Reports:
Study of European best practice in the delivery of integrated transport: report on stage 1 - benchmarking
8. Large Cities / Metropolitan Areas
KEY LOCAL DETRMINANTS
8.1 Whilst they compare well in terms of population, comparisons of population densities across large cities vary considerably because of the differing urban structure. Manchester, for example, comprises several towns with populations exceeding 200,000, whereas Munich is monocentric, as demonstrated by the high proportion of jobs in the CBD in Table 8.1, and is therefore better suited to public transport.
|
The Extent of the City
Differing definitions of city boundaries have complicated the benchmarking exercise, but generally data refers to the built-up area and tends to comply with the travel to work area. In the case of the UK comparators, this definition covers the entire metropolitan area and so Manchester refers to Greater Manchester and Glasgow covers the Strathclyde area.
|
8.2 Glasgow and Manchester have central area population densities that are higher than the Scandinavian cities, but notably lower than the other western European cities reflecting the past trend of decentralisation. Disparate journey patterns will affect the reach and cost effectiveness of different forms of public transport operations, and with good road networks, this is likely to lead to high car dependency.
Table 8.1 - Demographic and Socio-Economic Indicators
|
Population
(000s) |
Surface Area (km.sq) |
Pop. Density (inhabitants per km.sq) |
Central Area Population Density |
Employment in CBD |
Metrop. GDP per capita (US $) |
|
Manchester |
2,578 |
1,270 |
2,012 |
5,157 |
11 |
14,677 |
|
Milan |
2,460 |
630 |
3,911 |
7,664 |
10 |
24,972 |
|
Munich |
2,391 |
5,500 |
4,320 |
5,566 |
36 |
54,692 |
|
Glasgow |
2,177 |
4,800 |
452 |
3,402 |
13 |
14,698 |
|
Copenhagen |
1,739 |
2,890 |
600 |
2,849 |
14 |
37,058 |
|
Stockholm |
1,725 |
6,490 |
266 |
2,903 |
13 |
33,438 |
|
Vienna |
1,593 |
395 |
4,029 |
6,939 |
12 |
39,316 |
Source: Millennium Cities, Citizens Network, UK Local Authorities, Facilitators.
Data sorted for population.
8.3 There is considerable variation in metropolitan GDP, ranging from $55,000 in Munich to around $14,500 in the UK cities, and this impacts on car ownership, though not necessarily on use (see later sections).
Car Ownership
8.4 Car ownership tends to correlate with GDP; Munich, the wealthiest city in the sample, also has the highest number of cars per head and Glasgow and Manchester, the poorest cities, have amongst the lowest cars per head. The pattern is broken by Copenhagen which has high GDP per capita but relatively low car ownership, and Milan, which has a much higher than expected car ownership, as shown in Table 8.2.
Table 8.2 - Car Ownership
|
Cars per
1,000 pop |
Wealth Ranking |
PTW per 1,000 pop |
|
Munich |
530 |
1 |
26 |
|
Milan |
406 |
5 |
49 |
|
Stockholm |
386 |
4 |
16 |
|
Vienna |
380 |
2 |
29 |
|
Manchester |
372 |
7 |
6 |
|
Glasgow |
306 |
6 |
3 |
|
Copenhagen |
275 |
3 |
9 |
Source: Millennium Cities, Citizens Network, TERM.
8.5 Milan also has very high levels of PTW ownership - 10 times that of UK cities.
Supply of Roads and Parking
8.6 Glasgow has the highest level of road provision in the sample. The city's supply of urban motorways is also higher than other western European cities, though not as high as the lower density Scandinavian cities, as shown in Table 8.3.
Table 8.3 - Supply of Roads
| Length of Road
(m per 1,000 pop) | (Rank) | Motorway
(m per 1,000 pop) | (Rank) | Motorway Density
(m/ha) | (Rank) |
|---|
| Glasgow | 4791 | (1) | 90 | (3) | 3.1 | (4) |
| Copenhagen | 4574 | (2) | 119 | (2) | 3.4 | (3) |
| Stockholm | 4496 | (3) | 130 | (1) | 3.8 | (2) |
| Manchester | 3219 | (4) | 58 | (5) | 3.0 | (5) |
| Milan | 2317 | (5) | 67 | (4) | 5.1 | (1) |
| Vienna | 1773 | (6) | 26 | (6) | 1.8 | (7) |
| Munich | 1718 | (7) | 45 | (7) | 2.5 | (6) |
Source: Millennium Cities, Citizens Network, TERM 2000.
8.7 The UK cities have amongst the highest provision of central area parking, and Manchester has relatively high parking charges, though Glasgow has the lowest charges in the sample, as shown in Table 8.4 and Figure 8.1. Despite high car ownership, Milan has a surprisingly low parking supply which may be a significant influence on modal choice.
Table 8.4 - Parking Provision
|
Spaces per 1,000 jobs in CBD |
Rank |
P&R facilities
per 10,000 ha |
Rank |
|
Manchester |
348 |
1 |
12 |
3 |
|
Munich |
271 |
2 |
43 |
1 |
|
Glasgow |
230 |
3 |
11 |
5 |
|
Copenhagen |
221 |
4 |
14 |
2 |
|
Vienna |
211 |
5 |
7 |
6 |
|
Stockholm |
137 |
6 |
12 |
3 |
|
Milan |
107 |
7 |
4 |
7 |
Source: Citizens Network, Millennium Cities, NCP car parks, Local Web data.
8.8 Recent investment in multi-modal integration in Munich (see Stage 2 case study) is apparent from the extremely high provision of park and ride sites.
Figure 8.1 - Parking Charges
Source: Millennium Cities, except Munich data taken from Stage 2 case study.
Note: Data relates to maximum cost of parking in central area.
Supply of Public Transport
8.9 The UK cities compare poorly against overseas in terms of the provision of public transport. Manchester has the lowest supply of services (timetabled vehicle-kilometres) per capita and lowest density of services in the sample, as shown in Figure 8.2. Glasgow has a mid-level supply, but again a low network density.
8.10 Stockholm has the highest network supply, reflecting its large geographical area and good coverage by metro and light rail. Munich has the densest network; there is an intensive integrated metro, light and heavy rail network and as any areas beyond 600m of a metro station or 400m of a tram stop are served by feeder buses.
8.11 Overseas cities also have much higher provision of segregated track and busways (Table 8.5).
Table 8.5 - Reserved Routes
| Route
kms per ha |
|---|
| Munich | 15 |
| Stockholm | 13 |
| Vienna | 12 |
| Copenhagen | 8 |
| Milan | 8 |
| Glasgow | 7 |
| Manchester | 5 |
Source: Millennium Cities.
Figure 8.2 - Supply of Public Transport
Source: Millennium Cities, Citizens Network, Facilitators.
Investment in Infrastructure
8.12 Comparison of annual investment levels in Table 8.6 shows that:
- Vienna has the highest per capita investment in public transport which is apparent from the city's high quality integrated network of easily accessible metro, tram/light rail and bus systems. Munich has the second highest investment levels, and again the city has a high quality multi-modal network with spend focussed on extending coverage, further improving passenger information and new technology.
- The UK cities have the lowest level of investment in public transport; typically a tenth of Vienna and Munich. In sharp contrast, Glasgow has the highest spend on roads per capita.
Table 8.6 - Investment in Infrastructure
|
Investment in Public Transport1 |
Investment in Roads2 |
|
Euros per
capita |
Rank
|
Euros per
capita |
Rank
|
|
Vienna |
464 |
1 |
166 |
4 |
|
Munich |
221 |
2 |
121 |
6 |
|
Stockholm |
83 |
3 |
194 |
2 |
|
Copenhagen |
63 |
4 |
192 |
3 |
|
Milan |
63 |
5 |
27 |
7 |
|
Manchester |
32 |
6 |
149 |
5 |
|
Glasgow |
23 |
7 |
215 |
1 |
Source: Based on Millennium Cities. 1: Total annual spending on public transport excluding direct operating expenses.
2: Total annual investment and maintenance spend by all levels of government and major private road operators on all types of roads.
Relative Costs of Transport
8.13 The UK cities have the most expensive public transport fares and amongst the lowest costs for car travel in the sample, as illustrated by Figure 8.3.
Figure 8.3 - Comparative Costs of Transport
Source: Millennium Cities.
Note: Car costs include fixed costs, depreciation, insurance and running costs.
Costs do not include user time. PPP adjusted.
8.14 Glasgow has the lowest public/private transport cost differential - much lower than Milan and Stockholm, and this is likely to be a significant influence on public transport modal share in these cities.
MOBILITY & MODAL CHOICE
8.15 Table 8.7 shows that:
- Manchester has the lowest levels of motorised travel (by car and public transport, excluding PTW) and Stockholm and Munich have the highest - more than twice as much as Manchester.
- Glasgow has the highest volume of car travel per capita, despite having the second lowest car ownership, and amongst the lowest use of public transport.
- Munich has the greatest use of public transport and the most sustainable ratio of car to total car and PT use, despite having relatively high car use.
Table 8.7 - Motorised Travel
| Pkm Per Person | Pkm Per Person, PPP adjusted |
| Car | Public
Transport | Car | Public
Transport | Total | (Rank) | Car/
Car+PT (%) |
|---|
| Stockholm | 5041 | 2317 | 4991 | 2294 | 7285 | (1) | 69 |
| Munich | 4548 | 2622 | 4212 | 2428 | 6640 | (2) | 63 |
| Glasgow | 5375 | 884 | 5322 | 876 | 6198 | (3) | 86 |
| Copenhagen | 4672 | 1704 | 3926 | 1432 | 5358 | (4) | 73 |
| Milan | 3698 | 1480 | 3698 | 1480 | 5178 | (5) | 71 |
| Vienna | 4064 | 1642 | 3661 | 1480 | 5141 | (6) | 71 |
| Manchester | 2579 | 541 | 2554 | 535 | 3089 | (7) | 83 |
Source: Based on Millennium Cities.
Trip Rates & Journey Lengths
8.16 Manchester has the lowest overall level of trip-making in the sample, and the lowest number of trips being made by public transport, as illustrated in Figure 8.4. Dominance of the car over public transport is also visible in Glasgow, though the city has good numbers of walking trips.
8.17 Munich has the lowest car trip rate and also a high number of trips by public transport and cycle, despite the city's high car ownership. Copenhagen has the highest number of cycle trips and the UK cities have the lowest.
Figure 8.4 - Comparative Costs of Transport
Source: Based on Millennium Cities.
8.18 Average journey lengths are also low in Manchester (see Figure 8.5), suggesting dependence on the car for short trips and also greater use of local centres both for work - the low share of jobs in the CBD has already been noted in Table 8.1 - and other purposes.
Figure 8.5 - Average Trip Length
Source: Based on Millennium Cities.
8.19 Trip lengths are highest in Stockholm, which is also the most geographically dispersed city in the sample, and Munich, because of its role as the regional centre with a very large employment catchment area (see Stage 2 Case Study report).
Modal Split
8.20 Figure 8.6 compares modal shares between large cities and demonstrates that:
- UK cities have the highest share of trips by car/PTW, despite low car ownership:
- UK cities have the lowest proportion of trips by public transport; Glasgow, in particular, has about half the share of Milan and Munich and nearly a third of Vienna.
- UK cities have the lowest share of cycling, just a fraction of Copenhagen and Munich; however,
- we compare well on overall use of non-motorised modes because we have more walking than overseas cities.
Figure 8.6 - Modal Share of All Trips
Source: Millennium Cities, Citizen's Network.
Public Transport Shares
8.21 Metro tends to be the backbone of the transport system, as shown in Table 8.9. The main exception is Glasgow; the world's third oldest metro (opened in 1896) has just 10.4km of track, compared to 139km in Munich and 61km in Vienna.
Table 8.8 - Public Transport Modal Shares in Cities with Metro Systems
|
% of Total PT Passenger Kms Per Capita Per Year |
|
Vienna |
Munich |
Milan |
Stockholm |
Glasgow |
|
Metro |
47 |
34 |
36 |
36 |
2 |
|
Suburban Rail |
21 |
46 |
28 |
28 |
30 |
|
Tram |
19 |
5 |
15 |
n/a |
n/a |
|
Bus |
13 |
15 |
22 |
35 |
68 |
Source: EMTA, Towards a sustainable mobility in the European metropolitan areas, 2000.
Change in Modal Shares
8.22 Time series data is limited, however, for the cities where data exists:
- The car modal share in Glasgow and Manchester has grown by about 10% in the last 10 years whereas it has remained almost constant in Milan and Munich.
- Public transport modal share has fallen by about a third in the UK cities[19], but risen slightly in Milan and Munich.
- Walking and cycling modal share has fallen by about 20% in Manchester, fallen slightly in Munich (cycling has increased by 2%, but walking has fallen by about 3%) and changed little in Glasgow.
ROAD SAFETY
8.23 The UK cities compare reasonably well on road safety performance. Manchester has a low fatality risk per 100,000 inhabitants, second only to Stockholm, as shown in Table 8.10. However, it has a lower level of trip making by car (demonstrated in Figure 8.4) and so the exposure rate is high.
Table 8.9 - Fatality Risk
|
Fatalities per 100,000 Pop |
Rank |
Fatalities per
bn veh kms |
Rank |
|
Stockholm |
3.6 |
1 |
6.5 |
1 |
|
Manchester |
4.3 |
2 |
18.5 |
6 |
|
Glasgow1 |
4.6 |
3 |
11.8 |
3 |
|
Munich |
5.7 |
4 |
11.6 |
2 |
|
Vienna |
7.4 |
5 |
17.2 |
4 |
|
Copenhagen |
8.6 |
6 |
17.5 |
5 |
|
Milan |
12.7 |
7 |
31.5 |
7 |
Source: http://www.destatis.de, Millennium Cities, RAGB 2000.
1: Data for city supplied by Glasgow City Council#.
8.24 Information on changes in casualty rates over time and injury accidents has not been included because of scarcity of data and inconsistencies, with some authorities including all injuries, and other just serious injuries, in records.
CONGESTION & ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES
Congestion
8.25 Comparison of average speed and road utilisation (vehicle kms per unit length of road) in Figure 8.7 shows that Vienna has the worst congestion in the sample with the slowest average traffic speed, an apparent function of high levels of traffic. The congestion may be partly due to the low car occupancy rate (see panel).
|
Vehicle Occupancy
Copenhagen - 1.70
Stockholm - 1.68
Glasgow - 1.41
Manchester - 1.33
Munich - 1.30
Milan - 1.30
Vienna - 1.20
Source: Millennium Cities, UK Local Authorities.
|
8.26 Glasgow and Manchester have reasonably high average speeds, reflecting the relatively low road utilisation and higher speed limits than overseas cities.
8.27 Munich has the heaviest traffic but maintains a higher than expected speed because of the city's clearly defined road hierarchy and investment in telematics to develop an extensive traffic management system. The Scandinavian cities have the best traffic conditions, with high speeds associated with low traffic flows. This may well be due to higher vehicle occupancy rates in these cities.
Figure 8.7 - Congestion Levels
Source: Based on Millennium Cities.
8.28 Traffic congestion and provision of segregated busways clearly influences average bus speeds, as demonstrated in Table 8.11. The Scandinavian cities, which have the least congested roads and greatest degree of segregation (Table 8.5), have the fastest buses.
8.29 Glasgow also performs well, despite mid levels of congestion, because of the relatively good provision of priority measures.
Table 8.10 - Average Bus Speed
| |
Average All-Day Speed (kph) |
|
Stockholm |
28 |
|
Glasgow |
26 |
|
Copenhagen |
24 |
|
Munich |
21 |
|
Manchester |
19 |
|
Vienna |
17 |
|
Milan |
15 |
Source: Millennium Cities, Facilitators.
Emissions
8.30 The large cities tend to perform worse than the world cities in terms of per capita production of both NOx and SO2, reflecting their greater levels of industrial activity.
Table 8.11 - Emissions (kg per capita)
| |
NOx |
(Rank) |
SO2 |
(Rank) |
CO |
(Rank) |
VHC |
(Rank) |
|
Munich |
20.3 |
(1) |
4.7 |
(1) |
71 |
(3) |
4.7 |
(1) |
|
Manchester |
17.5 |
(2) |
0.9 |
(4) |
61.3 |
(5) |
0.9 |
(4) |
|
Glasgow |
14.7 |
(3) |
0.5 |
(5) |
54.1 |
(6) |
0.5 |
(5) |
|
Copenhagen |
14.5 |
(4) |
0.3 |
(7) |
69 |
(4) |
0.3 |
(6) |
|
Milan |
10.6 |
(5) |
2.9 |
(3) |
96 |
(2) |
2.9 |
(3) |
|
Stockholm |
8.7 |
(6) |
0.4 |
(6) |
108.6 |
(1) |
0.3 |
(7) |
|
Vienna |
4.1 |
(7) |
3.1 |
(2) |
48.8 |
(7) |
3.1 |
(2) |
Source: Millennium Cities.
8.31 Munich has the worse record of NOx, SO2 and VHC emissions, as shown in Table 8.12) and this is to be expected given its strong manufacturing base. However, there is no clear pattern for the rest of the sample; Glasgow performs relatively well on VHC, CO and SO2 emissions, while Manchester appears to have average levels of pollutants.
ACCESSIBILITY & SOCIAL EXCLUSION
8.32 Milan and Vienna have the shortest commute journeys in the sample (Table 8.12). Distances in Stockholm, Glasgow and Copenhagen are longer, reflecting their larger geographical size.
Table 8.12 - Accessibility to Employment
|
Average Distance
to Work (km) |
Rank |
|
Manchester1 |
7.0 |
1 |
|
Milan |
7.5 |
2 |
|
Vienna |
7.5 |
2 |
|
Munich |
9.4 |
4 |
|
Copenhagen |
12.4 |
5 |
|
Stockholm |
13.2 |
6 |
|
Glasgow2 |
13.3 |
7 |
Source: Millennium Cities, except 1: Greater Manchester Trans-portation Unit, 1991 and 2: Scottish Travel Statistics, 1997/99.
Support for Public Transport
8.33 As expected, greater private sector involvement has led to higher cost-effectiveness in the UK cities, with commercial revenue covering more than 80% of the operating costs (and ticket sales covering more than 70%), as shown in Table 8.13.
Table 8.13 - Revenue Source for Public Transport (% of operating cost)
|
|
Commercial Revenue |
Subsidy |
|
Bus only: |
Manchester |
78 |
22 |
|
Glasgow |
73 |
27 |
|
Copenhagen |
53 |
47 |
|
Milan |
40 |
60 |
|
Vienna |
30 |
70 |
|
Public transport system: |
Munich |
59 |
41 |
|
Stockholm |
48 |
52 |
|
Vienna |
41 |
59 |
Source: JUTS 2000. Commercial revenue includes farebox, other commercial revenue and reimbursement for concessionary fares. Subsidy includes Fuel Duty Rebate (=10% of operating cost) in UK.
Concessionary Fares
8.34 UK cities appear to be in-line with overseas cities in terms of concessions and discounts, as shown in Table 8.14.
Table 8.14 - Concessionary Fares Summary Table
|
Copenhagen |
2 children under 10 can travel free with adult, at least a 1/3rd discount for senior citizens |
|
Glasgow |
Child fares offer 1/3rd off. Children living more than two miles (under 8s) and three miles (8s and over) eligible for free travel to their 'designated' school under UK legislation. Flat fare of 40p for eligible elderly and disabled passengers |
|
Manchester |
Child fare 36p flat rate, extended to 16-18 yr students to and from college. Children living more than two miles (under 8s) and three miles (8s and over) eligible for free travel to their 'designated' school under UK legislation. Flat fare scheme for pensioners, typically 40p. |
|
Milan |
Monthly passes at 1/2 price elderly, 1/4 price student/child, nominal fee disabled |
|
Munich |
Discounts for under 21s and free travel for schoolchildren. Pensioners and discounted family/group tickets available. Very low or free travel for disabled depending on impairment. |
|
Stockholm |
40% off some tickets and passes for under 18s - under 11s free with adult at weekends |
|
Vienna |
Schemes operate for senior citizens (cheap annual pass), school passes, apprentices, disabled and semester based student passes. |
Source: Facilitators, UK Local Authority Websites.
19: More recently the decline in bus patronage in Glasgow has been arrested, despite intense competition between the two main operators.
[ Previous ]
[ Contents ]
[ Next ]
