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