Urban Public Transport in Europe

Market potential and future development?

Bård Norheim

Market potential for Public Transport in European cities

• UITP Millennium Cities Database II:– 44 Cities in Europe

• UITP-conference in Turku 2006: Comparing Scandinavian and European cities:– Urban Structure– Framework for car use– Public Transport Service– Analysed the demand for Public Transport and car

use in these cities• Best seminar Berlin 2007:

– Updated figures for 5 cities(Helsinki, Stockholm, Oslo, Berlin and Prague)

The effect on Public Transport

Market Share

Public Transport Market ShareMechanised trips 2001

15

20

29

35

27

12

22

29

33

47

54

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Man

ches

ter

Glas

gow

Stuttg

art

Copen

hagen

Nante

s

Mar

seille

s

Bruss

els

Lyon

s

Bolog

naO

slo

Amste

rdam

Hambu

rg

Newca

stle

Gen

eva

Gra

zRom

e

Lond

onPar

is

Barce

lona

Stock

holm

Athen

s

Mad

ridBer

n

Mun

ich

Zürich

Berlin

Helsin

ki

Vienn

a

Pragu

e

Budap

est

Craco

wTot

al

Car/Mc share 2001

Percentage of daily mechanised and motorised trips by private motorised modes

75

6360

56

66

86

7371

4953

45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Cra

cow

Bu

da

pe

st

Pra

gu

e

Am

ste

rda

m

Vie

nn

a

Be

rlin

He

lsin

ki

Mu

nic

h

Be

rn

Gra

z

Co

pe

nh

ag

en

Zü

rich

Sto

ckh

olm

Ha

mb

urg

Ath

en

s

Ma

dri

d

Ba

rce

lon

a

Pa

ris

Lo

nd

on

Ge

ne

va

Ro

me

Osl

o

Bo

log

na

Stu

ttg

art

Ne

wca

stle

Lyo

ns

Bru

sse

ls

Na

nte

s

Ma

rse

ille

s

Gla

sgo

w

Ma

nch

est

er

To

tal

Bicycle Market Share 2001

Percentage of daily mechanised and motorised trips by bicycle

25

78

9

6

14

64

2100

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Rom

e

Mad

rid

Bar

celo

na

Mar

seill

es

Ath

ens

Lyon

s

Gla

sgow

Pra

gue

Par

is

Bru

ssel

s

Cra

cow

Bud

apes

t

Lond

on

New

cast

le

Man

ches

ter

Nan

tes

Vie

nna

Gen

eva

Osl

o

Bol

ogna

Zür

ich

Sto

ckho

lm

Hel

sink

i

Stu

ttga

rt

Ber

n

Mun

ich

Ber

lin

Ham

burg

Gra

z

Cop

enha

gen

Am

ster

dam

Tot

al

Demand for car and PT useSignificant effects of:

• PT service level– Fare level– Frequency

• Urban environment– Population density– Population– Share of working

places in CBD

• Framework for car use– Parking density in

CBD– Car density– Car user cost

• Economic activity– Income level– Total trip frequency

Big Metropolis and

Rural Areas!

Low density in Scandinavian cities

Urban population density 2001

4844

18

2426

4044

49

55

67

75

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Stock

holm

Copen

hagen

Oslo

Glas

gow

Gra

z

Hambu

rg

Nante

s

Stuttg

art

Lyon

s

Man

ches

ter

Paris

Bern

Newca

stle

Helsin

ki

Pragu

e

Zürich

Budap

est

Gen

eva

Bolog

na

Mun

ich

Berlin

Lond

on

Mad

rid

Amste

rdam

Craco

w

Mar

seille

s

Rome

Athen

s

Vienn

aM

ilan

Bruss

els

Barce

lona

Total

Po

pu

lati

on

/hec

tare

The effect of urban densityCompared to the average of European cities

• Scandinavia: 50% lower density :– 15 % higher car trips/person– 24 % lower PT trips/person

• Vienna and Barcelona: 50% higher density– 8 % lower car trips/person– 17 % higher PT trips/person

Table: The effect of urban density- Compared to the average of European cities Per cent demand for Public Transport and Car/mc use Trips per person Helsinki Stockholm Osloregion Prague Berlin

Deviation Density 0 % -60 % -43 % 4 % -22 %

Demand for PT 0 % -30 % -20 % 1 % -9 %

Demand for Car/Mc 0 % 20 % 12 % -1 % 5 %

”It is cheap to go by Public Transport in Greece!”

The BigMac index 2005

McDonalds index 2005Source: The Economist Juni 2005

1,5

1,8

1,8

2,4

2,7

2,8

3,3

3,6

4,0

4,8

5,2

0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0

Latvia

Estonia

Lithuania

USA

United Kingdom

EU average

Sweden

Denmark

Switzerland

Norway

Iceland

Euro

Adjusted Fare Level 2001Per cent deviation from average

• Fare Box Revenue per passenger km

• Adjusted for Purchasing Power Parities

-63 %

-24 %

-22 %

-19 %

-5 %

-4 %

1 %

26 %

47 %

73 %

-80 % -60 % -40 % -20 % 0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 %

Prague

Stockholm

Helsinki

Barcelona

Vienna

Berlin

Copenhagen

Oslo

Geneva

Manchester

Isolated effect on demand for Car and Public Transport

• Fare elasticity (-0,31)

• Cross elasticity (0,23)

36 %

9 %

8 %

7 %

2 %

1 %

0 %

-7 %

-11 %

-16 %

-20 %

-6 %

-6 %

-5 %

-1 %

-1 %

0 %

6 %

9 %

13 %

-30 % -20 % -10 % 0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 %

Prague

Stockholm

Helsinki

Barcelona

Vienna

Berlin

Copenhagen

Oslo

Geneva

Manchester

Car

PT

Adjusted Petrol Prices 2006Deviation from Western European Average

-39 %

-34 %

-33 %

-25 %

-23 %

-22 %

-19 %

-16 %

-15 %

-14 %

-14 %

-12 %

-12 %

-9 %

-7 %

-3 %

6 %

11 %

17 %

30 %

36 %

37 %

44 %

50 %

66 %

-60 % -40 % -20 % 0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 %

Ireland

Norway

Austria

Denmark

Sweden

Spain

Belgium

Finland

France

Cyprus

Netherlands

Germany

United Kingdom

Greece

Italy

Slovenia

Czech Rep

Malta

Estonia

Lithuania

Hungary

Portugal

Latvia

Slovakia

Poland

The effect of petrol level on PT travel demand in BEST countries

-9 %

-8 %

-6 %

-5 %

-4 %

-3 %

1 %

-10 % -8 % -6 % -4 % -2 % 0 % 2 %

Norway

Austria

Denmark

Sweden

Finland

Germany

Czech Rep

Parking Density and Public Transport Share (2001)

Mechanised trips

0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 %

<100

100 til 250

250 til 500

> 500

Pa

rkin

g d

en

sit

y

PT market share

The total effect on PT transport demand in BEST citiesCompared to average level 2001

• Revenue /passkm• Vehicle km/capita• Urban density• Population

• Fuel cost• Share of work places in

CBD• Car/mc density

Helsinki Stockholm Oslo Prague Berlin Revenue /passkm -22 % -24 % 26 % -63 % -4 % Vehicle km/capita 52 % 21 % 71 % Urban density 0 % -60 % -43 % 4 % -22 % Population -49 % 1 % -48 % -37 % 79 % Fuel cost -58 % -61 % -67 % -47 % -56 % Share of work places in CBD -19 % 71 % -49 % 87 % -100 % Car/Mc density -20 % -11 % 10 % 18 % -14 %

The total effect on car and PT use in BEST cities

Compared to average level 2001Demand for PT trips per capita Helsinki Stockholm Oslo Prague Berlin

PT service 27 % 9 % 1 % 60 % 1 % Urban environment 3 % -24 % -22 % 12 % -13 % Car conditions -17 % -19 % -22 % -13 % -17 % Total 12 % -34 % -43 % 59 % -28 %

Demand for Car/Mc trips per capita Helsinki Stockholm Oslo Prague Berlin

PT service -10 % -6 % 4 % -26 % -1 % Urban environment -5 % 20 % 7 % -4 % 10 % Car conditions 6 % 13 % 27 % 21 % 9 % Total -9 % 27 % 37 % -10 % 17 %

Future development?

• Economic growth?• Urban sprawl or concentration?• Parking density and car user cost?• Financial framework and long term planning