EMTA BAROMETER OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT

IN EUROPEAN METROPOLITAN AREAS

(2006)

January 2009

EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

Presentation

EMTA is the association of European Metropolitan Transport Authorities that brings together the public authorities responsible for planning, co-ordinating and financing the public transport systems in 31 of the European largest metropolitan areas plus Montreal (Canada) promoting the exchange of information and good practices in the field of public transport.

Where they exist, public transport authorities are the only organisations with a broad view of mobility issues in large urban contexts. Metropolitan areas have in fact multimodal and multioperators public transport networks but have to be understood as an integrated system. Data collection should therefore be a key responsibility of public transport authorities.

As a first step to achieve this objective, a Barometer of Public Transport was published in 2002 with the aim to present the most important figures of the socio-economic and transport contexts in the associated metropolitan areas. Afterwards, every two years a new edition of the barometer has been published, this present edition being the fourth one. The report shows absolute data obtained from a questionnaire and also makes comparisons and sets ratios, therefore it becomes a useful source of information to understand the different realities of each transport authority.

The methodological difficulties we have found on gathering the data to produce the report are: - the definition of the indicators are not the same in many cities and countries, though a manual was delivered with the questionnaire trying to set the meaning of each figure requested; - the availability of data is very heterogeneous depending on cities, and sometimes even between modes within the same city; - even when the data exist, it is rare that a single organisation has them all. Their collection therefore requires a big amount of work; - lastly, the comparison of data is a difficult exercise since it requires comparable contexts. This means that the analysis of raw figures needs to look carefully at the geographical, institutional and social reality behind names of territories, to be able to draw few conclusions. As in the previous editions, the data in the Barometer are based on the territories where the public transport authorities that submitted them have their competences.

These difficulties and biases are well known from experts. EMTA thinks it is time for a process of harmonisation of definitions at European level, in co-operation with the representatives of the public transport sector. It is desirable the indicators used in the Barometer become more harmonised in the coming years for the metropolitan areas concerned.

24 metropolitan areas have collaborated to this fourth edition of the EMTA Barometer of Public Transport by providing data based on year 2006: Stadsregio Amsterdam, Barcelona, Berlin-Brandenburg, West-Midlands (Birmingham), Brussels, Budapest, Greater Copenhagen, Frankfurt Rhein-Main, Helsinki, Greater London, Madrid Community, Greater Manchester, Greater Montreal, Paris Ile-de-France, Prague, Seville, South Yorkshire (Sheffield), Stockholm, Greater Stuttgart, Turin Metropolitan Area, Valencia, Vienna, Vilnius and Warsaw.

1 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

We would like to thank the responsible persons in transport authorities that have contributed to the updating of this Barometer because we know collecting all the information required for the questionnaire is so thorough.

Lastly, Consorcio Regional de Transportes de Madrid (Madrid Transport Regional Consortium) deserve our special thanks, namely Carlos Cristóbal Pinto, Head of Studies and Planning Department who supervised the document, and Laura Delgado Hernández responsible for aggregating the data, giving consistency and producing the Barometer of Public Transport .

2 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

Index

1. Basic Socio-Economic Data of Metropolitan Areas…………………………… 5 1.1. Metropolitan areas characteristics…………………………………………………... 5 1.1.1. Urbanised area in metropolitan areas……………………………...… 7 1.1.2. Density of population in metropolitan areas……………………...… 8 1.1.3. Evolution of population in metropolitan areas…………………...… 8 1.2. Main city characteristics……………………………………………………………... 10 1.2.1. Urbanised area in main cities………………………………………...… 11 1.2.2. Density of population in main cities………………………………...… 11 1.2.3. Evolution of population in main cities……………………………...… 12 1.3. The weight of main city in the metropolitan area………………………………. 13

2. Mobility…………………………………………………………………………………………….... 14 2.1. Main characteristics of the trips in metropolitan areas……………………..... 14 2.2. Car ownership…………………………………………………………………………….. 16 2.3. Modal split………………………………………………………………………………… 16 2.3.1. Modal split in motorised trips in whole metropolitan area and main city…...………………………………………………………………………………… 17 2.3.2. Modal split in motorised trips in metropolitan area in radial trips…...……………………………………………………………………………… 19

3. Description of the Public Transport System…………………………………...… 21 3.1. Public transport networks…………………………………………………………..... 21 3.1.1. Bus…………………………………………………………………………...… 21 3.1.2. Tramway / Light rail /Trolleybus……………………………………..… 22 3.1.3. Metro...…………...………………………………………………………...... 24 3.1.4. Suburban railway…..…………………………………………………….… 25 3.2. Public transport supply……………………………………………………………..…. 27 3.3. Public transport demand…………………………………………………………...…. 29 3.3.1. Occupancy rate of public transport modes…………………………. 31 3.4. Evolution of public transport supply and demand…………………………….. 31 3.4. Quality of public transport supply………………………………………………….. 32 3.5.1. Bus quality indicators…………………………………………………….. 32 3.5.2. Light rail/tram quality indicators……………………………………… 36 3.5.3. Metro quality indicators………………………………………………….. 36 3.5.4. Suburban railway quality indicators………………………………….. 38

4. Fares and Financial Aspects…………….…………………………………………..…… 40 4.1. Fares in main city and whole region..………………………………………………. 40 4.2. Comparison between main city fares ratios………………………………………. 42

3 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

4.3. Financial aspects…………………..……………………………………………………. 43

5. Conclusions…………….…………………………………………..……………….………..…… 46

Annex I: List of Metropolitan Areas Surveyed……....……………….………..…… 48

Annex II: List of Tables and Graphs……………………..……………….……...…… 49

4 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

1. Basic Socio-Economic Data of Metropolitan Areas

These basic data have two main purposes: - on one hand, they show a picture of the metropolitan areas and different contexts; - on the other hand, they will be used as reference indicators that enable to compare the transport figures described along the present report in relative terms, which means that the data among the different metropolitan areas will be more comparable.

EU27 countries and EMTA Members by 2008

1.1. Metropolitan areas characteristics

The metropolitan areas included in this report sum 77,564,989 inhabitants (16% of the EU-27 total population, as many inhabitants as Italy, Czech Republic and Austria together) and 131,518 km2 of surface (3% of the EU territory, as wide as Greece). These are very heterogeneous in every socio- economic aspect considered (Table 1). For example, in terms of population, Paris Ile-de-France is the most populated region (11,491,000 inhabitants) and Vilnius the least (848,008 inhabitants), giving a ratio of 13.5. Greater London also has a great number of inhabitants (7,512,400 inhabitants) as well as Madrid Community (6,008,183 inhabitants) or Berlin-Brandenburg (5,952,000 inhabitants). Concerning the surface, Berlin-Brandenburg has the biggest metropolitan area (30,371 km2), then Frankfurt Rhein-Main (14,000 km2), Paris Ile-de-France (12,012 km2) and Vilnius (9,731 km2), while Helsinki has 745 km2.(1)

(1) In order to compare easily between the different tables and graphs contained in this report, all the metropolitan areas that have contributed to this updating of the EMTA Barometer appear in all tables and graphs. When a particular data is not available, there is an empty space beside the name of the metropolitan area

Chapter 1. Basic Socio-Economic Data of Metropolitan Areas 5 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

Table 1. Basic socio-economic data of metropolitan areas Name of the region or Urbanised Annual GDP per Population 2006 Surface Family size metropolitan area surface capita (inhabitants) (km2 ) (km2 ) (€) Stadsregio Amsterdam (1) 1,365,485 1,025 2.2 33,500 Barcelona 4,857,000 3,239 588 2.7 27,817 Berlin-Brandenburg 5,951,809 30,371 1,687 2.2 21,551 West Midlands (Birmingham) (2) 2,591,300 901 435 2.4 (2) 24,387 Brussels 2,988,029 5,162 1,150 1.9 Budapest (6) 3,200,000 7,597 2.6 (2) 14,070 Greater Copenhagen 1,831,751 2,868 642 2.1 (2) 46,535 Frankfurt Rhein-Main 5,000,000 14,000 1.8 35,000 Helsinki 996,000 745 240 2.2 42,857 Greater London 7,512,400 1,579 1,579 2.4 44,401 Madrid Community 6,008,183 8,030 (3) 1,049 2.9 (2) 28,064 Greater Manchester 2,553,800 1,272 959 (4) 2.4 (7) 26,031 Greater Montreal 3,596,000 3,980 2.9 24,024 Paris Ile-de-France 11,491,000 12,012 2,521 2.3 43,370 Prague 1,700,000 3,860 Seville 1,250,597 1,741 307 3.1 18,164 South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 1,292,900 1,552 2.4 (4) 21,067 Stockholm 1,918,104 6,491 (5) 3.5 (2) 44,450 Greater Stuttgart (1) 2,673,729 3,654 803 2.2 (2) 34,529 Turin 1,531,755 837 2.2 22,856 Valencia 1,732,830 1,415 325 2.6 19,747 Vienna 2,403,724 6,457 (3) 31,089 Vilnius 848,008 9,731 449 3.2 10,426 Warsaw (1) 2,270,585 3,000 2.7 11,569

(1) 2007 data (2) 2005 data (3) 2004 data (4) 2001 data (5) Considering only families with at least one child, no singles or couples are counted (6) The figures in Budapest refer to the transport authority boundaries, which cover a wider area than the region limits (7) The value in Greater Manchester is GVA (Gross Value Added) per inhabitant

We use “metropolitan area” to refer usually to the territorial framework the Public Transport Authority has competences on, although it not always coincides with a municipal or regional division. This leads to different administrative and institutional organisation of local authorities, highlighting the differences between metropolitan areas where public transport systems are co-ordinated on a regional basis (large parts of rural areas are integrated in the provision of services), like in Germany or The Netherlands, and those where public transport is organised in a more urban and local scale.

0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 12.000 10.000 8.000 6.000 4.000 2.000 0 Graph 1. 1.365 Stadsregio Amsterdam 1.025 4.857 Barcelona 3.239 Metropolitan 5.952 Berlin-Brandenburg 30.371 2.591 West Midlands (Birmingham) 901 areas 2.988 Brussels 5.162 3.200 Budapest 7.597 population 1.832 Greater Copenhagen 2.868 5.000 Frankfurt Rhein-Main 14.000 and surface 996 Helsinki 745 7.512 Greater London 1.579 6.008 Madrid Community 8.030 2.554 Greater Manchester 1.272 3.596 Greater Montreal 3.980 11.491 Paris Ile-de-France 12.012 1.700 Prague 3.860 1.251 Seville 1.741 1.293 South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 1.552 1.918 Stockholm 6.491 2.674 Greater Stuttgart 3.654 Thousand inhabitants, 2006 1.532 Turin 837 Metropolitan area surface (km2) 1.733 Valencia 1.415 2.404 Vienna 6.457 848 Vilnius 9.731 2.271 Warsaw 3.000

Chapter 1. Basic Socio-Economic Data of Metropolitan Areas 6 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

On average, the size of the families is 2.47 persons/family, but in the Spanish metropolitan areas, Budapest, Montreal, Warsaw and Vilnius the size is larger (2.60-3.2 persons/family) than in the rest of European cities, where it is less than 2.4 (Stockholm is not considered because no singles or couples are counted). It is remarkable that in Frankfurt Rhein-Main and Brussels (1.8 and 1.9) there are plenty of single-parent families or people living alone. In the rest of the analysed European metropolitan areas, the situation is quite similar. These figures mean that a couple has roughly one single child or any at all, revealing the serious ageing problem of the population.

If we look at the economic figure, the average annual GDP per capita is 27,942 €, with great differences from Greater Copenhagen (46,535 €/inhabitant-year) to Vilnius (10,426 €/inhabitant-year), 4.5 times lower. In addition, Stockholm, Greater London, Paris Ile-de-France and Helsinki have a GDP over 40,000 €/inhabitant-year. It is meaningful that the average GDP on the last Barometer edition (figures from 2004) was 25,255 €/inhabitant-year, what shows the economic growth Europe is experiencing on this period.

1.1.1. Urbanised area in metropolitan areas

A remarkable figure is the urbanised surface in the areas of our study (Graph 2). Where data are available it is an indicator of the nature of the region, whether it has wide rural areas or covers built-up zones. Though the definition of “urbanised area” might vary in different cities we can notice that Greater London and Greater Manchester have the greatest ratios comparing the urbanised surface with the total metropolitan surface (100% and 75%), followed by West Midlands (Birmingham) (48.3%) and Helsinki (32%). The rest of the regions range from 13% to 23%, with the exception of Berlin-Brandenburg and Vilnius where there are extended non-built areas.

Graph 2. Urbanised surface on metropolitan area / metropolitan area surface

Stadsregio Amsterdam Barcelona 18,2% Berlin-Brandenburg 5,6% West Midlands (Birmingham) 48,3% Brussels 22,3% Budapest Greater Copenhagen 22,4% Frankfurt Rhein-Main Helsinki 32,2% 100,0% Greater London Madrid Community 13,1% Greater Manchester 75,4% Greater Montreal Paris Ile-de-France 21,0% Prague Seville 17,6% South Yorkshire (Sheffield) Stockholm

Greater Stuttgart 22,0% Turin Valencia 23,0% Vienna Vilnius 4,6% Warsaw 0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Chapter 1. Basic Socio-Economic Data of Metropolitan Areas 7 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

1.1.2. Density of population in metropolitan areas

Metropolitan areas whose administrative boundaries cover mostly urbanised areas like Greater London (4,758 inhabitants/km2), West Midlands (Birmingham) (2,876 inhabitants/km2), Greater Manchester (2,008 inhabitants/km2) or Turin (1,830 inhabitants/km2) reach much higher gross densities than those including large rural parts as Vilnius (87 inhabitants/km2), Berlin-Brandenburg (196 inh/km2) or Stockholm (296 inh/km2) (Graph 3).

Therefore, it is more pertinent to look at the density in urbanised areas, which reach very high rates in cities having a tradition of collective housing such as Spanish cities Barcelona, Madrid and Valencia and also Birmingham where the net density is over 5,000 inhabitants/km2 (or 50 inhabitants/ha).

Graph 3. Population density in metropolitan area (inhabitants/km2)

Stadsregio Amsterdam 1.332 1.500 Barcelona 8.260 196 Berlin-Brandenburg 3.528 2.876 West Midlands (Birmingham) 5.957 579 Brussels 2.598 Budapest 421 639 Greater Copenhagen 2.854 Frankfurt Rhein-Main 357 1.337 Helsinki 4.150 Greater London 4.758 748 Madrid Community 5.728 2.008 Greater Manchester 2.663 Greater Montreal 904 957 Paris Ile-de-France 4.558 Prague 440 718 Seville 4.075 Inhabitants / Total surface (km2) South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 833 Inhabitants / Urbanised surface (km2) Stockholm 296 732 Greater Stuttgart 3.328 Turin 1.830 1.225 Valencia 5.332 Vienna 372 87 Vilnius 1.889 Warsaw 757 0 500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000 4.500 5.000 5.500 6.000 6.500 7.000 7.500 8.000 8.500 9.000

1.1.3. Evolution of population in metropolitan areas

During the period 1996-2006, most of the metropolitan areas have seen their population increase, with an average ratio of 6.2% (2% on the first 5-year period and 4% on the second 5-year period) (Graph 4).

Several of these metropolitan areas have seen an increase over 10% in the last 10 years. This is the case of Madrid, Valencia, Prague, Barcelona and Helsinki. In Madrid, Barcelona and Valencia the growth in the period 2001-2006 has been very significant, around 11% on average, due to the massive immigration that Spain is experiencing.

Chapter 1. Basic Socio-Economic Data of Metropolitan Areas 8 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

Graph 4. Population evolution 1996-2006 and 2001-2006 in metropolitan area -4,0% -2,0% 0,0% 2,0% 4,0% 6,0% 8,0% 10,0% 12,0% 14,0% 16,0% 18,0% 20,0%

Stadsregio Amsterdam (1) -1,5% 2,4% Barcelona 10,6% 15,0% Berlin-Brandenburg -1,0% -0,5% West Midlands (Birmingham) (2) -1,9% 1,4% Brussels 2,2% 3,0% Budapest -1,7% 0,9% Greater Copenhagen 1,4% 4,5% Frankfurt Rhein-Main 5,3% 5,7% Helsinki 4,2% 13,8% Greater London 2,6% 6,2% 19,6% Madrid Community 11,8% Greater Manchester 1,5% 0,9% Greater Montreal 5,2% 8,2% Paris Ile-de-France 4,9% 7,8% Prague 6,3% 17,2% Seville 5,9% 8,3% South Yorkshire (Sheffield) -0,9% 2,1% Evolution 1996 --> 2006 Stockholm 4,3% 10,0% Evolution 2001 --> 2006 Greater Stuttgart (3) 1,0% 3,6% Turin -0,2% 3,8% Valencia 10,8% 18,0% Vienna (4) 4,6% 9,9% Vilnius -3,0% -0,2% Warsaw

(1) Stadsregio Amsterdam, period 1995-2007 and 2003-2007 (2) Birmingham, periods 1996-2005 and 2001-2005 (3) Greater Stuttgart, periods 1997-2007 and 2002-2007 (4) Vienna, periods 1994-2006 and 1999-2006

Among the cities having provided data, just Vilnius experienced a steady decrease in population (-3.0%) attenuated on the last 5-year period. Some like Stadsregio Amsterdam, West Midlands (Birmingham), Budapest, South Yorkshire (Sheffield) and Turin showed an overall slight decrease for the past ten years (- 1.5% on average) although the last five years have seen an increase in population. Furthermore, only Berlin-Brandenburg and Vilnius have showed a decrease on its population (-0.5% and 0.2%) during that period 2001-2006, what is proof of the increase of Europe’s population, 2% in the same period for the EU- 27 (Graph 5).

Graph 5. Population evolution 1994-2006

85.000.000

80.000.000 81.176.106 79.688.793 77.386.603 77.998.726 75.000.000 76.440.653 74.870.678 70.000.000 UE 27 (tens inhabitants) ) 65.000.000 28 European Metropolitan Areas 60.000.000 participating in Barometer 26 main cities (1) 55.000.000

50.000.000

48.863.180 49.296.500 47.733.250 48.107.580 48.295.800

Population (inhabitants 45.000.000

40.000.000

35.000.000

30.000.000 27.687.418 27.428.382 27.294.068 27.311.345 27.829.607 28.042.738

25.000.000 1994 1996 1999 2001 2004 2006

(1) There are two cities coinciding with the boundaries of the metropolitan area (Greater London, Montreal) which are not included in the list of “main cities”

Chapter 1. Basic Socio-Economic Data of Metropolitan Areas 9 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

1.2. Main city characteristics

The main cities gather altogether a population of more than 43 million people on a surface of 10,000 km2, what represents the 46% of the population on the 8% of the study area. The cities of London and Berlin are the most populated (7,512,400 and 3,404,000 inhabitants), and Manchester the less (452,000 inhabitants). The differences on surface are also noticeable, London (1,579 km2) is 15 times bigger than Copenhagen (98 km2), Barcelona (101 km2) or Paris (105 km2).

It should be noted that the Greater London entries in the series of main city figures and graphs are the same as that for the metropolitan area because the whole administrative metropolitan region of Greater London is the same as the main city.

On average, the size of the families in the cities is 2.3 persons/family compared to the 2.47 persons/family in metropolitan areas, showing that the city centres are suffering intensely the ageing of their population due to the young families moving to the outskirts. Also cities are loosing families and children because young professional people move in to the city.

Table 2. Basic socio-economic data of main cities Main city Urbanised Annual GDP per Name of the city Population 2006 Family size surface surface Number of jobs capita (inhabitants) (km2 ) (km2 ) (€) Amsterdam (1) 743,027 219 133 2.0 414,386 28,500 Barcelona 1,595,000 101 80 2.7 1,250,000 27,300 Berlin 3,404,037 892 363 2.2 1,571,500 23,715 Birmingham (2) 1,001,200 268 153 2.5 (2) 545,000 (2) 26,308 Brussels 1,018,029 162 140 2.0 660,000 56,500 Budapest 1,698,106 525 2.6 (2) 760,145 (2) 18,400 Copenhagen 593,013 98 89 1.8 370,787 57,467 Frankfurt 680,000 248 1.3 590,000 70,000 Helsinki 561,000 187 2.2 373,000 44,792 Greater London 7,512,400 1,579 1,579 2.4 4,670,000 44,401 Madrid 3,128,600 606 (3) 326 2.8 (3) 1,775,525 (2) 33,801 Manchester 452,000 115 109 (4) 2,4 168,000 Montreal 1,854,000 500 2.9 1,145,585 32,031 Paris 2,153,000 105 105 1.9 1,540,000 Prague 1,200,000 496 213 2.4 750,000 17,155 Seville 704,414 141 (2) 107 Sheffield 525,800 368 163 2.3 (5) 230,000 (4) 23,900 Stockholm 782,885 187 (6) 3.4 (2) 524,549 Stuttgart (1) 597,158 207 (1) 106 1.9 340,134 (2) 55,082 Turin 900,569 130 2.0 434,000 23,900 Valencia 805,304 137 (4) 58 2.5 383,800 Vienna 1,657,559 415 2.0 833,800 (3) 40,300 Vilnius 553,981 401 107 3.1 388,020 12,000 Warsaw (1) 1,702,139 518 2.4 778,023 21,825

(1) 2007 data (2) 2005 data (3) 2004 data (4) 2001 data (5) 1991 data (6) Considering only families with at least one child, no singles or couples are counted

The main city concentrates more than 50% of the jobs in metropolitan area, with an average of 58 jobs per hundred inhabitants, varying from 34 jobs/100 inhabitants in Manchester to 88 jobs/100 inhabitants in Frankfurt. Looking at the jobs density in main cities, the average is around 3,000 jobs/km2 but Paris (14,667 jobs/km2) and Barcelona (12,376 jobs/km2) have very high ratios due to their limited city surface.

Chapter 1. Basic Socio-Economic Data of Metropolitan Areas 10 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

If we look at the economic figure, the average annual GDP per capita in the cities is 34,600 €, 24% higher than in the whole metropolitan area.

Graph 6. Main cities population and surface 7.000 6.000 5.000 4.000 3.000 2.000 1.000 0 0 200 400 600 800 1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600

743 Amsterdam 219 1.595 Barcelona 101 3.404 Berlin 892 1.001 Birmingham 268 1.018 Brussels 162 1.698 Budapest 525 593 Copenhagen 98 680 Frankfurt 248 561 Helsinki 187 7.512 Greater London 1.579 3.129 Madrid 606 452 Manchester 115 1.854 Montreal 500 2.153 Paris 105 1.200 Prague 496 704 Seville 141 526 Sheffield 368 783 Thousand inhabitants, 2006 Stockholm 187 597 Stuttgart 207 Main city surface (km2) 901 Turin 130 805 Valencia 137 1.658 Vienna 415 554 Vilnius 401 1.702 Warsaw 518

1.2.1. Urbanised area in main cities

The urbanised area in main cities cover most of the surface. The highest ratios are in Paris and Lonodn (100%), Manchester (95%), Copenhagen (91%), Brussels (86%), Barcelona (79%) and Seville (76%), where the built-up areas cover more than 70% of the total main city surface. As average, 65% of the city surface, while the same ratio in the whole metropolitan area is 30%.

1.2.2. Density of population in main cities

Those cities with high percentage of urbanised areas have higher gross densities than those with lower percentages. These are the cases of Paris (20,505 inhabitants/km2) and Barcelona (15,792 inhabitants/km2), and at a second level Turin, Brussels and Copenhagen (6,000-7,000 inhabitants/km2).

Chapter 1. Basic Socio-Economic Data of Metropolitan Areas 11 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

Graph 7. Population gross density in main cities (inhabitants/km2)

Amsterdam 3.387 Barcelona 15.792 Berlin 3.816 Birmingham 3.736 Brussels 6.284 Budapest 3.234 Copenhagen 6.076 Frankfurt 2.742 Helsinki 3.000 Greater London 4.758 Madrid 5.164 Manchester 3.930 Montreal 3.708 Paris Prague 2.419 20.505 Seville 4.985 Sheffield 1.429 Stockholm 4.187 Stuttgart 2.880 Turin 6.918 Valencia 5.885 Vienna 3.994 Inhabitants / Total surface (km2) Vilnius 1.383 Warsaw 3.286 0 2.000 4.000 6.000 8.000 10.000 12.000 14.000 16.000 18.000 20.000

1.2.3. Evolution of population in main cities

During the period 1996-2006, most of the main cities have seen their population increase, with an average ratio of 3.0%, occurred mainly in the last 5-year period 2001-2006. This growth is appreciably smaller than the metropolitan area’s growth, where it is 6.2%, showing that the important population change is taking place in the surroundings of the cities.

Graph 8. Population evolution 1996-2006 and 2001-2006 in main cities -12,0% -10,0% -8,0% -6,0% -4,0% -2,0% 0,0% 2,0% 4,0% 6,0% 8,0% 10,0%

Amsterdam (1) 0,9% 3,9% Barcelona 6,0% 5,7% Berlin -1,8% 0,5% Birmingham (2) -1,9% 2,5% Brussels -11,7% 5,6% 7,0% Budapest -2,4% Copenhagen 0,5% 4,9% Frankfurt 4,6% 6,3% Helsinki 1,1% 8,7% Greater London 2,6% 6,2% Madrid 5,8% 9,1% Manchester 6,9% 7,0% Montreal 2,3% Paris 1,3% Prague 0,0% Seville 1,0% 2,9% Sheffield Evolution 1996 --> 2006 -0,9% 2,4% Stockholm Evolution 2001 --> 2006 3,7% 9,0% Stuttgart (3) 1,4% 2,0% Turin -2,1% 4,2% Valencia 7,9% 7,9% Vienna 6,4% 7,6% Vilnius -3,6% 0,03% Warsaw (4) 1,8% 4,5%

(1) Amsterdam, period 1995-2007 and 2003-2007 (2) Birmingham, periods 1996-2005 and 2001-2005 (3) Stuttgart, periods 1997-2007 and 2002-2007 (4) Warsaw, periods 1996-2007 and 2001-2007

Chapter 1. Basic Socio-Economic Data of Metropolitan Areas 12 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

The greatest population decrease in the period 1996-2006 occur in Budapest (-11.7%) and less intensively in Vilnius (-3.6%). Population growth around 8% in that same period happened in Madrid (9.1%), Stockholm (9.0%), Helsinki (8.7%) and Valencia (7.9%) (Graph 8).

1.3. The weight of main city in the metropolitan area

The main city gathers on average almost 49% of the population of the metropolitan area, with great differences showing the diverse administrative frameworks and structures of the metropolitan areas (Graph 9). It is remarkable the increase of this percentage compared with 2004 figure, where it was 44%, showing the change in the metropolitan areas structure, where the city centres become more populated again after a period of leaving the centres to live in the suburbs.

On 2006 cities like Warsaw, Prague, Vienna and Vilnius host around two thirds of the population of the metropolitan area. Cities like Turin, Seville, Helsinki and Amsterdam concentrate more than 55% of the population due to the great surface of the city compare to the whole metropolitan area. Other cities like Berlin, Budapest, Montreal and Madrid also host more than 50% of the population due to the extension of the main city surface (over 400 km2) in spite of an expanded metropolitan area. Greater London again appears with 100% in the graph because the metropolitan area falls under the administrative limits of the greater city surface.

Contrary to these cities, Paris and Manchester have low ratios (19% and 18%) due to a limited and completely developed city area without surface to expand, and also Frankfurt and Stuttgart (14 and 22%) because of the typical structure of German cities, based on conurbations.

Graph 9. Population main city / population whole metropolitan area

Stadsregio Amsterdam 54% Barcelona 33% Berlin-Brandenburg 57% West Midlands (Birmingham) 39% Brussels 34% Budapest 59% Greater Copenhagen 32% Frankfurt Rhein-Main 14% Helsinki 56% Greater London 100% Madrid Community 52% Greater Manchester 18% Greater Montreal 52% Paris Ile-de-France 19% Prague 71% Seville 56% South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 41% Stockholm 41% Greater Stuttgart 22% Turin 59% Valencia 46% Vienna 69% Vilnius 65% Warsaw 75% 0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

These different urban layouts have strong consequences for the coordination of the provision of public transport among the various local authorities concerned.

Chapter 1. Basic Socio-Economic Data of Metropolitan Areas 13 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

2. Mobility

This section gathers data related to mobility such as the main features of the trips in the metropolitan areas, car ownership and modal split (Table 3).

Table 3. Mobility parameters in metropolitan areas Motorised trips Home to Trips work Car per No. Average Average & school ownership person of taxis duration distance trips/ rate per day total trips

(Vh/1,000 (min) (km) (%) inh) Stadsregio Amsterdam (1) 3.12 30 20 30.0% 490 2,400 Barcelona 3.41 29 9 37.0% 433 11,226 Berlin-Brandenburg 3.13 40.0% 567 West Midlands (Birmingham) 2.95 23 13 23.0% 482 8,181 Brussels 2.60 (1) 31 (1) 10 50.0% (1) 350 (1) 1,247 Budapest 3.03 29 (1) 5 46.6% 329 6,900 Greater Copenhagen 3.28 45 32 333 Frankfurt Rhein-Main 3.30 74 13 38.0% 592 4,500 Helsinki 3.62 34.0% 395 Greater London 2.85 31.0% 330 21,681 Madrid Community 2.60 34 8 56.4% 500 16,086 Greater Manchester 3.13 26 29.0% 405 11,401 Greater Montreal 2.20 26.7% 500 Paris Ile-de-France 3.50 29 7 34.0% 455 Prague (1) 3.10 65.0% 196 4,500 Seville 2.33 466 2,311 South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 2.83 23 14 25.0% 550 3,229 Stockholm 2.60 26 12 38.0% 401 Greater Stuttgart (2) 4.05 (2) 16 (2) 42.8% 590 Turin 2.71 28 35.6% 6201,570 Valencia 2.50 24 10 522 985 Viena (1) 484 Vilnius 3.00 (1) 35 (1) 4 (1) 88.0% (1) 513 1,445 Warsaw 1.80 39 235

(1) Just in the city (2) 1995 data

2.1. Main characteristics of the trips in metropolitan areas

The number of daily trips varies significantly across the metropolitan areas; this is due partially to the method followed to calculate the figure. In some metropolitan areas walking trips of less than five minutes are not considered into the calculation, in other cases trips under a certain length are not considered either. Despite this, the number of trips per person per day is between 1.8 and 3.6 with an average of close to 3 trips. At the other end, Greater Stuttgart has a mobility ratio of 4.05 trips per person per day (data from 1995).

The duration of motorised trips is comprised between 23 and 45 minutes with the extreme case of Frankfurt Rhein-Main (74 min), giving a total average of 33 min. The average length of those trips is 12.3 km, with most of the figures between 7 and 17 km, inducing an average speed of 22.5 km/h. On the basis of 3 trips per day, this means that the majority of the population spends between one and two hours

Chapter 2. Mobility 14 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006 travelling everyday in metropolitan areas. Therefore it is important to promote safe and comfortable transport systems to make this long period of time as pleasant as possible.

Interestingly there is no clear relationship between the size of the metropolitan area and the length of the trips. As an example, in the largest areas (with the exception of Berlin-Brandenburg whose figure is not available) Paris Ile-de-France, Frankfurt Rhein-Main and Madrid Community, the average trip is quite shorter (7 and 13 km) than in some medium sized metropolises as Stadsregio Amsterdam (20 km) or Copenhagen (32 km).

Regarding obliged mobility (trips to work or to school), it still appears as the main purpose adding to more than 40% of the total trips. It is a figure to take into account since this mobility has a very high concentration on peak hours. Few European metropolitan areas have a commuting trips ratio under a third of the total trips, these are West Midlands (Birmingham) (23%), South Yorkshire (Sheffield) (25%), Greater Montreal (26.7%), Greater Manchester (29.0%), Stadsregio Amsterdam (30%) and Greater London (31%).

Last Barometer edition showed a slight trend relating the GDP per inhabitant and year and the number of trips made per person per day. Graph 10 shows that the trend is less noticed. However, we can observe two groups in the dispersion: the metropolitan areas with less GDP per inhabitant (under 25,000 €/inhabitant-year) make as maximum 3 trips per day, and the metropolitan areas with higher GDP (over 35,000 €/inhabitant-year) make more than 2.6-3 trips per day. One explanation would be, among others, that the travel cost weights less when the income is higher, therefore travelling becomes more usual. Another reason would be that lower GDPs lead to less leisure time, thus less mobility needs.

Graph 10. Link between annual GDP/inhab-year and number of trips per person and day

5

Greater Stuttgart 4

Helsinki Barcelona Frankfurt Rhein-Main Paris Ile-de-France Berlin-Brandenburg Greater Copenhagen Budapest Greater Manchester Prague Stadsregio Amsterdam 3 South Yorkshire (Sheffield) Vilnius West Midlands (Birmingham) Greater London

Turin Metropolitan Area Madrid Community Stockholm Valencia Seville

Greater Montreal 2 Number of trips per person per day of Number trips per person Warsaw

1 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000 45.000 50.000 Annual GDP per inhabitant (€/year)

Chapter 2. Mobility 15 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

2.2. Car Ownership

In these metropolitan areas car ownership rate is on average 448 cars/1,000 inhabitants ranging from the lowest levels of 196 cars in Prague (figure for the main city) or 235 cars in Warsaw to the highest levels of 620 cars/1,000 inhabitants in Turin or 590 cars in German regions such as Frankfurt Rhein-Main or Greater Stuttgart (Table 3).

On Graph 11 seems that car ownership rate tends to relate to annual GDP per inhabitant thus acting as a socio-economic indicator. We can observe different groups of metropolitan areas with very diverse motorization ratios: between 10,000 and 35,000 €/inhabitant-year the car ownership in Spanish, English, Italian and German regions are over 400 cars/1,000 inhabitants, while Warsaw, Budapest and Prague have lower motorization ratios (under 330 cars/1,000 inhabitants). On the other hand, the more wealthy metropolitan areas have the car ownership under 450 cars/1,000 inhabitants, showing that the higher GDP per inhabitant, the lower car ownership ratio. Thus, the public transport authorities have growing responsibilities in the metropolitan areas to offer an attractive public transport to a less car dependant society.

Graph 11. Link between annual GDP/inhab and car ownership rate (cars/1,000 inhab)

650

Turin 600 Greater Stuttgart Frankfurt Rhein-Main Berlin-Brandenburg 550 South Yorkshire (Sheffield) Valencia Vilnius Greater Montreal Madrid Community 500 Stadsregio Amsterdam West Midlands (Birmingham) Vienna Seville 450 Paris Ile-de-France Barcelona

400 Greater Manchester Helsinki Stockholm

350 Greater Copenhagen Budapest Greater London 300

250

Car ownership rate inhabitants) (cars/1,000 Warsaw

200 Prague

150 0 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 Annual GDP per inhabitant (€/year)

2.3. Modal split

We can say generally that the modal split in the areas surveyed is 28% of non motorised trips (mainly walking), 21% are trips made on public transport and 47% are trips using private vehicles. This fact highlights the wide participation of the private vehicle in our mobility, though it seems to decrease the dependency on them (in 2004 the figure of the modal share for private vehicles was 50%, and 19% for public transport), and the need for a change in these patterns. However, besides these general figures, clear differences in mobility behaviours of each of the metropolitan areas appear in Table 4 below.

Chapter 2. Mobility 16 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

Table 4. Modal split in whole metropolitan areas TABLE I: GENERAL MOBILITY TABLE II: PUBLIC TRANSPORT MOBILITY Modal Modal Modal Modal share of share of share of share of Modal share Modal Modal Modal share PT in PT PT PT NON share of share of MOTORISED motorised main city suburbs suburbs MOTORISED cycling walking TRIPS trips in ↔ ↔ ↔ TRIPS whole main city main city suburbs region trips trips trips (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Stadsregio Amsterdam 27.0% 24.0% 3.0% 73.0% 16.4% 47.6% Barcelona 46.1% 0.8% 45.3% 53.9% 37.7% 64.7% 43.0% 12.3% Berlin-Brandenburg 35.9% 16.7% 19.2% 64.1% 11.7% 33.3% West Midlands (Birmingham) 23.8% 1.6% 22.2% 75.9% 12.0% 54.0% Brussels (1) 13.6% (1) 0.8% (1) 12.8% (1) 86.4% 30.7% 40.0% 10.0% Budapest 30.6% 5.7% 24.8% 69.5% 53.9% 64.0% 40.9% 21.8% Greater Copenhagen 34.4% 17.1% 17.3% 65.7% 13.4% Frankfurt Rhein-Main 20.0% Helsinki 29.0% 7.0% 22.0% 71.0% 37.8% 64.0% 62.2% 21.0% Greater London 22.0% 2.0% 20.0% 78.0% 47.4% Madrid Community 31.2% 0.1% 31.1% 68.8% 49.5% 63.6% 46.0% 28.3% Greater Manchester 24.0% 0.8% 23.2% 76.0% 12.9% Greater Montreal 12.0% 1.2% 10.8% 89.4% 17.4% 28.4% 17.7% 3.0% Paris Ile-de-France 35.3% 1.3% 34.0% 64.7% 29.4% 63.6% 59.7% 16.1% Prague (1) 15.3% (1) 0.4% (1) 14.9% (1) 84.7% 57.0% Seville 32.4% 1.9% 30.5% 67.6% 19.8% South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 5.2% 0.4% 4.8% 94.7% 21.3% 29.4% Stockholm 33.0% 3.4% 29.5% 67.1% 35.4% 56.0% 42.5% 17.9% Greater Stuttgart (2) 28.9% 22.0% 6.9% 71.1% 18.1% 32.8% Turin 30.9% 2.2% 28.7% 69.1% 22.8% 31.1% 22.2% 5.7% Valencia 43.0% → 43.0% 57.0% 23.4% (2) 39% (2) 25% Vienna 27.0% 5.0% 22.0% 73.0% 30.1% 50.7% Vilnius (1) 35.1% → (1) 35.1% (1) 64.9% 33.9% Warsaw 32.5% 4.8% 27.7% 67.5% 44.8% 70.0%

(1) Just in the main city (2) 1996 data in Valencia, 1995 in Stuttgart

The metropolitan areas with higher share of non motorised trips are Barcelona, Valencia, Berlin Brandenburg, Paris Ile-de-France and Vilnius. At least in all metropolitan areas 20% are non-motorised trips except in Brussels, Montreal and South Yorkshire (Sheffield) where the modal share is between 5 and 14%. The walking trips represents more than 30% of the total trips in Barcelona (45%), Valencia and Vilnius (including cycling, 43% and 35%), Paris Ile-de-France (34%), Madrid and Seville (31%), becoming one of the most important ways to travel in these regions. Stadsregio Amsterdam has an outstanding participation of cycling in non motorised modes (24% of total trips).

2.3.1. Modal split in motorised trips in whole metropolitan area and main city

Budapest is the metropolitan area where the public transport accounts for the highest percentage within motorised trips (53.9%), followed by Madrid Community (49.5%), Greater London (47.4%), Warsaw (44.8%), Helsinki (37.8%), Barcelona (37.7%) and Stockholm (35.4%) (Graph 12). In the case of Madrid, the figure is even more interesting considering the high rate of car ownership 500 cars/1,000 inhabitants meaning that half the population owns a car. In the rest of metropolitan areas, the public transport is used in less than one third of the motorised trips, coming down to Berlin-Brandenburg (11.7%), West Midlands (Birmingham) (12%), Greater Manchester (12.9%), Greater Copenhagen (13.4%), Stadsregio Amsterdam (16.4%), Greater Montreal (17.4%) and Greater Stuttgart (18.1%), all of them under 20%.

Chapter 2. Mobility 17 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

Graph 12. Modal split in metropolitan areas in motorised trips

Modal split in whole metropolitan area Modal split in main city 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

16.4% 83.6% Stadsregio Amsterdam 47.6% 52.4% 37.7% 62.3% Barcelona 64.7% 35.3% 11.7% 88.3% Berlin-Brandenburg 33.3% 66.7% 12.0% 88.0% West Midlands (Birmingham) Public Transport Rest of motorised modes Public Transport Rest of motorised modes Brussels 30.7% 69.3% 53.9% 46.1% Budapest 64.0% 36.0% 13.4% 86.6% Greater Copenhagen Frankfurt Rhein-Main 37.8% 62.2% Helsinki 64.0% 36.0% 47.4% 52.6% Greater London 47.4% 52.6% 49.5% 50.5% Madrid Community 63.6% 36.4% 12.9% 87.1% Greater Manchester 17.4% 82.6% Greater Montreal 28.4% 71.6% 29.4% 70.6% Paris Ile-de-France 63.6% 36.4% Prague 57.0% 43.0% 19.8% 80.2% Seville 21.3% 78.7% South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 29.4% 70.6% 35.4% 64.6% Stockholm 56.0% 44.0% 18.1% 81.9% Greater Stuttgart (1) 32.8% 67.2% 22.8% 77.2% Turin 31.1% 68.9% 23.4% 76.6% Valencia (1) 39.0% 61.0% 30.1% 69.9% Vienna 50.7% 49.3% Vilnius 33.9% 66.1% 44.8% 55.2% Warsaw 70.0% 30.1%

(1) Valencia, 1996; Stuttgart, 1995

The higher ratio “in main city” (Graph 12 right part), reflects the denser transport networks in city centres compared to suburbs and the implementation of parking policies in those areas. In general, the figure is over 30% in the main cities surveyed, meaning that at least one out of three motorised trips are made on public transport. Warsaw (70%), Barcelona (64.7%), Helsinki and Budapest (64%), Paris and Madrid (63.6%) are the cities with the highest modal share for public transport.

3,00 Graph 13. Modal share of Public Transport in motorised trips: 2,50 Ratio PT in main city / PT in

2,00 whole region

1,50 (1) Valencia, 1996; Stuttgart, 1995 2,90 2,84

1,00 2,16

1,81 1,72 1,69 1,68 1,66 1,63 1,58 1,56 1,38 1,36 1,28 0,50 1,19

0,00

Turin Seville Vilnius Vienna Prague Helsinki Brussels Warsaw Valencia Budapest Barcelona Stockholm Greater London Greater Greater Montreal Greater Greater Stuttgart Madrid Community Madrid Paris Ile-de-France Berlin-Brandenburg Greater Manchester Greater Greater Copenhagen Frankfurt Rhein-Main Frankfurt Stadsregio Amsterdam Stadsregio South Yorkshire (Sheffield) West Midlands(Birmingham)

Chapter 2. Mobility 18 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

Graph 13 highlights the strong gap between modal share in main city and in the whole metropolitan area. The ratio varies between 2.90 in Stadsregio Amsterdam (the use of public transport in the main city is more than twice as high as in the metropolitan area) and 1.19 in Budapest. When figures are close to 1, we can say that the use of the public transport is more homogeneous in a broad view in the whole metropolitan area.

2.3.2. Modal split in metropolitan area in radial and transversal trips

Looking more into details of trips (Graph 14) helps understanding the leading role of the private vehicle. The radial trips between metropolitan ring and the main city, are done in majority by other modes (mainly private car) reaching up to 82.3% in Greater Montreal, 77.8% in Turin and 75.0% in Valencia. However, there are noticeable exceptions where the public transport is dominant in Helsinki (62.2%) and Paris Ile- de-France (59.7%).

Graph 14. Modal split in metropolitan areas in motorised trips

Modal split on suburbs - main city trips Modal split on suburbs - suburbs trips 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Stadsregio Amsterdam 43.0% 57.0% Barcelona 12.3% 87.7% Public Transport Rest of motorised modes Berlin-Brandenburg Public Transport Rest of motorised modes 54.0% 46.0% West Midlands (Birmingham) 40.0% 60.0% Brussels 10.0% 90.0% 40.9% 59.1% Budapest 21.8% 78.2% Greater Copenhagen Frankfurt Rhein-Main 62.2% 37.8% Helsinki 21.0% 79.0% Greater London 46.0% 54.0% Madrid Community 28.3% 71.7% Greater Manchester 17.7% 82.3% Greater Montreal 3.0% 97.0% 59.7% 40.3% Paris Ile-de-France 16.1% 83.9% Prague Seville South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 42.5% 57.6% Stockholm 17.9% 82.1% Greater Stuttgart 22.2% 77.8% Turin 5.7% 94.3% 25.0% 75.0% Valencia (1) Vienna Vilnius Warsaw

(1) Valencia, 1996

On the reverse, figures for trips from suburbs to suburbs show an absolute predominance of the private vehicle. The lowest ratios here of public transport use are in Montreal (3.0%) and Turin (5.7%), while in some cases the share is over 20% as in Madrid (28.3%), Budapest (21.8%) and Helsinki (21.0%). These figures become even more important when we realise that the tendency in our metropolitan areas is to grow within these suburbs, though we have to bear in mind the complexity of the territories when comparing the figures.

Finally, on Graph 15 we try to verify the hypothesis that high car ownership rates lead us to low modal shares of public transport in the metropolitan areas. Although there is a big dispersion in the graph,

Chapter 2. Mobility 19 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006 therefore different groups of figures, we can observe the two extreme groups: on one extreme metropolitan areas with low car ownership ratios have high modal share of public transport; and in the other extreme are the cases with high motorization level and lower use of public transport.

Graph 15. Link between car ownership rate (cars/1,000 inhabitants) and modal share of public transport in metropolitan area

70%

60%

Budapest

50% Greater London Madrid Community Warsaw

40% Helsinki Barcelona Stockholm

30% Vienna Paris Ile-de-France

Valencia Turin South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 20% Seville Greater Stuttgart Stadsregio Amsterdam Montreal Greater Copenhagen Greater Manchester Berlin-Brandenburg 10% West Midlands (Birmingham) Modal share of public transport in metropolitan area (%)

0% 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 Car ownership (cars/1,000 inhabitants)

Chapter 2. Mobility 20 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

3. Description of the Public Transport System

3.1. Public transport networks

3.1.1. Bus

The metropolitan areas surveyed have very dense bus networks. Paris Ile-de-France, Frankfurt Rhein-Main and Berlin-Brandenburg are the metropolises with the greatest number of bus lines (both urban and suburban lines) with 1,494, 943 and 919 lines respectively (Table 5). Also two of the British metropolitan areas (West Midlands, Greater Manchester and Greater London), Madrid, Barcelona and Budapest have more than 600 lines.

Table 5. Characteristics of bus supply in metropolitan area Number Number of Number of No. of Lines length Veh - km of lines Stops-network vehicles operators (km) (million / year) Stadsregio Amsterdam 151 (3) 1,614 1,709 (1) 260 5 Barcelona 609 10,363 9,796 1,780 108.1 43 Berlin-Brandenburg 919 27,488 13,627 2,409 171.8 28 West Midlands (Birmingham) 900 (3) 7,524 12,500 2,200 133.0 54 Brussels 102 680 2,124 691 (1) 19.85 3 Budapest 601 6,860 6,376 2,414 159.1 6 Greater Copenhagen 272 5,590 8,000 890 77.3 10 Frankfurt Rhein-Main 943 (1) 296 11,900 2,595 125.6 142 Helsinki 257 4,500 6,692 1,370 82.8 14 Greater London 678 (3) 3,730 18,956 8,000 458.0 25 Madrid Community 650 24,267 11,314 3,910 262.6 43 Greater Manchester 840 12,191 1,746 111.0 51 Greater Montreal 489 9,677 2,512 115.4 14 Paris Ile-de-France 1,494 (3) 24,207 33,394 (2) 8,298 287.7 (2) 75 Prague 344 5,212 1,312 87.8 18 Seville 94 2,067 1,552 563 26.1 9 South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 370 6,837 8,841 950 70.8 23 Stockholm 485 9,650 5,208 (2) 2,919 100.2 3 Greater Stuttgart 358 (3) 3,753 3,282 1,275 52.4 40 Turin 131 7,313 (1) 3,200 1,268 52.8 9 Valencia 112 2,960 2,286 607 31.0 9 Vienna 260 6,230 10,742 (1) 487 (1) 29.1 13 Vilnius (1) 75 818 972 300 19.5 1 Warsaw 191 3,508 1,673 1,728 103.4 5

(1) Only urban bus, and Turin includes tram stops (2) Only suburban bus (3) Network length

The average length of a bus route including interurban lines is around 18 km. One single company operates an average of 32 routes and this figure is even higher if we take into account that in the main city (where there is a high density of routes) usually there is no more than one company operating the urban lines. This is the case for example of Madrid (209 lines urban bus lines), Berlin, Budapest and Montreal (192 urban bus lines each) where one single operator runs around 200 bus lines.

Regarding the density of lines per km2 of surface (Graph 16), Turin (8.74 km of bus lines/km2 surface), West Midlands (Birmingham) (8.35 km of bus lines/km2 surface) and Helsinki (6.04 km of bus lines/km2

Chapter 3. Description of the Public Transport System 21 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006 surface) appear with more than 5 km of bus lines per km2 of surface, probably as a consequence of a small metropolitan area (less than 900 km2) and the provision of small rail network.

Graph 16. Bus lines density in metropolitan area

(2) Stadsregio Amsterdam 1,18 1,57 Barcelona 3,20 2,13 0,93 Berlin-Brandenburg 10,79 8,35 West Midlands (Birmingham) (2) 2,90 0,13 Brussels 0,23 0,90 Budapest 2,14 1,95 Greater Copenhagen 3,05 (1) 1,19 Frankfurt Rhein-Main 0,44 6,04 Helsinki 4,52 (2) 2,36 Greater London 0,50 3,02 Madrid Community 4,04 Greater Manchester 2,43 Greater Montreal 2,69 (2) 2,02 Paris Ile-de-France 2,11 1,35 Prague 3,07 1,19 Seville 1,65 4,41 South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 5,29 1,49 Stockholm 5,03 (2) 1,03 Greater Stuttgart 1,40 8,74 Turin 4,77 2,09 Valencia 1,71 0,96 Bus lines length (km) / total surface (km2) Vienna 2,59 (1) 2,04 Bus lines length (km) / 1,000 inhabitants Vilnius 1,48 Warsaw 1,17 1,55 0,00 2,00 4,00 6,00 8,00 10,00 12,00 14,00

(1) Frankfurt and Vilnius, just urban bus (2) Stadsregio Amsterdam, Birmingham, London, Paris and Stuttgart give km of network instead of km of lines

If we compare the figures mentioned above with the density in terms of bus lines length per 1,000 inhabitants, we note in some cases a significant difference between these two figures. This is related to population density. Metropolitan areas with strong gap in the two bus density figures have either a very high (West Midlands, Greater London) or very low (Berlin, Stockholm) density of population.

Also we have obtained that each bus runs between 40,000-70,000 km per year as average.

3.1.2. Tramway/Light rail/Trolleybus

As in previous editions of Barometer every metropolitan area operates or implements medium capacity systems highlighting the tendency of the public transport networks to include trams, light rails or trolleybuses as modern, safe and clean modes of transport standing between buses and metro systems. Of the surveyed cities, only four could not provide data. In two of them (Seville, Madrid) tram is under construction in 2006.

As we see in Table 6 Prague has the longest tram network (559 km and 35 lines), then Vilnius (457 km of trolleybus lines), Berlin-Brandenburg (409 km), Warsaw (406 km), Budapest (344 km), Vienna (227 km), Brussels (217 km) and Amsterdam (213 km). Cities where the number of lines are the highest in fact never removed the trams from their streets. Most of the cities mentioned above together with Stockholm,

Chapter 3. Description of the Public Transport System 22 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

Manchester and Turin have the most dense tram networks (Graph 17) with more than 600 m of tram lines/km2 in main city. Especially high are the trolleybus lines density in Vilnius (824 km/million inhabitants) and tram lines density in Prague (466 km/million inhabitants). The tram densities are referred to surface and population of main city because trams usually serve urban environments. The average distance between stations is 700 m, and the number of trains is around 1-1.5 trains per km of line.

Table 6. Characteristics of tram supply

Number of Number Lines Number of Number of Stations - Veh - km of lines length trains operators network (km) (million / year) Stadsregio Amsterdam 16 213.0 226 236 10.3 1 Barcelona 5 37.6 47 37 2.0 1 Berlin-Brandenburg 44 409.4 795 574 27.0 7 West Midlands (Birmingham) 1 20.0 23 16 1.7 1 Brussels 18 217.3 (1) 2,124 290 11.6 1 Budapest 36 344.2 678 411 18.0 1 Greater Copenhagen Frankfurt Rhein-Main 20 144.0 205 228 10.9 Helsinki 11 (2) 105.0 240 131 5.2 1 Greater London 2 57.0 72 118 2.5 2 Madrid Community Greater Manchester 3 73.0 37 32 1 Greater Montreal Paris Ile-de-France 4 (2) 39.4 55 61 6.6 2 Prague 35 559.3 703 49.8 1 Seville South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 3 29.0 48 25 2.4 1 Stockholm 5 127.0 98 188 11.9 1 Greater Stuttgart 2 (2) 17.0 20 40 1.3 1 Turin 8 87.3 (1) 3,200 265 8.1 1 Valencia 1 16.8 35 25 1.1 1 Vienna 32 226.9 1,137 826 37.0 1 Vilnius (3) 19 456.5 230 259 16.3 1 Warsaw 27 406.1 47 440 48.8 1

(1) Includes urban bus stops (2) Network length (3) Trolleybus

Graph 17. Tramway Stadsregio Amsterdam 286,7 970,9 372,3 lines density in main Barcelona 23,6 459,0 Berlin-Brandenburg 120,3 city 74,6 West Midlands (Birmingham) 20,0 1.341,2 Brussels 213,4 655,6 Budapest 202,7 Greater Copenhagen 580,6 (1) Helsinki, Paris and Stuttgart give Frankfurt Rhein-Main 211,8 (1) 561,5 tram network length instead of lines Helsinki 187,2 36,1 Tram lines length (m) / main city surface (km2) Greater London 7,6 length Tram lines length (km) / million inhab in main city Madrid Community (2) In Vilnius is trolleybus 634,8 Greater Manchester 161,5 Greater Montreal 375,2 Paris Ile-de-France (1) 18,3 1.127,6 Prague 466,1 Seville 78,8 South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 55,2 679,1 Stockholm 162,2 (1) 82,0 Greater Stuttgart 28,5 670,7 Turin 96,9 122,7 Valencia 20,8 546,7 Vienna 136,9 (2) 1.139,7 Vilnius 824,0 784,0 Warsaw 238,6 0 200 400 600 800 1.000 1.200 1.400

Chapter 3. Description of the Public Transport System 23 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

3.1.3. Metro

Out of the 24 cities surveyed, only Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield and Vilnius haven’t got a metro system (Table 7), in Seville is under construction and in Copenhagen there is, but there is no information available. The most developed networks in relation with number of lines are in Paris (16 lines), Stuttgart (14 lines), Madrid and London (12 lines), but regarding the network length the most populated cities come first, as London (408 km), then Madrid (233 km) and Paris (200 km). Between 100 and 200 km of network length are Stuttgart (192 km), Stockholm (149 km), Berlin-Brandenburg (145 km), Valencia (133 km) and Barcelona (112 km).

Table 7. Characteristics of metro supply

Number of Number Number Number of Lines length Stations - Train - km of of lines trains network operators (km) (million / year) Stadsregio Amsterdam 4 81.0 52 106 4.8 1 Barcelona 6 112.3 132 128 68.5 2 Berlin-Brandenburg 9 145.0 170 637 90.0 1 West Midlands (Birmingham) Brussels 3 43.8 64 37 4.8 1 Budapest 3 34.8 78 88 6.2 1 Greater Copenhagen Frankfurt Rhein-Main 7 85.0 84 224 7.3 1 Helsinki 2 21.0 17 54 13.1 1 Greater London 12 (1) 408.0 275 521 66.0 1 Madrid Community 12+1 233.0 196 279 (2) 151.0 2 Greater Manchester Greater Montreal 4 66.0 65 759 59.8 1 Paris Ile-de-France 16 (1) 200.0 381 689 227.1 1 Prague 3 54.9 405 47.2 1 Seville South Yorkshire (Sheffield) Stockholm 3 149.0 100 548 88.9 1 Greater Stuttgart 14 192.0 178 167 12.2 1 Turin 1 7.5 12 20 2.3 1 Valencia 3 133.5 83 68 5.5 1 Vienna 5 65.3 81 682 62.6 1 Vilnius Warsaw 1 18.1 17 18 16.8 1

(1) Network length (2) Vehicles-km

The average length of a line is 19 km, but it varies from 44 km in Valencia (34 km in London) thus serving a metropolitan area larger than the sole core urban centre, to 7.5 km in Turin. The average distance between stations is 0.9 km. However, stations are more distant in London (1.5 km) and Valencia (1.4 km), while they are closer in Budapest (0.45 km) or Paris (0.5 km).

Usually one single company operates the whole metro network. Madrid and Barcelona have two operating companies. In Madrid, the second company operates a short section of the network as a concession, while in Barcelona the second company operates the suburban part of the system, actually an old train route upgraded to a metro system.

Chapter 3. Description of the Public Transport System 24 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

In terms of density (Graph 18), it is more indicative the density expressed in m of metro lines per km2 of main city surface because the metro systems are usually inside the boundaries of the main city, where there is a high density of population. The lowest densities are in Warsaw (34.9 m of metro lines/km2 of main city surface), Turin (57.6 m/km2) and Budapest (66.3 m/km2), while the highest are in Paris (1,904 m of metro lines/km2 of main city surface) and Barcelona (1,112 m/km2) due to the compactness of these cities, followed by Valencia and Stuttgart (close to 1,000 m/km2).

Graph 18. Metro lines density in main city

Stadsregio Amsterdam 109,0 369,2 1.111,9 Barcelona 70,4 162,6 Berlin-Brandenburg 42,6 West Midlands (Birmingham) 270,2 Metro lines length (m) / main city surface (km2) Brussels 43,0 66,3 Budapest 20,5 Metro lines length (km) / million inhab in main city Greater Copenhagen 342,7 Frankfurt Rhein-Main 125,0 112,3 Helsinki 37,4 258,4 Greater London (1) 54,3 384,6 Madrid Community 74,5 Greater Manchester 132,0 Greater Montreal 35,6 1.904,8 (1) Paris Ile-de-France 92,9 110,7 Prague 45,8 Seville South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 796,8 Stockholm 190,3 926,0 Greater Stuttgart 321,5 57,6 Turin 8,3 975,6 Valencia 165,8 157,3 Vienna 39,4 Vilnius 34,9 Warsaw 10,6 0 200 400 600 800 1.000 1.200 1.400 1.600 1.800 2.000

(1) London and Paris give metro network length instead of lines length

3.1.4. Suburban railway

Nearly all the cities surveyed have a suburban rail system serving metropolitan and regional purposes (in Copenhagen there is no information available but the commuter railway is a very popular mode of transport). The number of lines varies from just 3 or 4 lines (Stockholm or Seville) to 59 in Berlin- Brandenburg (of which 15 are S-Bahn railway lines) or 37 in Vienna (Table 8). In the case of Greater London the National Rail system is operated by 12 different Train Operating Company franchises, who serve a network comprising 788 km of lines.

The average length of a line is 43 km, but again there are differences, from Paris Ile-de-France (113 km) or Stockholm (72 km/line) to Stadsregio Amsterdam (5 km), South Yorkshire (Sheffield) or Helsinki (14 km). The distance between stations is around 3.8 km on average, varying from 11.9 km in Warsaw to 1.0 km in Brussels.

Chapter 3. Description of the Public Transport System 25 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

Table 8. Characteristics of suburban railway supply Number of Network Number of Number of Number of Train - km lines length Stations - network trains operators (km) (million / year) Stadsregio Amsterdam 26 130.0 26 1 Barcelona 14 573.0 160 242 97.3 2 Berlin-Brandenburg (1) 59 2,811.0 487 690 70.2 6 West Midlands (Birmingham) 8 186.0 71 65 5.3 5 Brussels 6 100.0 100 100 1 Budapest 18 923.9 337 200 19.6 2 Greater Copenhagen Frankfurt Rhein-Main 9 297.0 109 160 13.7 1 Helsinki 5 72.0 34 110 5.0 1 Greater London 788.0 321 12 Madrid Community 9 340.0 99 (2) 794 (2) 108.1 1 Greater Manchester 9 319.0 98 80 2 Greater Montreal 5 187.0 50 193 10.2 1 Paris Ile-de-France 13 1,466.0 455 (2) 4,900 69.0 2 Prague 26 639.7 102 8.5 1 Seville 4 145.0 24 17 2.2 1 South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 7 97.0 29 7 Stockholm 3 200.0 51 272 16.4 1 Greater Stuttgart 6 248.0 71 148 8.5 1 Turin 6 (3) 92.0 (3) 23 39 3.6 2 Valencia 6 85.0 24 49 8.2 1 Vienna 37 1,476.9 863 3 Vilnius Warsaw 15 1,031.6 87 251 3.0 4

(1) Includes Regional Railway and S-Bahn, except on number of trains, which show only the number of S-Bahn trains (2) Number of vehicles (or vh-km) instead of number of trains (or tr-km) (3) These figures reflect the network length and number of stations within the administrative boundaries of the Consortium, the suburban rail services in the whole Torino province run 292 km network and 76 stations

Greater London has the highest density of network (499.1 m of suburban rail lines/km2), followed by Warsaw (343.9 m/km2), Greater Manchester (250.8 m/km2) and Vienna (228.7 m/km2) (Graph 19). In relation with the population in the metropolitan area, the greatest densities are those in Vienna (614.4 km/million inhabitants), Berlin-Brandenburg (472.3), Warsaw (454.3) and Prague (376.3 km/million inhabitants).

Stadsregio Amsterdam 95,2 126,8 176,9 Barcelona 118,0 92,6 Graph 19. Suburban Berlin-Brandenburg (1) 472,3 206,4 West Midlands (Birmingham) 71,8 railway densities in 19,4 Brussels 33,5 121,6 Budapest 288,7 metropolitan area Greater Copenhagen Suburban rail lines length (m) / total surface (km2) 21,2 Frankfurt Rhein-Main 59,4 96,6 Suburban rail lines length (km) / million inhabitants Helsinki 72,3 (1) Includes Regional Railway and S-Bahn 499,1 Greater London 104,9 42,3 Madrid Community 56,6 250,8 Greater Manchester 124,9 47,0 Greater Montreal 52,0 122,0 Paris Ile-de-France 127,6 Prague 165,7 376,3 83,3 Seville 115,9 62,5 South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 75,0 30,8 Stockholm 104,3 67,9 Greater Stuttgart 92,8 109,9 Turin 60,1 60,1 Valencia 49,1 228,7 Vienna 614,4 Vilnius 343,9 Warsaw 454,3 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700

Chapter 3. Description of the Public Transport System 26 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

Please, note that the units used in bus systems densities (Graph 16) are “km of lines/km2” and “km of lines/1,000 inhabitants” while on rail modes (tram, metro, and heavy rail) are “m of lines/km2” and “km of lines/million inhabitants” (Graphs 17, 18 and 19). This difference is made to avoid the representation of decimal and centesimal figures, which are more difficult to understand and compare.

3.2. Public transport supply

The greatest supply (in vehicles-km/year) on bus systems is offered in Greater London, Paris Ile-de- France, Madrid and Berlin-Brandenburg, which is not surprising since these are the biggest and most populated areas (Graph 20).

Graph 20. Public transport supply in million vehicle-km (or train-km)/year Bus systems Rail systems 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Stadsregio Amsterdam 10 - 5 108 Barcelona 2 69 97 172 Berlin-Brandenburg 27 90 70 2 133 West Midlands (Birmingham) - 5 Tram (million train-km/year) (1) 20 Brussels 12 5 Metro (million train-km/year) 159 Budapest 18 20 6 77 Greater Copenhagen Suburban railway (million train-km/year) 126 Frankfurt Rhein-Main 11 - 7 - 14 83 Helsinki 5 - 13 - 5 458 Greater London 3 66 263 Madrid Community (2) 151 108 111 Greater Manchester 115 Greater Montreal 60 10 288 Paris Ile-de-France 7 227 69 88 Prague 50 47 8 26 Seville 2 71 South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 2 100 Stockholm 12 89 16 Bus (million vehicles-km/year) 52 Greater Stuttgart 1 - 12 - 9 53 Turin 8 - 2 - 4 31 Valencia 1 - 6 - 8 29 (1) Vienna 37 63 19 (1) Vilnius (3) 16 103 Warsaw 49 17 3

(1) Veh-km of Brussels, Vienna and Vilnius are just urban bus, do not include suburban bus (2) Madrid Community figure for metro and suburban rail is veh-km (3) In Vilnius the tram figure is trolleybus

The bus is the mode that provides the largest figures to such an extent that the number of vehicles-km provided by bus almost double the sum of all rail modes, though we have to bear in mind that we are comparing vehicle-km with train-km. This statement also has to be looked at carefully because there is lack of figures or small rail supply in some cities (integration is not fully achieved). Still it gives a picture of public transport supply in European metropolitan areas.

Chapter 3. Description of the Public Transport System 27 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

To be able to compare between the cities surveyed in terms of density and by modes we can look at Graph 21, where we see the largest bus supply are in Helsinki (83 veh-km/inhabitant), Greater London (61 veh-km/inhabitant) and South Yorkshire (Sheffield) (55). On tram supply, the head is Prague (29.3 train- km/inhabitant) followed by Warsaw (21 train-km/inhabitant); on metro supply the highest are Stockholm (46 train-km/inhabitant) and Prague (28), and on suburban railway the highest supply is given in Berlin- Brandenburg (12 train-km/inhabitant), since Barcelona (20.0 veh-km/inhabitant) and Madrid (18 veh- km/inh) give vehicle-km instead of train-km.

Graph 21. Public transport supply in vehicle-km (or train-km)/inhabitant/year Bus systems Rail systems 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Stadsregio Amsterdam 8 4 11,1 22 Barcelona 0,4 14 20 34,5 29 Berlin-Brandenburg 5 15 12 31,5

51 West Midlands (Birmingham) 0,7 2 2,7 Tram (train-km/inh) 19 (1) 4 2 5,5 Brussels Metro (train-km/inh) 50 Budapest 6 2 6 13,7 Suburban railway (train-km/inh) 42 Greater Copenhagen 00 SUM OF ALL RAIL MODES 25 Frankfurt Rhein-Main 2 1 3 6,4 83 Helsinki 5 13 5 23,3 61 Greater London 0,3 9 9,1 44 Madrid Community(2) 25 18 43,1 43 Greater Manchester 32 Greater Montreal 17 3 19,5 25 Paris Ile-de-France 1 20 6 26,3 52 Prague 29 28 5,0 62,0 21 Seville 2 1,8 55 South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 2 1,9 52 Stockholm 6 46 9 61,1 20 Greater Stuttgart 0,5 5 3 8,2 Bus (vehicles-km/inhabitant) 34 Turin 5 2 2 9,2 18 Valencia 1 3 5 8,5 18 (1) Vienna 15 26 41,4 35 (1) Vilnius (3) 19 19,3 46 Warsaw 21 7 1 30,2

(1) Veh-km of Brussels, Vienna and Vilnius are just urban bus, do not include suburban bus (2) Madrid Community figure for metro and suburban rail is veh-km (3) In Vilnius the tram figure is trolleybus

Chapter 3. Description of the Public Transport System 28 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

3.3. Public transport demand

If we analyse the demand looking at the number of journeys on each mode, we will note that buses transport 12% less people than all the rail modes together (8,688 million journeys/year on bus, 9,933 million journeys/year on rail modes). However, if we compare the demand by the number of passengers- km, the result is most favourable to the rail modes, highlighting the different use of the modes depending on their functionality and the length of the trip. Around three quarters of the total demand (on passengers-km/year) on the European metropolitan areas surveyed are on rail modes (tram, metro, suburban rail) where suburban railway covers almost half the demand (45% of 127,094 million passengers-km/year), bus covers 28%, metro 24% and tram 3% of the demand (see Table 9 and Graph 22).

Table 9. Public transport demand Bus Tram Metro Suburban Railway Journeys / Passenger Journeys / Passenger - Journeys / Passenger - Journeys / Passenger -

year - km year km year km year km (million) (million) (million) (million) (million) (million) (million) (million) Stadsregio Amsterdam (1) 253 1,279 Barcelona 340 1,899 17 79 397 2,839 157 4,071 Berlin-Brandenburg (2) 450 2,456 (2) 194 646 (2) 408 2,245 (5) 5,136 West Midlands (Birmingham) 310 2,036 5 51 33 472 Brussels 86 370 71 299 123 317 68 Budapest 812 4,558 391 957 293 1,115 103 1,804 Greater Copenhagen 173 813 Frankfurt Rhein-Main (2) 258 (2) 65 (2) 84 (2) 136 Helsinki 150 1,011 53 110 57 414 41 370 Greater London 1,816 7,014 76 428 971 7,665 503 22,400 Madrid Community 758 6,020 660 4,616 204 3,966 Greater Manchester 223 1,015 20 206 21 330 Greater Montreal (2) 212 (2) 220 (3) 2,827 (2) 15 310 Paris Ile-de-France 1,206 4,088 50 180 1,410 6,991 1,094 15,285 Prague 135 120 183 12 Seville 99 (1) 210 7 South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 115 14 42 6 Stockholm 267 1,635 32 222 297 1,657 64 1,141 Greater Stuttgart Turin (6) 166 (7) 14 Valencia 119 531 5 23 60 358 Vienna (1) 118 205 450 Vilnius (1) 169 (1) 736 (4) 145 (4) 434 Warsaw 452 249 88 46 1,420

(1) Just urban bus (2) Trips instead of journeys (3) Includes metro and urban bus (4) Trolleybus instead of tram (5) Includes S-Bahn railway and regional railways (6) Includes urban bus, tramway and metro (7) 2004 figure

By dividing passenger-km by journeys, we can get an idea of the distance travelled on each mode of transport. The longest trip obviously is made on suburban railway, around 22 km as average distance. Metro systems average trip is close to 6 km long, very similar to those made on bus, which are 5 km. Trams average trip distance is around 2.5 km.

Looking at Graph 22 we observe that the highest demand on passenger-km come from the most populated metropolitan areas like Greater London, Paris Ile-de-France, Madrid, Berlin-Brandenburg, Barcelona and Budapest. Thus it is more interesting to analyse the figures by ratios related with population, for example journeys/inhabitant (Graph 23).

Chapter 3. Description of the Public Transport System 29 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

Graph 22. Public transport demand in million passenger-km/year

0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000

Stadsregio Amsterdam 1.279 79 Barcelona 1.899 2.839 4.071 Berlin-Brandenburg (4) 2.456 2.245 5.136 646(tram) West Midlands (Birmingham) 2.036 51 (tram) - 472 Brussels 370 - 299 - 317 Budapest 4.558 1.804 Greater Copenhagen 813 957 Frankfurt Rhein-Main 1.115 414 110 Helsinki 1.011 370 428 Greater London 7.014 7.665 22.400 Madrid Community 6.020 4.616 3.966 Greater Manchester 1.015 - 206 - 330 Greater Montreal (2) 2.827 310 Paris Ile-de-France 4.088 6.991 15.285 Prague 180 Seville (1) 210 South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 42 (tram) Stockholm 1.635 1.657 1.141

Greater Stuttgart 222 Turin Bus Tram Metro Suburban railway Valencia 531- 23 - 358 Vienna Vilnius (1) (3) 736 - 434 Warsaw 1.420

(1) Just urban bus, does not include suburban bus (2) Includes metro and urban bus (3) Trolleybus instead of tram (4) Includes S-Bahn railway and regional railways

Graph 23 allows us to compare the metropolitan areas notwithstanding their size. On average, the population travels 232 journeys/inhabitant-year on public transport. This means that every person does at least one journey on public transport every labour day. Half of the journeys are made on bus, highlighting the importance of this network in metropolitan areas, as a complement to the rail modes. Several cities have more than 350 journeys on PT/inhabitant-year such as Budapest (500 journeys), Vilnius (476), Greater London (448) and Warsaw (368).

Graph 23. Public transport demand in journeys per inhabitant per year

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600

(1) 340 Stadsregio Amsterdam 340 Bus Barcelona 70 3 82 32 187 Tram Berlin-Brandenburg 76 33 69 177 Metro West Midlands (Birmingham) 120 2 (tram) 13 134 Suburban railway 000 Total journeys per inhabitant and year Brussels 29 24 41 23 116 Budapest 254 122 92 32 500 Greater Copenhagen 94 94 Frankfurt Rhein-Main (2) 52 13 17 27 108 Helsinki 151 53 57 41 302 242 10 129 67 448 Greater London Madrid Community 126 110 34 270 Greater Manchester 87 8 8 103 Greater Montreal (2) 59 61 4 124 Paris Ile-de-France 105 4 123 95 327 Prague 79 71 107 7 265 Seville 79 6 84 South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 89 11 5 105 Stockholm 139 17 155 33 344 Greater Stuttgart 120 Turin 108 (4) 9 118 Valencia 69 3 34 106 (1) Vienna 71 85 187 343 Vilnius (1) (3) 305 170 476 Warsaw 199 110 39 20 368

(1) Just urban bus, does not include suburban bus (2) Trips instead of journeys (3) Trolleybus instead of tram (4) Includes urban bus, tramway and metro

Chapter 3. Description of the Public Transport System 30 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

3.3.1. Occupancy rate of public transport modes

On Graph 24 is shown the occupancy rate by vehicle for the different public transport modes expressed as passengers-km/vehicles-km or train-km on rail modes. As we could expect, suburban railway and metro systems have the highest occupancy ratios (82 and 60 passengers/train on average respectively) because of the bigger capacity of the rolling stock. The tram average occupancy is 40 passengers and buses have a ratio of 18 passengers per vehicle.

Regarding the heavy rail occupancy, the highest ratio is in Paris, followed by Budapest and West Midlands (Birmingham). On metro, the highest occupancy is in Budapest, then London, Brussels and Valencia. It is noticeable the occupancy rate in trams in London; and on buses, the highest ratio is in Vilnius and then Budapest.

Graph 24. Occupancy rate by modes

250 222

Occupancy rate for bus (passengers-km/vehicles-km) 200 Occupancy rate for tram (passengers-km/train-km) 180

171 Occupancy rate for metro (passengers-km/train-km)

150 Occupancy rate for suburban rail (passengers-km/train-km) 116

100 92 89 74 69 66 65 53

50 42 41 40 38 37 32 31 31 30 30 29 27 27 26 25 24 23 21 22 19 19 19 18 17 18 16 15 15 14 14 12 11 9 0 Turin Vilnius Seville Vienna Prague Helsinki Warsaw Brussels Valencia Budapest Barcelona Stockholm Greater London Greater Greater Montreal Greater Greater Stuttgart Madrid Community Madrid Paris Ile-de-France Berlin-Brandenburg Greater Manchester Greater Greater Copenhagen Frankfurt Rhein-Main Frankfurt Stadsregio Amsterdam Stadsregio South Yorkshire (Sheffield) West Midlands(Birmingham)

3.4. Evolution of public transport supply and demand

On Table 10 we have gathered information of supply and demand from this present edition of the Barometer (2006) and the last one (2004). We have not taken into consideration previous data (2002 and 2000) because we would have obtained less homogeneous figures due to different participation of metropolitan areas throughout all these years.

We can observe that bus supply have slightly decreased (-0.5%) while the rail modes offer has had an important growth (+9.2%) highlighting the weight of the rail modes in the whole public transport system. The demand has decreased consistently with the supply in the case of buses (-1.9%), but not in rail modes, where the demand has been increased only around 1% despite the big effort in increasing the supply.

Chapter 3. Description of the Public Transport System 31 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

Table 10. Evolution of public transport supply and demand

SUPPLY DEMAND

BUS RAIL MODES BUS RAIL MODES

mill veh-km / year mill tr-km / year mill journeys / year mill journeys / year 2004 2006 2004 2006 2004 2006 2004 2006 Stadsregio Amsterdam 56.0 na na 15.1 248.0 253.0 na na Barcelona 101.3 108.1 143.2 167.8 327.4 340.2 540.9 570.4 Berlin-Brandenburg 172.0 171.8 125.0 187.2 na 450.0 na 602.0 West Midlands (Birmingham) 136.0 133.0 5.5 7.0 315.0 310.4 34.0 37.7 Brussels 19.3 19.9 29.2 16.4 (1) 77.3 86.1 (1) 237.9 261.3 Budapest (2) na 159.1 na 43.8 na 812.4 na 787.3 Greater Copenhagen na 77.3 na na na 173.0 na na Frankfurt Rhein-Main na 125.6 38.0 31.9 306.0 (1) 257.9 331.0 (1) 283.9 Helsinki 89.0 82.8 23.5 23.3 162.0 150.1 149.0 150.5 Greater London 470.0 458.0 67.4 68.5 1,803.0 1,816.0 1,695.0 1,549.5 Madrid Community 247.0 262.6 137.5 259.1 750.0 758.4 814.0 864.6 Greater Manchester 114.6 111.0 na na 218.0 223.3 37.5 40.6 Greater Montreal 115.9 115.4 68.1 74.0 (1) 206.0 (1) 212.3 (1) 231.0 (1) 234.7 Paris Ile-de-France 278.0 287.7 118.0 302.7 1,222.0 1,206.0 2,430.0 2,554.0 Prague 79.4 87.8 66.3 105.5 106.0 135.1 262.0 314.9 Seville 39.0 26.1 2.0 2.2 102.0 98.5 7.0 7.0 South Yorkshire (Sheffield) na 70.8 na 2.4 120.0 115.0 18.8 20.3 Stockholm na 100.2 na 117.3 (1) 253.0 267.0 (1) 369.0 393.0 Greater Stuttgart 52.0 52.4 25.1 22.0 na na na na Turin 52.0 52.8 10.5 14.0 165.0 166.0 14.0 14.0 Valencia 30.2 31.0 14.6 14.8 116.0 119.0 67.6 64.9 Vienna 30.0 29.1 99.0 99.6 162.0 117.5 709.0 654.6 Vilnius 32.7 19.5 na 16.3 277.0 169.2 na 144.5 Warsaw na 103.4 na 68.6 na 451.8 na 382.9

TOTAL 2,058.4 2,048.9 420.0 458.8 6,935.78,688.1 7,947.7 8,015.9 % VARIATION 2004-2006 -0.5% +9.2% -1.9% +0.9%

On the calculation of the percentage only figures in bold are taken into account to avoid distortion. The figures not included are those expressing vehicles-km instead of train-km, or no figures available on one of the reference years (1) Trips instead of journeys (2) Budapest and Copenhagen don’t show figures because they were not EMTA members on 2004

3.5. Quality of public transport supply

Public transport authorities and operators have regarded an improvement of the quality of services provided as one decisive way to improve the attractiveness of public transport systems over the past years. Quality of service includes very different features, and Tables 11 and 12 refer to some basic ones.

3.5.1. Bus quality indicators

Generally speaking, the commercial speed for urban bus lines is less than 20 km/h (close to 18 km/h on average), while on suburban lines commercial speed is clearly much higher (28 km/h).

It is noticeable than more than 80% of the urban bus fleets are low floor buses in most of the cases.

The average age of the fleet is quite high; several cities are over 10 years, such as Budapest (14 years), Turin, Warsaw and Paris, while Helsinki, Madrid and Seville do not exceed 6 years old.

Chapter 3. Description of the Public Transport System 32 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

Table 11. Supply quality indicators for bus and tram or light rail Bus (urban) Tram Commercial Average Station Average Amplitude Low floor Comercial Amplitude speed age of accesible age of of service buses speed of service (urban/suburb) vehicles for PRM vehicles (km / h) (hours) (%) (years) (km / h) (hours) (%) (years) Stadsregio Amsterdam 23 / 29 19.0 85% 8.0 15.3 19.0 (3) 85% 9.0 Barcelona 12 / 28 24.0 100% 6.7 18.0 19 - 24 100% 2.0 Berlin-Brandenburg 20 / na 24.0 80% 8.0 19.3 24.0 12.0 West Midlands (Birmingham) (1) 20 (1) 18.0 (1) 72% (1) 9.0 35.0 17.0 100% 7.0 Brussels 18 / na 19.5 11% 8.0 17.0 19.5 22% 32.0 Budapest 15 / 30 24.0 18% 14.0 12.8 22.1 85% 35.0 Greater Copenhagen (1) 24 (1) 24.0 (1) 100% Frankfurt Rhein-Main 20.0 80% 22.0 Helsinki 20 / 31 21.0 93% 5.2 16.5 20.0 92% 21.0 Greater London 18 / na 24.0 100% 8.0 22.0 19.0 100% Madrid Community 14 / na 18.0 98% 5.4 Greater Manchester 19 20.0 48% 35 17.5 100% Greater Montreal 20.0 65% 8.3 Paris Ile-de-France 19.0 76% 10.0 19.0 100% 7.0 Prague 26 / 33 24.0 31% 6.9 18.9 24.0 100% 15.0 Seville 12 / 26 18.0 91% 5.4 South Yorkshire (Sheffield) (1) 30 19.0 8.7 50.0 18.3 100% 13.0 Stockholm 24.0 67% 20.5 100% Greater Stuttgart Turin (2) 17 20.5 45% 10.6 (2) 17.1 20.5 16.1 Valencia 13 / 22 18.8 1% 7.3 17.0 18.5 100% 12.0 Vienna 18 / na 20.5 15.2 20.0 Vilnius 18 / na 18.5 28% 9.4 (4) 15.2 (4) 18.5 (4) 14% (4) 12.7 Warsaw 22 / 26 19.0 (1) 47% (1) 10.7 18.5 19.0 23.0

(1) Urban and suburban bus (3) Vehicles accessible for PRM´s (2) Data for urban and suburban bus and tramway (4) For Vilnius is trolleybus instead of tram

Graph 25. % lines with frequency under 5 min on peak hour 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Urban bus lines 90% 85% Tram lines 80% Metro lines

70% Suburban railway lines 70%

60%

50% 50% 44% 40% 40% 33% 33% 30% 30% 29% 21% 20% 20% 20% 14% 13% 11%

10% 7% 6% 5% 5% 5% 4% 3% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turin Vilnius Seville Vienna Prague Helsinki Warsaw Brussels Valencia Budapest Barcelona Stockholm Greater London Greater Greater Montreal Greater Greater Stuttgart Madrid Community Madrid Paris Ile-de-France Berlin-Brandenburg Greater Manchester Greater Greater Copenhagen Frankfurt Rhein-Main Frankfurt Stadsregio Amsterdam Stadsregio South Yorkshire (Sheffield) West Midlands(Birmingham) (1) In Vilnius is trolleybus instead of tram

Barcelona and Madrid have the highest bus frequency on peak hour, with respectively 40% and 30% of urban lines with less than 5 minutes of frequency on that period (Graph 25). All cities but Turin have night bus services on a weekend day from 5 lines in Vilnius to 112 lines in Greater London (Graph 26). It is

Chapter 3. Description of the Public Transport System 33 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006 remarkable that the bus is the mode chosen in all cases to cover the public transport night services, due to the low demand and less operational costs.

Graph 26. Number of night lines on a weekend day

120 112

Urban and suburban bus night lines 100 Tram night lines Metro night lines 80 Suburban railway night lines 73

60 53 42 39 40 39 33 33 29 26 23 23 20 20 19 18

20 16 14 13 11 10 9 9 9 8 6 5 5 3 3 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Turin Seville Vilnius Vienna Prague Helsinki Brussels Warsaw Valencia Budapest Barcelona Stockholm Greater London Greater Greater Montreal Greater Greater Stuttgart Madrid Community Paris Ile-de-France Berlin-Brandenburg Greater Manchester Greater Greater Copenhagen Frankfurt Rhein-Main Stadsregio Amsterdam Stadsregio South Yorkshire (Sheffield) West Midlands (Birmingham)

Regarding the bus vehicles with real time information (Graph 27), in Berlin, Madrid and Seville the bus network are very well covered with real time information on stops. In Graph 28, we can observe that most of the Spanish cities have 100% of bus vehicles equipped with air conditioning due to their high temperatures.

Graph 27. Stops and stations equipped with real time information

Urban bus stops Tram stops Metro stations Suburban railway stations 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 95% 95% 95%

90% 90%

80% 78% 71% 70%

70% 67%

60% 60% 53% 50%

40% 40%

30%

20% 15% 15% 13% 8% 8% 10% 8% 5% 4% 4% 3% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turin Seville Vilnius Vienna Prague Helsinki Brussels Warsaw Valencia Budapest Barcelona Stockholm Greater London Greater Greater Montreal Greater Greater Stuttgart Greater Madrid Community Madrid Paris Ile-de-France Paris Berlin-Brandenburg Greater Manchester Greater Copenhagen Frankfurt Rhein-Main Frankfurt Stadsregio Amsterdam Stadsregio South Yorkshire (Sheffield) West Midlands (Birmingham)

(1) In Madrid, Barcelona and Turin the 100% on stops is due to an SMS (mobile) information system

Chapter 3. Description of the Public Transport System 34 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

Graph 28. Vehicles equipped with air conditioning 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

90% 90% Urban buses

80% Tram trains 80% Metro trains 70% Suburban railway trains 60%

60% 57%

50%

40% 40% 40% 35% 34% 32%

30% 28% 21% 20% 16% 14% 14% 11% 10% 6% 0,2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Turin Seville Vilnius Vienna Prague Helsinki Brussels Warsaw Valencia Budapest Barcelona Stockholm Greater London Greater Greater Montreal Greater Greater Stuttgart Madrid Community Madrid Paris Ile-de-France Berlin-Brandenburg Greater Manchester Greater Greater Copenhagen Frankfurt Rhein-Main Frankfurt Stadsregio Amsterdam Stadsregio South Yorkshire (Sheffield) West Midlands(Birmingham)

(1) In Vilnius is trolleybus instead of tram

In the cities that provided information there are on average 55 km of dedicated bus lanes in whole region, varying from 12 km in Prague to over 100 km in Barcelona, Madrid and Berlin (Graph 29, left part). The length of bicycle lanes is much higher, with a minimum of 69 km in Vilnius (just in the city) up to 3,320 km in Berlin-Brandenburg.

Graph 29. Length of dedicated bus lanes and bicycle lanes in whole region 0 500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

84 Stadsregio Amsterdam 1.435 119 Barcelona 415 102 Berlin-Brandenburg 3.320 31 West Midlands (Birmingham) 237 16 Brussels 90 52 Budapest 140 Greater Copenhagen Bus lanes in whole region (km) Frankfurt Rhein-Main Bicycle lanes in whole region (km) Helsinki Greater London 495 109 Madrid Community 248 39 Greater Manchester 71 84 Greater Montreal Paris Ile-de-France 1.850 12 Prague 196 14 Seville 150 South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 94 Stockholm Greater Stuttgart 62 Turin 100 72 Valencia 287 Vienna 1.011 19 Vilnius 69 14 Warsaw 200

Chapter 3. Description of the Public Transport System 35 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

3.5.2. Light rail/tram quality indicators

The commercial speed for tram systems does not exceed 20 km/h in all cases but London (22 km/h) and other cities of the United Kingdom as Birmingham and Manchester (35 km/h) and Sheffield (50 km/h) which are suburban networks (Table 11). It is worth noticing that the speed of the tram system is not higher than the speed of the bus system (including interurban buses) especially when they do no benefit from dedicated lanes. On the other hand, trams have other positive aspects such as higher capacity, regularity, image, urban regeneration, etc. The amplitude of the service is in general between 17 and 20 hours per day except for Budapest and Frankfurt (22 h), Prague and Barcelona (24 h). The great majority of the systems are 100% accessible for People with Reduced Mobility (PRM), but few cities with old systems keep a big quantity of non-accessible stations like Brussels (22%) and Vilnius (14%, referred to trolleybus). In the cities with newly inaugurated tram systems, the average age is very low compared to other older systems, but in average the vehicles are 15 years-old.

The ratio of frequency on peak hour varies very much depending on the case. In Barcelona, 70% of the tram lines have a frequency under 5 minutes on rush hour, while in many other cities this ratio come down to 0%. Turin (50%) and Vienna (44%) also have high frequencies. Barcelona, Berlin, Birmingham, London and Paris have all the tram network covered by real time information, devices more common in rail modes than in bus.

3.5.3. Metro quality indicators

On Table 12, we observe the commercial speed of the metro system is over 30 km/h in many cities, reaching 45 km/h in Helsinki. Contrary to this, Budapest has the lowest speed (24.3 km/h) due to the short distance between the stations, 450 m as average. As example of how the distance between stations in a metro network influences the commercial speed, see Graph 30.

Graph 30. Link between metro stations separation and commercial speed

47

Helsinki

42

Warsaw 37

Valencia

Stadsregio Amsterdam Greater London 32 Turin Vienna Greater Montreal Berlin-Brandenburg Brussels (km/h) Metro speed comercial Barcelona 27 Madrid Community

Budapest

22 0,30 0,50 0,70 0,90 1,10 1,30 1,50 1,70 Distance between metro stations (km)

Chapter 3. Description of the Public Transport System 36 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

The figure shows clearly that longer distances between metro stations lead to higher speeds, therefore this factor is determinant in the metro network operation. The characteristics of the rolling stock and other features have little influence in the commercial speed.

Table 12. Supply quality indicators for metro and suburban railway Metro Suburban railway Station Average Station Average Commercial Amplitude Commercial Amplitude accesible age of accesible age of speed of service speed of service for PMR vehicles for PMR vehicles (km / h) (hours) (%) (years) (km / h) (hours) (%) (years) Stadsregio Amsterdam 33.5 19.0 100% 18.0 69.0 20.5 100% Barcelona 27.5 19 - 24 49% 14.2 42.0 19.0 40% 19.0 Berlin-Brandenburg 31.1 20.0 40% 38.3 20.0 77% West Midlands (Birmingham) 38.0 18.0 80% 15.0 Brussels (1) 29.7 19.5 22% 18.0 60.0 18.0 0% 26.0 Budapest 24.3 18.7 0% 27.0 29.2 21.5 75% 28.0 Greater Copenhagen Frankfurt Rhein-Main 22.0 21.0 Helsinki 45.0 18.0 100% 17.5 44.0 20.0 100% 22.0 Greater London 33.0 20.0 17% 56.0 24.0 31% 14.0 Madrid Community 27.0 19.5 59% 11.6 na 19.3 58% na Greater Manchester 40 17.5 52% Greater Montreal 31.3 20.0 0% 34.4 43.0 19.0 4% 22.0 Paris Ile-de-France 19.0 6% 30.0 19.0 28% 22.0 Prague 34.6 19.0 60% 8.9 39.5 21.0 99% 25.8 Seville South Yorkshire (Sheffield) Stockholm 24.0 100% 21.5 98% Greater Stuttgart 50.0 20.0 80% 9.8 Turin 31.4 18.0 100% 1.0 48.4 19.0 64% Valencia 35.3 19.0 95% 17.7 58.0 17.3 0% 12.7 Vienna 31.8 20.5 20.0 Vilnius Warsaw 37.5 22.0 100% 24.4 20.0

(1) Only for the city

Coming back to Table 12, the amplitude of the metro services is very high; the majority of the cities are between 19 and 20 hours, reaching 22 h in Frankfurt and Warsaw, and 24 h in Stockholm and Barcelona.

The newest metro networks are 100% accessible for PRM, these are the cases of Amsterdam, Helsinki, Stockholm, Turin and Warsaw, while in the oldest systems such as Budapest or Montreal the percentage come down to 0%, or in Paris, where 6% of the metro stations are accessible. Regarding the average age of the rolling stock there are big differences in the figures between the oldest systems (Montreal, Paris and Budapest, around 30.0 years) and the newest in Turin (1 year old) which is the period into operation of the metro system in that city.

Metro is the mode with highest frequencies on peak hour (Graph 25). In most of the cases, 100% of the metro lines have a frequency under 5 minutes on peak hour. However, the supply for night services is scarce in metro systems, only Barcelona and Berlin operate metro on weekend nights.

With regard to real time information at stations, also in most of the cases 100% of the stations network have real information, but Paris and Valencia where the percentage is between 70 and 80%.

Chapter 3. Description of the Public Transport System 37 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

3.5.4. Suburban railway quality indicators

The majority of the suburban railway networks have commercial speed above 40 km/h, getting up to 70 km/h in Stadsregio Amsterdam, becoming the fastest public transport mode (Table 12). The amplitude of the service is similar to the rest of the modes, between 17 h and 20 h, highlighting the case of Greater London with 24 h of services. The accessibility to the stations for PRM is low, though the north European cities seem to have the most accessible suburban rail systems (Stadsregio Amsterdam, Helsinki, Prague and Stockholm) with close to 100% of accessible stations. The average age of the vehicles is comprised between 9.8 years (Greater Stuttgart) and 28 years (Budapest).

Only few lines in Madrid and Budapest have frequencies under 5 minutes on rush hour (20% and 7% of the lines respectively). Berlin has 13 suburban rail lines offering night services on weekends, and 2 in Stadsregio Amsterdam, Budapest and Helsinki. The coverage with real time information on stations is quite high, as we have seen in the other rail modes.

An important element of a suburban train system is the Park and Ride facility. In Montreal (Graph 31), there are more close to 100 parking lots per km of suburban rail network, 81 in Helsinki and 72 in Paris Ile-de-France. This policy leads the people to use public transport for radial trips from suburbs to city centre.

Graph 31. Number of Park and Ride places per km of suburban train network

Stadsregio Amsterdam Barcelona 17 3 Berlin-Brandenburg West Midlands (Birmingham) (1) 39 Brussels 30 Budapest 7 Greater Copenhagen Frankfurt Rhein-Main Helsinki 81 Greater London Madrid Community 61 Greater Manchester 12 Greater Montreal 96 Paris Ile-de-France 72 Prague 4 Seville 25 South Yorkshire (Sheffield) Stockholm Greater Stuttgart Turin 33 Valencia Vienna Vilnius Warsaw

0 20 40 60 80 100

(1) In West Midlands (Birmingham) 15% of the Park and Ride places are related to bus ad tram networks

To have an idea about the policies developed by different metropolitan areas we can look at Graph 32 and 33. On Graph 32 we can see that Brussels and Budapest have developed more the suburban rail network than to highways (respectively, 10 and 4 times more length on train network than on highways). Out of the 15 metropolitan areas with data available, 9 have greater suburban rail network than highways

Chapter 3. Description of the Public Transport System 38 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006 network. On the other hand, few cities have a longer network of high capacity roads than of railway network; the extreme cases are Berlin-Brandenburg (0.2, due to its great surface), Valencia (0.3), Madrid and Seville (0.4).

Graph 32. Suburban train network length (km) / highways length (km)

Stadsregio Amsterdam 0,7 Barcelona 1,4 Berlin-Brandenburg 0,2 West Midlands (Birmingham) 1,1 Brussels 10,0 Budapest 4,2 Greater Copenhagen Frankfurt Rhein-Main Helsinki Greater London Madrid Community 0,4 Greater Manchester 1,9 Greater Montreal 2,1 Paris Ile-de-France Prague Seville 0,4 South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 0,9 Stockholm Greater Stuttgart 1,8 Turin 1,1 Valencia 0,3 Vienna 2,8 Vilnius Warsaw 051015

Graph 33 shows indicators to compare length of bicycle lanes with highways length. It is remarkable the high ratio of bicycle lanes in Stadsregio Amsterdam and highways length in Berlin, as we have seen before in other graphs. In general terms we can say that metropolitan areas are making a big effort on bicycle infrastructures, or at least are looking for a balance between cars infrastructures and soft modes.

0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 3,50 1,00 0,80 0,60 0,40 0,20 0,00 Stadsregio Amsterdam 0,13 Graph 33. 1,05 0,09 Barcelona 0,09 Bicycle and 0,56 Berlin-Brandenburg 3,00 0,09 West Midlands (Birmingham) 0,06 highways 0,03 Brussels 0,04 Budapest 0,07 length Greater Copenhagen 0,12 Bicycle lanes (km)/thousand inhabitants Frankfurt Rhein-Main Helsinki km highway/thousand inhabitants 0,07 Greater London 0,04 Madrid Community 0,16 0,03 Greater Manchester 0,07 Greater Montreal 0,16 Paris Ile-de-France 0,06 0,12 Prague 0,12 Seville 0,26 0,07 South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 0,09 Stockholm Greater Stuttgart 0,05 0,07 Turin 0,06 0,17 Valencia 0,14 0,42 Vienna 0,22 0,12 Vilnius 0,09 Warsaw

Chapter 3. Description of the Public Transport System 39 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

4. Fares and Financial Aspects

4.1. Fares in main city and whole region

Most of the cities have besides the single ticket, a daily pass, some of them have a multiple trip ticket and season integrated passes, as well as discounts for students and elderly people (Tables 13 and 14).

Table 13. Fares in main city for all modes Trip with Multiple Single Daily multiple Monthly Student Elderly trips Yearly pass ticket pass trip pass pass people pass coupon coupon (€) (€) (€) (€) (€) (€) (€) (€) Amsterdam 0.87 6.30 6.50 0.93 35.10 351.00 23.15 23.15 Barcelona 1.20 5.00 6.65 0.67 42.75 (2) 118.0 Berlin 2.10 6.10 70.00 650.00 26.00 49.50 Birmingham (1) 1.65 8.66 82.09 873.13 41.05 free Brussels 1.50 4.00 10.50 1.05 42.50 425.00 (3) 300.00 0.00 Budapest 0.73 4.54 6.57 0.66 27.21 306.83 10.25 10.25 Copenhagen 2.40 14.00 40.67 40.67 14.67 Frankfurt 1.40 3.40 33.50 335.00 25.10 Helsinki 2.20 6.00 1.80 40.90 449.90 20.60 30.70 Greater London 4.45 9.20 126.63 1,318.26 88.48 Madrid 1.00 4.00 6.15 0.62 39.00 429.00 25.40 9.90 Manchester (4) Montreal 2.28 5.86 46.21 27.66 27.66 Paris 1.40 5.40 1.09 52.50 530.20 (3) 263.70 Prague 0.69 2.76 16.20 143.20 4.10 8.20 Seville 1.10 28.00 0.00 Sheffield 1.00 5.63 96.00 954.00 (3) 356.00 0.00 Stockholm 3.32 10.50 66.35 685.07 39.80 39.80 Stuttgart 1.80 5.10 6.30 1.58 47.20 472.00 35.10 35.20 Turin 0.90 3.00 12.50 0.83 29.00 265.00 16.50 (3) 131.00 Valencia 1.15 3.10 6.50 0.65 33.20 295.00 24.90 9.00 Vienna 1.50 5.00 12.00 45.00 417.00 27.00 (3) 209.00 Vilnius 0.32 1.74 17.38 3.48 8.69 Warsaw 0.63 1.88 5.64 0.56 17.23 8.61 8.96

(1) Single ticket just for buses (2) pass valid for 3 months (3) Pass valid for one year (4) No figures shown for Manchester because ticket sales are not centrally governed and vary by operator and by mode

The price for a single ticket in the main city varies from 0.32 € in Vilnius to 4.45 € in London, but most of them are between 1.00 and 2.00 €.

The price of a monthly pass goes from 16.20 € in Prague to 126.63 € in Greater London, but this value does not consider the differences in economy and size between the cities, so we better see later few ratios in order to compare them. For example, in the case of London, “main city” figures refer in fact to the whole area of Greater London, this has already been stressed at the beginning of this report.

What is worth noticing is the ratio of the monthly pass in relation to the single ticket (Graph 34). In a lot fair number of cities it stands around 30, which means that the user who buys an integrated monthly ticket is paying the same as one single ticket per day (30 days per month). In one extreme, we find Sheffield, Vilnius and Birmingham with high ratios (96, 54 and 50), meaning that the single ticket is very cheap compared to the monthly pass (in the case of Birmingham because the single ticket is bus only). In

Chapter 4. Fares and Financial Aspects 40 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006 the other extreme we find Stockholm, Montreal and Helsinki with ratio 20, cities where the saving on the integrated ticket is very important compared with the single ticket.

Graph 34. Ratios in main city

Amsterdam 40 Barcelona 36 Berlin 33 Birmingham 50 Brussels 28 Budapest 37 Copenhagen 17 Frankfurt 24 Monthly Pass Price (€) / Single Ticket Price (€) Helsinki 19 Greater London 28 Madrid 39 Manchester Montreal 20 38 Paris Prague 23 Seville 25 Sheffield 96 Stockholm 20 Stuttgart 26 Turin 32 Valencia 29 Vienna 30 Vilnius 54 Warsaw 27

0 102030405060708090100

The price of a yearly pass is 10 times the price of a monthly pass, which is a ratio very homogeneous in all the cities surveyed, varying between 8.8 in Prague and 11.3 in Budapest.

The student pass is on average around 43% cheaper than the adult pass of the same category (monthly, yearly) and almost every city has this kind of pass. The student pass in Vilnius, Prague, Sheffield, Budapest and Berlin have a significant discount, between 60 and 80% compared with the standard pass.

In case of ticket for elderly people, there is a wide range of discounts. In few cities it is completely free at least during off peak hours (Birmingham, Brussels, London, Seville, Sheffield) or has a symbolic low price under 15 € for a monthly pass (Copenhagen, Madrid, Valencia, Vilnius and Prague). Others have the same discount as students (Amsterdam, Montreal, Stockholm, Stuttgart, Warsaw) and in other cases there is no discount available (or not data given) for elderly people (Barcelona, Frankfurt and Paris).

In Table 14 fares for the whole metropolitan area are given, that is the most external ring or the outer zone in the fare areas division. The price of a single ticket for the whole region varies from 1.25 in Warsaw to 12.50 in Frankfurt, but that is obviously much related with the size of the metropolitan area.

Same kind of passes and level of discounts than in main cities are applied to the whole region fares, but in some cities are not available for trips outside the main city.

Chapter 4. Fares and Financial Aspects 41 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

Table 14. Fares for the outer ring of the metropolitan area for all modes Multiple Elderly Single Monthly Yearly Student Daily pass trips people ticket pass pass pass coupon pass (€) (€) (€) (€) (€) (€) (€) Stadsregio Amsterdam 2.60 12.80 6.50 88.50 885.00 58.40 58.40 Barcelona 4.95 14.20 26.90 121.00 (3) 323.00 Berlin-Brandenburg 2.70 6.30 86.00 805.00 64.50 61.00 West Midlands (Birmingham) 8.66 111.94 1,186.57 55.97 0.00 Brussels Budapest (1) 3.25 165.64 34.43 Greater Copenhagen 8.40 14.00 138.67 81.07 19.60 Frankfurt Rhein-Main 12.50 25.00 214.50 2,145.00 160.90 Helsinki (2) 3.60 (2) 10.00 110.60 1,216.60 55.30 83.10 Greater London (5) 4.45 9.20 126.63 1,318.26 88.48 free Madrid Community 3.85 8.00 26.20 71.00 781.00 44.85 9.90 Greater Manchester (6) Greater Montreal 130.83 104.79 104.79 Paris Ile-de-France 9.60 18.40 139.90 1,413.50 (4) 837.30 Prague 4.14 60.80 631.80 26.24 52.84 Seville South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 4.60 7.74 108.00 1,076.00 (4) 552.00 0.00 Stockholm 8.29 66.35 685.07 Greater Stuttgart 5.90 10.50 22.40 160.40 1,604.00 120.00 53.20 Turin 1.40 19.50 38.00 342.00 29.00 Valencia 2.25 16.20 58.00 506.00 42.75 9.00 Vienna 1.50 Vilnius Warsaw 1.25 2.51 11.28 23.49 11.75 12.22

(1) Ticketing system based on km (maximum price) (2) For each metropolitan ring (3) Pass valid for 3 months (4) Pass Valid for one year (5) Note that the entry for Greater London is the same than the entry for main city, because is the same administrative area (6) No figures for Greater Manchester because ticket sales are not centrally governed and vary by operator and by mode

4.2. Comparison between main city fares ratios

Graph 35 shows two ratios to compare the fares in main city relating them to GDP per capita and petrol litre price.

Graph 35. Main city fares ratios

Single ticket fare main city(€) / petrol litre price(€) Monthly pass fare in main city / monthly GDP per capita (%)

1,5% Amsterdam 0,6 1,9% Barcelona 1,2 3,5% Berlin 1,7 3,7% Birmingham 1,3 0,9% Brussels 1,2 1,8% Budapest 0,7 0,8% Copenhagen 2,0 0,6% Frankfurt 1,2 1,1% Helsinki 1,8 3,4 3,4% Greater London 1,4% Madrid 1,0 Manchester 1,7% Montreal 2,9 Paris 1,2 1,1% Prague 0,6 Seville 1,1 4,8% Sheffield 0,8 Stockholm 2,8 1,0% Stuttgart 1,5 1,5% Turin 0,7 Valencia 1,2 1,3% Vienna 1,5 1,7% Vilnius 0,3 0,9% Warsaw 0,6 10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5

Chapter 4. Fares and Financial Aspects 42 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

The monthly pass price in main city compared with GDP per capita (annual GDP in main city divided by 12) gives a ratio of 1.8% on average (Graph 35, left part). However, especially cheap are the monthly passes in Frankfurt (0.6%), Copenhagen (0.8%), Brussels (0.9%), Warsaw (0.9%), Stuttgart (1.0%), Helsinki (1.1%) and Prague (1.1%). The highest ratios are in Sheffield (4.8%), Birmingham (3.7%) and Berlin (3.5%).

When we compare the single ticket fare in main city with the price of a litre of petrol (unleaded 95) (Graph 35, right part) we observe a wide range of values. The most attractive price is in Vilnius, where a single ticket costs less than half of the petrol litre (0.3). This fact is opposite to the use of the private vehicle since the fuel of the car is much more expensive than the public transport ticket. On the other side, London has the most expensive public transport, the price being 3.4 times more than a litre of petrol, then comes Montreal (2.9) and Stockholm (2.8), values clearly higher than the ones showed in last edition of the Barometer, where the highest figure for this ratio was 2.6 (referred to Stockholm). This fact might be explained because of the decrease of the unleaded 95 price (while the diesel price has increased) or because of the increase in ticket prices.

4.3. Financial aspects

Table 15. Financial aspects

Revenues Yearly Other from ticket Public subsidies Modes included operation cost revenues sales (million € / (million € / (million € / (million € / year) year) year) year) Stadsregio Amsterdam 454.3 173.6 280.7 Bus-metro-tram Barcelona 978.6 546.6 432.0 41.1 All (bus-metro-tram-HR) Berlin-Brandenburg 931.0 841.0 All (bus-metro-tram-HR) West Midlands (Birmingham) 265.0 30.7 All (Bus-tram-HR) Brussels 566.2 174.0 297.9 94.3 Urban bus-metro-tram Budapest 636.0 233.5 248.6 153.9 All (bus-metro-tram-HR) Greater Copenhagen Frankfurt Rhein-Main 1,200.0 552.0 624.0 24.0 All (bus-metro-tram-HR) Helsinki 366.1 207.0 159.1 All (bus-metro-tram-HR) Greater London 4,433.0 2,252.0 1,974.6 485.0 Urban bus-metro-tram Madrid Community 1,742.1 774.5 967.7 5.2 All (bus-metro-HR) Greater Manchester Greater Montreal 666.1 352.8 264.1 42.4 All (bus-metro-HR) Paris Ile-de-France 7,000.0 2,763.0 3,945.0 320.0 All (bus-metro-tram-HR) Prague 494.0 135.1 329.0 53.7 All (bus-metro-tram-HR) Seville 118.8 53.9 5.6 All (bus-HR) South Yorkshire (Sheffield) Stockholm 1,237.1 447.9 507.5 281.6 All (bus-metro-tram-HR) Greater Stuttgart 550.3 327.5 133.3 All (bus-metro-tram-HR) Turin Valencia 203.0 90.2 112.8 Bus-metro-tram Vienna 62.3 23.7 14.2 25.7 Interurban bus Vilnius 43.7 19.9 23.2 0.5 All (bus-trolleybus) Warsaw 282.6 122.6 160.0 4.2 All (bus-metro-tram-HR)

(HR) Heavy Rail

Chapter 4. Fares and Financial Aspects 43 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

Table 15 is very heterogeneous on its content depending on the metropolitan area. A very important indicator on public transport financing is the percentage of the operational expenses that is covered by the revenues collected by fares and the percentage covered by public subsidies. However, the attribution of costs and revenues varies very much in the different metropolitan areas. On Graph 36 we observe that the coverage of operational costs by fare revenues is on average 44%, varying the percentage in cities where data are available between 27% in Prague up to 59% in Greater Stuttgart.

Graph 36. Coverage of operational costs

Coverage by fare revenues Coverage by public subsidies

38,2% Stadsregio Amsterdam 61,8% 55,9% Barcelona 44,1% Berlin-Brandenburg West Midlands (Birmingham) 30,7% Brussels 52,6% 36,7% Budapest 39,1% Greater Copenhagen 46,0% Frankfurt Rhein-Main 52,0% 56,5% Helsinki 43,5% 50,8% Greater London 44,5% 44,5% Madrid Community 55,5% Greater Manchester 53,0% Greater Montreal 39,6% 39,5% Paris Ile-de-France 56,4% 27,3% Prague 66,6% 45,4% Seville South Yorkshire (Sheffield) 36,2% Stockholm 41,0% 59,5% Greater Stuttgart 24,2% Turin 44,4% Valencia 55,6% 38,0% Vienna 22,8% 45,5% Vilnius 53,1% 43,4% Warsaw 56,6% 0,0% 0,0% 90,0% 80,0% 70,0% 60,0% 50,0% 40,0% 30,0% 20,0% 10,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0% 80,0% 90,0% 100,0% 100,0%

The other indicator, the coverage by public subsidies is on average 48% what means that close to half of the public transport operational costs are covered by fares and half by public subsidies from national, regional or local authorities depending on the local context. The balance share between fare revenues and public subsidies is a consequence of the public service obligations entitled to public transports services and the existence of reduced social fares as we have seen in the previous section.

The rest of the percentages up to 100%, that is 8%, are other revenues corresponding to publicity, congestion charging, taxi licensing incomes, bus enforcement fines, etc.

We should note that in few cases the figures are not consistent or do not include all modes, due to a lack of financial and rigorous information from different modes and operators and the difficulty to obtain them, even more when each case considers different items for each group of costs and different calculation. For example, British authorities in West-Midlands (Birmingham) or South Yorkshire (Sheffield) do not directly operate public transport services neither collect fares because of their deregulated system, thus they do not have available meaningful figures to allow comparison. The figures on Table 15 for West-Midlands and South Yorkshire include only the operational cost of some authority’s activities (promotion, planning, co- ordination, etc.) and only the revenues from tickets supplied by these authorities, namely Centro and

Chapter 4. Fares and Financial Aspects 44 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

SYPTE. Therefore, the figures are very different from the rest and not comparable. However, it must be said that the local public transport in those areas is privately operated and largely profitable.

Chapter 4. Fares and Financial Aspects 45 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

5. Conclusions

The key facts we draw in this report are the following:

- The metropolitan areas surveyed show differences in terms of surface in terms of population and in terms of urban density. The different urban layouts have significant consequences for the coordination of the provision of public transport among the various local authorities concerned.

Main cities gather 46% of the population of the metropolitan area on 8% of its surface. Mobility patterns in the city centre show specific characteristics that are not to be found in the rest of the area.

- 3 trips per person per day are done in average in the metropolitan areas surveyed. Each motorised trip represents 33 min time. 40% are commuting trips as home-to-work and home to school.

- In average there is one car every two inhabitants, but the tendency is that high GDP´s are related with lower motorization rates. This is very important for the Public Transport Authorities, whom see their responsibilities growing to offer a more attractive public transport system to a less car dependant society.

- The high car ownership ratios explain why private car remains the favoured mode of transport (47% of total trips), followed by non-motorised modes (24% walking and 5% cycling) and public transport (212%). There is a trend to a link between car ownership and public transport use, though is not very strong and there is a big dispersion of data, pointing out that the more we own cars, the less we use public transport.

- Public transport accounts for 48% of all motorised trips in the densest part of most of the metropolitan areas surveyed, this means the main cities. This underlines the leading role of an efficient safe and fair public transport system in large urban territories. However when considering the whole metropolitan area, the share falls to 28% of motorised trips done by public transport against 72% of other motorised modes, mainly the private car. The lower level of public transport provision, but also the characteristics of urban development combined with road infrastructure provision have a determinant impact.

- Metro systems are extending or appearing in almost all the cities surveyed, being successful in dense areas.

- The number of tramway routes and systems is increasing very fast in several European metropolitan areas, based on the new concept of tramways on dedicated platform called light rail system. They represent an alternative for medium capacity modes.

Annexes 46 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

- Considering public transport demand, the bus attracts 15% less passengers than all rail modes together (journeys/year). However, looking at the figures on passenger-km/year the suburban railway has the highest figures, followed by metro, both gathering 70% of the total demand on public transport expressed on passenger-km. Functionality and length of trips impact on the choice of mode.

- On average, the population does more than 230 journeys per inhabitant and year on public transport, this means almost one journey every labour day.

- The fastest modes are the rail modes, with averages commercial speed of 45 km/h for heavy rail, 32 km/h for metro, 23 km/h for bus (considering urban and suburban services) and 21 km/h for tram. It is remarkable that tram and bus have the same speed though the tram usually runs on reserved platform.

- The amplitude of public transport services is quite high, close to 20 hours in all modes. The most accessible to people with reduced mobility is the tram; nevertheless, the bus is carrying out a big effort on low floor buses and to a lesser degree on on-board audio and visual information.

- The single ticket price varies between 0.32 € to 4.45 €. With the multiple trip coupon (usually 10 trips) one can save around 40%. The price of monthly pass is on average 30 times the single ticket, but for young and elderly people the pass is 50% cheaper than the normal monthly fare.

- Regarding the financing of the public transport systems, operational costs are covered 44% by fares, 48% by public subsidies and 8% by other revenues such as publicity, congestion charging, etc.

Annexes 47 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

Annex I: List of Metropolitan Areas Surveyed

This is a chart with the metropolitan areas participants from the first edition of the Barometer until the present edition with the Transport Authority responsible.

Transport Barometer Barometer Barometer Barometer Country Authority data 2006 data 2004 data 2002 data 2000 Stadsregio Amsterdam Netherlands Stadsregio x x Athens Greece OASA x x Barcelona Spain ATM x x x x Berlin-Brandenburg Germany VBB x x x Bilbao Spain CTB x x x West Midlands (Birmingham) England Centro x x x Brussels Belgium AED-BUV x x x x Budapest Hungary BKSZ x Cadiz Bay Spain CMTBC x Greater Copenhagen Denmark MOVIA x Dublin Ireland DTO x Frankfurt Rhein-Main Germany RMV x x x Helsinki Finland YTV x x x x Lisbon Portugal AML Greater London England TfL x x x x Greater Lyon France SYTRAL x Madrid Community Spain CRTM x x x x Greater Manchester England GMPTE x x x x Greater Montreal Canada AMT x Oslo Region Norway RUTER x Paris Ile-de-France France STIF x x x x Prague Czech Republic ROPID x x x x Seville Spain CTS x x x x South Yorkshire (Sheffield) England SYPTE x x Stockholm Sweden SL x x x x Greater Stuttgart Germany VRS x x Turin Metropolitan Area Italy AMMT x x Valencia Spain ETM x x x VOR Region (Vienna) Austria VOR x x x x Vilnius Lithuania MESP x x x x Warsaw Poland ZTM x x Zurich Switzerland ZVV x x

On this third edition, 24 metropolitan areas have collaborated, which is a great achievement since the first one surveyed 15 cities.

The questionnaire used to gather the information contains 383 questions. It has represented a strong involvement from the Authorities to collect data and a considerable work for CRTM to consolidate these data.

Annexes 48 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

Annex II: List of Tables and Graphs

List of Tables

Table 1. Basic socio-economic data of metropolitan areas……………………………………………………… page 6

Table 2. Basic socio-economic data of main cities………………………………………………………………… page 10

Table 3. Mobility parameters in metropolitan areas……………………………………………………………… page 14

Table 4. Modal split in whole metropolitan areas…………………………………………………………………… page 17

Table 5. Characteristics of bus supply in metropolitan areas…………………………………………………… page 21

Table 6. Characteristics of tram supply………………………………………………………………………………… page 23

Table 7. Characteristics of metro supply……………………………………………………………………………… page 24

Table 8. Characteristics of suburban railway supply……………………………………………………………… page 26

Table 9. Public transport demand………………………………………………………………………………………… page 29

Table 10. Evolution of public transport supply and demand…………………………………………………… page 32

Table 11. Supply quality indicators for bus and tram or light rail……………………………………………… page 33

Table 12. Supply quality indicators for metro and suburban railway………………………………………… page 37

Table 13. Fares in main city for all modes…………………………………………………………………………… page 40

Table 14. Fares for the outer ring of the metropolitan area for all modes………………………………… page 42

Table 15. Financial aspects………………………………………………………………………………………………… page 43

Annexes 49 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

List of Graphs

Graph 1. Metropolitan areas population and surface…………………………………………………………… page 6

Graph 2. Urbanised surface on metropolitan area / metropolitan surface……………………………… page 7

Graph 3. Population density in metropolitan area (inhabitants/km2)……………………………………… page 8

Graph 4. Population evolution 1996-2006 and 2001-2006 in metropolitan area……………………… page 9

Graph 5. Population evolution 1994-2006…………………………………………………………………………… page 9

Graph 6. Main cities population and surface……………………………………………………………………… page 11

Graph 7. Population gross density in main cities (inhabitants/km2)………………………………………… page 12

Graph 8. Population evolution 1996-2006 and 2001-2006 in main cities………………………………… page 12

Graph 9. Population main city/population whole metropolitan area………………………………………… page 13

Graph 10. Link between annual GDP/inhabitant and number of trips per person per day………… page 15

Graph 11. Link between annual GDP/inhabitant and car ownership rate (cars/1,000 inhabitants) page 16

Graph 12. Modal split in metropolitan areas in motorised trips……………………………………………… page 18

Graph 13. Modal share of PT in motorised trips: Ratio PT in main city / PT in whole region……… page 18

Graph 14. Modal split in metropolitan areas in motorised trips……………………………………………… page 19

Graph 15. Link between car ownership rate and modal share of public transport…………………… page 20

Graph 16. Bus lines density in metropolitan area…………………………………………………………………… page 22

Graph 17. Tramway lines density in main city……………………………………………………………………… page 23

Graph 18. Metro lines density in main city…………………………………………………………………………… page 25

Graph 19. Suburban railway lines density in metropolitan area……………………………………………… page 26

Graph 20. Public transport supply in million vehicles-km (or train-km)/year…………………………… page 27

Graph 21. Public transport supply in vehicles-km (or train-km)/inhabitant/year……………………… page 28

Annexes 50 EMTA Barometer of Public Transport in the European Metropolitan Areas in 2006

Graph 22. Public transport demand in million passenger-km/year………………………………………… page 30

Graph 23. Public transport demand in journeys per inhabitant and year………………………………… page 30

Graph 24. Occupancy rates by modes………………………………………………………………………………… page 31

Graph 25. %lines with frequency under 5 minutes on peak hour…………………………………………… page 33

Graph 26. Number of night lines on a weekend day……………………………………………………………… page 34

Graph 27. Stops and stations equipped with real time information………………………………………… page 34

Graph 28. Vehicles equipped with air conditioning………………………………………………………………… page 35

Graph 29. Length of dedicated bus lanes and bicycle lanes in whole region…………………………… page 35

Graph 30. Link between metro stations separation and commercial speed……………………………… page 36

Graph 31. Number of Park and Ride places per km of suburban train network……………………… page 38

Graph 32. Suburban train network length (km) / highways length (km)……………………………… page 39

Graph 33. Bicycle and highways length………………………………………………………………………………… page 39

Graph 34. Ratios in main city…………………………………………………………………………………………… page 41

Graph 35. Main city fares ratios………………………………………………………………………………………… page 42

Graph 36. Coverage of operational costs…………………………………………………………………………… page 44

Annexes 51