Benchmarking Oslo vs other European cities 12.06.2014 Axel Kuehn, Karlsruhe
Why benchmarking? Learning from others... 9 cities from 6 European countries population city 390000-799000 population agglo 1.0-2.5 Mio
Oslo (No) 630000 / 1502000 Gothenburg (Sw) 530000 / 1580000 Stuttgart (Ger) 613000 / 2416000 Frankfurt (Ger) 690000 / 2222000 Leipzig (Ger) 520000 / 1090000 (Sui) 390000 / 1490000 Lyon-Villeurbanne (F) 636000 / 2188000 Amsterdam (NL) 799000 / 1428000 Manchester (UK) 510000 / 2553000
PT-portfolio in benchmarking agglos Railway Metro Light Rail /Tram Bus Funicular Ferry Other Oslo/Ruter Gothenburg/Västtrafik Stuttgart/VVS Frankfurt/TraffiQ Leipzig/LVB Zürich/ZVV Lyon/Sytral Amsterdam/GVB Manchester /TfGM
Problems or weaknesses: Area/agglo definition Data availability for area definition Data availability for railway share Train-kms vehicle-kms Not all data for exactly same year But: missing scientific perfection is ok as long as message and conclusions are still on safe side!
Data availability for area definition: Service area of urban PT goes beyond city limits- data only available for PT-region Examples: Oslo Ruter area 1.2 Mio population; bigger than city, smaller than total agglo = something in between Gothenburg Västtrafik area bigger than actual Gothenburg agglo Lyon Sytral area, same as for Oslo
Benchmarking criteria (general) Population Area size (=) population density Car ownership Age structure Unemployment Working places (=) w.p./inhabitant Commuters incoming/outgoing Modal Split Fare single trip
Benchmarking criteria (PT-related) PT-offer (=) vehicle-kms/inhabitant PT-trips (=) PT-trips/inhabitant (=) efficiency PT-trips (=) PT-trips/vehicle-km (=) efficiency
Oslo Gothenburg Stuttgart Frankfurt Leipzig Lyon/Villeurbane Amsterdam Manchester 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 Population density city area [inhabitants/km²] 0
Oslo Gothenburg Stuttgart Frankfurt Leipzig Lyon/Villeurbane Amsterdam Manchester Population density agglo area [inhabitants/km²] 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
Oslo Gothenburg Stuttgart Frankfurt Leipzig Lyon/Villeurbane Amsterdam Age structure (% >65/67 years) 25 20 15 10 5 0
Oslo Gothenburg Stuttgart Frankfurt Leipzig Lyon/Villeurbane Amsterdam Manchester 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 Unemployment [%] 0
Oslo Gothenburg Stuttgart Frankfurt Leipzig Lyon/Villeurbane Amsterdam Working places / inhabitant 1,00 0,90 0,80 0,70 0,60 0,50 0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00
Oslo Gothenburg Stuttgart Frankfurt Leipzig Lyon/Villeurbane Amsterdam 0,60 0,50 0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 Incoming commuters / inhabitant 0,00
Oslo Gothenburg Stuttgart Frankfurt Leipzig Lyon/Villeurbane Amsterdam Modal Split (city area) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% PT Car Cycling Pedestrian Others
PT-offer in vehicle-km / year and inhabitant (city+) 80,00 70,00 60,00 Oslo 50,00 40,00 30,00 20,00 10,00 0,00 0,00 100,00 200,00 300,00 400,00 500,00 600,00 700,00 PT-passengers / inhabitants - year (city+)
Oslo Gothenburg Stuttgart Frankfurt Leipzig Lyon/Villeurbane Amsterdam PT-offer city+ area without railway (vehicle-km/year - inhabitant) 80,0 70,0 60,0 50,0 40,0 30,0 20,0 10,0 0,0
Oslo Gothenburg Stuttgart Frankfurt Leipzig Lyon/Villeurbane Amsterdam PT-passengers city+ area without railway / inhabitants - year 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
Oslo Gothenburg Stuttgart Frankfurt Leipzig Lyon/Villeurbane Amsterdam Efficiency of PT-offer - city+ area without railway (Passengers/vehicle-km - year) 10,00 9,00 8,00 7,00 6,00 5,00 4,00 3,00 2,00 1,00 0,00
Oslo Gothenburg Stuttgart Frankfurt Leipzig Lyon/Villeurbane Amsterdam Efficiency of PT-offer - agglo area with railway (Passengers/vehicle-km - year) 8,00 7,00 6,00 5,00 4,00 3,00 2,00 1,00 0,00
Conclusions + lessons (to be) learnt Oslo owns low density patterns which favours car traffic Oslo requires therefore a rather high PToffer to reach (all) citizens Oslo appears to run considerable amounts of parallel PT-services into the centre Oslo patronage mismatches with offer (high input low output)
Resulting question: Should (Could) the development of a new future-oriented PT-strategy be used for strategic changes? It s all about... targets New infrastructure new strategy