Transcript THIS PRESENTATION

REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND
LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
TRANSPORT TEACHING MATERIAL
Transparencies 2003
EU-funded Urban Transport Research Project Results
www.eu-portal.net
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
MODULE 1 DEFINITION
INTRODUCTION TO LEARNING MATERIALS
KT Regulatory framework of public transport contains:
• legal and
• organisational aspects
Transparency, efficiency and quality are the keys for a friendly and
efficient PT.
• The co-existence of authorities and operators, the necessary
allocation of responsibilities sharing of risks as well as co-ordinated
”pull” and ”push” measures are other crucial issues
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
SOURCES
The following EU-objects served as key sources for this KT:
• ISOTOPE (improved structure and organisation for transport
operations of passengers in Europe)
• MARETOPE (managing and assessing regulatory evolution in
local public transport operations in Europe)
• QUATTRO (quality approach in tendering urban public
transport operations)
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
NATIONAL DIFFERENCES
Short description of the national
differences in the following parts of
Europe.
The following categories of financing
can be distinguished:
• UK
• Western Europe
• Central Europe
Capital cities regions are often approached in a different
manner than rest of the country.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
MODULE 2
Structure of presentation
• Definition
• Sources
• Right of initiative
• Levels of planning and control in PT
• Contractual relationships between actors
• Quality assurance in PT
• Financing and subsiding
• Differences and Examples
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
RIGHT OF INITIATIVE
• competition on the road (UK) market initiative
• competition off the road (very common throughout the EU) authority initiative
Organisational forms
Note!
Tendering of the
realization is
possible in all
models!
Authority initiative
Public
system
Source: MARETOPE
Concession
Market initiative
Authorisation
Open entry
Delegated
management
Dominated by private
companies)
Public
management
Dominated by public
companies)
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
RIGHT OF INITIATIVE
The market initiative regimes have as common characteristic that
commercially viable services are meant to appear out of autonomous market
processes.
Authority initiative regimes
have as common characteristic
that services can only result
from a conscious action by the
authority. As such no services
can appear as result of simple
market forces as no legal
provision makes such
autonomous entry possible.
Organisational forms
Note!
Tendering of the
realization is
possible in all
models!
Authority initiative
Public
system
Concession
Market initiative
Authorisation
Open entry
Delegated
management
Dominated by private
companies)
Public
management
Dominated by public
companies)
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
It is important to state that few real-world examples will fully
correspond to any of these theoretical organisational forms.
. Normally it is a blurry blend of several forms
Organisational forms
Authority initiative
Open entry
...
Temporary non-exlusive
authorisation
...
Temporary exclusive
authorisation
...
Perpetual exclusive
authorisation
Concession
...
Delegated management
...
Central planning & outsourcing
...
Public management
Source: MARETOPE
Market initiative
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
MODULE 3
Organisational forms
Open entry
...
Temporary non-exlusive
authorisation
...
Temporary exclusive
authorisation
...
Perpetual exclusive
authorisation
Concession
...
Delegated management
...
Central planning & outsourcing
...
Public management
Source: MARETOPE
Market initiative
Authority initiative
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
LEVELS OF PLANNING AND CONTROL IN PT
Level
Decision
General description
Strategic
What do we
want to achieve?
„Software
General goals:
General description
of the services:
Long term (5 year)
Tactical
Which services can help to
achieve these aims?
Medium term (1-2 year)
Operational
Short term (1-6 months)
Source: MARETOPE
How to produce these
services?
„Hardware“
transport policy
market share
profitability
area
target groups
intermodality
Detailed service characteristics
fares
image
additional services
Sales
selling activities
information to the
public…
vehicles
routes
timetable
Production
infrastructure management
vehicle rostering and maint.
personnel rostering and mngt.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
EXAMPLE: TENDERING OF THE DESIGN
AND REALISATION (CONCESSIONING)
The freedom of operators is
limited by the minimum
standards defined by the
concessioning agency which
organises the tendering of all
services, area-wise,
according to the instructions
of the transport authority.
In many cases decisions pertaining to one topic, such as fares or routes, will
not be attributed totally to soley one actor.
Source: MARETOPE
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
Actor
“The People”
Transport Authority
Political
council
Relation
Strategic
Source: MARETOPE
Transporters
Independant
Organisation
Private
companies
Instructions
Contract with
tenderung
organisation
Transp. Pol.
Social pol.
((discussion)
((discussion)
Mobil. Std.
Accessib. Std.
(Min.std.)
(Min.std.)
(Min.std.)
((Min.std.)
(Min. std .)
(Mid. std .)
Competitive tendering
Operational
Hierarchical
control
Translation
Tactical
Democratic
al control
Transport
Department
Tendering
organisation
Fares
Routes
Timetable
Vehicle type
Sale
Information
Person. Mngt.
Vehicle Mngt.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
MODULE 4: CONTRACTUAL
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACTORS
Contracts in the public transport world usually divide between
production cost risks and revenue risks. Risks can be shared in
various ways implying many intermediate forms of contracts are
thinkable as can be seen in the shaded boxes.
Production risk borne by
Authority
Revenue risk borne by
Authority
Operator
Source: MARETOPE
Operator
Management
Contract
(M)
M with
Productivity
incentives
GC with
Shared
production risk
Gross Cost
Contract
(GC)
M with
Revenue
incentives
M with
productivity and
revenue incentives
GC with
rev. incentives and
shared prod. risk
GC with
Revenue
incentives
NC with
shared revenue and
production risk
NC with
Shared
revenue risk
NC with
Shared
production risk
Net Cost
Contract
(NC)
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
Production risk borne by
Authority
Revenue risk borne by
Authority
Operator
Source: MARETOPE
Operator
Management
Contract
(M)
M with
Productivity
incentives
GC with
Shared
production risk
Gross Cost
Contract
(GC)
M with
Revenue
incentives
M with
productivity and
revenue incentives
GC with
rev. incentives and
shared prod. risk
GC with
Revenue
incentives
NC with
shared revenue and
production risk
NC with
Shared
revenue risk
NC with
Shared
production risk
Net Cost
Contract
(NC)
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
CONFLICT TYPES
There are internal (industrial relations) and external (between an
authority and an operator) and will vary in their magnitude of
importance.
Contracts should include provision for remedy covering all the
risks that may be foreseen at the outset. Flexibility is one
important part to guarantee a sustainable service which can cope
with future challenges.
CONFLICT
TYPES
Responsabilities
Source: ISOTOPE
Finance
Objectives
to Reach
Fare Policy
Perfomance
Other
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
OWNERSHIP VERSUS USAGE
The figure presents possible combinations of public or private
ownership with public or private management indicating different
types of contracts between government and state-owned enterprises,
private managers of
state assets and
private monopoly,
respectively.
Source: MARETOPE
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
Ownership
Public
Private
Management
Private
Delegated management
Private concession
(wb: Management contract)
(wb: Regulatory contract)
Public management
(wb: Performance contract)
Public
Source: MARETOPE
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
FIXED VERSUS FLEXIBLE PLANNING
In the context of tendering, decision making at the tactical level
can be organised.
• prior to the contracting out and operators have no tactical powers
(London, Copenhagen)
• (prior to the contracting out and operators have some tactical
powers (Helsingborg, Sundsvall)
• during the contracting out (Netherlands, France) simultaneously
with the contracting out of the operational level
• during the contracting out not simultaneously with the
contractingout of the operational level
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
FIXED VERSUS FLEXIBLE PLANNING
These various forms are ordered in into four main options for the
place of the tactical (T) decisions.
T Determined
During
contracting/tendering
T Changes
During
contract
T Fixed
During
contract
Source: MARETOPE
T Determined
prior to
contracting/tendering
Contracting/tendering of:
Contracting/tendering of:
 The Development and
 the realisation
 with redevelopment incentives.
 the realisation
 with redevelopment incentives.
Contracting/tendering of:
Contracting/tendering of:
 The Development and
 the realisation
 the realisation
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
MODULE 5 QUALITY ASSURANCE
Quality loop
Word-of-mouth
The quality loop is based on four
distinctive benchmarks:
Past experience
Perceived
Expectation
of quality
Analysing differences between
these four benchmarks (see figure
11) help decision-makers to improve
Gap 3
their service.
Personal needs
Gap 1
Gap 2
Planned
quality
Expected
quality
Gap 6
Perceived
quality
Realised
quality
Gap 4
Stated
quality
Provider
Source: MARETOPE (on the basis of QUATTRO),
Competitive
alternatives
Gap 5
Customer
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
MODULE 5
Word-of-mouth
Past experience
Perceived
Expectation
of quality
Quality loop
Personal needs
Gap 1
Gap 2
Planned
quality
Competitive
alternatives
Expected
quality
Gap 3
Gap 6
Perceived
quality
Realised
quality
Gap 4
Stated
quality
Provider
Source: MARETOPE (on the basis of QUATTRO)
Gap 5
Customer
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
CONTRACT DESIGN
The contract should specify:
• objectives of continuous improvement
• tools and responsibilities, including measurement
and/or monitoring programs
• consequences of the measures, including financial incentives
and/or penalties
• control of these results
• recourse procedure in the case of non application of the contract
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
CONTRACT DESIGN
This specification of services should stimulate operators and
authorities to cover all operational/tactical fields of interest by
the continuous improvement system:
• Transport (including access/exit by users)
• Connections (inside UPT/with other
modes)
• Information to customers (static/real time)
• Fares and sales system
• Environmental impact (in a broad sense)
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
MODUL 6 INTEGRATION
The contract should specify:
• Logical integration
• Physical integration
• Traffic integration
Continuous improvement
By ”continuous improvement” of urban public transport, we consider
the need for continuous adjustment of the service design and of the
organisation in charge of providing the service, in order to maintain or
increase its value. Innovation in service and management is generated
by continuous improvement systems.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS AND LEGISLATION IN PUBLIC TRANSPORT
FINANCING AND SUBSIDING
Pricing and financing in Urban Transport are closely related
concepts since the level of prices determines the self-financing
capacity, and consequently the need for subsidies.
The following categories of financing can be distinguished:
•
•
•
•
Transport users contributions
Contributions from public sources and public companies
Contributions from other beneficiaries
Private sources