Comparison of Subvention Levels for Public Transport ... · Public Transport Systems in European Cities ... Statistical Database from Jane’s ... Dublin's Urban Public Transport

Comparison of Subvention Levels for

Public Transport Systems in European

Cities

Final Report

Aisling Reynolds-Feighan*, Joseph Durkan* and Joan Durkan

*Department of Economics University College Dublin

Submitted to the Department of Public Enterprise April 2000

__________________________________________________________________

_

Urban Public Transport Study - Final Report 14 April 2000

1

Table of Contents Table of Contents....................................................................................................................1

Terms of Reference...................................................................................................................2

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................3

Comparative Assessment of European Urban Public Transport Systems ......................3

Statistical Database from Jane’s Urban Transport Systems ...............................................4

Table 2: Summary of Statistics for Cities in Table 1 .............................................................6

Operating Cost Breakdowns..................................................................................................7

Table 3: Summary of System Operating Cost Breakdowns by Country...............................7

Bus Operating Cost Breakdown............................................................................................8

Table 4 :Summary of Bus Operating Cost Breakdowns by Country.....................................8

Table 5: System and Bus Operating Cost Percentage from Subsidy or Grant By

Population Grouping...............................................................................................................9

Examination of Sources of Urban Transport Subsidies and Grants .......................................11

Table 6: Sources of Subsidy for Sample of Cities ..............................................................12

Costs and Revenues for Dublin Bus and DART services...................................................13

Supplemental information from detailed review cities .............................................................13

Helsinki, Finland .......................................................................................................................14

Stockholm, Sweden.................................................................................................................15

UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR)..............................17

Newcastle, UK......................................................................................................................17

Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................................18

References...............................................................................................................................21

Websites ..............................................................................................................................21

Appendices...............................................................................................................................22

A. Review of Costs and Revenues for Dublin Bus ..............................................................22

Table A1: Profit and Loss Account 1997 and 1998- Dublin Bus..........................................22

Table A2: Detailed Expenditure, Dublin Bus .......................................................................23

Table A3: Profit and Loss Account 1997 and 1998 Bus Eireann........................................25

Table A4: Profit and Loss Account 1997 and 1998 Iarnrod Eireann....................................26

Table A5: Profit and Loss Account 1997 and 1998. DART.................................................27

B. Table 1 European Urban Transport Systems, 1997 .......................................................29

__________________________________________________________________

_


2

Terms of Reference

The purpose of this study is to compare the Exchequer subvention provided to Dublin's Urban Public Transport system with subvention levels for public transport systems in other European cities. 1. This will involve drawing up a comparison of Dublin's urban public transport systems with a broad range of systems in other European cities under the following headings: E Population of City E Nature of public transport services offered e.g. late night services E Number of passenger trips E Vehicle km E Number of bus operators and whether in public or private ownership E Fleet size of bus companies; rolling stock of rail companies E Number of routes E Route length E Percentage of operating costs funded from fare box, other commercial services and Government subsidy E Source(s) of subvention (e.g. local, regional or national government) E Levels and categories of government subventions 2. The consultants will provide a detailed comparison of public transport in six European cities. Selection criteria will be based on the particular characteristics of Dublin's urban transport system, city size and passenger volumes. This detailed comparison will include an examination of the components of operating costs and the general nature of the Government subventions provided (e.g. capital versus current operating subsidies). 3. The consultants will provide a detailed review of the costs and revenues of Dublin Bus and DART services for the years 1996 - 1999, identifying the components of operating costs for these two systems. 4. In the light of how these issues are dealt with in other cities the consultants will review the arrangements for financing of fleet renewal and expansion in Dublin Bus and Dart.

5. Given that this will be a desk study the consultants will comment on the degree of confidence that can be placed on the use of the study for policy formulation regarding the level of Exchequer subvention to CIE. The consultants will advise on particular issues that should be further explored in order for the Department to develop a better understanding of the nature of State subventions to public transport in other countries. 6. The study will be completed and submitted to the Department by 16th March 2000. However the completed statistical data for the study will be submitted to the Department by 25 February.

__________________________________________________________________

_


3

Introduction

In February 2000, the authors in the Department of Economics, UCD were retained by

the Department of Public Enterprise to conduct a comparative study of the levels of

government subvention in urban public transport in European cities. This report

presents the comparative analysis for cities and also provides summary tables by

country on public subvention of urban transport systems. The data presented in the

tables have been drawn exclusively from published sources.

Comparative Assessment of European Urban Public Transport Systems Data were gathered from Janes Urban Transport Systems, Eurostat, US Bureau of the

Census, United Nations (Demography and Social and Economic Divisions), ELTIS

(European Local Transport Information Service), the EU Commission’s Citizen’s

Network Benchmarking Study, Wendell Cox Consultancy, Demographia. The main

source of data used is Jane’s Urban Transport Systems. The other sources were

mainly used to cross-check and compare statistics.

In selecting candidate cities to include in the detailed tables, cities with a population in

excess of 250,000 and with a population of less than 3.5 million were selected. The

population data given for each city in Jane’s gives realistic estimates of the urban

transport hinterland population. The Eurostat data which are contained in the SIRE

database (see Eurostat, 1999) use ‘NUTS Level 5’ administrative areas in reporting

statistical indicators. In many instances the urban conurbations involve the integration of

several urban areas and the population estimates cover the conurbation rather than

individual cities and their municipal populations. For example, the Randstad region in

the Netherlands is listed as a single area. Jane’s on the other hand gives municipal

population and municipal and suburban population estimates for most of the larger

__________________________________________________________________

_


4

cities.

Statistical Database from Jane’s Urban Transport Systems

Table 1 (which appears as an appendix to this report) presents a wide range of

indicators for 122 European cities. These indicators are set out below. The two key

sets of columns give the urban transport system (i.e. all modes/services) and bus-only

percentage breakdowns of operating costs from the fare-box, other commercial

sources (OCS) and from subsidies or grants. The data in Table 1 consist of the

following items (columns in Table 1 are numbered as indicated):

E Country – ( 1)

E City – (2)

E Public Transport Services (broken down by bus, suburban rail, LRT/Metro, Tram/trolleybus, Ferry or

‘other’ (for example funicular) – (3-8)

E Ownership (public, private or mixed) – (9-11)

E For the system (i.e. all modes), the percentage of operating costs from the fare box, other

commercial sources and subsidy/grant – (12-15)

E For bus operations, the percentage of operating costs from the fare box, other commercial sources

and subsidy/grant – (16-19)

E Estimated population of the city and suburbs (i.e. transport region population) – (20)

E System passenger trips (in millions) for 1997 or latest year available – (21)

E Bus Service characteristics – (22-27):

? Passenger trips, 1997 - (22)

? Bus fleet size - broken down by units owned (23) and units leased (24); total (25)

? Route length – (26)

? Passenger vehicle-kilometres – (27)

E Suburban Rail (heavy) Service Characteristics – (28-29)

? Passenger trips – (28)

? Route length – (29)

The data on bus service characteristics such as fleet size, route length and passenger

vehicle-kilometres (VKMs) are reported in 90% or more cases. It must be stressed

__________________________________________________________________

_


5

however that in many instances where urban public bus transport services are provided

by several operators, data are only reported for the largest one, two or sometimes three

enterprises. Thus the passenger VKMs, fleet size and ridership figures may be

significant underestimates. This is particularly the case where either private operators

or a mix of public and private operators supply the market.

Data on system passenger trips are reported for 82% of the cities. In several instances

however these data are for years prior to 1997. In such cases, the data are highlighted

explicitly in Table 1. In a number of instances, it is unclear whether the ridership

statistics pertain to the system or just to bus services. The data on heavy suburban rail

services (i.e. passenger trips and route length) were only available for 28% and 14% of

cities respectively. In general, these services tended to be provided by the national rail

company and limited information was provided in almost all cases.

The data gathered from Jane’s Urban Transport Systems and used extensively in this

report can be replicated from Irish accounts and published sources. For a limited

number of other European cities, basic system statistics on ridership, and fleet size

have also been checked for accuracy. The European Commission is currently in the

process of a benchmarking study to attempt to establish a consistent basis for

comparing urban transport systems, mainly in terms of operating characteristics. To

date, the number of cities in the study is 151.

Data on fare-box to cost ratios were not available from any other sources. Jane’s

Urban Transport System covers a very broad range of cities and urban transport

systems and reports only those data supplied by the transport enterprises, including any

clarifying or additional commentaries. In this respect it is a reliable data source for

summary information on the cities’ transport systems. In extracting data from Jane’s,

care must be exercised to highlight and take account of the very many qualified

statistics and details reported.

1 See http://www.eltis.org/benchmarking/index.htm

__________________________________________________________________

_


6

Table 2 shows the number of cities for which these data were available and thus

summarises the information contained in Table 1. A total of 62 cities give a system

fare-box percentage, while 63 cities report the bus fare-box percentage. For 11 cities,

neither system nor bus operating cost breakdowns are reported; for 10 cities both

system and bus breakdowns are reported.

Table 2: Summary of Statistics for Cities in Table 1

Data Category Number of Cities

for which data available

Percentage of total number of cities

(122) Number of Cities 122 100.0 Number of Cities with Bus Services 122 100.0 Cities with Suburban Rail 102 83.6 Cities with LRT/Metro 51 41.8 Cities with Tram/Trolleybus Services 70 57.4 Cities with Ferry Services 20 16.4 Cities with Other Services 7 5.7 Urban Transport in Public Ownership 52 42.6 Urban Transport in Private Ownership 11 9.0 Urban Transport in Mixed Ownership 33 27.0 Cities reporting System fare box % 63 51.6 Cities reporting system 'OCS' *% 47 38.5 Cities reporting system subsidy/grant % 62 50.8 Cities reporting bus fare box % 60 49.2 Cities reporting bus 'OCS' % 41 33.6 Cities reporting bus subsidy/grant % 53 43.4 Data on Population 122 100.0 Data on System passenger trips 100 82.0 Data on Bus fleet size 121 99.2 Data on leased bus fleet size 17 13.9 Data on total bus fleet size 121 99.2 Data on bus route length 121 99.2 Data on bus vehicle kms 109 89.3 Data on rail passenger trips 34 27.9 Data on rail route length 17 13.9 Data on bus passenger trips 95 77.9 Source: Derived from Table 1 and Jane’s Urban Transport Systems *Note: ‘OCS’ indicates Other Commercial Sources

__________________________________________________________________

_


7

Operating Cost Breakdowns

Summary information is presented in Tables 3 and 4 on operating cost breakdowns (by

fare box, other commercial sources and subsidy/grants) by country for urban transport

systems (Table 3) and bus services (Table 4). The number of cities included for each

country is also presented in the Tables. The system subsidy rates for Portugal, Greece

and Croatia have the lowest rates of subsidy/grants at 20.2%, 22% and 22.9%

respectively. Italy (69.75%), the Netherlands (66.95%) and the Czech Republic (64.9%)

have the highest system subvention rates.

Table 3: Summary of System Operating Cost Breakdowns by Country

Country Breakdown of Revenue Sources for Entire Urban Transport System (i.e. all modes)

Number of Cities*

Average Percentage

Revenue from Fare

Box

Number of Cities*

Average Percentage

Revenue from Other

Commercial Sources

Number of Cities*

Average Percentage

Revenue from Subsidies or

Grants

Austria 3 62 2 9 3 32 Belgium 3 37 2 4 3 61 Croatia 1 48 1 32 1 23 Czech 3 31 2 6 3 65 Denmark 1 63 1 1 1 36 Finland 1 48 1 1 1 51 France 7 50 6 6 7 44 Germany 21 43 15 10 21 47 Greece 1 34 1 44 1 22 Hungary 1 40 1 5 1 28 Italy 4 26 4 4 4 70 Netherlands 2 31 1 4 2 67 Norway 1 63 1 7 1 30 Poland 4 56 0 4 47 Portugal 2 64 1 3 2 20 Romania 2 37 2 4 2 59 Sweden 1 43 1 5 1 52 Switzerland 4 52 4 11 3 35 Yugoslavia 1 52 1 7 1 41 Source: Derived from Table 1 and Jane’s Urban Transport Systems The average percentage is a straight average for the number of cities indicated (i.e. the average is NOT weighted by city size or by bus output measures). *Note: Not all cities reported all of the information: for example, three Austrian cities gave breakdowns of revenues from fare-box and subsidies/grants, but only two of these cities reported revenues from ‘Other Commercial Sources’ (OCS)

__________________________________________________________________

_


8

Bus Operating Cost Breakdown

Table 4 shows Norway (Bergin), Northern Ireland (Belfast) and Ireland (Dublin) as

having the lowest, second lowest and third lowest average subvention rates for urban

bus services. England (8 cities – averaging 9%) and Scotland (3 cities – averaging

9.85%) are the next lowest ranked countries in the table. Austria, Belgium and Italy are

the top three ranked countries in terms of reported urban bus subsidies/grants. For

Vienna, Jane’s reports that 69.9% of bus operating costs come from subsidies/grants;

for three Belgian cites (Brussels, Charleroi and Liege), an average of 67.4% of

operating costs come from grants/subsidy. For the four Italian cities of Milan, Florence,

Bologna and Genoa the average percentage is 60.2%.

Table 4 :Summary of Bus Operating Cost Breakdowns by Country

Country Breakdown of Revenue Sources for Bus Transport Services Only

Number of Cities(+)

Average Percentage Revenues from Fare

Box

Number of Cities(+)

Average Percentage Revenues from Other Commercial

Sources

Number of Cities(+)

Average Percentage

Revenues from Subsidies or

Grants

Austria 1 30 1 0.1 1 70 Belgium 3 29 3 3.2 3 67 Denmark 1 52 1 1.0 1 47 England 10 87 5 6.8 8 9 France 7 47 6 4.4 7 47 Germany 12 44 8 22.0 9 41 Greece 1 34 1 21.0 1 45 Iceland 1 53 1 3.4 1 44 Ireland* 1 96 1 4 Israel 1 72 0 1 28 Italy* 4 37.* 3 3.9 4 60 Luxembourg 1 22 1 3.0 1 16 N. Ireland 1 98 0 1 2 Netherlands 2 33 2 7.0 2 60 Norway 1 92 1 6.5 1 1.5 Poland 1 60 0 1 40 Scotland 3 90 2 5.2 2 10 Spain 6 67 5 2.1 6 33 Sweden 2 52 1 6.0 2 45

__________________________________________________________________

_


9

Switzerland 1 49 0 0 Source: Derived from Table 1 and Jane’s Urban Transport Systems. The average percentage is a straight average for the number of cities indicated (i.e. the average is NOT weighted by city size or by bus output measures). *In the cases of Dublin and Genoa (Italy), bus fare-box and revenue from other commercial sources are combined so that a single percentage is reported in Jane’s. +Note: Not all cities reported all of the information: for example, three Austrian cities gave breakdowns of revenues from fare-box and subsidies/grants, but only two of these cities reported revenues from ‘Other Commercial Sources’ (OCS)

Taking the figures reported in Tables 3 and 4 and those reported in Table 1, three

groups of city-types emerge. The first group mainly consist of Irish and UK cities where

bus services are by far the dominant form of urban public transport and subsidy or grant

levels tend to be less than 10% of operating costs (see columns 3-8 in Table 1). The

second group, typified by Portugal and Greece, are characterised by a broader range

of urban transport services and an average rate of subvention for the urban system in

the region of 20-25%. The rest of the European cities are characterised by a greater

range of services (bus/suburban rail/LRT/Metro/Tram/ Trolleybus). The rates of system

subvention are substantial in these cities, typically in the region of 40-45%.

Table 5 gives the average percentages of operating cost breakdowns, again for

systems or bus services by city population category. Table 5 demonstrates that there

is no relationship between city size and the average levels of subvention. An

examination within several EU countries demonstrated the same result. In the cases of

Germany, France and the UK, once again there is no general trend towards higher or

lower levels of subvention rates with higher levels of population.

Table 5: System and Bus Operating Cost Percentage from Subsidy or Grant By Population Grouping

Population Category

System Subsidy by Category

No. Cities Bus Subsidy by Category

No. Cities

< 0.25 million 22.37 3 24.01 7 0.25 -0 .499 million 52.45 14 36.25 11

0.5 - 1.0 million 45.04 19 47.36 18 1.0 - 1.499 million 47.37 9 21.84 5 1.5 - 3.0 million 51.12 13 29.43 8

__________________________________________________________________

_


10

> 3.0 million 40.65 4 43.17 4 Source: Derived from Table 1 and Jane’s Urban Transport Systems

__________________________________________________________________

_


11

Examination of Sources of Urban Transport Subsidies and Grants

From the 122 cities listed in Table 1, a sample was selected based on (i) city

population (for transport area) of between 400,000 and 2 million (Dublin = 1.1), (ii)

Passenger trips of between 50 and 300 million (Dublin = 188) and (iii) Fleet size of

between 500 and 2000 vehicles (Dublin = 918). For these 18 cities, the sources of

subsidy or grant is set out in Table 6 along with any information provided on financing of

new vehicles or significant recent developments.

The table shows that a combination of local, regional and national government sources

provide subventions for the cities’ transport system, with emphasis on local and

regional authorities in most cases. The role of the state or national government as the

dominant financier is less typical. Only two cities in the table, Dublin and Florence,

derive the majority of subvention funding fromstate or national government. In some

cases, municipal taxes are imposed to cover public transport costs (e.g. Florence and

Helsinki); in French cities, a dedicated payroll tax (applied at local or regional level) is

imposed to subsidise public transport services. It is recommended that this issue of

local and regional government involvement in the financing of public transport systems

be examined further by the Department.

Information on financing of new vehicles was recorded in Jane’s for nine of the 18 cities

listed in Table 6. The options reported for financing of new vehicles are

(i) Leasing or direct purchase (in which case, the costs will be included in

current operating costs)

(ii) Grants from local, regional or national authorities

(iii) Loans from city, regional or national authorities or from banks

Dublin Bus report in Jane’s that new vehicles (in 1997/98 period) were financed from

the company’s own resources or through loans. The repayment costs in these

__________________________________________________________________

_


12

circumstances will appear as part of current operating costs. It is not possible to

establish from published sources the arrangements for financing of fleet renewal and

expansion.

Table 6: Sources of Subsidy for Sample of Cities

Country City Source of Operating

Subsidy/Grant Other Information

France Bordeaux Dedicated Payroll Tax (versement) & transport authority grant

LRT proposed

New vehicles financed by the Comminante Urbaine de Bordeaux

England Bristol Local council LRT proposed

Belgium Brussels Regional government Buses mainly feeders to metro & tram

Denmark Copenhagen Local authorities Deregulation to be completed by 2002

Mini-metro under construction

Ireland Dublin Central govt. subvention New vehicles financed by own resources and loans

Scotland Edinburgh Local council

Italy Florence National govt - 88%; local taxes -12% New vehicles financed by national transport fund and local authorities

Italy Genoa City, region & province; balance is deficit

Finland Helsinki Municipal taxes New vehicles financed by municipal grant

Belgium Liege Regional authority New vehicles financed by loans

England Liverpool PTE - local councils

France Marseille City council & Bouches du Rhone

England Newcastle-Upon-Tyne

PTE for contracted services New vehicles financed by internal resources or leasing

Metro operating costs financed by central & local govt. and ESF - 16% in total of operating costs

Portugal Oporto Govt. grants - 13%; remainder as deficit

>40 private bus operators

New vehicles financed by govt./bank loans - (1 operator reporting)

England Sheffield PTA - comprising 12 local authorities - pay levy to PTE

LRT - low patronage

Bulgaria Sofia N/A Metro under construction

Sweden Stockholm County Council New vehicles financed by County council loans

Italy Turin Regional govt (81%); Municipalities of Turin & surrounding areas, 19%

LRT proposed

__________________________________________________________________

_


13

Austria Vienna City authorities New vehicles financed by loans raised by the city

Full metro since 1976

Source: Derived from Table 1 and Jane’s Urban Transport Systems

Costs and Revenues for Dublin Bus and DART services

A review of the costs and revenues for Dublin Bus, DART, CIE and Iarnrod Eireann was

carried out as part of this study. A detailed report is presented in the appendix. The

main conclusions from this review are as follows:

(i) The figures reported in Jane’s Urban Transport Systems for Dublin Bus’

operating costs breakdown can be replicated from the company account

once all revenues are combined (i.e. fare-box revenues, other commercial

revenues sources such as advertising (which typically account for about 5%

of operating costs) and grants paid for free travel via the Department of

Social Community and Family Affairs). The accounts do not provide a

separate fare-box revenue estimate, so that the 96.4% reported in Jane’s is

actually a revenue-cost ratio.

(ii) Fare-box to operating cost ratios of 103.8% (1998) and 86.9% (1997) were

calculated from the Iarnrod Eireann accounts for DART services, while the

revenue-to-total cost ratios were 84.5% (1998) and 71.2% (1997).

(iii) The value of the bus fleet for Dublin Bus has been depreciated along

standard accounting principles.

Supplemental information from detailed review cities

A small number of cities were then selected for further examination. The criteria used to

select the cities were as follows:

1. City Population (for transport area) between 500,000 and 2 million (Dublin = 1.1)

2. Passenger trips of between 90 and 300 million (Dublin = 188) and

3. Fleet size of between 500 and 1800 vehicles (Dublin = 918)

__________________________________________________________________

_


14

For the cities selected, officials in the relevant local, regional or national government

departments were contacted for additional information on the nature of subvention

policies and the criteria used to determine the subvention rates.

The main purposes of this supplemental information was to help assess the degree of

confidence that could be placed in the data presented in the earlier tables and to

highlight particular issues that should be further explored by the Department of Public

Enterprise to develop a better understanding of the nature of State subventions to

public transport in other countries.

Detailed information from two cities was provided by staff in the relevant transport

authorities contacted. General information on subsidisation policies in the UK was

obtained from the UK Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions (DTER).

The detailed information for Helsinki and Stockholm are set out below, along with a

summary of the approach utilised by the UK-DTER.

Helsinki, Finland2

All the public transport service in the Helsinki Metropolitan area are purchased by YTV

(Helsinki Metropolitan Area Council) and its member cities of Helsinki, Espoo and

Vantaa. YTV is a special regional organization and the cities are its members. The

cities and YTV are the public transport authorities in the area. YTV organises and

purchases the regional bus services (i.e those services crossing city boundaries) and

all commuter train services. The individual cities organise and purchase their internal

public transport services.

All ticket revenue goes directly to YTV and the cities. The service operators (e.g. bus

operators) are contracted to provide the services. Services are paid for by the cities

2 This information was supplied by a member of the Helsinki metropolitan area public transport authority, YTA.

__________________________________________________________________

_


15

and YTV from fare box revenues. In addition, subsidies are paid by the cities and YTV. If

YTV has insufficient fare box revenues to cover contracted service costs, the member

cities pay the subsidy. YTV keeps its own records and accounts and invoice member

cities for subsidy requirements on a monthly basis.

In 1999 the total annual cost of public transport in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area was 1

786 million FIM. The fare box revenue amounted to 947 million FIM. The subsidy rate

was 47 %. If calculated by the authorities the subsidy rate is much higher in the internal

public transport of the cities than in the regional traffic of YTV. The figures were as

follows:

District Transport Service Area Subsidy Rate (as % of operating Costs)

Helsinki Internal transport 53 %

Espoo Internal transport 53 %

Vantaa Internal transport 60 %

YTV Regional transport 32 %

Because an integrated ticketing system is in operation and used for all modes (buses,

trains, trams and metro), subsidy rates by mode are not available.

The National policy encourages public transport to be paid for by revenues generated

from ticket sales. This is the case in the rural areas and small cities. However if the

service provided is deemed to be insufficient, the Finnish Ministry of Transport may

intervene and tender for additional services to be provided, with a subsidy if necessary.

In the larger cities and urban areas the municipalities have more responsibility in

covering the costs of the services and paying subsidies. In the Helsinki metropolitan

area, the financial responsibility for public transport falls completely to the cities, with no

national government involvement.

Stockholm, Sweden

__________________________________________________________________

_


16

The County Council of Stockholm owns the public Transport Company SL. The

objective of SL is to provide passenger transport services for the county of Stockholm.

SL carries 40% of all those travelling within the area, and in the context of a growing

population the intention is to increase this to reduce the negative impact on the

environment, health and economic development associated with congestion, pollution

and accidents. SL sees its role as providing an extensive and reliable network. As a

consequence the system consists of an underground, a bus system, a tram/light rail

system, and commuter trains.

Over the 1990’s SL has transformed itself from an operating company to a public

transport procurer. SL consists of a parent company and a group company. The parent

company can be seen as a procurer of transport services, while the group company is

both an operator and procurer of services. Irrespective of whether services are

operated directly by SL or by its subsidiaries or by contractors, SL is providing the

service. In 1998 the company’s own services accounted for 56% of the total, with the

remainder provided by other contractors.

SL is in receipt of substantial funding from the County Council of Stockholm. Rather

than the fare-box ratio the emphasis in SL is on the degree of tax-financing. This is

defined as the ratio of subvention to the sum of revenue and subvention. In 1998 this

ratio stood at 52.7%. This ratio has been reduced over the 1990’s, as in 1989 it was

72.6. The reduction was a consequence of increased revenues and reduced cost

levels. The reduced cost levels are partly attributable to the procurement policy rather

than the direct provision of services. It is possible to calculate the fare-box for the

system as a whole (i.e. for all modes of transport), but not for the individual components,

as there is an integrated ticketing system. This is 44.6% for the group, and 40.6% for

the parent. The subvention is not predetermined, as it depends on the financial

outcome. In 1998 the actual payment from the Stockholm County Council was 12.5%

below that budgeted.

__________________________________________________________________

_


17

UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (With particular Reference to Newcastle)

The UK National government provides funding for local transport services through the

regional public transport authorities (PTAs) or Executives (PTEs). Funding in the form

of grants is provided for local transport capital infrastructure investment (GBP£624.2

million in 1999/200), for metropolitan railway passenger services (GBP£238 million in

1999-2000) and rural bus services (GBP£32.5 million in 1999-2000). In addition, the

DETR reimburse local authorities for fuel duty rebates paid to local bus operators

(covering 66% of duty paid) (this amounted to GBP£270 million for Great Britain as a

whole in 1998-99). Total local authority payments for ‘socially necessary bus services’

amounted to GBP£223 in 1997-98. Local authority reimbursements to bus operators

under concessionary fares schemes will be GBP£450 in 1999-2000. The local

authorities rely on central government for funds and have the ability to generate

additional funds also.

Newcastle, UK

Newcastle urban public transport is managed and funded through Tyne and Wear

Passenger Transport Authority (TWPTA). TWPTA is a Local Authority comprised of

elected representatives of the five Metropolitan District Councils of Tyne and Wear. The

County has a population of 1.13 million people. TWPTA is responsible for overseeing

the policies for and, provision of, public transport in Tyne and Wear through its own

operations and those of the private bus operators acting within the deregulated market.

TWPTA’s set out their role as follows:

• “monitoring demand and meeting unmet demand through the provision of

subsidised bus services carrying about 11 million people per annum, with an

annual value of ECU 12m

• providing a concessionary travel scheme for the young, elderly, and disabled

__________________________________________________________________

_


18

enabling subsidised travel by public transport on about 120 million journeys

per annum, costing some ECU 33m

• provision of non-conventional Care Service transport for the disabled, catering

for some 690,000 journeys per annum

• operation of the Tyne and Wear Metro rapid transit system

• provision of telephonic and paper information on passenger services in the

County, with Minicom available. “

The UK Transport Policies and Programmes system which was in operation until 1999

is being replaced by a system of local transport plans. Under the new system, the PTAs

will apply for funding by preparing an integrated transport system plan, which among

other things is required to encourage a ‘decisive shift in favour of public transport and

walking and cycling’.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This report presented data on 122 European Urban transport systems. No single

pattern emerges from these data in terms of level of subvention. From the data, three

categories of cities were identified

(1) Irish and UK cities that are characterised by a heavy reliance on bus services and

generally low rates of subvention (less than 10% of operating costs).

(2) Cities typified by those in Portugal and Greece, and characterised by a broader

range of urban transport services and an average rate of subvention for the urban

system of 20-25%.

(3) The rest of the European cities are characterised by a greater range of services

(bus/suburban rail/LRT/Metro/Tram/Trolleybus). The rates of system subvention are

substantial in these cities, typically in the region of 40-45%.

__________________________________________________________________

_


19

There is considerable variation in the traffic and service characteristics for the different

cities. There are no indicators of service quality available, so that even where cities are

grouped together in the three broad categories given above, it cannot be shown that

any meaningful relationship exists between the level of service, the quality of service

and the level of subvention. The conclusions that can be drawn from these tables are

q That cities in Europe employ a wide range of different approaches to

providing public transport and offer a varying range of transport services

q The greater the variety in the range of services provided, the higher the

average level of subvention required

q It is not possible to make meaningful comparisons across groups of

European cities unless detailed information on service quantity and quality

are available on a route- by-route basis. Quality indicators for bus services for

example would include measures of vehicle age and comfort conditions (e.g.

air conditioning or heating), bus waiting times, load factors, security,

information availability and price

A group of 18 cities were selected for further examination based on criteria relating to

numbers of passenger bus trips, city population and bus fleet size. The sources of

subsidies for urban transport were examined in each of these cases. Subsidies for

urban transport systems are typically paid by municipal or regional authorities. The role

of the state or national government as the dominant financier is much less typical.

Revenue and costs for Dublin Bus and DART services were examined for 1997 and

1998. It was shown that the operating costs breakdowns reported in Jane’s Urban

Transport Systems could be established from the Dublin Bus accounts, but that the

figure reported was a revenue-cost ratio rather than a fare-box-cost ratio. This

distinction is made clear in Jane’s, where the Dublin Bus percentage of operating costs

from ‘fare box’ and from ‘Other Commercial Sources’ are combined. Similar exercises

carried out for Stockholm and Helsinki also indicate that the data reported in Jane’s are

__________________________________________________________________

_


20

reliable in that they summarise the revenue sources for the firms reporting.

In commenting on the use of the study for policy formulation regarding the level of

Exchequer subvention to CIE, decisions on the range and levels of services which are

desired for the city need to be taken. If the transport system is predominantly serviced

by buses, then lower levels of subvention tend to be applied compared with multi-

service transport systems. Most European cities operate a range of transport service

options and provide higher levels of subvention to support these services. However it is

local and regional authorities that typically finance urban public transport, rather than

national government. It is recommended that the sources and magnitude of local and

regional government subventions in the financing of public transport systems be

examined further by the Department.

It is recommended that in order to decide on an appropriate subvention level for Dublin,

the levels of services required must first be defined and then the costs associated with

providing that service level must be examined. This requires that (i) the policy maker

would need to determine an appropriate level of service on any given route in

measurable terms (i.e. target service characteristics as outlined above) given current

and projected demand characteristics and that (ii) the mechanisms could be put in

place to achieve these service levels in an economically efficient manner. A detailed

study of a limited number of European cities could provide information on different

models employed to achieve this result.

To this end, it is recommended that the Department look for more information from CIE

and Dublin Bus to ascertain how the current Exchequer subvention is allocated among

the three CIE companies. Furthermore, detailed costings, ridership and service

characteristics (such as frequency of service) should be sought for the routes operated

by Dublin Bus, with a view to (i) understanding the nature of and variation in operating

costs on a route-by-route basis and (ii) understanding the nature of the company fixed

costs and the cost allocation mechanisms used and borne by Dublin Bus.

__________________________________________________________________

_


21

More information is also needed on the sources of revenue for Dublin Bus. For

example, the revenue allocated to Dublin Bus from CIE in respect of free travel via the

Department of Social Community and Family Affairs is not stated in published sources.

It is recommended that more information be sought on the revenue sources for other

urban transport operators and on how different types of subsidies are allocated within

other cities and included in operators’ revenue calculations.

References

Eurostat (1999), The densely populated areas in the European Union: Towards a delimitation and characterisation of urban areas in Statistics in Focus - General Theme 1(CA-DN-99-002-EN-I) Jane’s (1999) Jane’s Urban Transport Systems 1999/2000, Jane’s, Surrey.

European Commission Green Paper (1995) The Citizens' Network - fulfilling the potential of public passenger transport in Europe

Websites Demographia – private population statistics web site: http://www.demographia.com/dbx-econ.htm European Commission Citizen’s Network Benchmarking Initiative: http://www.eltis.org/benchmarking/index.htm Northwestern University Transportation Library: http://www.library.nwu.edu/transportation/ The Public Purpose – Lobby web site and Information site for Urban Public Transport: http://www.publicpurpose.com/utx-eur.htm United Nations Urban Population Statistics: http://www.undp.org/popin/wdtrends/urb/furb.htm US Department of Transportation – Bureau of Transportation Statistics – Transportation Research Information System (TRIS Citation Index on-line): http://tris.amti.com/search.cfm

__________________________________________________________________

_


22

Appendices

A. Review of Costs and Revenues for Dublin Bus

The objective of this exercise is to see if the numbers in Jane's Urban Transport

Systems can be replicated. The primary data source is the Annual Report of CIE and

the supporting company Annual Reports. The Profit and Loss Account provides the

necessary data that are presented in Table A1.

Table A1: Profit and Loss Account 1997 and 1998- Dublin Bus

1998

£ 000

1997

£ 000

Revenue 105,127 102,534

Costs

- Payroll and related costs 67,291 64,610

- Materials and services 31,638 31,174

- Depreciation 10,586 10,785

- Exceptional operating costs 2,303 800

Total operating costs 111,818 107,369

Deficit before interest and

State grants

6,691 4,835

Interest 266 342

Deficit for the year before

State Grants

6,957 5,177

State Grants 8,895 7,000

Surplus for the year after

State grants

1,938 1,823

Transfer to Reserve 673 275

Profit and Loss Account 1,265 1,548

The fundamental ratio we are seeking is the ratio of fares revenue to costs- the fare-

__________________________________________________________________

_


23

box ratio. The accounts do not distinguish between revenue from fares and other

revenues. The revenue figures include fare revenue, revenue from ancillary services

(e.g. advertising revenue), and that part of the payment to CIE in respect of free travel

(Totalling £36.630 m in 1998) via the Department of Social Community and Family

Affairs. The latter revenue figures are based on notional usage, and must be

considered in lieu of fare revenue, and can be considered as part of fare receipts.

Expenditure is correctly identified. The accounts represent good practice, so that

appropriate expenditures are included. A more detailed breakdown of the two most

important elements of expenditure is given in Table A2. Wages and salaries account for

the bulk of expenditure. Fuel is relatively low, about 4% of total expenditure. Third party

and Employer’s Liability Claims account for 10% of expenditure. Depreciation is a true

cost and the numbers in the profit and loss account are realistic. Restructuring costs are

once off, though there may be continuous attempts at restructuring.

Table A2: Detailed Expenditure, Dublin Bus

1998

£ 000

1997

£000

Payroll and related costs 67,291 64,610

- Wages and salaries 58,585 56,636

- Social welfare and pension

costs

8,538 7,863

- Directors’ Emoluments 168 111

Materials and Services 31,638 31,174

- Fuel and lubricants 4,138 4,396

- Materials 8,120 7,845

- Third party and employer’s liability claims

10,264 10,222

-Other 9,116 8,711

Given the above information we can calculate an approximation to the fare-box ratio.

For 1998 this is (105,127/111,818)*100=94.0, while the corresponding figure for 1997

is 95.5. These numbers are consistent with those in Jane’s Urban Transport Systems.

__________________________________________________________________

_


24

While making some allowance for non-fare revenue may reduce the ratio the effect is

slight if the amounts are small. Against this the denominator may be overstated by the

amount of exceptional items. The conclusion is that the fare-box ratio is relatively high

in the case of Dublin Bus.

Bus Fleet financing: The average length of life of a bus is estimated at between 8-16

years. In 1998 buses fully depreciated in accounting terms were still in operation, and

the company regularly disposes of buses. The company also makes additions to the

fleet. In 1998 these additions cost £10.6 million. The bulk of the additions are financed

directly by the company, (though some buses are held on lease arrangements). This

financing is reflected in the Balance Sheet and the associated Cash-Flow statement.

The implications for the Profit and Loss Account depend primarily on whether the

additions reflect a net addition of buses. There are revenue and cost effects from

adding to the bus stock, and this may affect the fare-box ratio. A priori it is impossible

to know the effect, as this depends on other factors e.g. Quality Bus Corridors. Thus the

recent addition of buses financed by the State may appear in the Balance Sheet as an

increase in Fixed Assets, with a corresponding increase in Shareholders’ Funds.

(There may be alternative accounting arrangements, but this seems the most

straightforward approach). The effect on the Profit and Loss Account depends on the

usage.

Bus Eireann

It is possible to carry out a similar, but somewhat cruder, exercise for Bus Eireann.

While Bus Eireann is responsible for intercity bus services it also provides city services

in many of the major urban centre of the country, and nationwide school transport

services on behalf of the Department of Education and Science. The revenue figures

include the payments in respect of the latter from the Department of Education and

Science. Expenditure includes the relevant costs of the scheme but they are not fully

separated in the accounts. Hence the fare box ratio for Bus Eireann is not directly

measurable from available data. Given this caveat, Table A3 contains the relevant data

__________________________________________________________________

_


25

from the profit and loss account from which we can see the revenue-cost ratio.

Table A3: Profit and Loss Account 1997 and 1998 Bus Eireann

1998

£ 000

1997

£ 000

Revenue 105,523 102,239

Costs





Deficit before interest and

State grants

1,604 2,237

Interest received 457 336


State Grants

1,147 1,901



State grants

4,453 3,599

Transfer to Reserve 863 212


The revenue-cost ratio in 1998 was 98.5, while in 1997 it was 97.9. As with Dublin Bus

this is relatively high.

Iarnrod Eireann

Table A4 contains the data behind the profit and loss for Iarnrod Eireann. The accounts

provide information on the Bray/Howth suburban rail system (Table A5), but do not

distinguish between Arrow and other services. In fact this distinction is more clouded

now as many rail services are in fact commuter services (e.g. Drogheda, Dundalk,

Portarlington). For Iarnrod Eireann as a whole the revenue cost ratio in 1998 was 67.5

__________________________________________________________________

_


26

(65.5 in 1997).

Table A4: Profit and Loss Account 1997 and 1998 Iarnrod Eireann

1998

£ 000

1997

£ 000

Revenue 136,612 129,026

Costs




- Exceptional operating costs - 501


Deficit before profit on sale of

tangible assets, interest and

State grants

65,902 68,038

Profit on sale of tangible assets 57 58

Interest Payable 11,291 12,238


State Grants

77,136 80,218



State grants

15,369 12,182

Transfer to Reserve 10,947 10,349


It is possible to determine a true fare-box ratio for the Dart system. In 1998 it was

103.8, while in 1997 it was 86.9. The revenue to total cost ratio, when allowance is

made for non-fare revenue and interest costs was 84.5 in 1998 and 71.2 in 1997. The

__________________________________________________________________

_


27

improvement in both measures in 1998 was due to increased revenue and a reduction

in operating and other expenses.

Bray/Howth suburban rail services:

Table A5: Profit and Loss Account 1997 and 1998. DART 1998

£ 000

1997

£ 000

Revenue 16,062 14,628

- Passenger 15,871 14,278

- Other 191 350

Costs

- Maintenance of Rolling Stock 2,646 2,421

- Fuel 1,451 1,459

- Operating and other expenses 7,711 9,483


Total Expenditure 15,286 16,424

Operating Surplus / (Deficit)

before interest and State grants

776 (1,7 96)

Interest payable 3,712 4,115

Deficit for the year before State

Grants

2,936 5,911


__________________________________________________________________

_


28

__________________________________________________________________

_


29

B. Table 1 European Urban Transport Systems, 1997 Country

(1)

City

(2)

Public Transport

Services (3-8)

Owner-

Ship (9-11)

System: Percentage

of Operating Costs

from (12-15)

Bus: Percentage of

Operating Costs from (16-19)

Bu

s (3

)

Sub

urba

n R

ail (

4)

LRT

/Met

ro (

5)

Tra

m/tr

olle

ybus

(6)

Fe

rry

(7)

Oth

er (

8)

Pub

lic (

9)

Priv

ate

(10)

Mix

ed (

11)

Far

e bo

x (1

2)

Oth

er

Co

mm

erc

ial

So

urc

es

(13

)

Sub

sidy

(14

)

Com

men

ts (

15)

Far

e bo

x (1

6)

Oth

er

Co

mm

erc

ial

So

urc

es

(17

)

Sub

sidy

(18

)

Com

men

ts (

19)

Germany Aachen 1 1 1 77.0 23.0

Denmark Aarhus 1 1 1 63.0 1.0 36.0 N/A

Scotland Aberdeen 1 1 1 97.0 3.0

Netherlands Amsterdam 1 1 1 1 1 1 25.3 9.9 64.8

Belgium Antwerp 1 1 1 1 38.5 2.7 58.8 28.5 2.1 69.4

Greece Athens 1 1 0 1 34.0 44.0 22.0 34.0 21.0 45.0

Germany Augsburg 1 1 1 56.7 7.8 35.5 49.7 50.3

Spain Barcelona 1 1 1 1 1 1 62.4 2.8 34.8

Switz Basle 1 1 1 62.6 14.5 22.9 N/A

N. Ireland Belfast 1 1 98.0 2.0

Yugoslavia Belgrade 1 1 1 1 52.0 7.0 41.0 N/A

Norway Bergin 1 1 1 1 1 92.0 6.5 1.5

Germany Berlin 1 1 1 1 1 1 33.0 10.0 57.0 N/A

Switz Berne 1 1 1 1 1 60.0 10.8 29.2 N/A

Germany Bielefeld 1 1 1 77.5 1.7 20.8 N/A

Spain Bilbao 1 1 1 N/A

England Birmingham 1 1 1 1 97.0 3.0

Germany

Bochum-Gelsen

Kirchen 1 1 1 1 1 28.2 7.6 64.2 N/A

Italy Bologna 1 1 1 1 38.1 5.0 56.9

Germany Bonn 1 1 1 1 1 36.0 64.0 N/A

France Bordeaux 1 1 23.3 1.7 75.0

Slovakia Bratislava 1 1 N/A

Germany Bremen 1 1 1 1 1 47.0 8.0 45.0 N/A

England Bristol 1 1 1 1 92.0

Czech Brno 1 1 1 1 35.0 65.0 N/A

Belgium Brussels 1 1 1 1 1 33.0 5.0 62.0 N/A

Romania Bucharest 1 1 1 25.8 2.0 72.2 N/A

__________________________________________________________________

_


30

Country

(1)

City

(2)

Public Transport

Services (3-8)

Owner-

Ship (9-11)

System: Percentage

of Operating Costs

from (12-15)

Bus: Percentage of


Bu

s (3

)

Sub

urba

n R

ail (

4)

LRT

/Met

ro (

5)

Tra

m/tr

olle

ybus

(6)

Fe

rry

(7)

Oth

er (

8)

Pub

lic (

9)

Priv

ate

(10)

Mix

ed (

11)

Far

e bo

x (1

2)

Oth

er

Co

mm

erc

ial

So

urc

es

(13

)

Sub

sidy

(14

)

Com

men

ts (

15)

Far

e bo

x (1

6)

Oth

er

Co

mm

erc

ial

So

urc

es

(17

)

Sub

sidy

(18

)

Com

men

ts (

19)

Hungary Budapest 1 1 1 1 1 40.4 5.4 27.8 N/A

Wales Cardiff 1 1 1 1

Belgium Charleroi 1 1 1 1 1 28.4 3.6 68.0

Germany Chenmitz 1 1 1 1 29.1 10.9 60.0

Germany Cologne 1 1 1 1 44.0 11.0 45.0 58.0

Denmark Copenhagen 1 1 52.0 1.0 47.0

Netherlands Den Haag 1 1 1 1 30.0 4.2 65.8 N/A

Germany Dortmund 1 1 1 1 30.0 5.3 24.4 32.2 5.6 27.2

Germany Dresden 1 1 1 1 1 29.0 12.0 59.0 34.0 16.0 50.0

Ireland Dublin 1 1 1 96.4 3.6

Germany Duisburg 1 1 1 1 47.0 7.0 46.0 N/A

Germany Dusseldorf 1 1 1 1 1 1 57.0 43.0 N/A

Scotland Edinburgh 1 1 1 90.0 10.0

Germany Essen 1 1 1 1 47.0 10.0 43.0 N/A

Italy Florence 1 1 1 39.8 3.3 56.9

Germany Frankfurt 1 1 1 1 1 53.0 47.0 45.3 11.1 43.6

Switz Geneva 1 1 1 1 39.0 8.0 53.0 N/A

Italy Genoa 1 1 1 1 32.9 67.7

Belgium Ghent 1 1 1 1 38.0 62.0 N/A

Scotland Glasgow 1 1 1 1 83.0 0.3 16.7

Sweden Gothenburg 1 1 1 1 1 54.0 46.0

Austria Gratz 1 1 1 1 78.0 17.0 5.0 N/A

France Grenoble 1 1 1 1 49.1 7.6 43.3 N/A

Germany Halle 1 1 1 1 26.8 10.5 62.7 N/A

Germany Hamburg 1 1 1 1 1 51.0 10.0 35.0 N/A

Germany Hannover 1 1 1 50.0 16.0 34.0 46.0 54.0

Finland Helsinki 1 1 1 1 1 1 47.7 1.0 51.3 N/A

England Hull 1 1 84.0 2.0 14.0

Germany Karlsruhe 1 1 1 1 1 35.5 22.8 41.7

__________________________________________________________________

_


31

Country

(1)

City

(2)

Public Transport

Services (3-8)

Owner-

Ship (9-11)

System: Percentage

of Operating Costs

from (12-15)

Bus: Percentage of


Bu

s (3

)

Sub

urba

n R

ail (

4)

LRT

/Met

ro (

5)

Tra

m/tr

olle

ybus

(6)

Fe

rry

(7)

Oth

er (

8)

Pub

lic (

9)

Priv

ate

(10)

Mix

ed (

11)

Far

e bo

x (1

2)

Oth

er

Co

mm

erc

ial

So

urc

es

(13

)

Sub

sidy

(14

)

Com

men

ts (

15)

Far

e bo

x (1

6)

Oth

er

Co

mm

erc

ial

So

urc

es

(17

)

Sub

sidy

(18

)

Com

men

ts (

19)

Poland Krakow 1 1 1 1 64.5 35.5 N/A

Switz Lausanne 1 1 1 1 1 49.1

England Leeds -

Bradford

1 1 1 73.0 3.0 24.0

England Leicester 1 1 1 86.0 12.0 2.0

Germany Leipzig 1 1 1 1 26.2 18.6 55.2 N/A

Belgium Liege 1 1 1 31.4 3.8 64.8

France Lille 1 1 1 1 60.0 11.0 28.9 N/A

Austria Linz 1 1 1 1 67.1 32.9 N/A

Portugal Lisbon 1 1 1 1 1 64.9 27.4 N/A

England Liverpool 1 1 1 87.0 5.0 8.0

Poland Lodz 1 1 1 1 60.4 39.6

England London 1 1 1 85.5

Luxembourg Luxembourg 1 1 1 22.3 3.0 16.0

France Lyons 1 1 1 1 1 1 48.5 51.5

Spain Madrid 1 1 1 1 81.6 2.4 24.7

Spain Malaga 1 1 1 64.6 1.6 33.8

Sweden Malmo 1 1 1 50.0 6.0 44.0

England Manchester 1 1 1 72.0 12.0 12.0

France Marseille 1 1 1 1 1 57.1 6.0 36.9

England Middlesbrough-

Teeside

1 1 1

Italy Milan 1 1 1 1 37.3 3.3 59.4

Germany Monchengladbach 1 1 1 36.0 6.0 58.0

Germany Munich 1 1 1 1 1 59.0 41.0

France Nancy 1 1 47.5 5.7 46.8

France Nantes 1 1 1 41.1 5.8 53.1

Italy Naples 1 1 1 1 1 13.0 2.0 85.0

__________________________________________________________________

_


32

Country

(1)

City

(2)

Public Transport

Services (3-8)

Owner-

Ship (9-11)

System: Percentage

of Operating Costs

from (12-15)

Bus: Percentage of


Bu

s (3

)

Sub

urba

n R

ail (

4)

LRT

/Met

ro (

5)

Tra

m/tr

olle

ybus

(6)

Fe

rry

(7)

Oth

er (

8)

Pub

lic (

9)

Priv

ate

(10)

Mix

ed (

11)

Far

e bo

x (1

2)

Oth

er

Co

mm

erc

ial

So

urc

es

(13

)

Sub

sidy

(14

)

Com

men

ts (

15)

Far

e bo

x (1

6)

Oth

er

Co

mm

erc

ial

So

urc

es

(17

)

Sub

sidy

(18

)

Com

men

ts (

19)

England Newcastle-

Upon-Tyne

1 1 1 1 1 96.0 4.0

France Nice 1 1 1 50.3 5.5 44.2

England Nottingham 1 1 1

Germany Nuremburg 1 1 1 1 1 33.0 67.0 58.0

Portugal Oporto 1 1 0 1 1 64.0 3.0 13.0

Norway Oslo 1 1 1 1 1 63.0 7.0 30.0

Czech Ostrava 1 1 1 33.8 5.0 60.7

Poland Poznan 1 1 1 1 48.9 51.1

Czech Prague 1 1 1 1 1 25.0 6.0 69.0

France Rennes 1 1 38.0 62.0

Iceland Reykjavik 1 53.0 3.4 43.6

Germany Rhein-Ruhr 1 1 1 1 34.4 10.7 36.6

Italy Rome 1 1 1 1 1 23.0 2.5 74.5

Netherlands Rotterdam 1 1 1 1 31.9 68.1

France Rouen 1 1 29.8 4.0 66.2

Spain Seville 1 1 1 57.5 42.5

England Sheffield 1 1 1

Bulgaria Sofia 1 1 1 1

England Southhampton 1 1 1 1 95.0 5.0

France St. Etienne 1 1 1 1 61.0 6.0 33.0

Sweden Stockholm 1 1 1 1 43.0 5.0 52.0

England Stoke-On-Trent 1 1 1

France Strasburg 1 1 1 1 53.0 4.0 43.0

Germany Stuttgart 1 1 1 1 1 46.0 54.0

Poland Szczecin 1 1 1 1 37.0 73.0

Israel Tel Aviv 1 1 72.0 28.0

Romania Timisoara 1 1 1 48.9 6.0 45.1

Albania Tirana 1 1

__________________________________________________________________

_


33

Country

(1)

City

(2)

Public Transport

Services (3-8)

Owner-

Ship (9-11)

System: Percentage

of Operating Costs

from (12-15)

Bus: Percentage of


Bu

s (3

)

Sub

urba

n R

ail (

4)

LRT

/Met

ro (

5)

Tra

m/tr

olle

ybus

(6)

Fe

rry

(7)

Oth

er (

8)

Pub

lic (

9)

Priv

ate

(10)

Mix

ed (

11)

Far

e bo

x (1

2)

Oth

er

Co

mm

erc

ial

So

urc

es

(13

)

Sub

sidy

(14

)

Com

men

ts (

15)

Far

e bo

x (1

6)

Oth

er

Co

mm

erc

ial

So

urc

es

(17

)

Sub

sidy

(18

)

Com

men

ts (

19)

France Toulouse 1 1 1 1 47.0 3.0 50.0 Urban

bus

74.0 3.5 3.5

Italy Turin 1 1 1 1 25.0 5.0 70.0

Netherlands Utrecht 1 1 1 41.0 4.0 55.0

Spain Valencia 1 1 1 55.2 3.0 41.8

Italy Venice 1 1 1 1 43.3 7.2 49.5

Austria Vienna 1 1 1 1 1 40.4 0.3 59.3 30.0 0.1 69.9

Poland Warsaw 1 1 1 1 1 71.6 28.4

Poland Wroclaw 1

Germany Wuppertal 1 1 1 1 33.0 53.0 14.0

Croatia Zagreb 1 1 1 1 47.8 32.4 22.9

Spain Zaragoza 1 1 80.4 0.5 19.1

Switz Zurich 1 1 1 1 1 1 45.1 11.9

Table 1 Continued

Bus Service Characteristics (22-27) Rail Services (28-29)

Country (1)

City (2)

Popul-ation

(Million) (Transport

region popul-ation) (20)

System Passenger

Trips (Millions),

1997 (*1995, +1996)

(21)

Bus

Pas

seng

er

Trip

s (M

illio

ns),

19

97 (

*199

5;

+19

96)

– (2

2)

Bus

Fle

et s

ize

(23)

Fle

et s

ize

(Lea

sed

or

con

tra

ct)

(24

)

Tot

al B

us F

leet

si

ze (

25

)

Rou

te L

engt

h (k

m)

(26

)

Pas

seng

er V

ehic

le-

km (

mill

ions

) (2

7)

Ra

il P

ass

en

ge

r T

rip

s (m

illio

ns)

, 1

99

7 (

*19

95

,+1

99

6)

(28

)

Rai

l Rou

te L

engt

h (k

m)

(29)

Germany Aachen 0.555 82.6 56.3 267 267 1012 16.2

Denmark Aarhus 0.282 45 227 227 835 15.4

Scotland Aberdeen 0.240 22.8 * 190 190 190 11.2

Netherlands Amsterdam 0.724 236.9 51.9 276 276 422 19.3

Belgium Antwerp 0.529 52 + 16.4 + 129 129 228 7.2

Greece Athens 3.600 469 2097 2097 2869.5 106.7 92 51

Germany Augsburg 0.648 75.2 51.8 144 144 203 6.6

Spain Barcelona 2.600 479.7 201.8 826 826 700 46.8 143

Switz Basle 0.560 129 + 33.3 1993 56 56 55 2.3

__________________________________________________________________

_


34


Country (1)

City (2)

Popul-ation



System Passenger

Trips (Millions),

1997 (*1995, +1996)

(21)

Bus

Pas

seng

er

Trip

s (M

illio

ns),

19

97 (

*199

5;

+19

96)

– (2

2)

Bus

Fle

et s

ize

(23)

Fle

et s

ize

(Lea

sed

or

con

tra

ct)

(24

)

Tot

al B

us F

leet

si

ze (

25

)

Rou

te L

engt

h (k

m)

(26

)

Pas

seng

er V

ehic

le-

km (

mill

ions

) (2

7)

Ra

il P

ass

en

ge

r T

rip

s (m

illio

ns)

, 1

99

7 (

*19

95

,+1

99

6)

(28

)

Rai

l Rou

te L

engt

h (k

m)

(29)

N. Ireland Belfast 0.297 23.1 325 325 180 11.6 6.2 151

Yugoslavia Belgrade 1.600 86 * 62 961 961 1227 63.6

Norway Bergin 0.210 12.6 118 118 220 6.3

Germany Berlin 3.400 778.7 1540 358 1898 1261 109.8 264

Switz Berne 0.189 119.4 28.2 + 100 100 46 3.4 17.7 56

Germany Bielefeld 0.324 32.6 13.7 * 74 25 99 489 5

Spain Bilbao 1.000 51.7 209 209 0 24.3

England Birmingham 2.600 330 1763 1763 7524 106 20.6 177

Germany Bochum-Gelsen Kirchen

0.975 105.6 17.8 274 61 335 893 17.8

Italy Bologna 0.908 96.4 468 468 425 17.9

Germany Bonn 0.382 69.2 185 62 247 573 13.1

France Bordeaux 0.650 58.2 541 541 997 23.4

Slovakia Bratislava 0.450 303 182.3 555 555 1477 26.3

Germany Bremen 0.598 114.1 325 325 558 16.9

England Bristol 0.500 56.7 725 725 0 48.5

Czech Brno 0.395 275 89.1 + 299 299 466

Belgium Brussels 1.100 213 62 536 536 305 19.5

Romania Bucharest 2.300 736 316.4 1232 1232 2680 67.9

Hungary Budapest 2.100 1419 587.4 1372 1372 1109 90.5 65.9

Wales Cardiff 0.300 30.6 278 278 430 15.7 6.1 137

Belgium Charleroi 0.580 21.8 283 283 1544

Germany Chenmitz 0.263 31.8 31.8 151 18 169 239 7.8

Germany Cologne 1.300 383 223.9 210 81 291 388 20

Denmark Copenhagen 1.700 256 1139 1139 4500 93 170

Netherlands Den Haag 0.564 115.4 36.4 207 207 210.5 9.7 115 (total)

Germany Dortmund 0.680 103.6 45.9 * 143 51 194 623 11.9

Germany Dresden 0.563 138.5 153 53 206 195 11 9.7

Ireland Dublin 1.100 187.9 914 914 885 54.8 19 201

Germany Duisburg 0.600 47.2 168 47 215 284 8.9

Germany Dusseldorf 1.200 197.6 371 45 416 1065 244 34.2

Scotland Edinburgh 0.450 127.4 90.6 596 596 1370 20.4

Germany Essen 0.652 106.7 248 248 316 15.2

Italy Florence 0.604 77.3 506 506 630 19.8

Germany Frankfurt 5.000 550 36.1 194 70 264 307 12.8 85 288

Switz Geneva 0.399 101.2 * 51.1 221 221 299 9.8

Italy Genoa 0.652 157.3 157.3 856 856 790 30.8

Belgium Ghent 0.260 46.6 253 253 2704 21.5

Scotland Glasgow 1.600 1048 1048 1713 37 486

Sweden Gothenburg 0.456 87.5 87.5 133 133 939 14.3

__________________________________________________________________

_


35


Country (1)

City (2)

Popul-ation



System Passenger

Trips (Millions),

1997 (*1995, +1996)

(21)

Bus

Pas

seng

er

Trip

s (M

illio

ns),

19

97 (

*199

5;

+19

96)

– (2

2)

Bus

Fle

et s

ize

(23)

Fle

et s

ize

(Lea

sed

or

con

tra

ct)

(24

)

Tot

al B

us F

leet

si

ze (

25

)

Rou

te L

engt

h (k

m)

(26

)

Pas

seng

er V

ehic

le-

km (

mill

ions

) (2

7)

Ra

il P

ass

en

ge

r T

rip

s (m

illio

ns)

, 1

99

7 (

*19

95

,+1

99

6)

(28

)

Rai

l Rou

te L

engt

h (k

m)

(29)

Austria Gratz 0.240 92.8 39.4 131 131 184.5 8.9

France Grenoble 0.370 46.7 23.8 213 213 177 10.2

Germany Halle 0.330 67 15.5 75 31 106 272 6.7

Germany Hamburg 2.300 477 222.3 647 312 959 750 50.5 140 110

Germany Hannover 1.100 178 33.8 207 27 234 344 13.5 33 233

Finland Helsinki 0.525 197.9 69.9 378 378 450 19.1 38 173

England Hull 0.262 32.4 + 32.4 469 469 2074 25.3

Germany Karlsruhe 0.640 123.6 84 20 104 139 4.5

Poland Krakow 0.835 564 584 584 1472 37.7

Switz Lausanne 0.244 73.6 73.6 108 108 120 11.3

England Leeds - Bradford

2.000 55 * 180 1994 1211 1211 0 64 18 295

England Leicester 0.282 25 53.9 526 526 800 33.5

Germany Leipzig 0.599 87.2 16.1 136 136 197 7.3

Belgium Liege 0.500 75.1 75.1 1107 1107 4000 34.8

France Lille 1.100 97.6 37.6 311 311 466 13

Austria Linz 0.200 81.6 16.3 + 90 90 131 4.2

Portugal Lisbon 2.500 376.2 351.9 + 802 802 595 43.5 139 100

England Liverpool 1.500 134 134 1992/93

920 920 651 48 30 140

Poland Lodz 1.100 150 150 445 445 707 28.6

England London 6.300 2109 1277 6500 6500 0 342

Luxembourg Luxembourg 0.100 22.6 22.6 135 135 127.4 4.4

France Lyons 1.200 208 887 887 1132 34.9

Spain Madrid 5.100 555 555 1820 1820 1431 93.9 180.1 (+)

Spain Malaga 0.600 34.7 + 34.7 + 200 200 238 8.5 7.0 (+)

Sweden Malmo 0.234 20.3 20.3 1994 195 195 566 10.3 4

England Manchester 2.600 166 166 1524 1524 27

France Marseille 0.808 148.2 85.4 + 542 575 21.6

England Middlesbrough-Teeside

0.500 22.5 22.5 117 117 593

Italy Milan 4.000 868.2 251.4 1603 1603 428.8 34.8 43 (+)

Germany Monchengladbach

0.670 35.7 35.7 222 222 617 10.9

Germany Munich 2.600 533 327 198 525 443 31.7

France Nancy 0.315 13.3 13.3 + 182 182 203 4.8

France Nantes 0.546 63.9 287 287 405 12.7

Italy Naples 2.000 132.2 + 1016 1016 1796 27.9 26.7 (*)

England Newcastle-Upon-Tyne

1.100 162.5 162.5 1237 1237 1420 79.2

France Nice 0.356 36.8 * 209 209 329 8.2

__________________________________________________________________

_


36


Country (1)

City (2)

Popul-ation



System Passenger

Trips (Millions),

1997 (*1995, +1996)

(21)

Bus

Pas

seng

er

Trip

s (M

illio

ns),

19

97 (

*199

5;

+19

96)

– (2

2)

Bus

Fle

et s

ize

(23)

Fle

et s

ize

(Lea

sed

or

con

tra

ct)

(24

)

Tot

al B

us F

leet

si

ze (

25

)

Rou

te L

engt

h (k

m)

(26

)

Pas

seng

er V

ehic

le-

km (

mill

ions

) (2

7)

Ra

il P

ass

en

ge

r T

rip

s (m

illio

ns)

, 1

99

7 (

*19

95

,+1

99

6)

(28

)

Rai

l Rou

te L

engt

h (k

m)

(29)

England Nottingham 0.272 421 421 284

Germany Nuremburg 2.100 187.2 40 314 314 461 20.3 28.7

Portugal Oporto 0.800 246 562 562 412 35.6

Norway Oslo 0.800 153 53 280 280 1454 16.6 24

Czech Ostrava 0.330 232 + 102.9 + 409 409 670 20.8

Poland Poznan 0.582 225.6 101.5 294 294 465 16.6

Czech Prague 1.200 330 330 1353 1353 2108 63.5

France Rennes 0.331 33.9 33.9 326 326 459 10.6

Iceland Reykjavik 0.164 7.4 7.4 77 77 400 5.5

Germany Rhein-Ruhr 7.400 1064 7564 186.5

Italy Rome 2.800 749.3 1994 2452 2452 2042 120.4 30.5 (*)

Netherlands Rotterdam 0.888 173.8 40.5 264 264 518 14.4

France Rouen 0.383 22 22 221 221 481 11.2

Spain Seville 0.725 90.4 90.4 322 322 401 14.5 4.7 (+)

England Sheffield 1.300 93 93 720 720 1000 57

Bulgaria Sofia 1.100 397 62.9 1994 1306 1306 1213 62.9

England Southhampton 0.214 27.2 27.2 222 222 1088

France St. Etienne 0.316 39.8 126 126 183 4.2

Sweden Stockholm 1.800 600 258 1676 1676 45400 89 62

England Stoke-On-Trent

0.340 505 505 907

France Strasburg 0.450 56.8 381 381 604 12.8

Germany Stuttgart 2.300 273 331 331 476 14.1

Poland Szczecin 0.413 151.2 151.2 1990 440 440 719 23.9

Israel Tel Aviv 2.000 295 295 1740 1740 2820

Romania Timisoara 0.500 91.9 14.1 + 83 83 182 2.3

Albania Tirana 0.250 30 30 150 150 175

France Toulouse 0.650 30 561 561 1970 19.2

Italy Turin 1.500 194 1006 1006 774 41

Netherlands Utrecht 0.250 32.4 32.4 + 220 220 223 8

Spain Valencia 0.852 115.5 115.5 480 480 770 21.8 21.2

Italy Venice 0.320 93 93 + 570 570 707 31.9

Austria Vienna 1.600 111.1 111.1 510 510 512.2 29.5

Poland Warsaw 1.700 2171 2171 777 93.5

Poland Wroclaw 0.800 349 395 395 390 24.9

Germany Wuppertal 0.470 84.2 295 295 356 16.7

Croatia Zagreb 1.000 260.5 97.8 332 332 1240 26.8

Spain Zaragoza 0.630 102.7 102.7 + 273 273 237 15.5

Switz Zurich 0.556 354 173 85 258 111.9 9.2 7.5

__________________________________________________________________

_


37

Comparison of Subvention Levels for Public Transport ... · Public Transport Systems in European Cities ... Statistical Database from Jane’s ... Dublin's Urban Public Transport

Documents