Emta Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas

EMTA BAROMETER OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN THE EUROPEAN METROPOLITAN AREAS

July 2002 EMTA BAROMETER OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN EUROPEAN METROPOLITAN AREAS

Background ...... 1

1. Basic facts about the EMTA metropolitan areas ...... 2 1.1 Basic data of metropolitan areas...... 2 1.2 Population density ...... 3 1.3 Modal split of motorised transport ...... 3

2. Description of the public transport system...... 4 2.1 Public Transport Supply ...... 4 2.1.1 Characteristics of public transport supply: bus and taxi (whole metropolitan area) 4 2.1.2 Bus (urban+metropolitan) lines density...... 4 2.1.3 Characteristics of Public Transport Supply: rail modes ...... 5 2.1.4 Density of rail lines...... 6 2.1.5 Density of metro networks in city centre ...... 6 2.1.6 Public Transport (bus and rail) supply ...... 7 2.2 Public Transport Demand ...... 8 2.2.1 Public Transport demand. Aggregated figures for the whole metropolitan area ..... 8 2.2.2 Demand-Supply adjustment ...... 8 2.2.3 Metro use per kilometer of network...... 9 2.2.4 Metro use per inhabitant ...... 9 2.3 Quality of public transport supply...... 10

3. Financial aspects ...... 11 3.1 Coverage of operational costs of public transport system...... 11 3.2 Investments (in million Euro) ...... 11 3.3 Fares and financial policy ...... 12 3.3.1 Public transport price compared to petrol price ...... 12 3.3.2 GDP per capita vs. Monthly pass /GDP per capita ...... 12 3.3.3 Monthly ticket/single ticket in city centre ...... 13 3.3.4 Monthly pass in metropolitan area / monthly pass in the city centre...... 13 3.3.5 Summary of all resources of operations ...... 14 3.3.6 Share of the different tickets in the exploitation revenues (%)...... 14 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in European Metropolitan Areas

Background

The association of European Metropolitan Transport Authorities (EMTA) is an association of public institutions in charge of the public transport systems in the main European metropolitan areas. A total of 26 institutions, from 26 metropolitan areas and 19 countries, are currently members of EMTA.

The EMTA Barometer has been designed as a means to provide information on the public transport systems in those cities, thus permitting comparisons and setting a basis for benchmarking exercises for the EMTA members, and the public at large.

Data included in this first version of the EMTA Barometer refer to year 2000. It is expected that data will be updated and further harmonised in future versions.

The information included in the EMTA Barometer refer to 3 main areas: · Basic facts of the metropolitan area as population, surface, density, modal split, ... · Public transport system data in three areas: supply, demand and quality. · Financial data related to fares, revenues and expenditures, coverage and investments.

This brochure includes data about the following fifteen cities: Athens, Barcelona, Bilbao, Brussels, Helsinki, London, Madrid, Manchester, Paris, Prague, Seville, Stockholm, Vienna, Vilnius and Zurich. Other EMTA cities are expected to be joining this Barometer in the future.

The figures presented in this brochure are only a fraction of those provided by cities. In particular, this information refers to the whole metropolitan area, whereas cities provided information separately for the city centre and the metropolitan ring.

This report was developed under the direction of Mr. Carlos Cristóbal-Pinto, Head of Studies and Planning Department of the Consorcio Regional de Transportes de Madrid (Madrid Public Transport Authority), with the collaboration of BB&J Consult and the Transport Department of Madrid Polytechnic University (UPM). Copies of this brochure or detailed information can be requested to the EMTA Secretariat:

Mr Stéphane Lecler Secretary General of EMTA 11, avenue de Villars 75007 Paris (FRANCE) Tel: +33-1 4753 2898 Fax: +33-1 4705 1105 e-mail: [email protected] web: www.emta.com

1 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in European Metropolitan Areas

1. Basic facts about the EMTA metropolitan areas

1.1 Basic data of metropolitan areas

Motorisation Population Total Surface Built Surface GDP per capita 2 Rate (inhabitants) (km ) (%) (cars/1000 inh) (EUR)

Athens 3,700,000 1,450 38 330 10,935 Barcelona 4,339,593 3,236 17 443 17,793 Bilbao 1,140,000 2,117 376 15,142 Brussels 1,850,000 1,362 84 434 24,400 Helsinki 957,000 764 29 360 33,300 London 7,285,000 1,574 68 333 27,200 Madrid 5,022,290 8,028 11 357 17,771 Manchester 2,585,700 1,272 446 Paris 10,952,000 12,070 20 451 35,946 Prague 1,635,046 3,326 470 5,430 Seville 1,092,542 1,387 366 12,900 Stockholm 1,823,000 6,500 380 Vienna 2,602,000 8,841 73 430 24,356 Vilnius 534,000 401 292 3,489 Zurich 1,270,000 1,834 483 55,742

The population of the metropolitan areas included in the EMTA Barometer ranges from slightly more than half million (Vilnius) to more than 10 million inhabitants (Paris). Data of population are relative to administrative limits and are not based in functional areas. In some cases, the functional metropolitan area extents over the administrative limits considered in the data reported (Barcelona, Brussels, London) while others are slightly smaller (Madrid, Paris).

Total surface gives a general idea of the total area that has to be covered by the public transport system. Built surface only includes urbanised areas within the administrative boundaries. Both figures may help to understand other indicators. For some cities, both figures are similar (thus indicating that most of its territory has been urbanised: Brussels, London and/or that not the whole of the functional metropolitan area is included in the figures provided), while for others the built surface is only a small percentage of the total surface, suggesting that the administrative boundaries include large non-urban areas, with only weak functional links with the metropolitan system (Paris, Madrid).

Motorisation rates lack harmonisation among cities, as registration records are not equally updated in the different countries, and there are many other factors to consider: e.g. company cars are usually registered in capital cities, in some countries, even if they finally operate in other cities; the concept of “car” may include or not some categories (family vans, off-road vehicles...). Also the origin of the data gives different motorisation rates, for example Madrid has a motorisation rate of 357 according to household survey and a rate of 536 according to statistical sources. In any case, motorisation rates are well over 300 in all the EMTA cities, with the sole exception of Vilnius.

Interestingly, there seems not to be a clear relationship between GDP per capita and motorization rates. This suggests that, over a certain level of income, the number of cars can not be taken any longer as a symbol of prosperity, but are rather explained by a more complex set of variables.

2 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in European Metropolitan Areas

1.2 Population density

Whereas high densities (and particularly high built densities) may be more convenient for providing good public transport services at affordable costs, low densities may impose either, more difficult and costly operations for the public transport system or the development of a dual system, with good public transport systems in the more densely populated areas and poor service in the remaining, sparsely populated zones of the administrative area. The metropolitan areas of Barcelona, Athens and London show particularly high built densities, whereas Madrid and Paris combine high built densities with low total densities.

2.552 Athens 6.801 Athens 1.34131,7 68,3 Barcelona 8.090 Barcelona 538 24,0 76,0 Bilbao Bilbao 1.358 Brussels 1.623 29,0 71,0 Brussels 1.253 Helsinki Helsinki 40,0 4.350 60,0 London 4.627 London 56,0 44,06.828 626 MadridMadrid 54,0 5.549 46,0 2.033 ManchesterManchester 20,0 80,0 907 29,0 71,0 ParisParis 4.621 PraguePrague 492 30,0 70,0 SevilleSeville 788 StockholmStockholm 280 Public Private Inhabitants/Total Surface Vienna 294 Vienna 403 Vilnius 60,0 Inhabitants/Built40,0 Surface Vilnius 1.332 Zurich 48,0 52,0 Zurich 692 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 1.3 Modal split of motorised transport 2 High public transport shares are the result of many complex and interrelated parameters, including land use patterns, income, etc, besides transport policies. Cities with the highest public transport shares (Vilnius, London, Madrid, Zurich, Helsinki) probably combine well developed public transport systems with rather centralised land use patterns and significant densities. It is worth mentioning that, according to figures from Prague, modal split in Eastern Europe is no longer much different from Western patterns.

Athens 31,7 68,3 Barcelona 47,0 53,0 Bilbao Brussels 29,0 71,0 Helsinki 40,0 60,0 London 56,0 44,0 Madrid 54,0 46,0 Manchester 20,0 80,0 Paris 29,0 71,0 Prague 30,0 70,0 Seville Public Private Stockholm 56,0 44,0 Vienna 36,0 64,0 Vilnius 60,0 40,0 Zurich 48,0 52,0

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

3 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in European Metropolitan Areas

2. Description of the public transport system 2.1 Public Transport Supply 2.1.1 Characteristics of public transport supply: bus and taxi (whole metropolitan area)

Urban Bus Metropolitan Bus Taxi Avg. Age Lines Avg.Age Lines length Stops Nb. Stops Nb. Number/ Vehicles length Vehicles (km) network Operators Network Operators 1000 inh (Years) (km) (Years) Athens 4 2 4.4 Barcelona 1,305 2,799 7 31 4,245 1,082 10 45 2.6 Bilbao 303 400 9 1 4,324 (1)2,209 6 5 1.1 Brussels (2)421 2,194 6 (4)1 240 15 2 Helsinki 2,114 4,930 5 10 - 9.9 London - 4,062 - (3)4,339 13,718 (3)39 2.6 Madrid 2,995 3,500 6 1 17,483 6,100 5 33 3.2 Manchester (5)2,300 6,200 50 - 0.6 Paris (5)581 1,836 7 1 18,524 24,178 97 1.5 Prague 1,894 2,252 6 12 1,818 1,227 7 10 Seville 1,229 16 - 2.1 Stockholm (3,5)9,153 (3)5,329 3 Vienna 623 3,137 - 5,431 (3)13 0.6 Vilnius (6)2,826 11 - 1 Zurich 1,591 1,889 9 14 - (1) Only Bizkaibus (without ET Bus) (2) Only local bus (3) Urban + metropolitan (4) Same operator as Metro and Streetcar (5) Network length (6) With private bus and microbus Bus services are characterised by lines length (i.e. sum of length of all the lines, considering overlapping of different lines), number of network stops (those used by more than one line are considered once), number of operators, and the average age of vehicles, for the few cities providing this figure. Metropolitan bus networks are well developed in Paris and Madrid. The number of taxis per 1.000 inhabitants is particularly high in Helsinki, and low in Bilbao, Manchester and Vienna.

2.1.2 Bus (urban+metropolitan) lines density

Bus-line densities give an idea of territorial coverage and access of the population to bus services. According to this, buses are a key element of the

Athens public transport system, in many cities, 1,72 Barcelona 1,28 offering an extensive coverage of the 2,19 Bilbao 4,06 territory particularly in Helsinki, 0,31 Brussels 0,23 2,77 London, Madrid and Bilbao, with more Helsinki 2,21 2 2,76 London 0,60 than 2 km of bus lines per km . 2,55 Madrid 4,08 Compared to their population, Bilbao 1,81 Manchester 0,89 and Madrid benefit from the highest 1,58 Paris 1,74 1,12 Lines lenght/total surface level of bus services, with more than 4 Prague 2,27 0,89 Seville 1,12 Lines length/1000 inhabitants km of bus lines per 1000 inhabitants, 1,41 Stockholm 5,02 followed by Helsinki, Vienna and 0,68 Vienna 2,32 Prague (figures in Vilnius include 7,05 Vilnius 5,29 0,87 private bus services, and therefore are Zurich 1,25 not comparable to those of other 0 2 4 6 8 cities). (*) Only local bus (**) Network length (***) Private bus and microbus included

4 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in European Metropolitan Areas

2.1.3 Characteristics of Public Transport Supply: rail modes

Network length, network number of stops and average age of vehicles are used to characterize public transport supply for rail modes. London benefits from the largest metro system, followed at some distance by Paris and Madrid. Commuter rail systems in Paris and Vienna are particularly extensive, being London the third one. Tram systems are well developed in Central and Eastern European cities (Vienna, Vilnius, Prague and Brussels).

Commuter Tram, Metro Rail Light Rail & Trolleybus Network Stops- Avg. Network Stops- Avg. Network Stops- Avg length Network Age Veh length Network Age Veh length Network Age Veh Athens 23 2 26 12 Barcelona 91 125 17 551 157 8 Bilbao 28 27 5 23 19 7 Brussels 35 64 15 210 100 30 131 2,194 28 Helsinki 42 16 163 32 76 240 London 402 273 707 322 53 72 Madrid 171 156 13 308 91 7 Manchester 319 98 39 36 7 Paris 211 297 21 1,401 462 16 20 4 Prague 50 51 16 582 190 136 623 19 Seville Stockholm 110 100 17 186 48 107 93 Vienna 61 86 1,156 183 1,133 Vilnius 156 12 Zurich 660 176 13 69 164 26

5 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in European Metropolitan Areas

2.1.4 Density of rail lines

0,01 0,09 Athens 0,03 0,15 1,20 Barcelona 0,20 0,04 Bilbao 0,02 0,20 0,33 Brussels 0,28 0,29 1,28 Helsinki 0,37 0,16 London 1,09 0,74 0,10 0,53 Madrid 0,06 0,14 Manchester 0,28 0,15 0,69 Paris 0,14 0,47 Prague 0,23 Network length/1000 inhabitants Seville Network length /net surface 0,22 Network length/total surface Stockholm 0,06 0,70 0,28 Vienna 0,21 0,29 Vilnius 0,39 0,57 Zurich 0,40

0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 Central European cities (Vienna, Zurich and Prague) enjoy particularly large rail networks compared to their respective populations, mainly due to their commuter rail networks. Compared to the total surface served, London is the metropolitan area with the highest rail network density, followed by Vilnius, Zurich and Helsinki. However, compared to built surface, Helsinki, Barcelona and London have the highest densities.

2.1.5 Density of metro networks in city centre

0,02 Athens 0,06 0,93 Barcelona 0,61 0,68 Bilbao 0,78 0,22 Brussels 0,37 0,06 Helsinki 0,44 0,26 London 0,55 0,28 Madrid 0,60 Manchester

2,01 Paris 0,99 0,10 Prague 0,42

Seville 0,02 Stockholm 0,60 0,15 Vienna 0,38 network length / total surface Vilnius network length / 10,000 inhabitants Zurich

0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 For all cities, except Athens, Helsinki, and Stockholm, the surface and the population of the city centre (without the metropolitan ring) have been considered.

Densities of metro networks in the city centre offer a closer look at the metro system, underlining the importance of this transport mode in the more populated metropolitan areas, particularly in Paris.

6 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in European Metropolitan Areas

2.1.6 Public Transport (bus and rail) supply

Athens 30 8 Barcelona 19 32 Bilbao 30 5 Brussels 17 (*) 8 (*) Helsinki 87 21 London Madrid 38 35 Manchester 49 4 Note: Paris data could have been supplied with misunderstood criteria Paris 24 59 Coments:Prague 45 58 Seville 41 Stockholm Bus Rail Vienna 11 30 Veh-km/inhabitant Vilnius 28 27 Zurich 30 23

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

(*) Brussels: Suburban bus & suburban rail not included.

Those four metropolitan areas with highest public transport supply per capita respond to very different characteristics: Helsinki offers quite extensive bus services, probably serving a sprawled population; Prague keeps very significant rail (mainly tram) services (probably to a large extent inherited from a past in which private transport was marginal); Paris has extensive rail (commuter rail and metro) supply to serve a large population in a broad region; and public transport services in Madrid have to attend both, high demand in a dense urban core, and radial trips from a large region to the centre, both by rail and bus services. Rail modes are more relevant in cities with extensive metro services (many of which have been operating for many decades, like Paris) or with a dense and important tram network (Prague).

7 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in European Metropolitan Areas

2.2 Public Transport Demand 2.2.1 Public Transport demand. Aggregated figures for the whole metropolitan area

Bus Rail (metro+train+light) trips/year passenger-km trips/year passenger-km (millions) (millions) (millions) (millions) Athens Barcelona 298 1,494 450 4.928 Bilbao 36 840 56(1) 457(2) Brussels 58(3) 437(3) 165 930 Helsinki 150 1.165 95 813 London 531 1.896 987 7,636 Madrid 801 4,454 686 5,240 Manchester 200 985 27 310 Paris 1,155 4,203 2,228 19,835 Prague Seville 135 Stockholm 1,499 2,870 Vienna 164 691 Vilnius 612 Zurich 400 1,678

(1) Only FEVE (without ET Train, RENFE)(2) Only ET Train + FEVE (without RENFE) (3) Only local bus The number of public transport trips and passenger-km per year for both, bus and rail modes, is particularly high in Paris, followed at some distance by London, Madrid or Barcelona. Not surprisingly, rail modes are usually showing higher passenger-km figures than bus modes (as they provide for longer trips). Madrid shows a particularly high bus performance, due to its extensive metropolitan bus network.

2.2.2 Demand-Supply adjustment This ratio (passenger- Athens km/veh-km) is a proxy of 35 Barcelona 18 the average occupancy 87 Bilbao 25 rate by mode. In some 60 Brussels 22 cities, a reduced number 40 Helsinki 14 of metro or commuter rail London services become the 29 Madrid 23 backbone of the whole Manchester 33 8 public transport system, 31 Paris 15 showing high occupancy Prague figures for those services Sevilla (Bilbao, Brussels, Zurich). Bus Rail Stockholm High bus occupancy rates Vienna may indicate a certain lack Vilnius of alternative, quicker and Zurich 57 11 more comfortable modes.

0 25 50 75 100 For urban buses, occupancy rates are Note: Paris, only urban bus. generally low, thus reflecting the traditional context and problems of these services (low commercial speeds, buses giving accessibility to places with low demand...). Differences in rail occupancies are probably due to the fact that some cities are considering trains while reporting their vehicles-km, whereas others provide figures by wagon. 8 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in European Metropolitan Areas

2.2.3 Metro use per kilometer of network

Athens Barcelona 26 Bilbao 11 Brussels 13 Helsinki 9 London 19 Madrid 16 Manchester Paris 28 Prague Seville Stockholm 14 Vienna Vilnius Zurich

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Metro: passenger-km/network length (millions/km)

This indicator (Mio.pass-km/km network) is quite high in Paris and Barcelona, with ratios of more than 25 Mio passenger-km per km of network, followed at some distance by London and the other cities.

2.2.4 Metro use per inhabitant The citizens of Prague, Vienna and Stockholm are those making a more extensive use of the metro network, more than 150 trips per year per inhabitant, although in some cases the ratio is measured by stages. Other cities as London, Paris and Madrid have more than 100 trips per year per inhabitant.

Athens 21* Barcelona 75 Bilbao 48 Brussels 55 Helsinki 39 London 133 Madrid 104 Manchester Paris 114 Prague 259* Seville Stockholm 156* Vienna 152 Vilnius Zurich

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 (*) Number of stages-year instead of trips-year

9 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in European Metropolitan Areas

2.3 Quality of public transport supply

QUALITY INDICATORS

Vehicles Low Commercial Speed GNV Bus lane equipped Electric emission Urban length for Urban Buses fuel Urban (km/h) Buses PMR buses Urban Met. Commuter Tram& Metro (km) (%) (%) (%) (%) Bus Bus rail Light rail Athens 14 36 30 16 6.5% 4.4% 13.1% 4.0% Barcelona 12 30 28 50 (2)76 (1)39.0% 3.3% Bilbao 11 28 35 39 (3)43.2% 0.0% (4)2% (5)16% Brussels 18 29 17 67 (6)4.2% 0.0% (7)3.5% 0 Helsinki 96 0.0% London Madrid 15 25 25 54 94 (8)45.0% 1.0% 2.8% 3.7% Manchester 19 40 35 Paris 13 27 45 366 (9)32.0% 0.2% 2% 4.4% Prague 17 20 36 19 (10)11.0% 18,1% Sevilla 13 Stockholm (10)46.7% (2)50.0% Vienna 18 31 15 (2)620 42.5% 0.1% Vilnius Zurich 21 56 15 (2)9.3% 17.6% 12.7%

(1) Metro, urban bus and metropolitan bus (6) Metro+Streetcar+Urban bus (2) Urban buses (7) Only urban bus (3) RENFE not included (8) Metro no considered (4) Only Bilbobus (9) Without metropolitan bus (5) Bizkaibus + Bilbobus (10) Metro+tram+urban bus

Average commercial speeds may be misleading, as they are not limited to the peak periods, when congestion may affect bus services in those cities with few or poorly enforced reserved bus lanes. Although guided modes are generally the only ones that offer commercial speeds above 25 km/h, metropolitan buses are extremely efficient in many cities, with speeds in the range of 20 km/h (Prague) to 30 km/h (Barcelona). Many cities already offer a percentage of vehicles equipped for PMR (Bilbao, Madrid, Stockholm) close to half of the total. Most of the cities have developed an extensive network of bus lanes. The introduction of environmentally-friendly technologies (electric, GNV, low emission, i.e. at least complying with Euro III standards) appears to be slow in most cities; Vienna is the city with the highest percentage of GNV buses, whereas half of the urban bus fleet in Stockholm complies with low-emission standards.

10 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in European Metropolitan Areas

3. Financial aspects 3.1 Coverage of operational costs of public transport system

Athens 44,2%

Barcelona 54,2% Bilbao

Brussels 33,4%

Helsinki 55,1%

London 97,3% Madrid 69,5%

Manchester

Paris 28,1%

Prague 26,0%

Seville

Stockholm 49,2%

Vienna

Vilnius 85,2%

Zurich 42,3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Operational cost coverage vary widely, although it falls within the 40%-55% range for most cities, with a few exceptions: higher coverage rates are reported by London (showing figures close to full coverage, as subsidies are partially considered as revenues), and Madrid (where commuter trains have not been included, as subsidies to this mode are reported as revenues by the railway company). The lowest rates are reported by Prague, Paris and Brussels, with heavily subsidised systems.

3.2 Investments (in million Euro) Data suggest that the era of huge infrastructure investments in public transport is over in most European cities, with the remarkable exceptions of Paris and Madrid. Depending on their respective context, cities give priority to new infrastructure, rolling stock or maintenance, but most of them keep a certain balance between these three areas. It is also worth noting that investments in Madrid have been dedicated almost exclusively to metro infrastructure in the 1996-2000 period.

500 416 400 New infrastructure

312 312 Rolling stock 300 Maintenance & Replacement 241

200 100

100 78 62 62 60 54 50 50 46 45 28 38 29 26 25 20 14 10 0 Paris Zurich Bilbao Athens Vilnius Madrid Seville Prague Vienna London Helsinki Brussels Barcelona Stockholm Manchester In Madrid, investment in new infrastructure only considers the metro system

11 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in European Metropolitan Areas

3.3 Fares and financial policy 3.3.1 Public transport price compared to petrol price

Athens 37 Barcelona 45 Bilbao 28 Brussels 36 Helsinki 29 London

Madrid 38 Manchester

Paris 39 Prague 14 Sevilla

Stockholm 52

Vienna 46

Vilnius 22

Zurich 35

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

The indicator used is the number of litres of unleaded 95 petrol that can be bought with the price of the monthly pass in the city centre. This allows a reasonable comparison of the appeal of public transport for users, compared to the private car from an economic point of view. A low value means that public transport is relatively cheaper in that city compared to private car use. Prague and Vilnius seem to have very attractive public transport system from this point of view. At the other edge, Stockholm, Vienna and Barcelona have less competitive public transport fares.

3.3.2 GDP per capita (in 1,000 EUR) vs. Monthly pass /GDP (EUR/100 EUR per capita)

11 Athens 24 18 Barcelona 20 15 Bilbao 15 24 Brussels 15 33 Helsinki 10 27 London 18 Madrid 17 Manchester 36 Paris 12 5 Prague 23 13 GDP per capita (1,000 EUR) Seville Stockholm 24 Monthly pass vs. GDP per capita Vienna 17 3 Vilnius 42 56 Zurich 9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 The price of public transport is significantly higher in less affluent cities (and particularly in Prague, Vilnius and Athens) compared to GDP per capita. Zurich, Helsinki and Paris are those cities where public transport fares are lower, when compared to GDP.

12 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in European Metropolitan Areas

3.3.3 Monthly ticket/single ticket in city centre

Athens 45 Barcelona 36

Bilbao 25 Brussels 29 Helsinki 19 London

Madrid 35 Manchester

Paris 34 Prague 42 Seville Stockholm 28

Vienna 31

Vilnius 63 Zurich 19

0 20 40 60 This is an indication of the relative attractiveness of monthly passes compared to single tickets for public transport users. The incentives to purchase monthly passes are lower in cities in Eastern and Southern Europe (as well as in Paris), with ratios over 30.

3.3.4 Monthly pass in metropolitan area / monthly pass in the city centre A comparison of public transport fares in the metropolitan ring and in the city centre shows that in most cities that ratio is rather low, thus suggesting that there is a trend to minimise the difference. This means that monthly passes are more attractive (compared to single tickets) for commuters than for inner-city inhabitants. It could be concluded that subsidies are focusing more on commuters. This might be justified by the fact that this is a way of making public transport more attractive for those that could be more leaned towards using their private cars. Nevertheless, and for those metropolitan areas with typical income patterns (i.e. medium to high-income families living in the suburbs and low to medium income families living in the inner city), this would mean that subsidies are benefiting relatively better-off families.

Athens 1,00

Barcelona

Bilbao 1,32 Brussels

Helsinki 1,84 London

Madrid 1,25 Manchester

Paris 2,88 Prague 1,62 Seville

Stockholm 1,00

Vienna 4,02

Vilnius 1,00 Zurich 2,91

0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00

13 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in European Metropolitan Areas

3.3.5 Summary of all resources of operations

100% 4 1 19 9 39 37 34 33 30 80% 45 51 47 50 63 44 60% 56 23 50 40% 63 66 67 61 55 49 49 47 20% 33 30 25 20 0% Paris Bilbao Zurich Seville Vilnius TOTAL Madrid Vienna Athens Prague London Helsinki Brussels Barcelona Stockholm Manchester Revenues of fares Public subsidies Other resources

The public transport system seems to be highly subsidised in most EMTA cities, covering from more than one third (37% Barcelona, 35% Vilnius, 34% Madrid) to almost two thirds (63% Brussels) of the total costs. Resources outside fares and subsidies have minor importance, except in the case of Paris, where a dedicated tax (versement transport) provides almost half of the total revenues, and Vienna.

3.3.6 Share of the different tickets in the exploitation revenues (%)

100% 5 12 5 2 8 2 7 5 0 2

27 80% 34 54 41 51 50 42 62 62 53 60% 62 34 16 40% 41 17 11 28 20 50 46 20% 34 35 33 27 20 19 30 33 18 0% Paris Zurich Bilbao Athens Vilnius Madrid Seville Vienna Prague London Helsinki Brussels Barcelona Stockholm Manchester

Single Multi journey Travelcards Others

Fare policy of the different metropolitan areas can be further analysed taking into account the origin of exploitation revenues. Even when monthly travel cards collect varies between 16% (Barcelona) to 62% (Prague and Stockholm), exploitation revenues come in an important percentage from other tickets, less subsidised. Thus, in Madrid, for instance, the travel card has a market penetration of 64.5%, meanwhile it produces 51% of the revenues. On the contrary, the 10 journeys ticket is used in some 25.1% of the trips, being just 10.4 % those travellers using single tickets (representing 28% and 19% of the revenues, respectively).