How can we compare one local passenger transport system with another?
This was the question that the European Commission's pilot benchmarking project (1998-99) set out to answer.
We asked authorities and operators from fifteen cities and regions to test out a questionnaire with 132 questions (indicators).
This was hard work. For some of the indicators, many of the cities and regions simply did not have the relevant data. For others, differences in how cities and regions count things meant that it was not possible to make meaningful comparisons. For other indicators, the data - when we looked at it - did not show anything useful.
At the end of the test, 38 indicators remained where we can present good, useful data to compare transport in the fifteen cities and regions. These are presented in the charts that follow.
Even among these indicators, there are some important differences in methods of counting and calculation in the different cities and regions. The footnotes to the charts explain these differences, and give extra information.
THE INDICATORS
A. The cities/regions - some basic facts
What do the indicators cover?
The project aimed to help cities and regions answer two types of question:
The first type of question was more difficult.
All the cities and regions want to encourage greater use of alternatives to cars and other forms of private motorised transport. The pilot project gave information on the proportion of passenger trips made by different forms of transport ('modal split'). In themselves, these figures are difficult to compare, because of differences in counting methods and differences in the cities and regions themselves. It is natural to see a greater use of cars in smaller cities like Terni (Italy) or Oulu (Finland), for example, than in large cities and agglomerations like Ile de France (France) or Prague (Czech Republic).
However, it is possible to overcome these problems by comparing how modal shares are changing over time. Whatever the starting point, the project showed that in some cities the proportion of trips made by car and powered two wheelers is rising fast, while in others it is falling and the market share of alternatives is growing - see chart A3.1.
We were also able to carry out a basic comparison of trends in the frequency with which air quality thresholds are being breached - see chart G1.1.
Sections B, C, D, E and F bring together, for the first time, comparative information on local and regional transport systems in different European cities and regions. These are the 'inputs' that are the subject of the second type of question we wanted to answer.
This information can be used, for example, to get an idea of European good practice in terms of the provision of park and ride parking spaces (chart B2.5), the commercial speed of buses (chart B3.3), or the provision of cycle paths (chart D2.1).
How to use this information
This information will allow you to:
This is not a beauty contest. It is not a tool for the European Commission, or other outsiders, to establish league tables of cities and regions. It is not a tool for academics. It is intended to help practitioners in cities make transport better - we hope it achieves this.
The next steps
In the new Citizens' Network benchmarking initiative we will work with cities, regions and rural areas to:
For more information please e-mail citizen@dg7.cec.be