The Evolution and Spread of Fully-Integrated Regional Public Transport in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland Ralph Buehler, John Pucher, Oliver Duemmler ACSP 57th Annual Conference Denver, Colorado, October 2017 TRACK 14 TRANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING
Regional Coordination & Promoting Public Transport Coordination/integration is important for (public) transport (Rivasplata, Banister/Giovoni, Preston, Stead, etc.) Increasing splintering & fragmentation due to (1) suburbanization and (2) decentralization of government functions (including privatization and new public management) (Hrelja, O Sullivan, Iseki) Need to increase PT share of motorized trips to improve the sustainability of transport systems and reduce car dependence Fares, speed, price, comfort, access, quality and quantity of PT service, customer orientation, etc.
VVs provide regional coordination and successfully promote PT in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland
Total Number of Verkehrsverbuende in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland Expansion of VVs in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, 1967-2017. 80 70 60 50 Austria Switzerland Germany 40 30 20 10 0
Research Goals Distill commonalities of VVs in organizational structure and policies to provide potential lessons for other high income countries. Describe, compare, and analyze the organization of VVs and describe changes to organization since 1990. Identify key policies implemented to increase public transport ridership.
Methods: Case Studies of Six VVs No national databases nor formal standards for data reporting for PT agencies or VVs in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. 6 VVs in the largest cities of Germany, Switzerland, and Austria. Large cities: urban sprawl and fragmentation are most pronounced there Among oldest VVs in each country: observation of changes over time All VVs were successful in increasing ridership Sources of information: In-person and telephone interviews; e-mail exchanges Site visits, online searches Archival research Peer-reviewed academic publications Reports by PT associations; VV and PT agency annual reports
1967; 3.4m; 8,616km 2 1999; 5.9m; 30,374km 2 1980; 4.9m; 7,305km 2 1972; 2.9m; 5,530km 2 1984; 2.8m; 8,841km 2 1990; 1.5m; 1,839km 2
Trend in Public Transportation Annual Passengers per Capita, 1990-2015 500 450 1990 2000 2010 2015 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 VRR (Rhein-Ruhr) VBB (Berlin) HVV (Hamburg) MVV (Munich) VOR (Vienna) ZVV (Zurich)
Overview of Government and Public Transport Agencies Collaborating in VVs Number of Collaborators in Verkehrsverbund Suburban Public Large States Counties / Transport Cities Name City Districts Operators MVV Munich 1 8 1 55 HVV Hamburg* 3 7 1 29 VOR Vienna* 3 0 1 41 VBB Berlin* 2 14 5 42 ZVV Zurich 1 168 1 51 VRR 19 Cities 1 7 19 39 * Hamburg, Berlin and Vienna are not only cities, but also federal states. Thus they appear in both columns.
Founding 1 stakeholder takes lead often at monetary expense Hamburg helped cover operating subsidies of S-Bahn and helped with capital projects Austrian federal government guaranteed revenues for small public transport agencies joining VOR in the 90s Hamburg, Zurich covering losses of small bus operators Often in combination with large infrastructure investments (Vienna, Munich, Berlin, Zurich) Top-down and bottom-up roles: Hamburg (city and PT agency), Vienna (federal gov.), Zurich (referendum), Berlin (federal and state).
Organizational Structures In all VVs: collaboration among governments, among public transport providers, and between governments and public transport agencies. Association not an authority Oldest VVs started as association of companies (HVV, MVV, VRR), where PT providers lead the VV During 1990s, company associations were transformed towards associations of governments/jurisdictions Changes in law and PT financing; need for subsidies and role of governments in providing it Often double role (municipal government is also PT owner) Governments lead newer VVs (VOR, ZVV, VBB).
Typical Tasks of VVs Ticketing, including monthly, annual and tickets for special groups (e.g. students) Marketing, branding and consistent messaging Customer information and service Planning of coordinated public transport services Coordination and distribution of fare revenue Drawing up and overseeing service contracts with PT agencies Quality control and tracking of quality standards set in transport service contracts with PT providers
Policies One Network, One Timetable, One Ticket ; More and better transit service; Full multi-modal and regional integration; Attractive transit fares and convenient ticketing; Compete with the Car Cheap; Easy fare system; Available, Fast Supporting policies High taxes and restrictions on car use; and Land-use policies that promote compact, mixed-use developments.
Trend in Place Kilometers of Public Transport Service per Capita, 90 15 20,000 18,000 1990 2000 2015 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 VRR (Rhein-Ruhr) VBB (Berlin) HVV (Hamburg) MVV (Munich) VOR (Vienna) ZVV (Zurich)
Attractive & convenient trams, buses, metros, and suburban rail trains Source: City of Freiburg Source: City of Berlin Source: author s pictures if not indicated differently
Discounts for Monthly, Annual, and Special Group Tickets, 2016 0 Monthly vs. Single Tickets Annual vs. Single Ticket Seniors* University Students* School Students* -10-20 -30-40 -50-60 -70-80 -90-100 HVV (Hamburg) MVV (Munich) VOR (Vienna) VBB (Berlin) ZVV (Zurich) VRR (Rhein-Ruhr)
Example: 365 Euro Ticket in Vienna Entire City of Vienna for 365 Reduction from 449 Among cheapest annual tickets in Europe Jump in annual tickets from 363k in 11 to 650k in 14 Senior ticket 224 per year Student ticket (high school): 60 Overall: 875 to 940 million trips per year ( 11-15) Source: Krone.at
Constant 2015 Euros Trend in Average Revenue per Passenger Trip, 1990-2015 1.40 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 1.20 1.00 0.80 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 HVV (Hamburg) MVV (Munich) VOR (Vienna) VBB (Berlin) ZVV (Zurich) (in SFR) VRR
Operating Cost Coverage From Fares vs Subsidies, 1990 and 2016 Verkehrsverbund Core City 1990 2016 2016 HVV (Hamburg) 62 72 90 MVV (Munich) 58 80 100 VOR (Vienna) 63 55 69 VBB (Berlin) n.a. 47 74 ZVV (Zurich) 57 65 71 VRR (Rhein-Ruhr) 35 52 n.a.
Lessons VVs successfully increased ridership One Network, One Timetable, One Ticket More and better service Annual, monthly and special tickets Joint cooperation of governments and PT providers Founding of VVs Often one stakeholder took lead Bottom-up and top down Large regional infrastructure investments Favorable land-use and automobile pricing policies
Ralph Buehler, Associate Professor http://ralphbu.wordpress.com THANK YOU