Financing Public Transportation Operations

Transcription

1 Financing Public Transportation Operations Case-Study Berlin Ingeborg Junge-Reyer Presidency C4 Senator for Urban Development, Berlin Berlin in numbers Population Area City:.4 Million Metropolitan Region: 4.4 Million City: 892 km² Metropolitan Region: 5,22 km² Inner City Urban Area Berlin Metropolitan Area Transport Infrastructure (2004, City only) Public Roads 5,42 km Bus Lanes Railway Network 102 km Urban Rail (S-Bahn) Underground (U-Bahn) Regional Rail Light Rail (Tram) 257 km 12 stations 144 km 170 stations 152 km 15 stations 187 km 2 1

2 Overcoming past separation Urban Rail Completed since 1990 Underground Completed since 1990 Light Rail Completed since 1990 Highways since 1990 Other roads since 1990 Few cars high mobility Private cars per 1,000 inhabitants less than to to to 500 more than % Modal Split in Berlin 90% 80% 5 8 Car 70% 60% 50% 40% 0% 20% 10% Public Transport Cycling Walking 0%

3 Investing into mobility Transport Infrastructure Investments in Mio Roads Urban Rail Underground Light Rail but requiring efficiency. 5 Standardised assessment for investments into public transport infrastructure Background: High-quality public transport network But: need to carefully calculate pros and cons of infrastructure investments Which funds are needed to retain the existing infrastructure on a continuing basis and in the long-run? Which funds are needed to improve or extent public transport supply? Methodology aims at: Providing information on entirety of economic consequences of a planned public transport project create legal foundation for funding 6

4 Standardised Assessment - 1st step Comparison of situation without project vs. situation with project (including planning alternatives) Calculation of costs and benefits using data on: Costs: Investment, Maintenance, Operation (Staff, Energy, Vehicles) Transport development (travel times, passenger numbers, car demand, environmental impacts, accidents) Qualitative input data (e.g. travel time) in a monetarised manner For every planning alternative individually For every year of the infrastructure lifecycle Result: Benefit-cost-indicator If 1: Move on to 2nd step, which is estimation of Follow-up costs If < 2: Project will not be pursued any further 7 Case Study: Extension of Tram Line 1 Towards City Centre (Hackescher Markt) Key data for present line: Length about 1.5 km Total 8 stops Approx. 7,000 passengers per day (even more in city centre) Serviced during daytime hours Nighttime service: only for existing line part Different views on future service: City Transport Operator Existing Line: should remain Existing Line: Upgrading planned (est. costs 6 Mio. ) Planned Extension Tram to be closed down + substituted by bus service No extension 8 4

5 1 The planning alternatives Renovation and upgrading of existing line Costs Transport Effects Monetary Benefits of Transport Effects Accidents / Travel Costs of car Investment Operation Number of Travel Car use in Environment Time use (Mio. / a) (T /a) trips times the area (Mio. /a) ( Mio. /a) ( Mio. /a) Increasing Reduction Extension of line (including upgrading) Termination of Tram service and closure of part of existing line Increasing Decreasing Increasing Decreasing Decreasing Considerable Reduction Minor Reduction compared to situation without any changes to the line 9 Assessment of planning alternatives Benefit-Cost-Indicator 1 Renovation and upgrading of existing line Extension of line (including upgrading) 2.5 Termination of Tram service and closure of part of existing line < 1 Usefulness of upgrading and extending the line from an overall economic point of view positively proven Benefits of positive transport effects of extension outdo investment costs Termination of line leads to negative transport effects, out of which increase of travel time is most negative 10 5

6 Thank you for your attention! Ingeborg Junge-Reyer Presidency C4 Senator for Urban Development, Berlin 11 6