summary mmo 2008

June 2010

THE METROPOLITAN MOBILITY OBSERVATORY

2008 REPORTSummary

MINISTERIODE FOMENTO

MINISTERIODE MEDIO AMBIENTEY MEDIO RURALY MARINO

GOBIERNODE ESPAÑA

3

METROPOLITAN MOBILITY OBSERVATORY MEMBERS

PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES

OTHER MEMBERS

Centro de Investigación del TransporteUniversidad Politécnica de Madrid

Autoritat Territorialde la Mobilitat

Àrea de Lleida

��

��

��

��

��

��

OBSERVATORIO de laMovilidad Metropolitana

Editors: Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y MarinoNIPO: 770-11-130-5

Production:Andrés Monzón, Rocío CascajoTRANSyT, Transport Research Center Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

Dirección General de Calidad y Evaluación AmbientalMinisterio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino

Information Sources:Consorcio Regional de Transportes de MadridAutoritat del Transport Metropolità de BarcelonaEntitat de Transport Metropolità de ValènciaEntidad Pública del Transporte de la Región de MurciaConsorcio de Transporte Metropolitano Área de SevillaConsorcio de Transportes de BizkaiaConsorcio de Transportes de AsturiasConsorcio de Transporte Metropolitano Área de MálagaConsorci de Transports de MallorcaAutoridad Única del Transporte de Gran CanariaConsorcio de Transportes del Área de ZaragozaAutoridad Territorial del Transportes de GipuzkoaConsorcio de Transportes de Bahía de CádizConsorcio de Transporte Público del Camp de TarragonaConsorcio de Transporte Metropolitano Área de GranadaConsorcio de Transporte Metropolitano Área de AlmeríaDirección General de Transportes de la Generalitat Valenciana(Alicante)Mancomunidad de la Comarca de PamplonaAyuntamiento de VigoAyuntamiento de A CoruñaConsorcio de Transporte Público del Área de LleidaDirección General de Viajeros de RENFEMinisterio de FomentoMinisterio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino

Madrid. June 2010

MMO – 2008 Report Summary

4

Contens

Presentation .........................................................................................................................5

1 The Metropolitan Mobility Observatory (MMO) ................................................7

2 Mobility and the efficiency of urban transport ...................................................9

2.1 Basic information on the participating metropolitan areas ..................9

2.2 Transport demands...............................................................................11

2.3 Public transport supply ........................................................................13

2.4 Economic and fare-based aspects........................................................19

3 Changes in 2002-2008 indicators ...........................................................................23

4 Mobility and the urban environment ..................................................................25

4.1 Transport and climate change ..............................................................25

4.2 Air quality in urban areas .....................................................................27

4.3 Road safety in urban areas ...................................................................28

Web links ............................................................................................................................29

Presentation

Presentation

In recent years, the evolution towards low carbon economic models and reduced energy

consumption has become one of the main challenges of developed societies in terms of

mobility. If, furthermore, this evolution is brought about within the criteria of social equity

and a just repartition of wealth, the objective becomes guaranteeing that transport systems

respond well to economic, social and environmental needs, reducing to a minimum their

negative repercussions.

It has become necessary to adopt strategies that make it possible to resolve the serious

mobility problems that manifest themselves in many Spanish cities. These mobility strate-

gies must focus not only on congestion problems but also on the variables that accompany

them – which is to say, the solution must be consistent and comprehensive in every way to

take on the complexity this situation implies. Indeed, the Spanish Strategy for Sustainable

Mobility, approved by the Council of Ministers on April 30, 2009, contains action propo-

sals to be adopted by administrations, businesses, social agencies, institutions and citizens

in general, to bring about the necessary changes to the current mobility model. What is nee-

ded is a more efficient and sustainable model, one that will contribute to the fight against

climate change by means of the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

At the European level, the Action Plan on Urban Mobility was approved on September 30,

2009. This plan, which will be developed over four years, contains 20 concrete measures

to help national, regional, and local authorities achieve their sustainable urban mobility

objectives by making urban transport more sustainable and efficient. These measures

extend from greater rights for urban transport users to increased funding for research into

zero emissions vehicles. An improved urban transport system will also aid in the fight

against climate change, improve public health, and reduce interregional disparities.

Lastly, in the same vein of attaining a sustainable mobility model, the Spanish Sustainable

Economy Act, whose first draft was approved in March of 2010, centers on five main

points: competitiveness, environmental sustainability, standardisation of real estate, profes-

sional formation and innovation, and economic funds for new sectors. In terms of environ-

mental sustainability, this law lays the foundation for a new energy model based on secu-

rity of supply, economic efficiency, and respect for the environment, outlining energy

savings objectives for the Administration. It incorporates into the juridical ordinances on

issues of emissions, savings, energy efficiency, and renewable energy, objectives in accor-

dance with the commitments of the European Union for 2020: energy savings of 20%, the

reduction of CO2 emissions by 20%, and 20% of energy coming from renewable sources.

Furthermore, it promotes sustainable mobility by means of incentives for the purchase of

ecological vehicles for the Administration.

5


6

The Metropolitan Mobility Observatory views the Spanish Strategy for Sustainable Mobility

as an essential coordinating instrument for developing mobility policies within sustainabi-

lity criteria. It must not be forgotten that, in addition to involving all the administrations, it

is necessary that businesses and citizens feel responsible for their actions and the impacts

they imply.

.

The Metropolitan Mobility Observatory

1 · The Metropolitan Mobility Observatory (MMO)

The Metropolitan Mobility Observatory (MMO) is an analysis and observation initia-

tive made up of the Public Transport Authorities (PTAs) of the main Spanish metropol-

itan areas, the Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs, and the

Ministry of Public Works and Transport, with the aim of reflecting the contributions of

public transport to the improvement of quality of life and sustainable development in

cities. Other collaborators include the National Rail Board RENFE, the Institute for

Energy Diversification and Savings (I.D.A.E.), the Spanish Railway Foundation, the

Association of Urban Transport Collectives, the Spanish Federation of Municipalities

and Provinces, and the CCOO Trade Union Federation.

The MMO’s objective is to analyse the general mobility tendencies of the main metro-

politan areas of Spain by studying a set of key transport indicators such as public trans-

port supply and demand, financing and investments, environmental aspects, and road

security.

This document is a summary of the 2008 MMO Report. Both said report and this sum-

mary were compiled by TRANSyT-UPM, using the information provided by various

PTAs, the Directorate General of Suburban and Mid-distance Rail Services RENFE, the

Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs, the Directorate General of

Traffic and the National Statistics Institute.

17 PTAs contributed data for the report, though the MMO is made up of 21 PTAs in

total: Consorcio Regional de Transportes de Madrid, Autoritat del Transport Metropolità

de Barcelona, Agència Valenciana de Mobilitat Metropolitana, Entidad Pública del

Transporte de la Región de Murcia, Consorcio de Transporte Metropolitano Área de

Sevilla, Consorcio de Transportes de Bizkaia, Consorcio de Transportes de Asturias,

Consorcio de Transporte Metropolitano Área de Málaga, Consorci de Transports de

Mallorca, Autoridad Única del Transporte de Gran Canaria, Consorcio de Transportes

del Área de Zaragoza, Autoridad Territorial del Transportes de Gipuzkoa, Consorcio de

Transportes de Bahía de Cádiz, Consorcio de Transporte Público del Camp de

Tarragona, Consorcio de Transporte Metropolitano Área de Granada, Consorcio de

Transporte Metropolitano Área de Almería, Dirección General de Transportes de la

Generalitat Valenciana (Alicante), Mancomunidad de la Comarca de Pamplona, the

Municipality of Vigo, the Municipality of Corunna and Consorcio de Transporte

Público del Área de Lleida. The population of the 17 metropolitan areas included in the

2008 Report comes to 23 million inhabitants: 50% of the nation’s population.

7


8

Below is a data summary that illustrates how public transport contributes to improve

mobility for residents of 151 Spanish metropolitan areas (of the 21 that participated this

year), which together represent a population of 22.4 million inhabitants.

�In 2008, a total of 3.376 billion public transport journeys were taken: 1.675 bil-

lion by bus and 1.702 billion by rail modes.

�In the larger metropolitan areas, an average of 163 journeys is taken per resident

per year. In mid-sized metropolitan areas 78 journeys, and in small areas 90 jour-

neys, are taken annually per resident.

�The annual demand in passenger kilometres for these 15 areas is 28.855 billion

passenger-km: 11.505 billion for buses and 17.350 billion for rail modes.

�The average journey distances for the different modes are: 4.3 km for urban buses,

5.5 km for trams, 6.9 km for metros, 16.1 km for metropolitan buses, and 23.4 km

for RENFE commuter trains.

�The length of bus routes in the 15 areas reaches a maximum of 57,610 km, while

the length of rail networks reaches a maximum of 3,245 km.

�The public transport supply is 1.108 billion vehicle-km: 576 million for buses and

604 million for rail modes.

�In 2008, some 160 million euro were invested in bus systems, while the total

investment in rail modes was more than 1.6 billion euro – a difference of ten

times2.

�The fare revenue from public transport modes in the 15 metropolitan areas was

1.652 billion euro, while the operating costs of these same transport modes

reached 3.77 billion euro, making for a global coverage ratio of 44%.

1 · Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Murcia,Seville, Asturias, Malaga, Mallorca, GranCanaria, Gipuzkoa, Cadiz Bay, Granada,Alicante, Pamplona and Vigo.

2 · Of these 1.6 billion euro, 1.533 billionwere invested in the rail networks ofBarcelona

Mobility and the Efficiency of Urban Transport

2 · Mobility and the efficiency of urban transport

2.1 · Basic information on the participating metropolitan areas

The following presents the general characteristics of the 17 metropolitan areas that par-

ticipated in the creation of this report. These areas are very heterogeneous, differing

from one another as much in terms of population as in terms of surface area and cen-

trality, aspects that one must bear in mind when interpreting the results.

The metropolitan area with the largest surface area is Murcia (11,313 km2), while

Pamplona has the smallest (92 km2); with regard to main cities, Murcia is the largest

(886 km2) and Cadiz the smallest (14 km2).

9

Table 1 · General characteristics of the metropolitan areas on January 1, 2008

Metropolitan area (PTA Action Sphere) Main city

Built-up Main.Built-up extension/Total Urban city/Metrop.

Extension Density Number of urbanizada extension Density Extension Density Area Popu-(km2) Population (inhab/km2) Municipalities (km2) Ratio (inhab/km2) (km2) Population (inhab/km2) lation Ratio

Madrid 8,030 6,271,638 781 179 1,049 13% 5,978 606 3,213,271 5,304 51%

Barcelona 3,239 4,929,000 1,522 164 588 18% 8,383 102 1,616,000 15,921 33%

Valencia 1,415 1,775,714 1,255 60 325 23% 5,464 137 807,200 5,898 45%

Murcia 11,313 1,426,109 126 886 430,571 486 30%

Seville 1,997 1,293,703 648 32 374 19% 3,455 141 699,759 4,952 54%

Asturias1 10,604 1,080,138 102 78 n.a. n.a. n.a. 187 220,644 1,182 20%

Malaga 1,258 972,762 773 13 75 6% 13,005 395 566,447 1,435 58%

Mallorca 3,623 855,343 236 53 206 6% 4,155 214 396,570 1,857 46%

Gran Canaria 1,560 829,597 532 21 330 21% 2,514 101 381,123 3,773 46%

Gipuzkoa 1,980 701,056 354 88 n.a. n.a. n.a. 267 184,248 690 26%

Cadiz Bay2 2,905 701,275 241 9 140 5% 5,009 14 127,200 8,958 18%

Camp de Tarragona32,999 599,804 200 131 n.a. n.a. n.a. 65 137,536 2,109 23%

Granada 861 500,479 582 32 n.a. n.a. n.a. 19 236,988 12,216 47%

Alicante 355 452,462 1,275 5 74 21% 6,114 201 331,750 1,650 73%

Pamplona 92 318,865 3,481 18 46 50% 6,900 25 197,275 7,860 62%

Vigo 109 298,648 2,740 100%

Corunna 37 245,164 6,662 100%

In the report, the population referred to is always that of January 1, 2008.1: The use of integrated tickets is permitted in 77 municipalities (except Oviedo). In all of the municipalities of Asturias there are public transport services. The main cityis Oviedo, as it is the capital of the province. 2: Arcos de la Frontera is included. The main city is Cadiz, as it is the capital of the province. 3: The main city is Tarragona, as it is the capital of the province. Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs

The population structure also differs sig-

nificantly between cities. Thus, the popu-

lation ratio between the main city and the

total metropolitan area varies from almost

73% of Alicante’s population centered in

the capital, to a mere 18% in Cadiz Bay.

Table 2 presents some of the socioeco-

nomic data of the metropolitan areas, as

well as the motorisation index of cars

and of motorcycles and scooters in each

of these areas. Important differences can

be seen in the GDP values per capita,

with difference of up to 17,000 euro between Madrid and Cadiz Bay, as well as in

the unemployment rate, which in parts of Andalucía is twice as high as in other

areas of Spain.

In terms of motorisation levels, it is interesting to note that the metropolitan area

with the highest number of cars per 1,000 inhabitants is Madrid, with 546.

However, Granada is the city with the highest motorisation rate (518). The metro-

politan area with the lowest index is Cadiz Bay (412), and Palma de Mallorca

boasts the lowest motorisation level of any city, with not even 205 cars per 1,000

inhabitants.


10

Table 2 · Socioeconomic data and motorisation rate (vehicles / 1,000 inhabitants)for the metropolitan areas (2008)

Motorisation rate in the Motorisation rate in theProvincial Metropolitan area Main City

Family Unemployment GDP per Private Motorcycles Private Motorcyclessize (%) capita (€) cars and scooters cars and scooters

Madrid 2.8 8.7 30,850 546 40 497 46

Barcelona1 2.7 11.8 29,836 446 88 378 125

Valencia 2.5 11.5 21,462 484 61 480 60

Murcia 3.0 11.5 19,541 498 161

Seville 2.9 22.2 18,604 478 134 489 137

Asturias 2.7 8.5 22,559 457 36 n.a. n.a.

Malaga 2.9 18.5 n.a. 487 n.a. 473 n.a.

Mallorca2 2.7 10.2 25,967 513 62 205 47

Gran Canaria3 3.3 16.7 20,673 445 41 429 45

Gipuzkoa4 2.7 6.7 27,250 430 60 413 139

Cadiz Bay 2.4 26.3 12,621 412 159 387 170

Camp de Tarragona 2.7 13.7 n.a. 469 73 460 75

Granada5 2.8 32.5 16,938 500 196 518 199

Alicante 3.2 13.6 20,149 465 51 465 94

Pamplona 2.8 8.12 30,614 n.a. n.a. 443 61

1: Data for all of Catalonia.2: Household size, 2005.3: 2007.4: GDP, 2005. Household size, 2006.5: GDP, 2007.Source: PTA and National Statistics Institute.

2.2 · Transport demand

Modal split for journeys

Journeys by car and on foot are the transport modes most often used for all motives.

Cadiz Bay is the area which has, at the same time, the highest percentage of journeys

taken on foot or by bicycle (47%) and by car (47.9%). In larger areas, the use of pub-

lic transport has a greater representation, reaching more than 30% in Madrid.


11

Figure 2 · Modal split for work-related motives

Source: PTA

Car Public transport On foot and bicycle Other

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Madrid 2004 Barcelona 2008 Seville 2007 Gipuzkoa 2007 Alicante 2007Murcia 2007 Cadiz Bay 2007 C. Tarragona 2006

63.5

8.8

27.7

58.9

7.8

33.4

70.8

6.8

22.4

71.5

11.4

17.1

71.0

9.0

20.0

48.2

28.1

23.7

44.9

40.4

12.1

62.0

16.5

21.52.4

Figure 3 · Modal split for non work-related motives

Source: PTA


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

29.3

26.9

41.4

Madrid 2004

28.8

15.9

55.2

Barcelona 2008

48.6

12.5

38.9

Seville 2007

33.1

4.2

62.7

Cadiz Bay 2007

44.7

4.0

51.3

C. Tarragona 2006

28.9

13.4

57.7

Alicante 2007

2.4

Figure 1 · Modal split for all motives

Source: PTA


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

34.7

31.6

31.2

34.2

22.9

42.9

53.5

9.8

36.7

41.8

16.0

42.2

47.9

5.2

47.0

49.8

5.4

44.8

42.5

11.6

45.9

Madrid 2004 Barcelona 2008 Murcia 2007 Seville 2007 Gipuzkoa 2007 Cadiz Bay 2007 C. Tarragona 2006 Alicante 2007

56.1

12.1

31.8

2.5

Journeys undertaken for work-related motives (Figure 2) are preferably made by car,

with a modal distribution of 45-72%, although in the larger areas, such as Madrid and

Barcelona, the public transport is capable of competing with cars, reaching more

acceptable quotas of 40% and 28% respectively. The smaller areas show a greater per-

centage of journeys taken on foot or by bicycle – between 18 and 33%.

The trend in journeys for other motives (Figure 3) is completely the opposite: the pri-

mary mode is on foot and by bicycle (40-63%), compared to cars and motorcycles (29-

49%). For non-mandatory activities, when one is not in a hurry, other transport modes

are chosen over cars.

Annual journeys in metropolitan areas

Table 3 presents the annual journeys for each of the existing public transport modes in

the different metropolitan areas. If this number of journeys is divided by the population

of the area, the larger areas, such as Madrid and Barcelona, present a greater number of

annual journeys per inhabitant, with 262 and 190 journeys respectively. In these areas,

the rail modes are the most used and surpass the buses in number of journeys, with the

metro being the mode which presents the greatest number of journeys (in Madrid, 110

annual journeys are taken per inhabitant by metro). However, in the mid-sized and small

metropolitan areas, urban bus is the most frequently employed mode of transport. In

these areas, the average number of journeys per inhabitant varies significantly, with a

minimum of 35 in Camp de Tarragona and a maximum of 121 in Gipuzkoa.


12

Table 3 · Annual journeys per public transport network (Millions)

RENFE* Regional.Urban Metropolitan (Commuter Railway Annual

Bus Bus Metro Tram trains) and FEVE Journeys/Inhab

Madrid1 425.6 268.1 688.4 14.8 245.2 - 262

Barcelona2 194.9 144.9 376.4 n.a. 114.4 n.a. 190

Valencia 98.4 13.1 63.0 5.3 23.9 - 115

Murcia 16.5 n.a. - n.a. 5.0 n.a. 15

Seville 84.7 13.4 - 4.5 7.4 - 85

Asturias3 14.9 40.8 - - 8.1 3.8 60

Malaga 49.3 9.6 - - 9.5 - 70

Mallorca 42.2 10.5 0.5 - - 3.4 66

Gran Canaria 32.2 26.0 - - - - 70

Gipuzkoa 28.0 17.2 - - 7.7 11.1 91

Cadiz Bay4 - 4,7 - - 3.0 - 11

C. de Tarragona 12.1 8,9 - - - - 35

Granada 36.3 10.9 - - - - 94

Alicante 20.1 12.4 - 2.1 - - 77

Pamplona 38.5 - - - - 121

Vigo 21.4 - - - - 72

*Source: RENFE Directorate General of Passengers 1: Metro includes the Metro of Madrid and the Railway Transport of Madrid, Inc.2: These values are based on the validations registered by the Fare Integration System, which correspond to stages of ajourney.3: Urban buses, only in Oviedo.4: Throughout the report, the term “metropolitan buses” refers to intercity services, not including the urban buses ofmunicipalities separate from the city of Cadiz.Source: PTA

2.3 · Public transport supply

In this section, data related to the supply of buses and rail services (metros, trams,

regional rail services, and RENFE commuter trains) in 2008 in the different metropoli-

tan areas have been compiled.

Bus services

Table 4 exhibits the main characteristics of bus services: route lengths; number of

stops, routes, and operators; and average route length.

Figure 4 shows the density of bus route lengths per inhabitant and surface area of the

metropolitan area. The greatest route densities per person are found in mid-sized areas,

such as Gran Canaria, Mallorca or Cadiz Bay (between 4,000 and 5,000 km of bus

routes per 1 million inhabitants). However, the route density per surface area reaches

a maximum in Pamplona (4,000 km per 1,000 km2), followed closely by Corunna.


13

Table 4 · Bus route characteristics (2008)

Number of Route Route Public Private Average RouteRoutes length (km) stops operators operators Length (km)

Urban Metrop. Urban Metrop. Urban Metrop. Urban Metrop. Urban Metrop. Urban Metrop.

Madrid 212 479 3,781 21,887 10,838 21,295 1 2 0 33 17.8 45.7Barcelona 108 522 1,830 9,811 5,599 19,524 1 0 3 42 16.9 18.8Valencia 60 57 879 2,126 2,045 1,942 1 0 0 8 14.6 37.3Murcia 41 n.a. 658 n.a. 3,434 n.a. 0 n.a. 4 n.a. 16.1 n.a.Seville 40 52 535 1,689 1,640 1,931 1 0 0 8 13.4 32.5Asturias1 14 329 196 3,750 750 6,181 0 0 1 45 14.0 n.a.Malaga 40 73 610 2,039 1,774 837 1 0 0 10 15.3 27.9Mallorca 25 106 709 8,436 2,191 1,317 1 1 0 14 28.4 79.0Gran Canaria 40 132 813 3,232 1,828 4,312 1 0 0 5 20.3 24.5Gipuzkoa 26 n.a. 177 n.a. 1,117 0 1 1 0 10 6.8 n.a.Cadiz Bay - 52 - 2,820 - 963 - 5 - 0 - 54.2C.Tarragona 22 90 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 2 0 4 8 n.a. n.a.Granada 28 56 345 1,502 n.a. n.a. 0 0 3 13 12.3 26.8Alicante 15 20 251 570 717 1,103 0 0 1 1 16.7 28.5Pamplona 23 370 805 0 1 16.1Vigo 30 780 2,472 0 1 26.0Corunna 22 147 961 0 1 n.a.

1: Urban buses, only in Oviedo. Route length and metropolitan route stops refer to the length of the network and the number of stops in the network. Throughout thereport, Gijón’s urban bus service is included in the metropolitan bus services.Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs

Figura 4 · Density of bus supply (2008)

Murcia, Asturias and Gipuzkoa: only urban buses.Mallorca: bus network length instead of route length.Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs

km of bus route length/million inhab. km of bus route length (km)/ 1.000 km2

Madrid Barcelona Valencia Murcia Seville Asturias Malaga Mallorca G. Canaria Gipuzkoa Cadiz Bay Granada Alicante Pamplona Vigo Corunna0

5001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,5005,000

Rail services

Table 5 shows the main characteristics of the rail services of the analysed areas. One can

observe that Madrid’s metro network is the most extensive (279.3 km). However,

Barcelona is the area with the largest RENFE commuter train network (440 km). It bears

mentioning that of all the existing rail networks in Spain, the largest is the FEVE narrow-

gauge rail system in Asturias, with 473 kilometres of network, covering the entire region.

The supply density of rail services, in reference to population and surface area, shows

smaller ranges than the density of bus services (Figure 5). Asturias stands out with the

highest rail network density per person (609 km of network per one million inhabitants)

and Valencia with the greatest network density per surface area (218 km of network per

1,000 km2). Even though Madrid has a very extensive rail network (672 km), the rail net-

work density values are not very high due to its large population and the size of its met-

ropolitan area (which consists of the entire province, with a surface area of 8,000 km2).


14

Table 5 · Rail mode characteristics (2008)

Nº de líneas Network length (km) Number of stations on networkRENFE* Regional RENFE* Regional

Commuter Railway Commuter RailwayMetro Tram trains and FEVE Metro Tram trains and FEVE

Madrid 278.7 36.0 357.7 - 281 52 97 -Barcelona 110.3 29.1 440.6 120.0 132 56 110 54Valencia 126.7 20.1 349.8 - 90 42 66 -Murcia - 2.2 202.6 n.a. - 4 29 n.a.Seville - 1.4 159.9 - - 4 23 -Asturias - - 117.7 473.0 - - 45 167Malaga - - 67.9 - - - 25 -Mallorca 8.7 - - 105.6 9 - - 23Gipuzkoa - - 82.2 85.2 - - 27 39Cadiz Bay - - 51.2 - - - 12 -Alicante - 18.4 - - - 20 - -Corunna - 6.6 - - - 10 - -

*Source: RENFE Directorate General of PassengersSource: PTA

Figure 5· Rail network density (2008)

Valencia: includes all RENFE services, though they extend beyond the jurisdiction of the Municipal Transport Company.Murcia and Asturias: the population and surface area of the entire region were used. FEVE is not included in Murcia.Gipuzkoa: the population and surface area of the entire region were used.Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs and the RENFE Directorate General of Passengers

Rail network length (km)/million inhab. Rail network length (km) / 1,000 km2

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Madrid Barcelona Valencia Murcia Seville Asturias Malaga Mallorca Gipuzkoa Cadiz Bay Alicante Corunna

Supply-demand balance

The supply-demand balance has been cal-

culated based of the average occupancy per

vehicle (Figure 6). In general, the occupancy

of train cars (25-40 people) is greater than

that of buses (15-30), due to the higher

capacity of the former. The values from

European metropolitan areas maintain an

average of 18 passengers per bus, with a

maximum of 29 in Budapest.

Taxi supply

The taxi constitutes another form of public transport, though it is not collective. Figure

7 shows the number of taxis per 1,000 inhabitants, with the highest values in the larg-

er metropolitan areas and in tourist locations, such as Mallorca or Gran Canaria. The

values of this indicator in the cities of Madrid and Barcelona are more than twice those

of some of the smaller cities.


15

Figure 6 · Supply-demand balance: average occupancy per vehicle (2008)

Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs and RENFE

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Madrid Barcelona Valencia Murcia Seville Asturias Malaga Mallorca G. Canaria Gipuzkoa Cadiz Bay Granada Alicante Pamplona

Buses Rail modes

Figure 7 · Taxi density by area (2008)

Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs

Taxis / 1,000 inhab

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Madrid Barcelona Valencia Seville Asturias Malaga Mallorca G. Canaria Gipuzkoa Cádiz Bay C. Tarragona Granada Alicante Pamplona

Metropolitan area Main city

Public bicycle rental services in main cities

Another form of public transport that has begun to be more visible in Spanish cities in

the last few years is the bicycle, thanks to public bicycle rental services. The bicycle is

ideal for covering short and medium distances, as well as for completing the multi-

modal chain, serving as a mode of access to or dispersion from other long-distance

modes, such as railways.

Tables 6 and 7 compile the supply and demand indicators of public bicycle rental

services in certain Spanish cities. One may observe that, except in Barcelona and

Seville where the service has been well accepted, in the rest of the cities the use of

these services is merely incidental.

Road network: high-capacity lanes, bicycle lanes and bus lanes

Using basic information from high-capacity lanes, bicycle lanes and bus lanes, the

road networks of the areas considered in the report have been compared below. In

terms high-capacity lanes (Figures 8 and 9), Camp de Tarragona is notable because of

its significant density of high-capacity lanes per inhabitant (490 km per one million

inhabitants). Valencia also stands out, as it has the greatest density of high-capacity

lanes per surface area (173 km per 1,000 km2).


16

Table 6 · Public bicycle supply in main cities (2008)

Total number Main city ServiceRental of bicycle Bicycles service ratio availability points racks available (service/surface area) (hours daily)

Barcelona 390 8,500 6,000 64.0% 19-24

Murcia 15 n.a. 130 7.0% 11

Seville1 58 148 670 n.a. 13-24

San Sebastian 5 110 100 1.7% 13.5

Cadiz 1 n.a. 15 n.a. 15.5

Pamplona 5 120 101 n.a. 10-12.5

1: There are two services in Seville: Bus+Bici and SEVICI. Bike racks only provided by Bus+Bici.Source: PTA

Table 7 · Demand for public bicycle services in main cities (2008)

BicycleRegistered Rentals Passenger-km turnover

Users (year) (year) (day)

Barcelona 181,962 12,200,000 36,600,000 8.5

Murcia 264 4,900 7,350 n.a.

Seville1 7,178 19,294 n.a. n.a.

San Sebastian 1,534 44,300 155,050 0.8

Cadiz 450 n.a. n.a. n.a.

Pamplona 2,680 10,860 49,956 0.3

1: Rentals on average work days. Registered users, only Bus+Bici.Source: PTA

The supply of bus lanes, protected or unprotected, is greatest in the largest areas, reach-

ing values in Barcelona of 113 kilometres of, for the most part, unprotected bus lanes.

However, in Valencia, almost 50% of bus lanes are protected and Seville has the high-

est proportion of protected bus lanes (84%). Figure 10 shows the ratio between the

length of the bus lanes and the length of the entire urban network, which indicates the

length of the urban bus network with existing bus lanes, giving an idea of the quality of

bus circulation in the city. Some of the urban areas surpass 4%. The cities with the high-

est coverage values are Valencia, with 20% coverage, and Barcelona with 12%.


17

Figure 8 · Density of high-capacity lanes per inhabitant (2008)


130.752.5

138.082.8

265.7185.9 158.3 173.3 156.7 177.8

43.1

23.0

51.316.5

115.522.8

335.1

0

70

140

210

280

350

420

490

Madrid Barcelona Valencia Seville Asturias Mallorca Gipuzkoa Cadiz Bay C. Tarragona Granada Alicante

Toll motorway (km)/million inhab.Free motorway (km)/million inhab.

Figure 9 · Density of high-capacity lanes per surface area (2008)


020406080

100120140160180

102.180.0

173.2

53.627.1

43.9 56.141.8 31.3

103.4

54.9

17.9 78.1

10.740.9

67.0

Madrid Barcelona Valencia Seville Asturias Mallorca Gipuzkoa Cadiz Bay C. Tarragona Granada Alicante

Free motorway/1,000 km2 Toll motorway/1,000 km2

Figure 10 · Percentage of bus network with bus lanes in the main city (2008)


km bus lane / km urban bus network (%)

02468

101214161820

Madrid

6.0

12.1

19.7

4.6

1.2

4.0

0.6

5.3

0.41.3

2.0

Barcelona Valencia Seville Asturias Malaga Mallorca Gipuzkoa Granada Vigo Corunna

In terms of the density of bicycle lanes per inhabitant (Figure 11), the highest value is

that of Pamplona (300 km per 1 million inhabitants), followed by Seville, with 210

kilometres per 1 million inhabitants.

Parking

Parking policy is very closely related to that of public transport, as an abundant sup-

ply of low-cost parking spaces in a city encourages the use of cars. However, park and

ride lots in key city access points contribute to reducing congestion in city centers.

Tables 8 and 9 summarise the supply of parking spaces in main cities and metropoli-

tan areas.


18

Figure 11 · Density of bicycle lanes in main cities (2008)


km urban bicycles lanes / million inhab

47

8799

210

44

107

149

38

69

300

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Madrid Barcelona Valencia Sevill Malaga Mallorca Gipuzkoa Granada Alicante Pamplona

Table 8 · Parking spaces in the main city (2008)

UnregulatedPublic underground public street Regulated public street

parking level parking level parking

Number of spaces €/hr Number of spaces Number of spaces €/hr

Madrid1 16,895 n.a. n.a. 166,304 1.00-1.80

Barcelona2 53,386 2.65 137,119 37,130 1.08-2.42

Valencia 13,794 2.50 n.a. 9,158 0.70

Seville 4,826 1.94 119,869 5,050 0.60-1.10

Asturias n.a. n.a. n.a. 2,200 0.75

Malaga 6,505 2.82 n.a. n.a. n.a.

Mallorca 9,609 1.70 102,426 13,191 0.67-1.3

Gipuzkoa3 6,000 1.88 n.a. 8,000 1.27

Cadiz Bay 11,141 1.40 23,950 868 0.75

Camp de Tarragona n.a. n.a. 10,000 n.a. n.a.

Alicante 2,742 1.20 34,864 1,083 n.a.

Pamplona4 3,157 n.a. 30,202 11,178 n.a.

Vigo n.a. n.a. n.a. 2,600 n.a.

1: 2007.2: Public, street level parking costs €0.20 per hour for residents.3: Underground lots are rotational. There are 7,300 additional underground spaces for residents.4: Underground lots are rotational. There are 6,661 additional underground spaces for residents and 2,244 mixed spaces.Source: PTA

2.4 · Economic and fare-based aspects

Ticket and fare types

Fare systems in Spain are quite diverse. The systems are based on concentric rings and

other zones, according to the geographic distribution of a region. The areas that offer

fare integration are: Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Bizkaia, Seville, Asturias, Malaga,

Mallorca, Gipuzkoa, Cadiz Bay, Camp de Tarragona and Granada.

When it comes to determining the cost of a journey, the fare can be established based on

the zones of the origin and the destination or on the number of zone changes. The single

ticket costs about one euro in Spain, without any significant variation among the areas

analysed here. A significant difference does exists, however, when one compares Spain

with other European nations, as the single ticket fare varies from €0.32 in Vilnius to more

than four euro in London, due to the fact that, among other things, the income differences

between the European countries are more marked than between areas within Spain.

Table 10 shows journey cost as a function of the type of ticket used: multiple journey

tickets are preferred, offering a savings of 30-40% with regards to a single ticket. In the

last 20 years, single ticket fares have doubled, or even tripled, in some areas.


19

Table 9 · Park and Ride spaces in the metropolitan area (2008)

Number of spaces % paid

Madrid1 20,758 33%Barcelona 13,290 21%Valencia 1,672 0%Seville 442 n.a.Mallorca 1,077 0%Gipuzkoa2 780 28%Camp de Tarragona 400 0%Pamplona 8,271 0%

1: 2006.2: Paid spaces, only in summer.Source: PTA

A single ticket costs

about one euro in

Spain, but multiple

journey tickets can

offer a savings of 30-

40% per journey.

Table 11 illustrates the number of ticket validations per ticket type. In larger areas – Madrid

and Barcelona – the use of single tickets is quite low (10-20%) in comparison with the use

of passes (80-90%). However, the use of the single ticket is more significant in smaller and

mid-sized areas (20-50%), where there are more incidental public transport users.


20

Table 11 · Number of ticket validations (millions), 2008

Single Multiple Journey Daily Monthly Student Senior Smart Ticket Ticket Pass Pass Pass Pass card Transfers Other

Madrid1 176.6 396.3 - 1,007.0 - - 18.3

Barcelona2 161.8 458.6 1.4 183.5 12.6 - - - 116.7

Valencia3 30.4 70.1 0.5 27.0 8.6 32.6 - 6.3 -

Murcia 7.7 1.4 - - 1.9 1.7 - 2.3 0.4

Seville4 6.0 2.2 - - - 0.9 3.0 1.3 -

Asturias5 26.0 24.6 - 5.9 2.2 0.6 1.2 2.4 1.7

Malaga6 19.8 13.8 6.9 3.1 5.8 3.4 - 2.5

Mallorca 13.7 1.3 - - - - 31.4 - -

Gran Canaria7 20.9 18.4 - 18.9 - - -

Gipuzkoa8 14.3 24.9 2.4 4.3 1.6 6.5 - 2.0 0.3

Cadiz Bay9 3.5 - - - - - 1.7 - -

Granada 11.7 19.5 - 1.6 0.9 2.4 6.7 2.0 2.4

Alicante 6.8 17.5 - - 1.9 5.0 - 3.7 0.5

Pamplona10 4.2 - - - - - 24.2 3.4 6.7

Vigo 5.7 10.7 - - 1.9 3.2 - - -

Corunna11 7.1 10.9 - - 0.8 - - - 2.0

1: Other includes tourist day passes.2: Other includes special discount passes for low-income, retired, disabled users, etc.3: RENFE is not included. Student is included in youth pass.4. Only metropolitan.5: This includes all operators. Transfers only permitted by CTA and EMTUSA. Other includes low-income urban bus passes in Oviedo and Gijón.6: Other includes employee passes, family passes, etc.7: Passes includes the Island Card.8: Urban bus and day pass transfers only permitted by Euskotren.9: Transfers are zone changes.10: Other includes retiree and large family discounts with smart card. Transfers also with smart card.11: Other includes discount passes for the unemployed, retired, and disabled.Source: PTA

Table 10 · Journey cost by ticket type (€/journey), 2008

Minimum Concentric Zone Maximum Concentric Zone

Single Multiple Journey Smart Single Multiple Journey Smart ticket ticket card ticket ticket card

Madrid 1.00 0.67 - 4.25 2.74 -

Barcelona 1.30 0.72 - 5.40 3.12 -

Valencia 1.20 0.56 - 2.00 1.54 -

Murcia 1.00-1.95 0.45-1.17 -

Seville1 1.10 0.77-1.19 0.77 2.20 0.91-1.33 1.80

Asturias2 1.20 0.75 -

Malaga3 1.20 - 0.77 2.55 - 1.69

Mallorca4 0.90 0.48-0.60 - 6.05 2.25-1.50 -

Gran Canaria 1.10 0.58 - n.a. n.a. n.a.

Gipuzkoa5 1.20 0.70 - - - -

Camp de Tarragona 1.15 - - 1.34 - -

Granada 1.10 0.57-0.65 0.46 1.05-2.00 - 0.79-1.55

Pamplona6 1.00 - 0.50 - - -

Vigo 1.08 0.72 -

1: Only metropolitan. Multiple journey tickets, with or without transfers.2: CTA integrated ticket.3: Only metropolitan.4: Ratio with T-40 ticket.5: Only urban.6: Smart card makes reference to the normal fare.Source: PTA

Coverage ratio and investments

The coverage ratio of the public transport system in the metropolitan areas falls

between 37% and 80%, with the highest values seen in the smallest areas, where there

are only bus systems which have lower operating costs than rail modes. European

areas show an average coverage ratio of 44% (EMTA Barometer, 2009), lower than in

most of the Spanish metropolitan areas. One must keep in mind that fares in Spain are

lower than in the majority of European countries, a fact which makes the Spanish sys-

tem even more commendable.

Figure 13 shows public transport subsidies per inhabitant, demonstrating that rail modes

present a significant cost to society in the areas where rail networks are important.


21

Figure 12 · Coverage ratio for the public transport system in the metropolitan areas (2008)

Murcia, Seville, Asturias, Malaga and Gipuzkoa: only main city urban bus.RENFE has not been taken into account in any of the cases.Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

39

50

4447

41

56

47

37

6058

67

79

59

65

7377

Madrid Barcelona Valencia Murcia Seville Asturias Malaga Mallorca G. Canaria Gipuzkoa Cadiz Bay Granada Alicante Pamplona Vigo Corunna

Operating costs / Fare revenues (%)

Figure 13 · Public transport subsidies, per inhabitant (2008)

Murcia, Seville, Asturias, Malaga and Gipuzkoa: only main city urban bus.RENFE has not been taken into account in any of the cases.In all cases the total population of the metropolitan area has been considered.Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs

69.052.4

6.6 7.2 30.0 34.251.9

16.5 4.0 13.224.9 25.4 25.8

21.5

131.8

45.852.0

0.6

0

35

70

105

140

175

210

Madrid Barcelona Murcia Asturias Málaga Mallorca G. Canaria Gipuzkoa Cadiz Bay Granada Alicante Pamplona Vigo Corunna

Subsidies: €/inhab. Buses Subsidies: €/inhab. Rail modes

3 · Changes in 2002-2008 indicators

In this section, the variation of certain population, motorisation, supply, demand and

financial indicators have been compiled for review.

Table 12 shows the variation of journeys and passenger-km for the bus and rail sys-

tems. In some cities where the rail networks have been expanded, one can observe a

decrease in the number of bus journeys – or at least slower growth than in areas where

such investments have not taken place. As such, there seems to exist a certain user shift

from buses to the new rail modes.

Changes in 2002-2008 indicators

23

Table 12 · Variation of demand indicators (%). 2002-2008

Bus Rail Passenger-km Passenger-km journeys journeys by bus by rail modes

Madrid -8.3 25.1 -5.8 29.9Barcelona 6.1 18.3 74.0 24.4Valencia -6.7 13.0 -4.7 29.5Murcia n.a. n.a. -8.2 19.1Seville -5.1 356.2 -1.4 24.4Asturias 3.5 -4.1 2.3 -17.1Malaga 34.8 11.9 n.a. 29.8Mallorca n.a. n.a. 0.5 -1.5Gran Canaria -5.7 n.a. -8.5 n.a.Cadiz Bay -9.8 -1.0 -9.0 3.0Granada 20.3 n.a. 21.0 n.a.Alicante 6.2 1212.5 5.5 30.9Pamplona 15.4 n.a. n.a. n.a.Vigo 6.2 n.a. n.a. n.a.

Bus journeys: excluding exceptions, refers to route journeys. Seville, Granada, and Alicante: network journeys.Rail mode journeys: excluding exceptions, refers to network journeys. Suburban railway services provided by RENFE.Asturias does not include FEVE.Passenger-km by bus: Granada and Gran Canaria, only metropolitan. Asturias, only Oviedo urban bus.Passenger-km by rail modes: Suburban railway services provided by RENFE. Asturias and Seville, only RENFE.Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs

Figure 14 · Variation of population and motorisation rates, 2002-2008

*Seville, Malaga, Cadiz Bay, and Granada have incorporated other municipalities into their jurisdiction over the years which has caused major population variations.Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs

0

10%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Madrid Barcelona Valencia Seville ZaragozaAsturias Malaga Mallorca G. Canaria Cadiz Bay Granada Alicante Pamplona

Population of the Metropolitan Area Motorization Rate

Vigo Corunna

15%

5%

-5%

In terms of the supply of vehicle-km (Table 13), something similar occurs to that which

happened with the infrastructure, as the supply, in many cases, has grown at a lower rate

than that of the population, causing the density per inhabitant to decrease. This fact can

be clearly observed in the case of rail modes, where areas such as Madrid, Barcelona,

Valencia, Seville or Alicante have expanded their networks to a significant extent, and

therefore have positive numbers while other areas, such as Asturias, Malaga or Cadiz

Bay, where there is no new infrastructure, have seen their ratio per inhabitant decrease.

Table 14 presents the variation of single ticket fares, along with fare revenues and oper-

ating costs. It is interesting to note that in some cases the operating costs have grown

twice or three times as much as revenue, making the financial balance of the services

unsustainable. This situation is due to the fact that the new rail services have greater

operating costs than buses and the policies of integrated tickets and fare systems com-

plicate the transfer of the real usage cost of the rail modes to the passengers.


24

Table 13 · Variation of supply indicators (%). 2002-2008

Buses Rail modesVehicle-km Vehicle-km / inhab. Vehicle-km Vehicle-km / inhab.

Madrid 4.8 -4.5 35.6 23.7Barcelona 21 13.3 35.2 26.7Valencia -3.4 -9.4 1.9 -2.1Seville 2.1 -1.3 25.4 10.6Asturias 12.9 8.6 2.6 -11.3Malaga 14.5 9.7 6.7 -18.4Mallorca 4.8 -0.2 - -Gran Canaria -5 -7.6 - -Zaragoza* 6.3 3.6 - -Cadiz Bay -0.8 -6.2 1.8 -8.7Granada 30.4 16.9 - -Alicante* 7.7 -3.2 53.5 182.4Pamplona 18.1 9.4 - -Corunna 2.6 1.8 - -

* 2007Vehicle-km by bus: Murcia, Seville, and Asturias, only main city urban bus. Suburban railway services provided by RENFE.Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs

Table 14 · Changes in fares and financial aspects (%). 2002-2008

Single Ticket Fare Fare Revenues Operating CostsMadrid 0.0 13.1 104.0Barcelona 13.0 19.6 44.1Valencia* 9.1 28.9 29.4Seville 5.0 12.4 44.3Asturias* n.a. 6.4 9.7Malaga 16.5 18.4 38.0Mallorca* n.a. 2.1 19.7Gran Canaria 10.0 -0.3 10.4Zaragoza* 13.3 8.1 6.5Cadiz Bay* 11.8 23.8 0.00Granada 15.8 17.3 16.6Alicante 6.0 32.2 64.1Pamplona 22.0 24.5 53.3Vigo* n.a. 12.6 14.6Corunna* n.a. 17.7 31.0

* 2007Revenue: Valencia, Malaga and Cadiz Bay do not include RENFE. Asturias, only urban Oviedo.Operating costs do notinclude RENFE. Asturias and Malaga, only urban city center.Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs

4 · Mobility and the urban environment

4.1 · Transport and climate change

The transport sector is the most important in terms of

final energy consumption (Figure 15), with 41% of

the total final energy consumed.

The evolution of final energy consumption, begin-

ning in 1990, indicates that transport is clearly an

expanding sector, reaching rates 82.5% higher than

those seen in the reference year. In 2007, this growth

begins to slow and in 2008 it returns to consumption

values similar to those of 2006. This can be attributed

to the technological development achieved by the

transport industry and to the economic situation of

the country, among other factors.

Mobility and the urban environment

25

Figure 15 · Final energy consumption by sectors. 2008

Source: Institute for Energy Diversification and Savings

Industry30%

Transport41%

Several uses29%

Figure 16 · Transport sector: final energy consumption and final energy intensity

Source: Institute for Energy Diversification and Savings

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

200%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Energy Cosumption- Transport Sector Final Energy Intensity of the Transport Sector

Index: 1990=100

It is important to point out that this growth has not been accompanied, at least in the

same order of magnitude, by growth in the final energy intensity3 of the sector (a mere

5.4%, which can be interpreted as a stabilisation throughout the time series considered

here). Even so, final energy intensity in Spain reaches values that are 40-50% higher

than those of the EU-15, meaning that there are still challenges to be met in this respect.

In terms of the modal distribution of final energy consumption within the transport sec-

tor, highway transport is the most intensive mode, with 78.9% in 2008. Even though

in the last few years there has been a slight decrease in this percentage, with the dif-

ference being transferred to rail and air modes, it continues to be the predominant

mode by a large margin.

If one analyses the modal distribution of the greenhouse gas emissions of the transport

sector (Figure 17), one can see that more than 80% are attributable to highway trans-

port. This is consistent with the modal distribution of final energy consumption, as the

main component of greenhouse gases is CO2, which is produced by fuel consump-

tion. In comparison with the other modes, highway transport shows a much greater

growth tendency, almost doubling emissions in the time period considered here.

In the same vein, keeping in mind that more than 80% of greenhouse gas emissions

originate with CO2, the Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs has

been collaborating closely with the Directorate General of Traffic within the frame-

work of the European regulations for the limitation of CO2 emissions proceeding from

light-duty vehicles (Regulation 443/2009). This collaboration is closely related to the

emissions monitoring and reporting process stipulated in Article 8 of said regulation.


26

Figure 17 · Modal distribution of greenhouse gas emissions for the transport sector

Source: Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs (Spanish Climate Change Office)

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

01990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008

Rail Navigation Total Transport SectorRoad TransportAviation (national traffic)

Kt CO2 eq

3 · Energy intensity is the relationship bet-ween the energy consumption of thesector and the Gross Domestic Product.

4.2 · Air quality in urban areas

The economic, technological and urbanistic evolution that society and cities in partic-

ular, have undergone in recent years has made it such that today traffic is the most

decisive factor in the air quality of urban environments. Policies and measures such as

those developed in Law 34/2007 on Air Quality and Protection of the Atmosphere, of

November 15, will be decisive in improving air quality in all environments.

Figure 18 shows the temporal evolution of the main contaminants linked to urban traf-

fic, adjusting the average values for population in the municipalities of more than

50,000 inhabitants. Taking 2001 as a reference point, one can see decreases in all the

indexes, except for ozone, which also shows a clear decreasing tendency (of more

than 50 points), though one that is concentrated in the last four years.

With regard to the generalised decreases in the time series analysed here, it is interest-

ing to highlight the relationship that this tendency has with the various policies and

measures that the Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs carries out

in the field of urban environments, of which the following are the most notable:

�Spanish Strategy for Sustainable Mobility.

�European Mobility Week.

�Metropolitan Mobility Observatory.

�Network of Local Sustainable Development Networks.

�Network of Cities for the Climate.

�Law 34/2007 on Air Quality and Protection of the Atmosphere, November 15.

�Spanish Strategy for Local and Urban Sustainability.

Mobility and the urban environment

27

Figure 18 · Evolution of the main contaminants in urban environments. Average values adjusted for population inSpanish municipalities of more than 50,000 inhabitants.

Source: Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs (Environmental Strategic Information Unit)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20080

50

100

150

200

250

Index: 2001=100

PM10: Average annual concentration adjusted for population (µg/m3 )

PM10: Average number of days per year with an average daily concentration of greater than 50µg/m3, adjusted for population

NO2: Average annual concentration adjusted for population (µg/m3 )

NO2: Average number of hours per year with an average hourly concentration of greater than 200 µg/m3, adjusted for population

O3: Average number of days per year with a daily maximun eight-hour average concentration of greater than120 µg/m3, adjusted for population

4.2 · Road safety in urban areas

In 2008, 634 fatalities were documented in urban zones, a decrease of more than 14%

in comparison to 2007. The decrease is much more significant (31%) if one considers

the entire period analysed, from 2003 to 2008. Likewise, the parameters related to

injuries (light and serious) and total victims show significant decreases with regard to

the previous year.

This decreasing tendency in the evolution of the number of fatalities, noted earlier, is

more clearly visible in Figure 19, in which one can observe the evolution of this indi-

cator in the period from 1980-2008. This period has been separated into four intervals:

�1982-1989: sharp increase (+37.29%)

�1900-1997: sharp decrease (-37.87%)

�1998-2003: moderate decrease (-10.69%)

�2004-2008: consolidation of decreasing tendency (-19.18%)


28

Table 15 · Traffic accidents in urban areas (2003-2008)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008/2007 2008/2003

Accidents with victims 52,420 50,222 48,563 50,576 50,688 49,330 -2.68% -5.89%

Fatalities 919 900 790 737 741 634 -14.44% -31.01%

Seriously injured 7,299 7,174 6,939 6,619 6,094 5,411 -11.21% -25.87%

Slightly injured 63,864 60,119 57,081 59,762 59,639 58,237 -2.35% -8.81%

Victims 72,082 68,193 64,810 67,118 66,474 64,282 -3.30% -10.82%

Fatalities /100 accidents 1.75 1.79 1.63 1.46 1.46 1.29

Fatality rate per 1,000 victims 12.75 13.20 12.19 10.98 11.15 9.86

Fuente: DGT. Cómputo de muertos a 30 días

Figure 19 · Evolution of the number of traffic accident deaths in urban zones (1980-2008)

Source: Directorate General of Traffic

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400

200

01980 1982 1984 1988 1992 1996 1998 2000 20061990 1994 2002 20041986 2008

1983-1989Sharp increase

37.29% 1990-1997Sharp decrease

-37.87%

1998-2003Moderate decrease

-10.69%

2004-2008Consolidation of

decreasing tendency-19.18%

Web links

�Consorcio Regional de Transportes de Madrid

www.crtm.es

�Operador autobús metropolitano Gipuzkoa

www.lurraldebus.net

�Autoritat del Transport Metropolità de Barcelona

www.atm.cat

�Consorcio de Transportes de Bahía de Cádiz

www.cmtbc.es

�Agencia Valenciana de Movilidad Metropolitana

www.etmvalencia.es

�Autoritat Territorial de la Mobilitat Camp

de Tarragona

www.atmcamptarragona.cat

�Entidad Pública del Transporte de la Región

de Murcia

www.entidadpublicadeltransporte.com

�Consorcio de Transporte Metropolitano Área

de Granada

www.ctagr.com


de Sevilla

www.consorciotransportes-sevilla.com


de Almería

www.ctal.almeria.es

�Consorcio de Transportes de Bizkaia

www.cotrabi.com

�Transporte Público del Área Metropolitana

de Alicante (TAM)

www.alicante-ayto.es/trafico/tam.html

�Consorcio de Transportes de Asturias

www.consorcioasturias.com

�Mancomunidad de la Comarca de Pamplona

www.mcp.es


de Málaga

www.ctmam.es

�Operador autobús urbano Vigo

www.vitrasa.es

�Consorci de Transports de Mallorca

www.caib.es

�Operador autobús urbano A Coruña

www.tranviascoruna.com/

�Autoridad Única del Transporte de Gran

Canaria

www.autgc.org

�Autoritat Territorial de la Mobilitat Àrea

de Lleida

www.atmlleida.cat

�Consorcio de Transportes del Área

de Zaragoza

www.consorciozaragoza.es

Web links

29

The entire Observatory’s reports (2002-2008) as well as the reports from the Technical Conferences (Oviedo, Pamplona,

Seville, Barcelona, Valencia and Las Palmas) can be found on the MMO’s website: www.observatoriomovilidad.es

summary mmo 2008

Documents