Bakm
2
2 million
tants/ km2
‐ September
s: some 1.5
king: NR
ngers among ransport:
mprove the
tion of moreuction of thethe reliabilityof the averag
Bus76%
akuExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
stations for e existing undy of schedulege travelling
u
ans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
the undergrderground stes (planned)speed by co
99
Transport in B
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
round (planntations with onstruction o
aku:
O TROLL
3,452
35
NR
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
ned) the objectiv
of dedicated
Baku
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
e to increase
public trans
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$0
N
sport:
e customer s
port lanes (p
GHT AIN
MIN
664
23
0.25
NR
service (plan
planned)
NIBUS
ned)
Bel
Po
Densi
Tou
N
N
Distribmo
Not
Actio
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Tra5%
Me32
larus MSize: 306 km
opulation: 1.900
ity: 6,209 inhab
urist Season: w
umber of Tourithousand
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
te: no passenge
urban trai
ns taken to i
ExtensionConstructImprovemRedesign ImplemenImplemen
Trolley27%
m %
etro2%
Minm
2
0 million
bitants/km2
hole year
ists: 100 d
king: 98
ngers among ransport:
er data for n
mprove the
n of the existtion of new mments to tramof trolley nentation of ITSntation of ITS
Bus36%
nskExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
ting metro linmetro lines: m infrastructetwork to beS: automateS for ticket c
k
ans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
nes: line 1 tolines 3 and 4ture (implem used in micd control syscontrol (non‐
100
Transport in M
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
o 20.8 km an4 (planned)mented) ro districts tostem with na‐contact card
Minsk:
O TROLL
2,150
90
35
600
40
100
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
d line 2 to 20
o transfer paavigation (plads, electronic
Minsk
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
0.3 km (ongo
assenger to manned) c punch)
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$0
$8
sport:
oing)
metro statio
GHT AIN
MIN
1,750
80
28
NR
10
0.2
8.5
ns (ongoing)
NIBUS
0
)
Be
Po
Densi
T
Num
N
Disa
Not
Actio
‐‐
Othe
‐
Me38
lgium BSize: 162 km
opulation: 1.152
ity: 7,111 inhab
Tourist Season: Septembe
ber of Tourists:
Number of Park
stribution of pamong modes o
transport
te: no passenge
urban trai
ons taken to
Launch o Improvem
frequenc
er:
Launch o
etro8%
Brum2
2 million
bitants/km2
April – er
: 2.7 million
king: 57
assengers of public t:
er data for n
improve the
of the public ments to thecy, improvem
of the car sha
Bus28%
Tram 34%
ussExisting mean
BUS
e quality of u
bike sharinge public transments at stat
are system (o
selsns of Public Tr
TRAM
Lin
Lin
Lin
Lin
Lin
Lin
Lin
La
C
rban public t
g system (impsport serviceions, giving p
ongoing)
101
s
ransport in Br
METRO
nes in km
nes in km
nes in km
nes in km
nes in km
nes in km
nes in km
nes in km
ost of single / o
Cost of mon
transport an
plemented)e: introductiopriority to pu
russels:
O TROLLE
542
211
56
520
163
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
on of vehicleublic transpo
Brussels
EY URBATRAI
Numbe
Numbe
Numbe
Numbe
Numbe
Numbe
Numbe
otorized tran
es with largerort at interse
AN N
LIGHTRA
er of stations
er of stations
er of stations
er of stations
er of stations
er of stations
er of stations
$2.
$60
nsport:
r capacity, inections (ongo
HT AIN
MIN
778
290
59
NR
35
0.2
ncrease of seoing)
NIBUS
ervice
Bul
Po
Densi
Tour
N
N
Distribmo
Actio
‐
T
Tram23%
lgaria SSize: 492 km
opulation: 1.296
ity: 2,635 inhab
ist Season: May
umber of Tourithousand
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
ns taken to i
Increase o
Trolley11%
m %
Metro13%
Sofm2
6 million
bitants/km2
y ‐ October
ists: 250 d
king: NR
ngers among ransport:
mprove the
of economic
Bus53%
fia
Existing mea
BUS
quality of ur
efficiency o
ans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
f trolley serv
102
Transport in So
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
vice (ongoing
ofia:
O TROLL
2,347
294
31
187
30
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
g)
Sofia
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$0
$3
sport:
GHT AIN
MIN
2,510
NR
27
NR
0.67
3.3
NIBUS
0
Can
Po
Dens
Tou
Num
N
Distribmo
Actio
‐ ‐
Other
‐
nada OSize: 2.976 k
opulation: 0.935
sity: 314 inhabi
urist Season: w
ber of Tourists:
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
ns taken to i
Launch ofDevelopm
r:
Launch oflocations,
Bus98%
Light train2%
Ottakm
2
5 million
itants/km2
hole year
: 7.3 million
king: NR
ngers among ransport:
mprove the
f a cycling onment of a mu
f an online m, traffic incid
awExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
nline map (imulti‐year acce
map providindents, real‐tim
wa
ans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
mplementedessibility plan
g informatiome traffic flo
103
Transport in O
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
) n (ongoing)
on for constrow
Ottawa:
O TROLL
5,584
8
688
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
uction
Ottawa
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
a
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$2
$96
sport:
GHT AIN
MIN
57
5
.60
6.25
NIBUS
Cro
Po
Dens
Touris
N
N
Distribmo
Not
Actio
‐
Tra68%
oatia ZSize: 3,719
opulation: 1.108
sity: 298 inhabi
t Season: May
umber of Tourithousand
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
te: no passengeurban trai
ns taken to i
Launch of
m %
Zag9
8 million
itants/km2
‐ September
ists: 767 d
king: NR
ngers among ransport:
er data for n
mprove the
f a public bik
Bus32%
grebExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
ke sharing sy
b
ans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
stem (imple
104
Transport in Za
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
mented)
agreb:
O TROLL
1,351
152
58
229
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
Zagreb
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$2
$6
sport:
GHT AIN
MIN
1.688
257
17
2.1
63.0
NIBUS
8
Cyp
Po
Dens
To
N
N
Distribmo
Actio
‐ ‐ ‐
prus NSize: 111 km
opulation: 0.310
ity: 2,800 inhab
ourist Season: JDecembe
Number of Tour
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
ns taken to i
Increase oIntroductIntroduct
Nicom2
0 million
bitants/km2
anuary ‐ r
rists: NR
king: NR
ngers among ransport:
mprove the
of frequencytion of fleet mtion of ticket
Bus100%
osiExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
y of bus servimanagemening machine
a
ans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
ice (ongoingt system (plas (planned)
105
Transport in N
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
) anned)
icosia:
O TROLL
NR
NR
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
Nicosia
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$1
$41
sport:
GHT AIN
MIN
884
.39
1.72
NIBUS
Cze
Po
Dens
T
Num
N
Distribmo
Actio
‐
‐
Metro47%
ech Rep
Size: 496 km
opulation: 1.241
ity: 2,503 inhab
Tourist Season: Septembe
ber of Tourists:
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
ns taken to i
Launch ofand funic(implemeExtension
o
public Pm
2
1 million
bitants/km2
April – er
: 7.0 million
king: NR
ngers among ransport:
mprove the
f Prague Inteular with theented) n of P+R zone
Bus26%
Tram 27%
PraExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
egrated Trane Czech Railw
es (implemen
aguans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
sport Systemways, with us
nted)
106
ue
Transport in P
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
m: Prague Puse of single t
rague:
O TROLL
695
NR
59
NR
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
ublic Transpoticket for all
Prague
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
ort Companymodes of th
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$1
$2
sport:
y operating be integrated
GHT AIN
MIN
NR
NR
NR
1.7
8.8
bus, tram, me system
NIBUS
etro
Est
Po
Dens
Touris
N
N
Distribmo
Actio
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Trol27
onia TSize: 159.1 k
opulation: 0.416
ity: 2,619 inhab
st Season: May
umber of Tourithousand
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
ns taken to i
Launch ofDesignatiImplemenPurchase
lley%
Tram 24%
Tallkm
2
6 million
bitants/km2
y‐September
ists: 781 d
king: NR
ngers among ransport:
mprove the
f free public on of dedicantation of ITSof new fleet
Bus49%
linnExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
transport foated lanes foS (implement (implement
n
ans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
or city residenr public trannted) ted)
107
Transport in Ta
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
nts (implemensport (imple
allinn:
O TROLL
730
33
730
NR
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
ented) emented)
Tallinn
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$0
$31
sport:
GHT AIN
MIN
855
NR
855
0.76
1.99
NIBUS
Fra
Po
Dens
N
N
Distribmo
Note:
Actio
‐
Urbantrain48%
ance PSize: 12,012
pulation: 11.86
sity: 988 inhabi
Tourist Season
Number of Tour
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
no passenger d
train
ns taken to i
Opening o
n n
Parikm
2
67 million
itants/km2
n: NR
rists: NR
king: NR
ngers among ransport:
data for light
mprove the
of the public
Bus23%
Tram 2%
Metro27%
is
Existing mea
BUS
quality of ur
c transport se
ans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
ervices to co
108
Transport in Pa
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
ompetition (p
aris:
O TROLL
24,661
65
219
NR
601
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
planned)
Paris
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
N
N
sport:
GHT AIN
MIN
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NIBUS
Geo
Po
Dens
N
N
Distribmo
Actio
‐
Minius50%
orgia TSize: 726 km
opulation: 1,485
ity: 2,046 inhab
Tourist Season
Number of Tour
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
ns taken to i
Implemenpoor (imp
b
%
Tbim
2
5 million
bitants/km2
n: NR
rists: NR
king: NR
ngers among ransport:
mprove the
ntation of thplemented)
Bus22%
Metro28%
ilisiExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
e differentia
i ans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
ated types of
109
Transport in Tb
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
f fares to ma
bilisi:
O TROLL
2,185
27
5,000
NR
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
ke the publi
Tbilisi
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
c transport s
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$0
N
sport:
system more
GHT AIN
MIN
1,803
22
NR
0.29
NR
e accessible t
NIBUS
3
to the
Ge
Po
Dens
N
N
Distribmo
Not
Actio
Urbatrai30%
rmany
Size: 892 km
opulation: 3.517
ity: 3,944 inhab
Tourist Season
Number of Tour
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
te: no passenge
metronet
ns taken to i
NR
Metro35%
an n%
Bem
2
7 million
bitants/km2
n: NR
rists: NR
king: NR
ngers among ransport:
er data for z
mprove the
Bus20%
Tram 15%
rlinExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
n
ans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
110
Transport in A
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
thens:
O TROLL
1626
431
152
332
NR
NR
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
Athens
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$3
N
sport:
GHT AIN
METR
10,000
789
170
166
NR
3.3
NR
RONETZ
0
Gre
Po
Dens
Touris
N
N
Distribmo
Not
Actio
‐ ‐
Tram 2%
Met39%
eece ASize: 730 km
opulation: 3.577
ity: 4,900 inhab
st Season: June
Number of Tour
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
te: no passenge
urban trai
ns taken to i
DesignatiReorganiz
Trolley10%
tro%
Athm
2
7 million
bitants/km2
e‐September
rists: NR
king: NR
ngers among ransport:
er data for n
mprove the
on of dedicazation of the
Bus49%
henExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
ated lanes foe bus and tro
s
ans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
r bus netwoolley service t
111
Transport in A
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
rk (implemeto better ser
thens:
O TROLL
6,610
24
148
52
NR
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
nted) rve the exten
Athens
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
nded metro n
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$1
N
sport:
network (im
GHT AIN
MIN
8,268
48
54
11
1.7
NR
plemented)
NIBUS
8
Hu
Po
Densi
Touri
Num
N
Distribmo
Note:
Actio
‐ ‐
Tr28
Me22
ngary BSize: 1,226 k
opulation: 2.079
ity: 1,696 inhab
ist Season: May
ber of Tourists:
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
no passenger d
boat
ns taken to i
ExtensionFree trave
ram 8%
etro2%
Urban train5%
Budkm2
9 million
bitants/km2
y – October
: 3.8 million
king: NR
ngers among ransport:
data for river
mprove the
n of night busel for seniors
Bus40%
Trolley5%
dapExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
s service to 3s (over 65 ye
pesans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
37 lines (impears old) (imp
112
st
Transport in B
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
plemented)plemented)
udapest:
O TROLL
2,697
251
32
146
38
240
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
Budapest
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
t
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$1
$4
sport:
GHT AIN
RIVER
4,099
677
83
139
16
.50
45.0
R BOAT
9
Ice
Po
Dens
Touris
N
N
Distribmo
Actio
‐ ‐
land RSize: 100 km
opulation: 0.204
sity: 204 inhabi
st Season: May
umber of Tourithousand
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
ns taken to i
ConstructBicycle co
Reym2
4 million
itants/km2
y‐September
ists: 370 d
king: NR
ngers among ransport:
mprove the
tion of new bounter and s
Bus100%
ykjaExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
bicycle lanespeed measu
avians of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
s (ongoing) re system on
113
ik
Transport in R
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
n certain bicy
eykjavik:
O TROLL
NR
85
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
ycle lanes (im
Reykjavik
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
mplemented
k
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$3
$7
sport:
d)
GHT AIN
MIN
NR
3.0
0.0
NIBUS
Irel
Po
Densi
Tou
Num
N
Distribmo
Actio
‐
‐
‐
land DSize: 840 km
opulation: 1.111
ity: 1,322 inhab
urist Season: Jun
ber of Tourists:
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
NR
ns taken to i
Launch ofpersonal Launch ofsmart carLaunch ofper SMS i
Dubm2
1 million
bitants/km2
ne‐August
: 1.3 million
king: NR
ngers among ransport:
mprove the
f National Trdoor to doof integrated rd to pay for f ITS for passin real time (
blinExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
ransport Autr journeys usticketing systhe public trsenger inform(implemente
n
ans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
hority’s Natising public trstem – Natioransport witmation (bus ed and ongoi
114
Transport in D
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
onal Journeyransport andnal Transporhin and arouservice) withng for other
Dublin:
O TROLL
NR
37
53
275
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
y Planner Apd or walking rt Authority’und Dublin (ih signs at ther modes)
Dublin
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
pplication anand cycling (s Leap Card –mplementede majority of
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$2
$11
sport:
d website fo(implemente– that allowsd) f stops and o
GHT AIN
MIN
NR
54
31
.15
12.0
or planning ed) s using a sing
on the websit
NIBUS
gle
te or
Ital
Po
Densit
Tou
Num
N
Distribmo
Note:
Actio
‐
Other
‐
‐ ‐
M2
ly RoSize: 1,285 k
opulation: 2.864
ty: 2,229 inhab
rist Season: Jul
ber of Tourists:
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
no passenger d
and trolle
ns taken to i
Launch ofsurveillansystems, W
r:
Launch ofSigns (VM(implemeExtensionLaunch ospecialise
Metro22%
omkm
2
4 million
itants/ km2
y‐October
: 4.8 million
king: NR
ngers among ransport:
data for tram y
mprove the
f ITS: (1) Autnce, passengeWiFi and 3G
f ITS for car tMS), Urban Tented) n of a rechargof Limited Aed for smartp
Bus75%
Urban train3%
e
Existing mea
BUS
quality of ur
omatic Vehicer counters, data comm
traffic: VideoTravel Times
ging networkAccess Zonephone access
ans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
cle Monitorion‐board anunication as
o Surveillancs (UTT), Mo
k for electrice Electronic s): infos abo
115
Transport in R
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
ng: 450 highnnouncemenwell as (2) b
ce Cameras, Tnitoring of r
c vehicles to tgates for put Traffic res
ome:
O TROLL
2,300
76
80
NR
348
120
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
h level on‐bonts, TV moviebus lanes mo
Traffic flowsred light vio
the whole Mprivate car strictions in Z
Rome
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
ard systems e and advertonitoring (im
s measuremeolation, Spee
Municipality (vehicles: “MZTL's (implem
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$2
$4
sport:
including TVtisement screplemented)
ent stations, ed Monitorin
(implementeMuoversi a mented)
GHT AIN
MIN
8,500
126
53
NR
147
2.0
46.5
V video eens, 7 depo
Variable Meng System (S
ed) Roma” (we
NIBUS
0
ot
essage SICVe)
b site
Kaz
Po
Dens
Tour
Numb
N
Distribmo
Actio
‐
zakhsta
Size: 710 km
opulation: 0.743
ity: 1,046 inhab
rist Season: Jun
er of Tourists:
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
ns taken to i
Launch of(location
an Asm
2
3 million
bitants/km2
ne ‐ August
10 thousand
king: NR
ngers among ransport:
mprove the
f a website pand speed o
Bus100%
staExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
providing reaof all buses) (
naans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
al‐time inform(implemente
116
Transport in A
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
mation on thed)
stana:
O TROLL
2,372
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
he bus servic
Astana
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
ce
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$0
$3
sport:
GHT AIN
MIN
920
0.4
0.0
NIBUS
Lat
Po
Dens
Touris
Nu
N
Distribmo
Actio
‐
Tr21
tvia RSize: 304 km
opulation: 0.703
ity: 2,314 inhab
st Season: May
umber of Tourithousand
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
ns taken to i
Launch ofmodes (im
Trolley31%
ram 1%
Minibus7%
Rigam
2
3 million
bitants/km2
‐September
sts: 900 d
king: NR
ngers among ransport:
mprove the
f electronic vmplemented
Bus41%
a
Existing mea
BUS
quality of ur
validation of d)
ans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
tickets with
117
Transport in R
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
a module re
iga:
O TROLL
1,060
91
NR
NR
45
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
egistering ev
Riga
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
very trip take
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$0
$53
sport:
en by the pub
GHT AIN
MIN
1,633
227
NR
1,454
0.92
3.39
blic transpor
NIBUS
3
4
rt
Lith
Po
Dens
Touris
N
N
Distribmo
Actio
‐ ‐
Trolle37%
huania
Size: 402 km
opulation: 0.523
ity: 1,301 inhab
st Season: April
umber of Tourithousand
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
ns taken to i
Launch ofExtension
y
Minibus4%
Vilm2
3 million
bitants/km2
‐September
ists: 500 d
king: NR
ngers among ransport:
mprove the
f a public bikn of the publ
Bus59%
niuExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
ke sharing syic bike sharin
us
ans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
stem (impleng system ne
118
Transport in V
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
mented) etwork (ongo
ilnius:
O TROLL
846
259
473
113
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
oing)
Vilnius
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$0
$37
sport:
GHT AIN
MIN
1,272
NR
58
0.94
7.88
NIBUS
2
Mo
Po
Densi
Touris
N
N
Distribmo
Actio
‐
Minibus47%
oldova CSize: 635 km
opulation: 0.786
ity: 1,238 inhab
st Season: Octo
Number of Tour
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
ns taken to i
Purchase
Bus4%
b
%
Chim2
6 million
bitants/km2
ober‐January
rists: NR
king: 12
ngers among ransport:
mprove the
of new troll
s%
Trolley49%
isinExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
ey (ongoing)
nauans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
)
119
u
Transport in C
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
hisinau:
O TROLL
786
NR
2065
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
Chisinau
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$0
$2
sport:
GHT AIN
MIN
539
NR
200
0.25
0.0
NIBUS
Net
Po
Dens
Tourist
Numb
N
Distribmo
Not
Actio
Me32
therlan
Size: 1003 k
opulation: 1.424
ity: 1,420 inhab
t Season: April
ber of Tourists:
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
te: no passenge
urban trai
ns taken to i
NR
etro2%
nds Akm
2
4 million
bitants/km2
‐ September
6.0 million
king: NR
ngers among ransport:
er data for n
mprove the
Bus23%
Tram 45%
AmsExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
sterans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
120
rdaTransport in A
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
ammsterdam:
O TROLL
NR
NR
81
NR
NR
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
Amster
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$1
$10
sport:
dam
GHT AIN
MIN
1,300
490
52
22
.15
05.33
NIBUS
0
No
Po
Den
Tour
Num
N
Distribmo
Actio
‐
Metro28%
Urbtra9%
rway OSize: 5,005k
opulation: 1.145
sity: 229 inhab
rist Season: Ma
ber of Tourists:
umber of Parki
bution of passenodes of public t
ns taken to i
Launch oftransportfunction (
Tram 17%
o
ban in%
Oslkm2
5 million
itants/km2
ay ‐ August
: 3.5 million
ing: 115
ngers among ransport:
mprove the
f mobile appt tickets with(implemente
Bus44%
Ferry2%
o
Existing mea
BUS
quality of ur
plication for ph pay‐as‐you‐ed)
ans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
public ‐go credit
121
Transport in O
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
Oslo:
O TROLL
2,050
41
80
NR
2,125
2,125
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
Oslo
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$4
$18
sport:
GHT AIN
FERRY
3,500
94
94
NR
15
4,99
85.45
Y BOAT
0
Pol
Po
Dens
Num
N
Distribmo
Actio
‐
Tram25%
land WSize: 517 km
opulation: 2.000
ity: 3,868 inhab
Tourist Season
ber of Tourists
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
ns taken to i
Launch of
m %
Metro19%
Warm2
0 million
bitants/km2
n: NR
: 13 million
king: 54
ngers among ransport:
mprove the
f a public bik
Bus55%
Urban train1%
rsaExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
ke sharing sy
aw
ans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
stem (imple
122
Transport in W
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
mented)
Warsaw:
O TROLL
3,077
248
23
147
340
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
Warsaw
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$1
$26
sport:
GHT AIN
MIN
4,965
571
21
46
.05
6.34
NIBUS
5
Rom
Po
Dens
To
Num
N
Distribmo
Actio
‐
Tra37
mania BSize: 1,811 k
opulation: 2,272
sity: 1255 inhab
ourist Season: Novembe
ber of Tourists:
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
ns taken to i
Launch of
am 7%
Metro18%
Bukm
2
2 million
bitants/km2
March ‐ er
: 1.0 million
king: NR
ngers among ransport:
mprove the
f an integrat
Bus37%
Trolley8%
chaExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
ed electroni
areans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
c/contactles
123
est
Transport in B
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
ss ticketing sy
ucharest:
O TROLL
2,282
484
69
NR
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
ystem (imple
Buchares
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
emented)
t
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$1
$16
sport:
GHT AIN
MIN
1,482
586
51
NR
,64
6.40
NIBUS
2
Rus
Po
Dens
Tou
Num
N
Distribmo
Not
Actio
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Metr45%
Urban train10%
ssia Fed
Size: 2,550 k
pulation: 11,60
ity: 4,549 inhab
urist Season: w
ber of Tourists:
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
te: no passenge
monorail
ns taken to i
ConstructRenewal oConstructOptimizat
Tram 4%
o%
deratio
km2
00 million
bitants/km2
hole year
: 4.5 million
king: 14
ngers among ransport:
er data for l
mprove the
tion of 15 neof rolling stotion of expretion of opera
Bus35%
Trolley6%
on MExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
ew dedicatedock (ongoingess tramway ation costs (o
Mosans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
d bus lanes (i) lines (ongoinongoing)
124
cowTransport in M
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
implemented
ng)
w
Moscow:
O TROLL
7,816
379
309
NR
1772
5
NR
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
d)
Moscow
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$0
$3
sport:
GHT AIN
MON
8,947
862
186
NR
89
6
0.83
0.0
NORAIL
7
Ser
Po
Den
N
N
Distribmo
Not
Actio
‐ ‐ ‐
Trolle9%
rbia BSize: 3,223 k
opulation: 1.659
sity: 515 inhab
Tourist Season
Number of Tour
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
te: no passenge
urban trai
ns taken to i
Launch ofLaunch ofLaunch of
ey%
Tram 15%
Belgkm
2
9 million
itants/km2
n: NR
rists: NR
king: NR
ngers among ransport:
er data for n
mprove the
f an integratf ITS for operf ITS for pass
Bus76%
gradExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
ed electroniration (use osenger inform
de
ans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
c/contactlesof GPS and Gmation on bo
125
Transport in B
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
ss ticketing syPRS for autooard, at stop
elgrade:
O TROLL
6,850
122
58
20
NR
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
ystem (impleomatic vehiclps, through in
Belgrade
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
emented) le location) (nternet and S
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$0
$3
sport:
(implementeSMS (implem
GHT AIN
MIN
5,869
477
252
9
0,84
7.4
ed) mented)
NIBUS
9
Slo
Po
Den
Touris
N
N
Distribmo
Actio
‐
Tro11
Tr30
vakia BSize: 2,000k
opulation: 0.611
sity: 306 inhab
st Season: May
umber of Tourithousand
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
ns taken to i
Launch of
lley1%
am 0%
Brakm2
1 million
itants/km2
y‐September
ists: 780 d
king: 20
ngers among ransport:
mprove the
f tourist city
Bus57%
Urban train2%
atisExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
card for free
slavans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
e of charge p
126
va
Transport in B
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
public transp
ratislava:
O TROLL
602
39
46
196
750
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
port use (imp
Bratislava
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
plemented)
a
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
N
N
sport:
GHT AIN
MIN
876
152
70
33
NR
NR
NIBUS
Slo
Po
Dens
Touris
N
N
Distribmo
Actio
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
‐
venia LSize: 260 km
opulation: 0.536
ity: 2,063 inhab
st Season: May
umber of Tourithousand
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
ns taken to i
Launch ofLaunch ofLaunch ofLaunch of“Cavalier”Launch of
Ljum
2
6 million
bitants/km2
‐September
ists: 267 d
king: NR
ngers among ransport:
mprove the
f a cash‐freef public bicycf mobile payf two free‐of”(implementf ITS for pass
Bus100%
ubljExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
payment focle sharing syyment for buf‐charge 5 peted) senger inform
anans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
r bus travel ystem “Biciks ticket “Moerson electri
mation (impl
127
a
Transport in Lj
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
“Urbana Smke(LJ)”(impleneta”(implec vehicles fo
lemented)
jubljana:
O TROLL
1,058
127
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
art Card” (immented) mented) r old town ri
Ljubljana
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
mplemented)
ides on pede
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$1
$3
sport:
)
estrian zones
GHT AIN
MIN
798
.20
7.0
s
NIBUS
Sw
Po
Den
Touris
N
N
Distribmo
Notu
Actio
‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Tram47%
itzerlan
Size: 483 km
opulation: 0.355
sity: 737 inhab
st Season: July ‐
umber of Touri
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
te: no passengeurban and light
ns taken to i
Launch ofExtensionImprovemLaunch ofLaunch of
m %
nd Bm
2
5 million
itants/km2
‐ September
ists: NR
king: 13
ngers among ransport:
er data for t trains
mprove the
f priority cron of public trment of the vf a system tof stations wit
Bus31%
Trolley22%
ernExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
ossing systemansport linesvisual appearo ensure vehth supervise
n
ans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
m for public ts (ongoing)rance and saicle cleaningd bicycle sta
128
Transport in B
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
transport at i
afe and secug during opernds
ern:
O TROLL
130
40
NR
NR
NR
NR
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
intersections
ure access foration “TEAM
Bern
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
s (implemen
r public tranM CLEAN”(im
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$3
$6
sport:
ted)
sport stops (mplemented)
GHT AIN
MIN
261
71
NR
NR
NR
3.9
9.0
(ongoing) )
NIBUS
Tur
Po
Den
N
N
Distribmo
Not
Actio
Light train5%
Minius51%
rkey ASize: 8,621 k
opulation: 4.890
sity: 567 inhab
Tourist Season
umber of Touri
umber of Parki
bution of passenodes of public t
te: no passenge
urban trai
ns taken to i
NR
b
%
Ankkm
2
0 million
itants/km2
n: NR
ists: NR
ing: 101
ngers among ransport:
er data for n
mprove the
Bus36%
Metro8%
karExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
a
ans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
129
Transport in A
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
nkara:
O TROLL
13,705
15
NR
9
NR
NR
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
Ankara
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$0.
N
sport:
GHT AIN
MIN
6,838
12
NR
11
NR
014
NR
NIBUS
8
Un
Po
Densi
N
N
Distribmo
Note:
Actio
Met32
ited Kin
Size: 1,579 k
opulation: 8.200
ity: 5,193 inhab
Tourist Season
Number of Tour
Number of Park
bution of passenodes of public t
no passenger d
and urban tr
ns taken to i
NR
tro%
ngdom
km2
0 million
bitants/km2
n: NR
rists: NR
king: NR
ngers among ransport:
data for tram rain
mprove the
Bus66%
Light train2%
LoExisting mea
BUS
quality of ur
ondans of Public T
TRAM
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
Li
La
C
rban public t
130
donTransport in Lo
METRO
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
ines in km
anes in km
Cost of single /
Cost of mon
transport and
ondon:
O TROLL
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
one hour ticket
nthly ticket
d of non‐mo
London
LEY URBATRA
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
Numb
t
torized trans
AN AIN
LIGTRA
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
ber of stations
$2
$11
sport:
GHT AIN
MIN
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
.20
19.5
NIBUS
Cha
apter 4: Co
onclusionss and recoommenda
131
tions
4.1. C
Urban m
car use,
transpor
consequ
concern
As there
attentio
mobility
There ar
its acces
that a sc
Figure 4.1
Source: ECE In a num
in minus
or Pragu
seven ca
16 capit
Conclusions
mobility with
public trans
rt services, i
uence extern
.
e is always a
n to issues
y more efficie
re quite man
ssibility, com
core of above
. Quality of u
E
mber of case
s from that p
ue. Assumin
apitals would
als below th
s
hin urban are
sport, cyclin
ndividual ca
nalities relat
a room for i
that may o
ent and susta
ny ECE capita
mfort and saf
e 75 per cen
urban public
es, however,
presented, e
g a best cas
d fall below
at mark (figu
eas of many
g and walkin
r use has be
ted to conge
improvemen
or should be
ainable.
als that offe
fety (figure 4
t suggests a
c transport in
due to inco
especially for
se scenario
a line of a m
ure 4.2.).
132
ECE capital
ng. While EC
een growing
estions, poll
nt, the analy
e considered
r a relatively
4.1.) as base
good quality
n ECE capitals
mplete data
r a few capit
– the missin
mark of 75 pe
cities is ens
CE capital cit
and distorti
ution and t
ysis provided
d for makin
y good qualit
ed on the da
y of public tr
s
, the quality
tal cities, in p
ng data wou
er cent. In th
ured throug
ties have a t
ng the moda
raffic accide
d in this pap
ng urban tra
ty of public t
ata made ava
ransport prov
y can vary su
particular Am
uld show po
he opposite
gh a mix of in
traditional fo
al split in ma
ents remain
per tries to d
ansport syste
transport in
ailable and a
vided.
ubstantially i
msterdam, B
ositive result
case there w
ndividual
or public
any. As a
a major
draw the
ems and
terms of
assuming
n plus or
Bratislava
ts – only
would be
Figu
Sourc While th
systems
transpor
A numb
provided
Astana,
When it
(sitting
accessib
to figure
Athens,
speed (r
With reg
average
(express
modest
There a
Budapes
with any
ure 4.2. Poss
ce: ECE
he quality of
exist every
rt services ca
ber of ECE c
d if regarded
Baku, Ljublja
comes to ac
and standin
ble network.
es 2.17., 2.1
Belgrade, B
ref. to figure
gard to com
age, availab
sed as decre
comfort: An
re a few mo
st, Yerevan a
y or the majo
sible deviatio
f public trans
ywhere. Wh
an be achiev
capital cities
d vis‐à‐vis cit
ana, Ottawa,
ccessibility o
ng) capacity
Among them
19., 2.20., 2.
russels, Rom
2.22.).
mfort offered
bility of ITS,
ease of bus
nkara, Baku,
ore capitals
and Vilnius.
ority of the p
on in quality
sport in the
en they are
ed. All this
s stand out
ties of simila
, Prague and
of public tran
y, frequency
m are, espec
21.). With t
me and Sofia
d by public t
options for
speed durin
Belgrade an
that provid
Some other
public transp
133
of public tra
majority of
e addressed,
seems to be
in minus w
r population
Tbilisi (ref. t
nsport: lengt
y and speed
cially, Baku, B
the exceptio
provide pub
ransport and
r ticket purc
ng peak hou
nd Chisinau (
e public tra
capital citie
port modes a
nsport in ECE
cases is rela
, significant
e feasible wit
with regard
n or metropo
to figure 2.1
h of the net
d, certain ca
Bern, Buchar
n of Baku, a
blic transpor
d assessed b
chase and vu
urs), a few c
(ref. to figur
nsfers with
s do not off
vailable: Min
E capitals, 20
tively good,
further imp
th just a little
to the publ
olitan area si
5.).
work, numb
apitals offer
rest, Moscow
all these citi
rt transfers a
based on ind
ulnerability t
capitals seem
es: 2.23., 2.2
relatively o
fer ITS for pa
nsk, Riga and
011
weak poin
provement o
e effort.
ic transport
ize. Among t
er of station
r comparativ
w, Tbilisi, Zag
ies and a fe
at comparat
dicators such
to traffic co
m to offer r
24., 2.26. an
ld bus fleet:
assenger info
d Yerevan.
nts of the
of public
t options
them are
ns, places
vely less
greb (ref.
ew more:
ively low
h as: bus
ongestion
relatively
nd 2.31.).
: Astana,
ormation
134
Regarding safety of public network, even if it is relatively safe everywhere, certain capitals, among
them: Ankara, Astana, Athens, Brussels, Budapest and Warsaw had a number of injuries and
fatalities well above other capitals (ref to figure 2.38.).
The quality of public transport service and the demand for it can be also regarded in the context of
fares set for the service. Certain capitals may benefit from decreasing the fares to attract more
passengers to a good quality service provided. Some others may think of increasing the fares to
invest into the quality improvements.
Two capitals: Oslo and Zagreb, which provide relatively high quality public transport service, though
achieve relatively low demand, offer the service at high price comparatively to citizens’ income (ref.
to figures: 2.51. and 2.52.). Four capital cities: Ankara, Astana, Chisinau37, Ljubljana and Tbilisi, whose
public transport is of moderate quality but at relatively low price compared to income, also achieve
only modest passenger volumes. In the first case, the decrease of the fare price may attract more
passengers. In the second case, the increase in fare, hopefully allowing for raising investments into
improving the quality of service, may not affect the demand volume, while the improving quality
service in a medium term may attract new passengers.
The change of the fare should be regarded in the context of service profitability. While the cost‐
recovery has not been reviewed in this project, in the number of capitals the providers offer the
services with comparatively many more employees than the others thus less efficient: Athens,
Chisinau, Riga and Zagreb (ref. to figures: 2.55. and 2.56.). In a number of capitals the employees
hired for administration and fleet and infrastructure maintenance account for a great share of all
employees: Chisinau, Moscow, Riga and Tbilisi (ref. figure 2.59.).
The cost‐recovery can be further linked with the efficiency of fleet use. In a number of capitals,
however, the fleet is not that efficiently used, with often more than 40 per cent of the fleet staying
in depots: Ankara, Baku, Chisinau, Riga, Tbilisi and Zagreb (ref. figures: 2.60., 2.61. and 2.62.).
Furthermore, a good quality public transport at a competitive fare may be attracting moderate
volumes of passengers, if the road capacity can accommodate well the private cars i.e. travel at
relatively high speeds while enough parking capacity is provided and no extra fees are charged. In a
number of capital cities this seems to be the case: Amsterdam, Ankara, Dublin, Oslo, Reykjavik and
Tallinn (ref. to figure 2.30.).
At the same time, for some cities, the roads may be less congested due to high use of bicycles for
city transfers, especially for shorter trips, e.g. in Amsterdam and Oslo (ref. to figure 2.47.).
4.2. Recommendations
The ECE capitals may consider the following recommendations when looking for ways to further
increase the sustainability of their urban transport system.
Quality and safety of public transport:
37 Chisinau achieves relatively high demand for its public transport service, however, nearly half of it is generated by the private mini buses service
135
1. Public transport should preferably offer more than one option of service, while the offered options should be well interconnected with each other.
The introduction of additional mode of public transport might help in attracting new passengers to
using the public transport service, in particular when a mode offering high capacity and transferring
at relatively high speed is placed along a frequently used commuting corridor.
2. Public transport should offer the adequate accessibility. The length of the network, number of stations, frequency of operation and place capacity should be designed in a way that allows for a satisfactory ride time door‐to‐door or nearly, while the journey is comfortable, i.e.:
‐ The stations will be easily reachable, including by bicycle or car in suburbs or by walking, i.e. also offering as part of the station’s infrastructure an adequate parking capacity
‐ The ride time will be perceived as quick: i.e. no long stops at the stations or at traffic lights. ‐ Enough sitting or standing capacity allowing for a comfort zone for every passenger.
3. Public transport should offer transfer at speed above 20kmh for bus, trolley and tram service and above 30kmh for metro and urban train service. The speeds below the recommended levels may not allow public transport to compete with travel by car. To this end, on‐ground modes should use dedicated lanes on congested roads and be given priority at roads intersections.
4. Public transport should offer adequate comfort, including clean, low‐floor and air‐conditioned vehicles, real‐time information displayed for passengers in vehicles and at the stations and various passenger‐friendly options of ticket purchase, including e.g. s purchase through mobile services and internet.
Comfortable public transport system with easily accessible vehicles is an attractive option for every
group of potential customers, whether with physical limitations or a parent with pram. The
availability of real‐time information, clean and heated / air‐conditioned vehicles may help to attract
passengers that otherwise would prefer taxi service. The easy‐access to tickets will make the use of
the public transport overall more satisfactory, especially if no time is lost unnecessarily in queues to
kiosks or ticket machines.
5. Public transport should be safe limiting the risk of injuries or fatalities as well as of theft or harassment to nearly zero. Safety can increase by providing public transport service with vehicles equipped with the latest safety technology, while its infrastructure should be separated from the other motorized vehicles through availability of public transport dedicated lanes, in particular on the most used roads. Safety inside of the vehicles should be increased by introduction of ITS.
136
Traffic congestions and pollution:
6. Road capacity for private motorized transport should be decreased in city centres, which can be easily accessible by the public transport. Instead the existing road capacity should be dedicated to on‐ground public transport modes, bicycles and widened pedestrian zones. The decreased road capacity for private motorized vehicles and good accessibility with public transport would discourage the use of private cars for transfers to city centres.
7. It can make a difference when congestion fees are introduced on the high traffic corridors to city centres while park‐and‐ride infrastructure is made available in the suburbs to allow for easy intermodal connection.
The undercharged roads create a heavy demand for road space that otherwise would be distributed
differently. Therefore, while access possibilities should be ensured also by private motorized
transport, it should be charged for transfers at the cost it creates, including air pollution. At the same
time, park‐and‐ride infrastructure should allow for easy intermodal travel car‐public transport from
suburbs or metropolitan vicinities to the centre.
Cycling and walking
8. Cycling and walking should be encouraged through availability of adequate and safe infrastructure, especially for short trips. Cycling and walking gives the very much needed physical activity to citizens. Therefore it helps to
improve citizens’ health directly. Furthermore, by replacing or limiting the car travel it also
contributes to decreasing air pollution from transport, hence affects the citizens health also
indirectly.
To attract citizens to cycling and walking, the infrastructure should be separated from the motorized
transport infrastructure and safe intersections provided. It should also be convenient and hence
prioritize walking and cycling at road intersections: shorter waiting times, on‐ground passages.
9. Cycling and walking should be encourage in connection with public transport for longer trips Safe and convenient pedestrians and cycling roads should provide easy connections to public
transport stations. For the cyclist, the stations should provide adequate parking infrastructure for
bicycles.
Affordability of urban transfers
10. Fares for public transport use should be set at the level taking into account the profitability of the operation and the average income of the population. The public transport should be offered at the fare level that would allow an average citizen to use
the service so that the right to urban transfers and mobility and accessibility to markets is not
137
limited to him or her. At the same time, however, in order to keep public transport providing a high
quality of service, fares should be calculated at the level to ensure as much cost‐recovery as
possible. In turn, , the costs should be properly managed. Also additional sources of income should
be sought: advertising revenue or license fee from business activities at the main stations. It is
essential that public transport gets financial support even to their operating costs through
compensation for public transport services or even through subsidies. For investment into
infrastructure the additional source s of income can be the supplementary property tax or
betterment levy, etc.
138
Table 4.1.Scores on quality of public transport
Name of the country
Name of the capital city
PT modes optionsa
PT accessibility PT comfort PT safety
PT lengthb
PT stationsb
Capacity (sitting and
standing places) b
Operation frequency
(bus service) b
Travel speed
(bus and tram
service)a
Bus average agea
Availability of ITS for passenger informationa
Availability of options for ticket purchaseb
Decrease of travel speed during peak hoursa
Injuries in PT modesb
Armenia Yerevan 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0 0 1 n.a. n.a.
Azerbaijan Baku 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 n.a. 1 1 0 0.5 0.5 1
Belarus Minsk 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 0 1 1 1
Belgium Brussels 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 1 0.5 0.5
Bulgaria Sofia 1 1 1 n.a. n.a. 0.25 n.a. 1 0.5 1 n.a.
Canada Ottawa 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 1 1 1 0 n.a.
Croatia Zagreb 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 1 0.5 n.a. 1 1
Cyprus Nicosia 0 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.5 0 0.5 n.a. n.a.
Czech Republic
Pragha 0.5 0.5 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 1 1 n.a. 1
Estonia Tallinn 1 1 1 1 1 0.75 0.5 1 1 1 1
France Paris 1 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Georgia Tbilisi 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 n.a. 1 1
139
Name of the country
Name of the capital city
PT modes optionsa
PT accessibility PT comfort PT safety
PT lengthb
PT stationsb
Capacity (sitting and
standing places) b
Operation frequency
(bus service) b
Travel speed (bus and tram
service)a
Bus average agea
Availability of ITS for passenger informationa
Availability of options for ticket purchaseb
Decrease of travel speed during peak hoursa
Injuries in PT modesb
Germany Berlin 1 0.5 1 n.a. n.a. 0.5 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Greece Athens 1 1 1 1 1 0.75 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5
Hungary Budapest 1 1 1 1 1 n.a. 0 1 1 n.a. 0.5
Iceland Reykjavik 0 n.a. n.a. 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 0.5 1
Ireland Dublin 1 n.a. n.a. 1 1 1 1 1 1 n.a. n.a.
Italy Rome 1 0.5 1 n.a. n.a. 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 n.a.
Kazakhstan Astana 0 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 0 1 0.5 1 0.5
Latvia Riga 1 1 1 1 1 0.75 n.a. 0 1 1 1
Lithuania Vilnius 1 1 1 0.5 1 1 0 0.5 n.a. 0.5 1
Moldova Chisinau 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 0 n.a.
Netherlands Amsterdam 1 n.a. 0.5 0.5 0.5 n.a. 1 1 1 n.a. n.a.
Norway Oslo 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.75 n.a. 0.5 1 0 1
Poland Warsaw 1 1 1 1 1 0.75 1 1 1 1 0.5
Romania Bucharest 1 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0 1 1 1 1 n.a.
140
Name of the country
Name of the capital city
PT modes optionsa
PT accessibility PT comfort PT safety
PT lengthb
PT stationsb
Capacity (sitting and
standing places) b
Operation frequency
(bus service) b
Travel speed (bus and tram
service)a
Bus average agea
Availability of ITS for passenger informationa
Availability of options for ticket purchaseb
Decrease of travel speed during peak hoursa
Injuries in PT modesb
Russian Federation
Moscow 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 0.25 1 1 0.5 1 n.a.
Serbia Belgrade 1 1 1 0.5 1 0.25 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 1
Slovakia Bratislava 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 n.a. n.a. n.a. 1 1 n.a. n.a.
Slovenia Ljubljana 0 1 0.5 0.5 n.a. 0 0.5 1 1 0.5 1
Switzerland Bern 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 n.a. 1 0.5 1
Turkey Ankara 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0.5
United Kingdom
London 1 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
a evaluation span 0 to 1 where 0.5 or 0 are given respectively for performance slightly below or below other peer cities, b evaluation span 0.5 to 1 where 0.5 or is given for performance slightly below other peer cities,