Transcript UTBI: a learning process

Laurent
Franckx
UTBI, Final
conference, 16
June 2006
Public Transport
Organisation and
Policy: summary of
year three findings
Launch workshop year three
Working group decided to pursue three
topics:
Diversification of revenue sources
Fare Policy
Strategies to reduce costs of operations
Approach:
less important to focus upon the collection
of the data and the comparability of
quantitative indicators
pursue exchange of good practices
use each site visit to focus upon one of
the three issues
include information about good practices
from outside the group
1st meeting (Rotterdam, 5-6 January 2006):
Fares policy and ticketing system
Decision making process regarding fare policy?
Objectives of fare policy?
Criteria used for the fixation of fares (with
distinction by mode if applicable)?
What is the fare structure (geographical, modal,
by operators)?
What is the level of integration or differentiation
between modes?
(How) are revenues shared between modes and
operators?
Plans concerning the use of smart cards?
Decision making process
Completely free, but with some
supported routes
Operator proposes, authority has
final say :
Local
Both local and central
Central government only
Objectives
Mostly vague (“increase market
share for PT”, “preserve balance
revenues/costs”)
Germany: PT is both economic
service and service of general
interest
Northern Ireland: move from
maximising of revenue to
maximising of patronage
Fare integration
Full integration across modes and
operators (Brussels)
Gradual move to fare integration
(Bucharest)
Germany:
– most organizing authorities have
integrated fares for all modes of PT
–objective: nationwide system
Why not full integration:
–Dublin: cost issues… who pays
(operators, Gov, fare increases)
– Northern Ireland: differing fare
structure policy of 3 companies
– Merseyside: competition law
(Single/return tickets) but fully integrated
season tickets
Fare structure
Zonal systems (most German
systems/Merseyside season tickets)
Flat fare, limited in time (Brussels)
Flat fares with zones (Belfast)
Distance traveled (Ulsterbus, Dublin,
single/return tickets in Merseyside)
Different systems according to operator
(Northern Ireland, Merseyside)
Smart cards
Advantages:
– Possible solution to the problem of
revenue allocation
– Important input to management
information
–Fare dodging
– allows for a differentiated fare policy
–Security reasons
Most cities have implemented system or
have concrete plans
Nationwide system is being implemented
in Netherlands
Germany and UK: discussion on
nationwide system
2nd meeting (Berlin, 13-14 March 2006):
alternative sources of revenue
Revenue sources (subsidies, compensation
for public service obligation, tax
exemptions, earmarked taxes, land value
capture, advertising, supply of services)
Funding of exploitation versus funding of
investment
Public-Private Partnership
Government funding:
conditionality
rationale
Coherence with regulatory responsibilities?
Debt finance
Public subsidies
In all networks discussed:
–For PSO requirements
–Compensations for concessionary fares (in
Germany: not considered to be subsidy)
In some networks: capital grants
Can be implicit:
–Fuel tax rebate
–Government guarantee for borrowing
Particularity in Germany: only for new
investment, not maintenance
Earmarked taxes
No earmarking of taxes at all
Several operators and OA are in
favor
Congestion charging: Even if not
earmarked, leads to increase of
speed of PT (and thus improved
attractiveness)
PPP
Not widely used
Possible advantages:
–Technical efficiency
–Avoids annual budgeting
–Risk transfer
Disadvantages:
–Higher cost of borrowing
–Binding long run contracts
Other sources of revenues
Land value capture: Used in UK (very limited –section
106) and Ireland (but not Northern Ireland)
Cross-subsidies: important in Germany
Advertising
Services: car parking, hire of busses, car maintenance,
use of PT infrastructure by telecom firms
European Regional Development Fund (Merseyside)
Borrowing (very limited):
Bucharest: EIB
Translink: no bank loans/bond issues but overdraft facility
Merseyside: prudential borrowing can be used
3rd meeting (Brussels, June 6): cost
reduction strategies
For organising authorities :
–How to provide incentives for cost reduction
without affecting other desirable objectives
(environmental performance, public service
obligations, quality, safety,...)
–main obstacles to innovation
–How to measure cost efficiency
–Use of incentives based on comparative
performance
For operators: impact of costs of:
–human resources management
–fleet management, and in particular maintenance
–energy costs
–Information technology
–main regulatory obstacles
Authority’s viewpoint
Commercial network relies on competitive
pressure to drive down costs
BUT: problems with market imperfections: high
barriers to entry
Contract can provide quality incentives and
leave revenue risks to operator
With vertical disintegration: track, signalling not
controlled by operator
Authority could impose technological
innovation (smart cards, light rail material
on heavy rail infrastructure, BRT)
Issues in tendering
Open market tendering for
concessions should improve cost
efficiency
BUT:
–High cost of tendering; few candidates
–Cost accounting: measurements
methods, definitions,
–Information sharing with
decentralisation and tendering
Sources for cost reduction
Transport Operator factors
–Minimise staff levels without adverse affect on quality
–Sub-contracting
–Performance Monitoring Drivers' training (quality)
–Reduce Absenteeism
–Multi Tasking (especially in engineering)
–Keep average fleet age low (6 years?)
–Warranty policy
–Focus on accident and third party claim reductions
–Budget meeting and strict policy on price comparisons
–Benchmark to other Operators
Operator and Authority Factors
–Improve bus speeds (Quality Bus Corridors and BRT)
–Faster Passenger Boarding
–Seasonal schedules to reflect changing speeds, demand
General conclusion
Wide variety of approaches, highly
dependent on regulatory context
There is no single best approach
Best practices should suit local requirements
However:
–
–
–
some potential has remained untapped
Ongoing informal dialogues between
practitioners is essential for
dissemination of experience
Change is a long-term issue