Professional Documents
Culture Documents
July 2021
Contents
Benchmarking methodology 7
General description of research methodology 8
Selection of target cities 10
List of metrics reviewed 12
Use of geoanalytical tools 16
Calculation of travel speed: Personal and public transport 18
Calculation of the share of residents and workplaces near an underground station
or commuter railroad station 19
Calculation of road network area 20
Survey of city residents 22
Weighting and final rating 23
Comparison with 2018 results: Approach and metrics 24
2
Analysis of specific aspects of transport systems 69
Rail transport 70
Road network 71
Shared transport 72
External connectivity 73
Public-transport affordability 74
Personal-transport cost and use barriers 75
Public-transport efficiency 76
Personal-transport efficiency 77
Travel comfort 78
Ticketing system 79
Electronic services 80
Intermodality 81
Physical safety 82
Environmental safety 83
Appendixes 103
Sample projects by category 103
Detailed profiles of the leading cities 117
3
Over the three years since our previous
study, city authorities across the world have
implemented dozens of large-scale projects
to improve the operation of their transport
systems. They faced new challenges,
including those related to environmental
safety and development of various types
of mobility. Then 2020 became a hallmark
year because of the COVID-19 pandemic,
which has had tremendous impact on
operation of city transport systems.
Accordingly, a new study has become
necessary to cover the recent changes.
4 4
Like its predecessor, the new study reported here is designed to analyze, as broadly as possible,
transport systems in 25 cities of the world from a user point of view and to benchmark critical aspects
of their performance that have the most effect on city residents’ transport needs and quality of life.
It is distinguished by the special attention paid to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on objective
transport-system metrics and residents’ behavior. We offer examples of successful events and projects
city authorities have implemented to deal with the pandemic.
One of the study’s objectives is to review the progress achieved by city transport systems since the
previous study’s publication. To assure data comparability, we have left the list of examined cities
unchanged. However, during the time between the two studies, the challenges faced by megapolises
have changed, particularly against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, we have been
forced to revise the list and weights of metrics under review. This has made it all but impossible to draw
direct comparisons between the previous study and its current version. Nevertheless, we can compare
the rate of change of metrics describing certain aspects of transport systems, such as development of
road networks and improvement of fare payment systems.
The report is organized into five sections and two appendixes. Section 1 describes our research
methodology, while Section 2 presents the general conclusions we have drawn upon completion of the
current study. Section 3 presents transport system ratings and an assessment of changes that have
occurred to them since the previous study. Section 4 provides an overview of subgroups of metrics that
make up the transport system ratings, and Section 5 looks at the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on
transport systems. The first appendix contains profiles of ten cities with the most efficient transport
systems, and the second offers examples of significant transport system projects implemented in
various cities.
Research findings may prove interesting primarily for city mayors and heads of urban transportation
agencies and companies. We hope our conclusions will be gainfully employed to make informed
decisions regarding further development of city transport systems.
5
Benchmarking
methodology
General description
of research methodology
In our research, we sought to assess transport systems operating
in some of the world’s largest cities, based on a broad range of
objective and comparable metrics that reflect, in their entirety,
transport user experience amassed by city residents.
8 Benchmarking methodology
Exhibit 1
Research methodology
1 2 3 4 5
We have used the method that proved to be efficient during our 2018 study. However, it has been modified to better reflect the
challenges currently faced by city transport systems across the world (Exhibit 2).
Exhibit 2
Key changes in methodology compared with the 2018 study
Preparation of the list The 5 groups of metrics (Availability, Affordability, Efficiency, Convenience,
of metrics, collection of data, Safety and Sustainable Development) have been retained.
and calculation of values We excluded 3 metrics due to unavailability of relevant data.
More than 10 new metrics have been added to ensure a more objective
assessment of city transport systems subject to contemporaneous challenges.
Development of additional Approach to compilation of additional ratings has not changed (subject to
ratings adjustments to the list of metrics and related weights).
Approach to survey completion, The list of questions in the main part of the questionnaire has not changed.
survey findings Questions have been added to the survey to reflect the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic and the level of awareness of transport projects among city residents.
Benchmarking methodology 9
Selection of target cities
Five filters were used to prepare the list of cities for examination
(Exhibit 3).
Population of the city must exceed five though they had failed to clear one of
million people, and the city must play the formal filters, those megapolises
a leading role in the national economy. topped at least several international
GRP per capita must be more than ratings reflecting the level of
$10,000, and the number of cars must development of certain aspects of their
be more than 150 per 1,000 people. The transport systems.
city must be mentioned in international
data sources.
We applied these filters to
approximately 13,800 cities across
the world. The resultant list consists
of 21 cities with comparable transport
systems. Four more cities (Shanghai,
Singapore, Berlin, and Hong Kong)
were added to the list because of their
perceived research relevance. Even
10 Benchmarking methodology
Exhibit 3
Approach to selection of target cities
5 21 Expert assessment
Leading positions in ≥2 reviewed ratings2 and population is >3 million
4 additional
cities
1
This guarantees comparability of metrics across all cities.
2
Third-party transport system ratings include TomTom Traffic Index; The Future of Urban Mobility 2.0 (rating published by Arthur D. Little and International Union
of Public Transport); Sustainable Cities Mobility Index (rating published by Arcadis); Urban Mobility Index Report (rating published by Qualcomm and consulting
agency CEBR).
Benchmarking methodology 11
List of metrics reviewed
We selected five aspects of transport systems for comprehensive
assessment of the level of development of city transport systems
across the world. These are Availability, Affordability, Efficiency,
Convenience, and Safety and Sustainable Development.
12 Benchmarking methodology
Exhibit 4
Metrics used in this analysis
Availability
Rail transport Share of population living at a walking distance of <20 minutes from an
underground station or a commuter railroad station, %
Share of workplaces located at a walking distance of <20 minutes from an
underground station or a commuter railroad station, %
Shared transport Number of bicycles used in public rental systems per million people
Number of cars used in car-sharing systems per million people
Affordability
Public-transport Ratio of the cost of monthly travel card to average monthly income, %
affordability Number of categories of reduced-fare passengers
Ratio of the cost of a 1-kilometer taxi ride to average monthly income, %
Personal- Ratio of the average cost of 2-hour paid on-street parking to average monthly
transport cost income, %
and use barriers Existence of fees imposed on car owners entering downtown area or specific
city districts
Motor vehicle restrictions index (restrictions based on license plates or place
of registration, prohibitive taxes or duties, mandatory availability of a reserved
parking space)
Benchmarking methodology 13
Efficiency
Public-transport Average effective public-transport travel speed during morning rush hour,
efficiency kilometers per hour
Average land transport waiting time, minutes
Share of dedicated public-transport lanes in total length of road network, %
Underground-train waiting time index
Personal-transport Average traffic flow speed during morning rush hour, kilometers per hour
efficiency Traffic congestion index: rush hour trip duration vs free-road trip duration
Morning rush hour travel time predictability index
Time lost in traffic jams: rush hour travel time vs free-road travel time, minutes
Convenience
Electronic services Penetration rate of the most popular official transport mobile application, %
Average rating of official transport applications
Availability of Wi-Fi networks in underground cars, on buses, and at land
transport stops
Availability of Wi-Fi networks or mobile internet access at underground stations
Availability of real-time public-transport traffic information on the internet
Availability of real-time public-transport traffic information on electronic
screens mounted at public-transport stops
Availability of information about parking lots on the internet
Possibility to pay parking fees online
Transport operations big data analysis and personalization of communications
Possibility to pay fines online
14 Benchmarking methodology
Ticketing system Availability of a universal travel card to pay fares while using multiple modes of
public transport
Possibility to use remote top-up and/or remote ticketing
Possibility to use an electronic travel card available on mobile devices
Possibility to top up travel card and/or buy a ticket using a bank card
Possibility to use contactless bank cards and/or Apple Pay, Samsung Pay, or
Android Pay mobile applications directly at pay gates
Possibility to use an electronic travel card to pay for nontransport services
Possibility to pay fares using biometric data
Need for registration following travel card top-up
Physical safety Number of public-road traffic accident fatalities per million people per year
Number of underground accident fatalities per million people per year
Safety rules compliance index
Benchmarking methodology 15
Use of geoanalytical tools
To create an objective rating of living at a walking distance of less make certain adjustments: some urban
transport systems, we resorted to than 20 minutes from an underground agglomerations (for example, Paris)
tools used to analyze geospatial station or a commuter railroad station, occupy areas that are in fact larger
data. With those tools, we calculated road network area, and so on. than those delimited by their official
values for more than 15 metrics, boundaries, while others (including
To enable calculation of those metrics,
because traditional open-source data Madrid) have official territories that
it was necessary to ensure that the
collection methods are not available or greatly exceed the area of their densely
areas of cities under analysis are
are available only to a limited extent. populated parts. Had we failed to
comparable. To do that, in some cities
In particular, we measured average account for such deviations, they could
we relied on areas specifically selected
personal motor car travel time, average have distorted our analytical findings.
for research purposes, rather than
taxi ride cost, average public-transport
on official city boundaries. We had to
travel speed, share of population
16 Benchmarking methodology
Therefore, we adjusted boundaries populated areas.
of 14 cities covered by our research:
— The boundaries of Los Angeles,
— The boundaries of Bangkok, Hong Milan, and Paris were expanded to
Kong, Istanbul, Madrid, Mexico City, cover not only the cities proper, but
Moscow, Saint Petersburg, São also the nearest densely populated
Paulo, Shanghai, Sydney, and Tokyo suburbs.1
were narrowed to exclude sparsely
1
Here and throughout this report, references to Los Angeles mean the Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana Metro Area, references to Milan mean the Province of
Milan, and references to Paris are to be construed as applying to the Métropole du Grand Paris.
Benchmarking methodology 17
Calculation of travel speed:
Personal and public transport
Information on personal- and public- and data provided by cartographic
transport travel speed can be used to services. The following paragraphs
assess the overall efficiency of the city offer a simplified description of the
transport system. We calculated those calculation algorithm.
metrics using geospatial analysis tools
Calculation algorithm
Determination of each route’s start and finish points. In each examined city, we
identified coordinates of start and finish points for a total of 1,000 unique routes.
The coordinates were derived from geospatial data on distribution of population
and workplaces, while the routes reflected the paths most likely to be used by city
residents to move from home to work.
Similar methods were used to calculate — traffic congestion index (rush hour
certain other metrics: trip duration vs. free-road trip
— pedestrian infrastructure cohesion duration)
index (length of pedestrian route — morning rush hour travel time
from point a to point B compared predictability index, based on
with straight-line distance) measuring travel time for the same
— road infrastructure cohesion index routes each day for two weeks and
(length of motorway route from point then calculating the mean square
a to point B compared with straight- deviation from average ride duration
line distance)
18 Benchmarking methodology
Calculation of the share
of residents and workplaces
near an underground station
or commuter railroad station
The shares of a city’s population living availability of transport infrastructure.
and workplaces situated at a walking We believe that the more city residents
distance of less than 20 minutes from have ready access to rail transport, the
an underground station or a commuter higher is the level of development of the
railroad station can be used to compare transport system.
the examined cities in terms of
Calculation algorithm
In this study, the metric is calculated taking into consideration accessibility areas or isochrones (maximum distance that can
be traveled on foot from a certain point over a given period of time). Previously, we used a simpler method: we measured fixed
radii around stations. The method used in this study is described in more detail below.
Benchmarking methodology 19
Calculation of road
network area
Road network area can be used to compare cities in terms
of sufficiency of existing motorways.
Unlike the less sophisticated metric of This metric provides a more accurate
total road length, road area factors in picture of the state of affairs in the
the number of lanes, which has direct examined cities than the alternative
impact on road capacity and may have (share of city area occupied with roads),
considerable influence on the ranking as it precludes situations where cities
of the city. Note that instead of the with large forests and parks unfairly get
ordinary road area metric, we use, for worse rankings.
rating purposes, road area per motor
vehicle registered in the relevant city.
20 Benchmarking methodology
Calculation algorithm
1 2
Create a set of city pictures. For each city, we downloaded a set of several Make a motorway mask. Binarization
thousand pictures (“plates”), each covering one square kilometer. Each picture was of the map “plate” using a number of
represented in two versions: a satellite image and a map provided by a cartographic threshold values yielded a motorway
service. mask sketch. Then we enhanced the
mask to remove artifacts produced by
inscriptions and to make sure that the
final mask would cover the road on the
satellite image.
3 4 5
Conduct Otsu binarization. For the Make an asphalt mask. Using the Make final road map. We
part of the satellite image covered homogeneous area obtained at the superimposed the mask covering
by the mask, we launched the Otsu previous stage, we identified the color asphalt visible from the satellite on the
binarization algorithm, which separated range for asphalt pixels in the satellite mask from the previous stage (areas
homogeneous pixels under the mask image (assuming that asphalt color looking like asphalt and visible from
(asphalt) from other objects, such as is relatively monotonous across the the satellite) and supplemented the
asphalt hidden by shadows and trees. entire image). Then we selected, in all resultant image with the mask created
satellite images, areas falling within that at the Otsu binarization stage. The latter
color range, thus producing an asphalt added to the image those sections of
mask for asphalt areas visible from the the roads that are not visible from the
satellite (showing also similarly colored satellite. As a result, we account for
areas such as rooftops) the area of the roads, which would be
impossible to get by using just standard
cartographic data.
Benchmarking methodology 21
Survey of city residents
A survey was conducted among city residents. One of the key
objectives of the survey was to compare results of the assessment
of transport systems based on objective metrics with subjective
opinions voiced by city residents.
We did not use survey responses as About 10,000 respondents (400 from
inputs for assessment of any metrics each city) took part in the survey.
capable of affecting the final rating, but The survey was conducted online in
instead compared objective metrics local languages, and the average time
describing transport systems with the required to complete the questionnaire
feedback provided by city residents. was 15 to 20 minutes. To mitigate the
Besides that, we used survey results risk of getting biased responses, we
to draw a list of most notable transport set quotas with respect to respondent
projects, analyze the link between the gender, age, income level, home district,
number of implemented projects and and (to eliminate sample bias in favor
the level of satisfaction of city residents of, say, car owners) preferred type of
with changes in transport systems, and transport.
measure the impact of the COVID-19
pandemic on current and projected
mobility of city residents.
Exhibit 5
Structure of city resident survey
Screening 10
questions
22 Benchmarking methodology
Weighting and final rating
Before making the final ratings, we normalized the value of each
metric to 100 percent scale by assigning relative weights to metrics
and groups of metrics (Exhibit 6).
Weights were assigned on the basis of weight to each metric comprising the
results of a survey with the participation rating.
of more than 30 experts on transport
Upon completion of that stage, we
systems from Europe, the Americas,
obtained ratings of individual aspects of
and Asia.
transport systems.
First, the experts were asked to allocate
ten points among subgroups of metrics
within each group. For example, in the
Affordability group, they were asked
to allocate points between private-
transport affordability and public-
transport affordability. Then the experts
assessed the relative importance of
metrics in each subgroup. Based on
their responses, we assigned a relative
Exhibit 6
Final-rating approach
Normalize metric values Determine weights Compile city ratings for each
to 100% scale for subgroups of metrics of the 5 transport system
and individual metrics based aspects
on expert survey results
Benchmarking methodology 23
Comparison with 2018 results:
Approach and metrics
The present study is somewhat different from its previous version;
accordingly, it would be incorrect to draw direct comparisons
between the updated rating and the 2018 rating. This can be
attributed to the operation of certain factors, such as expansion
of the list of metrics under examination, impact of the COVID-19
pandemic on certain metrics, the fact that in some cases information
had to be obtained from new sources because previously used sources
could no longer produce relevant up-to-date data, and adjustment
of weights based on new expert inputs.
However, some metrics have not been at 0 percent. This produced a rating of highlight significant changes in the most
affected by these changes, and direct changes in each aspect of transport successful cities, which can act as role
comparisons for such metrics are still system operations. models for the other cities covered by
possible. We have compiled a rating of the study.
Presence of a city in the section of
such metrics based on the findings of
the main 2021 rating dealing with the The metrics that we used to compile
the studies conducted in both 2021 and
relevant transport system operation comparable ratings are listed in
2018. Then we calculated changes in
aspect served as another filter. Exhibit 7.
city index values in the new rating versus
the previous rating and normalized We have included in this report only
those changes to 100 percent scale, so the cities that have effected the
that the city with the largest changes biggest changes and, concurrently,
was rated at 100 percent, and the city are in the top ten of the 2021 rating
with the smallest changes was rated for the relevant aspect. We sought to
Exhibit 7
Metrics comparable with metrics from the 2018 study
Availability
Rail transport Share of population living <1 kilometer Share of population living <20 minutes
from an underground station or from an underground station or
a commuter railroad station a commuter railroad station
Share of workplaces located Share of workplaces located <20
<1 kilometer from an underground minutes from an underground station or
station or a commuter railroad station a commuter railroad station
24 Benchmarking methodology
Shared transport Number of bicycles used in public rental —
systems per million people
Number of cars used in car-sharing
systems per million people
Affordability
Efficiency
Benchmarking methodology 25
Convenience
Electronic services Availability of Wi-Fi networks in Penetration rate of the most popular
underground cars and at underground official transport mobile application, %
stations, on buses, and at land transport
Average rating of official transport
stops
applications
Availability of real-time public-transport
Transport operations big data analysis
traffic information on the internet
and personalization of communications
Availability of real-time public transport
traffic information on electronic screens Availability of Wi-Fi networks or mobile
mounted at public-transport stops internet access at underground stations
Ticketing system Availability of a universal travel card to Possibility to use an electronic travel
pay fares while using multiple modes of card available on mobile devices
public transport
Possibility to pay the fare using
Possibility to use remote top-up and/or biometric data
remote ticketing
Need for registration following travel
Possibility to top up travel card and/or
card top-up
buy a ticket using a bank card
Possibility to use contactless bank cards
and/or Apple Pay, Samsung Pay, or
Android Pay mobile applications directly
at pay gates
Possibility to use an electronic travel
card to pay for nontransport services
26 Benchmarking methodology
Safety and Sustainable Development
Environmental Current diesel/petrol fuel quality Average age of cars on the roads, years
safety standards Number of commercial vehicles
Share of e-vehicles in total vehicle registered in the city per $1 billion of
sales, % city GRP (based on purchasing power
Concentration of NO2 in atmospheric parity)
air, molecules per cubic centimeter Index of commercial transport-related
environmental restrictions
Availability of subsidies or incentive
programs related to transition to
more environmentally friendly fuel,
e-vehicles, etc
Benchmarking methodology 27
General insights
and observations
Exhibit 1-7, 60 не
Exhibit 8
Transportation system ratings by city’s overall level of development были заменены
Success factors for cities
Rating positions for individual aspects
with sophisticated transport systems
To understand what makes the leading have already become part and parcel less pronounced than their common
cities stand out from the rest and of living in most of the examined cities dissimilarity with transport systems
what has driven them to success, we (see the highlighted chart areas marked operating in the leading cities. To
compared their scores in all transport “A”). We believe improvement of those assure that its residents have a high
system operation aspects with those aspects to be a top-priority task for level of satisfaction, a city must have
posted by cities in the middle (positions any city in need of a better transport a truly outstanding transport system;
11 to 18) and at the end (last seven system. otherwise, the difference will be hardly
positions) of the rating table. visible.
Cities desiring to rise from the middle
Exhibit 8 shows the objective and to the top of the rating table need to
subjective (survey) ratings of cities painstakingly improve their ratings
on the 14 measured aspects of in Efficiency and in Safety and
transportation systems. Where the Sustainable Development. Superiority
categories are furthest apart, middle in these aspects differentiates the
and low performers have the most need leading cities from all others (chart
to improve. To advance to a qualitatively areas marked “B”).
new level, cities at the bottom of the
In the eyes of city residents, the
rating table need to improve in the
differences between transport systems
areas of availability of their transport
forming the middle of the rating table
infrastructure and intermodality, as well
and those bringing up the rear are
as expand electronic services, which
Exhibit 8
Transportation system ratings by city’s overall level of development
Leading cities (positions 1–10) Contending cities (positions 11–18) Emerging cities (positions 19–25)
B
10 6 10 6
Ticketing Ticketing
system Personal-transport system Personal-transport
9 7 cost and use barriers 9 7 cost and use barriers
Travel
8 Travel
8
comfort comfort
Personal- Public-transport Personal- Public-transport
transport efficiency transport efficiency
efficiency efficiency
Exhibit 9
Changes in cities depending on their overall level of development
Availability 2% 0% 3%
Affordability 5% 3% 6%
Efficiency 25% 0% 25% 21% 6% 27% 20% 8% 28%
Convenience 5% 7% 15%
Safety and
11% 10% 8%
sustainable development
Average: 9 Average: 9 Average: 12
City residents’ level of satisfaction with the current situation,1 scale of −10 to +10
Leading cities Contending cities Emerging cities
(positions 1–10) (positions 11–18) (positions 19–25)
11 Change
Changeinincurrent
currentlevel
levelofofsatisfaction
satisfactionofof
city residents,
city based
residents, onon
based survey results.
survey results.
Exhibit 10
Types of projects implemented in cities, by city categories
Average number of projects 15 12 10
per city
Share of total projects, % 45% Availability and Efficiency
Efficiency
Efficiency and Convenience
Convenience
Safety and Sustainable
Public-transport infrastructure 15% Development
32%
8%
Road infrastructure 4%
Cycling and 23%
2%
pedestrian infrastructure 5%
New mobility types 4%
3% 8%
Transit-oriented development 1% 3%
Digitization in transport 1% 2%
4%
Ticketing system 5% 3%
Travel comfort 3%
2% 1%
Environmental safety 2% 1% 3%
Physical safety 3% 3% 2%
2% 2% 1%
Freight logistics
1%
Leading cities Contending cities Emerging cities
32 3
General insights and observations
Exhibit 11
Correlation between objective results and city wealth status
Correlation between transport
system sophistication and city
wealth status
We compared general scores assigned of cities at the top of the rating table.
to cities in all groups we studied and Another notable cluster includes high-
the cities’ GRP per capita based on GRP cities which are actively investing
purchasing power parity. As in the in development of their transport
previous study, we discovered that, systems, gradually strengthening their
with rare exceptions, there is a positive leadership. Between them, there lies
correlation between a city’s wealth a cluster comprising average-GRP
status and the level of its transport cities (USD 40,000-60,000 thousand
system sophistication. Wealthier cities per capita) where transportation
have more resources to improve their sophistication levels vary greatly,
transport systems and, on average, with the gap between highest- and
occupy higher positions in score sheets lowest-rated cities being as wide as
for various groups of metrics. 20 positions. This means that, while
having comparable financial resources,
Exhibit 11 features the cluster of
those cities take completely different
developing cities whose transport
approaches to their transport systems.
systems are still lagging behind those
Exhibit 11
Correlation between objective results and city wealth status
Average GRP
Aggregated city position based on all groups of objective metrics
per capita
Under-
performers 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
GRP per capita based on purchasing power parity, $ thousand
Exhibit 12
Sustainable development index and its components
Leaders (average top 10 values across the board)
1 Personal
Personal mobility devices.
1
mobility devices
Exhibit 13
Correlation between public perceptions and the objective situation
Residents’ satisfaction with changes Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied
High
China
Residents’ satisfaction with the current situation
Low
Underperformers Leaders
Aggregated city position based on all groups of objective metrics
Exhibit 14
Public and personal transport: Public perceptions
Satisfied
Level of satisfaction with public transport
Same attitude
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied
Level of satisfaction with personal transport
36 7
General insights and observations
Exhibit 15
Correlation between subjective assessment of the current situation and assessment of changes
City residents’ perception
of changes
We looked at how city residents’ level people are satisfied with the current
of satisfaction with changes that have situation, the better is their perception
occurred over the last several years of changes that have occurred over the
depends on their perception of the last several years (Exhibit 15). Residents
current situation in their megapolises. of top-ranked cities are satisfied with
We also assessed changes in the both the current situation and the
objective metrics posted by cities in all recent changes. Conversely, residents
groups. of emerging cities, as a rule, are less
happy with the current situation and the
Assessment of the current situation
recent changes.
in a city is closely linked to the level of
satisfaction with changes: the more
Exhibit 15
Correlation between subjective assessment of the current situation and assessment of changes
Leading cities (positions 1–10) Contending cities (positions 11–18) Emerging cities (positions 19–25)
High
Level of satisfaction with current situation
Low
Low High
Level of satisfaction with changes
Exhibit 16
Importance ratings of transportation aspects, 2021 and change vs 2018
Intermodality 4.0
1 On
Ona a scale from1 to
1 to5,5where
where11==least
leastimportant
importantand
and55==most
mostimportant.
important.
1
scale from
Perceptions of transport
system elements
We analyzed general patterns that of satisfaction with both the current
shape residents’ perception of situation and the recent changes has
various elements of transport system increased in all those aspects. Notably,
operations in the examined cities. city residents, on average, remain
At the level of individual subgroups, rather dissatisfied with Affordability
there is a positive correlation between metrics. Despite the positive changes,
satisfaction with the current situation city residents still regard all these areas
and satisfaction with the recent as fraught with problems.
changes. Therefore, as with general
Rail transport, external connectivity,
metrics, city residents perceive that
and ticketing system received the
a positive state of affairs in any given
highest scores in both the current and
aspect is a consequence of positive
previous studies. City residents’ level of
change, and vice versa (Exhibit 17).
satisfaction with these aspects is quite
City residents perceived four transport high, and they note positive changes
system aspects as neutral or negative: that have occurred over the last several
public-transport affordability, years.
personal-transport cost and use
barriers, personal-transport efficiency,
and environmental safety. Since the
previous study, city residents’ level
Exhibit 17
Average level of satisfaction with current situation and recent changes
2021 20181
Satisfied
Road Rail
network Ticketing transport
Shared transport system
Electronic services
Level of satisfaction with the recent changes
Intermodality External
connectivity
Personal-transport Travel comfort
efficiency Physical Safety
Environmental safety Public-transport efficiency
Neutral
Public-transport affordability
Personal transport
cost and use barriers
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied
Level of satisfaction with the current situation
11 Changes
Changesinin
the
thelevel
levelofofsatisfaction
satisfactionwith the
with current
the situation
current and
situation thethe
and recent changes
recent exceed
changes 30%
exceed of of
30% thethe
overall range
overall of values
range forfor
of values all all
metrics shown.
metrics shown.
10
Correlation between
satisfaction levels and perceived
importance of metrics
We looked at whether city residents’ Examples of metrics characterized by
level of satisfaction of with various high perceived importance and low
metrics depends on their subjective level of satisfaction are environmental
perception of importance of such impact produced by transport,
metrics for the state of the urban including freight transport, and traffic
transport system. Metrics that congestion. In addition, these metrics
respondents deemed to be the most display average-to-high variance of
important and with which they are satisfaction levels, meaning that there
most satisfied include those related exist major differences between cities
to safety, anti-epidemic measures, in that respect. In some cities, relative
quality and condition of public transport, satisfaction is at an even lower level.
and availability and quality of road
Other metrics are classified as below
infrastructure (Exhibit 18). Typical city
average in terms of importance but are
residents identify those parameters as
considered most problematic: are taxi
important and are generally satisfied
fares, car ownership costs, and freight
with the situation in the relevant areas.
traffic on public roads.
Exhibit 18
Perception of individual metrics’ importance and satisfaction with current situation
Anti-epidemic measures
Public-transport fares in public transport
Neutral
Transport environmental impact
Freight traffic
40 11
General insights and observations
Exhibit 19
Changes in objective metrics relative to their perceived importance
We also analyzed the recent changes informed of all positive changes and
in terms of objective metrics describing continue their efforts to improve public
the aspects under review. Generally, perceptions in those areas. Over the
over the last several years, most metrics last several years, there has been little
have significantly improved (Exhibit 19). improvement in terms of reducing car
The metrics that city residents perceive ownership costs and overall traffic
as the most important have changed congestion; accordingly, city authorities
as follows: predictability of travel time need to focus on those aspects.
has improved, surface transport waiting
Taking into consideration the need to
times have decreased, public-transport
reduce traffic congestion, it is highly
trips have become more affordable, and
likely that additional restrictions on
traffic safety has increased.
the use of personal motor vehicles
However, for some metrics, the will be introduced in the next several
changes have been relatively small. years. To improve public perception of
This is especially true for pedestrian those aspects, city authorities must
infrastructure and for the quality and score tangible successes and clearly
state of repair of public transport. articulate their policies.
Cities need to pay more attention to
such metrics with due regard to their
significance for the residents.
As for the metrics generally causing
the most dissatisfaction, over the last
several years there has been some
improvement in, for example, availability
of public transport and taxis. City
authorities need to keep residents
Exhibit 19
Changes in objective metrics relative to their perceived importance
Level of satisfaction with current situation Very satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied
metrics
Rail transport
Road network
Shared transport
The Availability Index comprises a set of metrics for assessment External connectivity
of variety of travel modes that can be used by city residents.
The index describes availability of Paris is holding the second position, walk from underground and commuter
rail transport, road network, shared with only external-connectivity values train stations.
transport, and connectivity of the being significantly below those posted
An ideal city in terms of Availability would
city with other cities in terms of air by London. Paris is ahead of London
be a combination of London (for external
destinations. in terms of pedestrian infrastructure
connectivity), Tokyo (rail transport
cohesion (in the road network subgroup),
The three cities with the highest network), Milan (road network), and
meaning it has a ramified road network,
Availability Index values are London, Beijing (number of bicycles and motor
making it possible to walk from point
Paris, and Madrid (Exhibit 20). The cars available from shared transport
a to point B without losing much time
British capital has the largest number of services).
compared with walking along a straight
available air destinations; during the pre-
line.
COVID era, Heathrow Airport supported
flights to more than 450 domestic and Madrid, in the third place, has excellent
international destinations. In addition, car-sharing metrics vis-à-vis other
London is one of the world’s leaders in leading cities (840 cars per million
terms of road network availability. For people, ranked fourth in the all-cities
example, it boasts a very high share of ranking). Besides, the city has an
biking lanes in total road length, with total extensive rail transport network, with only
length of biking lanes in London having Tokyo having a modest advantage in that
increased by more than 30 percent over respect; in both cities, about 91 percent
the course of three years. of the population live within a 20-minute
Exhibit 20
Ten leading cities for Availability
Index metric Rail transport (39%) Shared transport (15%) Index1 XX% (YY) City rank on metric
(maximum value) Road network (25%) External connectivity (21%)
13
The key changes include the opening Change leaders have demonstrated the
of new city railway and underground most impressive growth in the shared-
stations (rail transport category) and transport category.
improvement of road infrastructure
(road network). Shared-transport
scores were determined by the rate of
growth of the number of rental bicycles
and cars provided by car-sharing
services, while external-connectivity
scores depended on the number of
destinations served by city airports.
The leading cities with the highest
change scores are Beijing, Moscow, and
Madrid (Exhibit 21). Transformations
carried out over the last several years
have propelled Moscow into the top ten
of the Availability index. The other cities
have reaffirmed their leading positions.
Exhibit 21
Leading cities with top improvements in Availability Index
Beijing 100.0 9
Moscow 61.0 6
Madrid 47.5 3
Milan 47.1 8
Tokyo 44.4 4
Moscow
Moscow has secured top ranking a new 70-kilometer underground line, 6,500 cars to 30,000 cars (prior to the
in improvement in several subgroups, one of the world’s largest underground COVID-19 pandemic). In the case of car
including rail transport (where it ranks construction projects. The line will sharing, the growth can be attributed
fifth), shared transport (sixth), and help reduce passenger flows currently to successful development of private
external connectivity (first). The city served by Moscow Metro. The new line operators such as Yandex.Drive and
has the fourth-best change score in the will have a total of 31 stations, of which Delimobil.
Availability group. ten have already been opened.
Since 2018, Moscow has implemented
Over the last several years, Russia has In addition, the new Nekrasovskaya several large-scale projects designed
been heavily investing in development Metro Line has been launched. As to upgrade its airport infrastructure,
of its railway infrastructure, including a result, another 700,000 people have bringing the number of destinations
the underground, to make that mode gained access to Moscow Metro, while with daily flights from 295 to 345. The
of transport more accessible to city passenger traffic through other lines is city has taken steps to improve service
residents where they live and work. going to decrease. quality and passenger safety. For
New surface lines linking the city example, Domodedovo has become
Shared transport is posting robust
with Moscow Region destinations Russia’s first airport to deploy baggage
growth rates in Moscow. The total
have been built within the framework storage robotization systems and
number of bicycles that can be rented
of the Moscow Central Diameters automated turnstiles; the air haven is
from the city’s Velobike service has
(MCD) project. The overall length of currently testing a face recognition
increased from 1,000 to 6,500.
the first two diameters (60 stations) is system.
Electric-scooter rental services
132 kilometers.
have emerged, offering a total of
In addition, the city has opened the 5,000 vehicles. Car-sharing fleets have
first sections of the Large Circle Line, posted a considerable increase from
Madrid
Madrid has shown improvements in 3,000 bicycles were purchased and
the shared-transport and external- 50 new bike rentals opened in 2020
connectivity subgroups (putting it in alone. City authorities hail projects
third and 15th places, respectively), designed to support shared-transport
bringing the city’s change score up to development. For example, recently
eighth place in the Availability ranking. city residents were granted access to
4,800 electric bikes offered for rent by
Madrid channels considerable
private operators.
investments into expanding the use
of personal-mobility devices. About
metrics
Public-transport affordability
Personal-transport cost and use
barriers
It comprises two metrics: public- monthly income. In addition, car owners of a monthly public-transport travel
transport affordability and personal- pay a special fee when they enter areas card and taxi ride must constitute
transport cost and use barriers. with high traffic congestion. a smaller share of average monthly
income, as in Los Angeles, and certain
The rating is topped by Asian cities: The number-two city is Shenzhen.
categories of city residents must be
Singapore, Shenzhen, and Seoul Like Singapore, it has managed to
offered rides at reduced fares. Also,
(Exhibit 22). Their common feature balance public-transport availability
the city must introduce reasonable
is the relative inexpensiveness of with constraints on the use of personal
constraints on personal car ownership
public transport. Also, in each of motor vehicles, thereby earning a high
to reflect the additional costs borne
those cities, authorities take steps to rating.
by the society, as done in a number of
incorporate into car ownership costs
Seoul, in third place, has introduced cities in Asia, including Singapore.
certain additional expenses borne by
a traffic-congestion penalty and limited
society as a result of personal car use:
the number of parking spaces, with
environmental and health impact, time
pricing policy as the key occupancy
lost in traffic jams, use of additional
control tool. At the same time, public
space, and so on.
transport remains widely available.
Singapore is holding the first place. It
To be rated as “ideal” in Affordability,
has one of the lowest ratios of the cost
a city must have a high score for public-
of a one-kilometer taxi ride to average
transport affordability. In addition,
monthly income, as well as a well-
personal transport’s impact on the
balanced ratio of the cost of a monthly
megapolis must be reflected in car
public-transport travel card to average
ownership costs. For example, the cost
Exhibit 22
Ten leading cities for Affordability
Index 1 (city
Index
1
(cityrank
rankon
onmetric)
metric)
Index metric Public-transport affordability (68%)
Index1 XX% (YY) City rank on metric
(maximum value) Personal-transport cost and use barriers (32%)
1
1 Components
Componentsmay
maynot
notsum
sumtotototal
totalbecause
becauseofofrounding
rounding.
15
Change ratings
for Affordability, 2018–20
Cities emerging as change leaders in the Affordability group have
either increased public-transport affordability or introduced new
barriers on personal-transport use.
In the public-transport affordability and Mexico City to join the list of the
subgroup, city authorities implemented best performers, while Buenos Aires
various projects to support low-income reaffirmed its leadership. Public-
residents, launched new and cheaper transport affordability made the
trip services, and reduced effective weightiest contribution to the overall
public-transport fares by ensuring change.
that income grew at a rate higher than
the fare indexation rate. In personal-
transport cost and use barriers, cities
achieved improvement by imposing
new restrictions on the use of personal
motor vehicles and reducing the
availability of this travel mode relative
to others.
The leading cities with the highest
change scores are Shanghai, Mexico
City, and Buenos Aires (Exhibit 23).
Changes have enabled Shanghai
Exhibit 23
Leading cities with top improvements in Affordability Index
Shanghai 100.0 4
Seoul 50.6 3
Mexico City
Mexico City’s metrics have improved As for personal transport, the city is
because of its balanced development. expanding the use of paid parking lots,
The city occupies top positions in which makes private car ownership
change ratings for both Affordability more expensive.
subgroups.
Mexico City residents have noted that
As for public-transport pricing policy, transport Affordability has improved.
the city has not increased fares in local The level of satisfaction with public-
currency for several years, making transport affordability has increased
transport services more affordable to by 6 percent. Incidentally, despite
residents. In 2013, underground fares the ongoing limitations on the use
were raised from three to five pesos, of personal transport, the level of
bringing the number of trips down. satisfaction with its Affordability has
The fare has not changed since then. risen 10 percent
In addition, taxi services have become
much more affordable.
Buenos Aires
Buenos Aires is the change leader In public transport, the availability of
in personal-transport cost and use Buenos Aires taxi services is growing,
barriers. The city also holds a top with the city going up four notches
position in the public-transport in the rating table for that metric.
affordability subgroup. This can be attributed to successful
development of aggregator services,
The capital of Argentina continues
which recently emerged in the city. For
to develop a system enabling proper
example, Uber came to Buenos Aires
measurement of motor vehicles’
only in 2016.
environmental impact. The city has
created a system of paid parking lots,
and a special fee has been charged
since 2018 for entry to downtown areas
with excessive traffic. Drivers entering
those areas between 11:00 and 16:00
on workdays must pay an annual fee
of $77.
metrics
Public-transport efficiency
Personal-transport efficiency
The Efficiency Index shows how fast and predictably one can move
around the city.
In particular, the index comprises top of the rating because it has the a possibility to predictably reach the
metrics for traffic congestion and helps highest share of dedicated bus lanes point of destination, especially during
assess its impact on travel times. in total road length and the highest the rush hour (as in Beijing); minimal
predictability of travel time during the underground waiting time (as in
The highest index values have been
rush hour (putting it in second place Moscow); and high travel speed during
recorded by Moscow, Shenzhen,
in the personal-transport efficiency rush hour (as in Chicago).
and Singapore (Exhibit 24). Moscow
subcategory).
is holding the first place: it has high
public-transport efficiency (ranking Third-ranked Singapore also scores
first in the subcategory), while in terms high in public-transport efficiency
of personal-transport efficiency, it (making it number two in the
lags behind the other examined cities. subcategory), while also demonstrating
Moscow is one of the top three cities leading results in personal-transport
in terms of underground waiting time, travel speed during rush hour (fifth) and
public-transport travel speed during deviation of travel time during rush hour
the rush hour (about 21 kilometers per (seventh).
hour), and share of dedicated lanes
An “ideal” city with the most efficient
(6.5 percent, versus 2.3 percent on
transport system would have the
average for all examined cities).
following characteristics: an extensive
Shenzhen is only slightly behind network of dedicated public-transport
Moscow. It has wound up at the lanes (as in Shenzhen and Moscow);
Exhibit 24
Leading cities for Efficiency
1
1 Components
Componentsmay
maynot
notsum
sumtoto100%
total because of rounding
rounding.
17
Exhibit 25
Leading cities with top improvements in Efficiency Index
Beijing 85.1 5
Johannesburg 77.8 4
Chicago 60.1 7
The average waiting time for a bus in Hong Kong is five minutes
metrics
Electronic services
Travel comfort
Intermodality
The Convenience Index assesses the convenience of transfers Ticketing system
from one mode of transport to another, level of ticketing-system
development, electronic-services penetration rates, internet access
during the trip, and share of buses and underground stations
accessible to passengers in wheelchairs.
The leading cities in the Convenience the shortest average distance from and pay fines and penalties, plan
category are Toronto, Hong Kong, underground station to the nearest routes, etc.), provides passengers
and Singapore (Exhibit 26). Toronto surface public-transport stop. with continuous access to high-speed
comes first with its superior travel internet, minimizes fare payment
Singapore’s presence in the top three
comfort metrics: city underground efforts (e.g., through implementation
is attributable to the fact that most
rolling stock is new, and the share of of biometric technologies, as in Beijing
of its metrics are above average: the
buses accessible to passengers in and Shanghai), and regularly upgrades
city is developing various aspects of
wheelchairs reaches 100 percent. its transport fleets (as in Moscow,
its transport systems at an even pace.
Istanbul, and Toronto).
In second-ranked Hong Kong, Thus, over the last three years, it has
the city bus fleet is rather young, increased the share of underground
the underground uses new rolling stations accessible to disabled
stock, and the share of underground passengers, and public transport is
stations accessible to passengers in offering improved internet access, with
wheelchairs is very high. City authorities buses and stops being equipped with
have launched a project designed to Wi-Fi modules.
boost underground and bus mobility:
An “ideal” city for Convenience would
elevators and ramps have been installed
be one that deploys new technologies,
at 90 of 93 underground stations. In
offers convenient city-resident
addition, the city has purchased new
interaction mechanisms based on the
low-floor buses. Hong Kong boasts
use of mobile applications (to verify
Exhibit 26
Ten leading cities for Convenience
Toronto 31% (3) 14% (22) 19% (6) 18% (1) 81.4%
Hong Kong 29% (4) 18% (4) 20% (2) 13% (4) 80.6%
Singapore 29% (6) 18% (4) 18% (8) 10% (10) 76.0%
Milan 24% (15) 16% (13) 17% (12) 16% (3) 73.0%
Istanbul 32% (1) 15% (19) 15% (22) 10% (12) 72.4%
Chicago 22% (18) 17% (9) 16% (19) 16% (2) 72.1%
Beijing 32% (2) 19% (1) 17% (11) 4% (24) 71.8%
Moscow 25% (9) 18% (6) 20% (3) 9% (16) 71.4%
London 23% (17) 18% (8) 17% (16) 13% (7) 69.8%
Berlin 24% (13) 16% (13) 17% (17) 12% (8) 69.4%
1
1 Components
Componentsmay
maynot
notsum
sumtotototal
totalbecause
becauseofofrounding.
rounding.
19
Change ratings
for Convenience, 2018–20
Change leadership in the Convenience group comes from
offering superior travel comfort to public-transport passengers,
implementing of new ticketing technologies, developing electronic
services, and improving intermodality metrics.
Improvement of metrics in the travel The leading cities with the highest
comfort subgroup is explained by change scores are Istanbul, Berlin,
completion of projects designed to and Hong Kong (Exhibit 27).
upgrade bus and underground car Having completed their respective
fleets and higher mobility of passengers transformation programs, Berlin and
using wheelchairs. Improvements in Istanbul made it to the top ten of the
the ticketing system subgroup can be group, while Hong Kong rose to second
attributed to implementation of new place in the ranking table. Singapore
payment methods and expansion of went up by five notches and is now
transport card functionality. To expand ranked third, while Toronto has retained
electronic services, cities launched its leadership. In all leading cities except
applications that can be used to Istanbul, travel comfort metrics have
schedule routes for multiple modes sustained massive changes.
of transport, track bus arrival times,
and top up transport cards online.
Intermodality metrics increased as
a result of opening conveniently placed
public-transport stops, enabling
passengers to spend less time
switching to another mode of transport,
and upgrading city navigation systems.
Exhibit 27
Leading cities with top improvements in Convenience Index
Istanbul 100.0 5
Berlin 81.0 10
Toronto 66.2 1
Singapore 51.4 3
Berlin
Berlin has become a change leader Since 2018, Berlin has been purchasing
because of improvements in travel new electric buses, an investment that
comfort (where it ranks third), ticketing has reduced the average age of the
system, and intermodality (second). bus fleet by two years. The number of
Over the past three years, the results metro stations accessible to people
for these subgroups have increased in wheelchairs has increased by 20
significantly. percent.
Hong Kong
Hong Kong has become a change across the city. City residents have
leader because of improvements in noted that the biggest changes have
travel comfort, a subgroup in which occurred in this area, with the level
it is ranked first. Travel comfort of satisfaction up by four percentage
improvements can be attributed to the points (more than in other groups of
recent upgrade of the city bus fleet and metrics).
reduction of its average age to seven
Road network data prepared by
years. In the course of the upgrade,
the Hong Kong University include
the share of buses that can be used
information about 2,000 pedestrian
by persons with reduced mobility has
bridges, 400 pedestrian tunnels, and
significantly increased.
underground crossings where no
Electronic-service improvements are additional fee is charged.
related to expansion of Wi-Fi coverage
in underground trains and emergence
of new services. Hong Kong Mobility
gives an overview of pedestrian routes
metrics
Environmental safety
The three top-ranked cities in this Sydney is one of the three cities with An “ideal” city would be like Singapore
category are Singapore, Sydney, and the best levels of NO2 concentration in in terms of physical safety, like Hong
Hong Kong (Exhibit 28). The cities the atmospheric air (about 19 milligrams Kong in terms of environmental
topping the rankings have very similar per cubic meter) and number of trucks standards for vehicles, and like Sydney
performance levels for environmental relative to GRP (about 330 units per in terms of air pollution and number of
protection; the key differences between million US dollars of GRP). trucks.
them are observed in the domain of
Third-ranked Hong Kong closely
physical safety.
follows. The city is slightly behind
Singapore’s leadership can be Singapore with regard to physical
attributed to the high level of physical safety. Hong Kong has demonstrated
safety related primarily to superior road second-best environmental-safety
safety rules compliance record and performance as Chinese authorities
steps taken to disinfect public transport have imposed more stringent car-
during the COVID-19 pandemic. exhaust requirements (the current
standard is Euro 6). The city also sells
Sydney ranks second, slightly behind
a high amount of e-vehicles (14 percent
Singapore, with strong environmental-
of total vehicle sales, putting it in fourth
safety performance. In particular,
place ).
Exhibit 28
Ten leading cities for Safety and Sustainable Development
1
1 Components
Componentsmay
maynot
notsum
sumtotototal
totalbecause
becauseofofrounding.
rounding.
21
Exhibit 29
Leading cities with top improvements in Safety and Sustainable Development Index
Shanghai 100.0 4
Berlin 85.7 9
Beijing 84.4 7
Tokyo 83.5 6
Paris 71.9 10
Berlin
Berlin has become a change years, Berlin has significantly increased
leader because of improvements in the share of electric cars in total sales
parameters connected with the level of (from 1.6 percent to 13 percent).
environmental safety.
The support of the authorities
The biggest changes in the city are contributes to the growth of sales
associated with the development of of electric vehicles. Subsidies are
electric transport. Over the past three allocated to cover part of the cost
Beijing
Improvement of Beijing’s ranking also is share of electric-car sales: 16 percent.
attributable to positive changes in the This, among other things, has
area of environmental safety. China’s contributed to residents’ satisfaction:
capital city has taken third place in this the metrics comprising this subgroup
subgroup. increased by 25 percentage points.
Only China 6–compliant motor vehicles
are permitted for sale in Beijing. In
addition, there are several restrictions
on ownership and use of personal motor
vehicles.
Over the last several years,
NO2 concentration in atmospheric air
has decreased by 3 percent. Beijing,
like other Chinese cities, has a high
Tokyo has one of the lowest road fatality levels: 9.6 fatalities per million people
In 2020, 50 kilometers of roads in Paris were transformed into pedestrian and bicycle roads on a permanent basis
transport use
Two separate sub-rankings were made for public and private
transport, based on selection of the parameters relevant only for the
respective modes.
The assessment of public transport city’s bus fleet is rather young (with
was based on the following groups of average bus age of five years), and both
metrics: rail transport availability, public- surface and underground transport have
transport affordability, public-transport high rates of internet penetration.
efficiency, most of the Convenience
Beijing, ranked third, has the highest
metrics, and physical safety in public
levels of public-transport safety. For
transport.
example, it is one of the four cities with
The three top-ranked cities are the most efficient disinfection measures
Singapore, Moscow, and Beijing (Exhibit taken during the COVID-19 pandemic.
30). First-place Singapore has above- Public transport in the Chinese capital
average values in some key metrics. also is very efficient, with the share of
In particular, it rates high in terms of dedicated lanes reaching 9.4 percent,
Efficiency (third-best surface public- versus 2.3 percent on average for the
transport waiting time), Affordability other examined cities. Metrics for travel
(second-best ratio of cost of one- comfort metrics also are quite high:
kilometer taxi ride to average monthly the city has the youngest underground
income), and Safety (third-best number rolling stock among all examined cities
of public-transport fatalities). (average age, five years). In addition, the
ticketing system is very convenient. For
Moscow ranks second, largely because
example, in Beijing it is possible to pay
of the high efficiency of its public
the fare using biometric technologies,
transport: a large share of public-
and the Beijing travel card can be used
transport dedicated lanes and high
to pay fares in other cities.
travel speed during the rush hour. The
Exhibit 30
Ten leading cities for public-transport use
Singapore 14% (13) 17% (1) 12% (2) 16% (3) 20% (2) 79%
Moscow 16% (10) 13% (13) 16% (1) 16% (5) 15% (14) 75%
Beijing 15% (11) 14% (9) 10% (4) 16% (4) 20% (2) 75%
Hong Kong 16% (9) 15% (8) 8% (8) 17% (1) 17% (8) 73%
Seoul 18% (6) 17% (2) 7% (9) 13% (21) 17% (8) 72%
Shenzhen 11% (17) 16% (4) 11% (3) 15% (7) 16% (13) 68%
Tokyo 20% (1) 9% (22) 6% (15) 15% (6) 17% (8) 67%
New York 18% (5) 15% (7) 6% (14) 15% (10) 11% (22) 67%
Paris 19% (3) 12% (16) 7% (10) 14% (16) 14% (20) 66%
Shanghai 12% (14) 15% (6) 5% (22) 15% (8) 17% (8) 65%
1
1 Components
Componentsmay
maynot
notsum
sumtotototal
totalbecause
becauseofofrounding
rounding.
23
on personal-transport use
The index of personal-transport use comprises the following
groups of metrics: road infrastructure availability and quality,
private-transport affordability, private-transport efficiency, online
services for private-vehicle users, and road safety. In this analysis,
unlike for the rest of the report, we scored private-transport
affordability from the user’s point of view: “the cheaper the better”
reflects the preferences of car users.
Exhibit 31
Ten leading cities for personal-transport use
Los Angeles 15% (3) 20% (2) 11% (4) 10% (12) 56%
Chicago 12% (5) 18% (5) 15% (1) 8% (17) 53%
Madrid 9% (13) 17% (8) 10% (9) 17% (1) 53%
Sydney 11% (8) 18% (6) 10% (5) 11% (8) 50%
1%
Johannesburg 16% (2) 20% (1) 13% (3) 50%
(25)
Berlin 9% (12) 17% (7) 6% (15) 15% (3) 48%
Toronto 8% (17) 19% (4) 10% (8) 10% (9) 47%
New York 11% (7) 19% (3) 7% (13) 9% (15) 46%
Singapore 16% (1) 7% (24) 8% (11) 13% (6) 44%
London 12% (6) 13% (15) 4% (22) 14% (4) 42%
1
1 Components
Componentsmay
maynot
notsum
sumtotototal
totalbecause
becauseofofrounding
rounding.
24
To measure rail transport availability, We also see that, with the exception Road network
we assessed pedestrian coverage of Moscow, Hong Kong, and Seoul, Shared transport
of underground and commuter train the level of satisfaction with changes
networks. The index of rail transport in the cities with the best objective External connectivity
availability is based on the share of metrics is somewhat lower than in the
population residing within 30 minutes’ midranked cities (such as Singapore,
walking distance from the nearest Sydney, and Shanghai). This assumption
underground or commuter train station is supported by data on large-scale
and the share of workplaces located at projects in those cities. For example,
the same distance. When measuring Sydney’s first underground line (13
both metrics, we took into consideration stations) was opened in 2019. Its
the existence of actual pedestrian launch became a landmark event:
routes that can be used to reach the implementation of the construction
relevant stations. project took three years. The line is
part of a bigger project envisaging
Among the examined cities, the three
construction of an underground
top-ranked cities for rail transport
network capable of carrying up to
availability leaders are Tokyo, Madrid,
40,000 passengers per hour. It is
and Paris (Exhibit 32). In those cities,
expected that all 31 stations will have
rail transport pedestrian availability
been opened in 2024.
areas cover more than 80 percent
of total population and more than 94
percent of total workplaces.
In this geospatial analysis of Singapore,
In most examined cities, residents are
rail transport covers 83 percent of city’s
satisfied with rail transport availability,
and satisfaction levels are generally total population
consistent with objective metrics.
However, in some leading cities,
including Tokyo, Paris, and Buenos
Aires, the level of satisfaction with
the transport system proved to be
much lower than it should be based on
objective metrics.
Exhibit 32
Perception and reality: Rail transport availability
Berlin
Moscow New York
Neutral Paris Tokyo
of residents
Buenos Aires
Dissatisfied
25 20 15 10 5 1
Underperformers Leaders
Score based on objective metrics
70 25
Analysis of specific aspects of transport systems
Exhibit 33
Perception and reality: Road network
Road network Availability
Rail transport
The road network assessment was Generally, objective and subjective Road network
based on metrics critical for various assessments are correlated, with some Shared transport
types of users, including motor vehicles, notable exceptions. For example, city
surface public transport, cyclists, residents in Asia have a propensity to External connectivity
and pedestrians. The road network assess the state of the road network
index comprises five metrics: road more positively, while people in Latin
network area per motor vehicle, motor America and Africa take a more
vehicle infrastructure cohesion index, skeptical view.
pedestrian infrastructure cohesion
index, road network quality index, and
share of bicycle lanes in total road
network length.
The top-ranked cities for road network
development are Milan, Paris, and
London (Exhibit 33). In those cities,
the road network is best adapted
to the needs of various road traffic
participants: the motor vehicle
infrastructure cohesion index does
not exceed 1.48, and the pedestrian
infrastructure cohesion index does not
exceed 1.45.
Tokyo has the largest road network area
Residents of the cities in the upper half
per motor vehicle (68 square meters).
of the ranking table are satisfied with
The picture shows the downtown area
the current situation and take a positive
view of relevant changes. Residents of between the Tokyo Imperial Palace
the remaining cities have a neutral or and the Sumida River
negative attitude toward the current
state of their road networks.
Exhibit 33
Perception and reality: Road network
Milan
Berlin
Chicago London Paris
Neutral
of residents
Dissatisfied
25 20 15 10 5 1
Underperformers Leaders
Score based on objective metrics
Over the last several years, the role In almost every city, residents note Road network
of shared transport has increased that large changes have occurred over Shared transport
significantly, as has its availability to city the last several years. Residents of
residents. The shared-transport index the cities in the top half of the ranking External connectivity
comprises two metrics: the number of table based on objective metrics in this
cars used by car-sharing services and subgroup are also satisfied with the
the number of bicycles used by public current situation. The only exception is
bicycle rentals. Both indicators were Moscow, where residents say there are
scaled per million people to enable not enough bicycle rentals in the city,
a comparison of cities of different sizes. although people note improvements
Limits were set on the maximum useful in that area. Still, Moscow has
number of motor vehicles and bicycles considerably expanded its bicycle
to make sure that they support demand rental network: about 2,900 new
without creating excessive load on the bicycles have been purchased over the
city transport system. last three years, and 119 new bicycle
rental stations have emerged in 2020
Shared-transport leaders among the
alone.
examined cities are Beijing, Berlin, and
Shanghai (Exhibit 34). In those cities,
there are more than 500 rented cars
and more than 3,000 rented bicycles
per million people.
Objective metrics observed in the More than 5,000 bicycles per million
cities are generally consistent with
people are available for rent in Beijing
public perceptions. However, residents
of Berlin display a lower level of
satisfaction with the current situation
than might be expected based on
objective data.
Exhibit 34
Perception and reality: Shared transport
Milan
Tokyo Berlin
Moscow
Dissatisfied
25 20 15 10 5 1
Underperformers Leaders
Score based on objective metrics
72 27
Analysis of specific aspects of transport systems
Exhibit 35
Perception and reality: External connectivity
External connectivity Availability
Rail transport
To assess external connectivity, we 2D, enabling a passenger flow increase Road network
used the number of destinations served to 80 million people per year. Yet Paris Shared transport
by each city’s airports. has, with London, posted the lowest
level of satisfaction with changes External connectivity
External Connectivity leaders among
among the leading cities.
the examined cities are London,
Paris, and Moscow (Exhibit 35).
Airports of those cities serve more
than 300 domestic and international
destinations.
In addition, we note a positive
correlation between the objectively
measured level of external connectivity
and the level of satisfaction with
that aspect: as external connectivity
improves, so does city residents’
satisfaction. Moscow and Paris are the
two exceptions in that respect among
the leaders. In those capitals, residents’
level of satisfaction with the current
situation is lower than in many other
cities, despite the high objective metric.
This assumption is supported, among London has the largest number of daily
other things, by the Charles de Gaulle flight destinations: more than 450
Airport modernization project. It
involved a massive upgrade of Terminals
2B and 2D and of waiting areas of the
busiest Terminal L and the construction
of a passage joining Terminals 2B and
Exhibit 35
Perception and reality: External connectivity
Moscow
Dissatisfied
25 20 15 10 5 1
Underperformers Leaders
Score based on objective metrics
To assess public-transport affordability, which three are in China. Seoul stands Personal-transport cost and use
we looked at monthly travel card prices out among the leaders: its residents are barriers
and taxi fare per kilometer relative dissatisfied with the current situation
to average individual income level of despite the city’s good performance
city residents and at the number of based on objective metrics.
passenger categories entitled to fare
discounts.
The leaders in public-transport
affordability among the examined cities
are Singapore, Seoul, and Los Angeles
(Exhibit 36). Seoul has the lowest
monthly travel card price relative to
individual income, while Singapore has
the second-lowest taxi fares relative
to individual income. Los Angeles
demonstrates “even” results—that is,
without extremes in any one aspect.
City residents’ attitudes about public-
transport affordability are generally
rather negative, and that attitude
is typical for most cities. Moreover,
residents of a third of all examined cities In Singapore, the taxi fare per kilometer
are dissatisfied with changes in that
is $0.60
area. a high level of satisfaction with
changes is noted in only four cities, of
Exhibit 36
Perception and reality: Public-transport affordability
Satisfaction with changes Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied
Satisfied
Singapore
New York
Neutral
of residents
Chicago
Hong Kong Seoul
Los Angeles
Mexico City
Dissatisfied
25 20 15 10 5 1
Underperformers Leaders
Score based on objective metrics
74 29
Analysis of specific aspects of transport systems
Exhibit 37
Personal-transport cost
Perception and reality: Personal-transport cost and use barriers Affordability
and use barriers
Public-transport affordability
Personal-transport cost and use
barriers
Exhibit 37
Perception and reality: Personal-transport cost and use barriers
Satisfaction with changes Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very satisfied
Satisfied
Shenzhen Shanghai
Level of current satisfaction
Bangkok Beijing
Neutral
of residents
Attitude
Paris Tokyo
Singapore
Mexico City
Buenos Aires Sao Paulo
Dissatisfied
25 20 15 10 5 1
Underperformers Leaders
Score based on objective metrics
The public-transport efficiency index leading cities, residents are satisfied Personal-transport efficiency
shows the speed and predictability of or very satisfied with improvements in
movement across the city. It comprises public-transport efficiency. Moscow
the following metrics: average public- is a notable exception from that rule:
transport travel speed during the despite its star-quality objective
morning rush hour, average surface performance, Muscovites’ level of
transport waiting time, underground- satisfaction with the current situation
train waiting time index, and share of is rather low. Johannesburg and São
dedicated public-transport lanes in Paulo are similar in that their residents
total road network length. have failed to notice significant changes
and see the current situation in a more
Public-transport efficiency leaders
negative light than residents of most
among the examined cities are Moscow,
other cities.
Singapore, and Shenzhen (Exhibit 38).
Moscow has the third-best average
public-transport travel speed during the
rush hour and, together with Shenzhen,
is part of the top three in terms of the
share of dedicated bus lanes. About
100 kilometers of dedicated lanes have
been put in operation in the Russian
capital over the last three years,
and this is one of the reasons for the
high average public-transport travel The length of dedicated bus lanes
speed noted in our study. Singapore in Shenzhen is 1,057 kilometers
has demonstrated excellent surface
transport waiting times, ranking third
for this metric.
City residents’ level of satisfaction
of and the objective results posted
by the cities in this subgroup are
generally positively correlated. In most
Exhibit 38
Perception and reality: Public-transport efficiency
Seoul
Paris Moscow
Sao Paulo
Dissatisfied
25 20 15 10 5 1
Underperformers Leaders
Score based on objective metrics
76 31
Analysis of specific aspects of transport systems
Exhibit 39
Perception and reality: Personal-transport efficiency
To assess personal transport efficiency, where residents have a rather low level Personal-transport efficiency
we have used the following metrics: of satisfaction with both the current
average traffic flow speed, time en situation and the recent changes.
route predictability index during the
In addition, unlike in the other
morning rush hour, traffic congestion
subgroups of metrics, this one has
index, and time lost in traffic jams per
a rather high share of respondents
motor vehicle trip.
who fail to note occurrence of any
Personal-transport efficiency leaders changes over the last three years.
among the examined cities are Chicago, This may testify to the fact that traffic
Shenzhen, and Johannesburg (Exhibit congestion in the examined cities is
39). In Chicago, the traffic congestion still high, and that remains a concern
index is one of the lowest, while travel for city residents. Indeed, the average
speed is one of the highest, reaching traffic congestion index for all cities has
40 kilometers per hour, versus an increased from 1.39 in 2018 to 1.43 in
average 28.6 kilometers per hour 2021.
for all examined cities. This is one of
the reasons why Chicago has one
of the lowest indicators of time lost
in traffic jams (about three minutes
on average). As for the other leading
cities, Shenzhen has a high index for
time en route predictability during the
morning rush hour, and Johannesburg To reduce traffic congestion, New York
boasts high average personal-transport authorities charge drivers a special fee
travel speed during the rush hour (46 for entering certain city districts
kilometers per hour).
We note a strong positive correlation
between objective personal-transport
efficiency metrics and city residents’
level of satisfaction with that aspect.
One notable exception is Buenos Aires,
Exhibit 39
Perception and reality: Personal-transport efficiency
Chicago
Buenos Aires Sydney Johannesburg
Dissatisfied
25 20 15 10 5 1
Underperformers Leaders
Score based on objective metrics
The travel comfort index measures Residents of most leading cities Ticketing system
convenience of using public transport. It are satisfied with travel comfort Electronic service
includes the following metrics: bus fleet improvements. Positive perceptions
age, age of underground rolling stock, are supported by objective metrics. Intermodality
and share of buses and underground This does not apply to Latin American
stations accessible to persons with cities, primarily Buenos Aires, and São
reduced mobility. Paulo, where city residents have rather
low levels of satisfaction with both the
Leaders in travel comfort among the
current situation and recent changes.
examined cities are Beijing, Istanbul,
and Toronto (Exhibit 40). Beijing and
Toronto have the newest underground
rolling stock, and Istanbul has one of
the newest bus fleets.
The Chinese capital deserves special
mention, as it is actively modernizing
both buses and underground train cars.
The city has a plan to convert its bus
fleet to clean energy sources, and about
3,000 environmentally friendly buses
have already been deployed within the
framework of that plan.
Concurrently, new train models are The average age of the Istanbul bus
being put in operation. For example, fleet is five years
in 2019, BDK06 trains were launched
on the Batong line. On some trains,
LCD displays with route progress
information have been installed for the
first time.
Exhibit 40
Perception and reality: Travel comfort
Singapore
Hong Kong Istanbul
Neutral
of residents
Sao Paulo
Dissatisfied
25 20 15 10 5 1
Underperformers Leaders
Score based on objective metrics
78 33
Analysis of specific aspects of transport systems
Exhibit 41
Perception and reality: Ticketing system
In our assessments of ticketing systems, All in all, the level of satisfaction with Ticketing system
we relied on travel card use data and changes and the current situation is Electronic service
availability of alternative payment strongly correlated with the objective
options. Index measurement was based metrics. Residents of all leading cities Intermodality
on the following metrics: possibility are satisfied both with the current state
to use smart travel cards on multiple of their ticketing systems and with the
modes of public transport, possibility recent changes in that area. The five
to top up travel cards remotely, cities with the greatest satisfaction
possibility to pay using biometric data, with changes are Asian cities, where
possibility to use travel cards to pay for public perceptions are consistent with
nontransport services, etc. outstanding objective metrics.
The top three index values were
registered in Beijing, Tokyo, and
Shenzhen (Exhibit 41). In all those
cities, it is possible to use travel cards
to pay for nontransport services and
to use mobile devices to pay fares.
However, what truly makes the cities
stand out is that they have implemented
technologies enabling fare payments
using biometric data. For example,
a face-scan fare payment system has
gone online in Shenzhen. Passengers Passengers report that it takes less
can have their faces scanned while they time to enter the station using the new
are passing the turnstile, and later the system than before, when they had to
fare is automatically debited from their place a card or smartphone over the
personal accounts. a similar system reader
is being tested at four underground
stations in Tokyo.
Exhibit 41
Perception and reality: Ticketing system
Los Angeles
London Hong Kong
Neutral Moscow Tokyo
New York
of residents
Dissatisfied
25 20 15 10 5 1
Underperformers Leaders
Score based on objective metrics
In the course of our analysis of objective metrics. The exceptions are Ticketing system
electronic services implemented in three Latin American cities: Buenos Electronic service
various cities, we assessed transport Aires, Mexico City, and São Paulo.
applications, real-time availability of Despite the low level of satisfaction with Intermodality
transport-related information, and the current situation and changes in
availability of high-speed internet on electronic services, São Paulo is part of
vehicles and at stops. In particular, we the top ten for this group of metrics. As
reviewed the following metrics: average with certain other subgroups of metrics,
rating of official transport applications, Asian cities post the highest levels of
penetration rates of the most popular satisfaction with the current situation.
applications, and Wi-Fi availability on
trains, at underground stations, on
buses, and at bus stops.
The electronic-services leaders among
examined cities are Madrid, Hong Kong,
and Moscow (Exhibit 42). Madrid and
Moscow have rather sophisticated
official transport applications, as
confirmed by high user ratings and high
download numbers. In addition, high-
speed internet is available at bus stops
and on buses in all leading cities.
In the Moscow Metro, Wi-Fi works even
Residents of most cities are generally
between stations
satisfied with changes in electronic
services, which is consistent with
Exhibit 42
Perception and reality: Electronic services
Neutral Singapore
of residents
Dissatisfied
25 20 15 10 5 1
Underperformers Leaders
Score based on objective metrics
80 35
Analysis of specific aspects of transport systems
Exhibit 43
Perception and reality: Intermodality
Intermodality Convenience
Travel comfort
To assess intermodality, we used In all but one city, residents are satisfied Ticketing system
metrics measuring convenience of with intermodality changes. Similarly, Electronic service
switching from one mode of transport in most cities (except two), the current
to another. The index comprises the situation is perceived in a positive way. Intermodality
following metrics: average distance Those perception data are consistent
from an underground station to the with objective metrics. In two Latin
three nearest surface transport American cities (Buenos Aires and São
stops, average time required to switch Paulo), the level of satisfaction with the
from one mode of public transport current situation and recent changes is
to another, and availability of unified rather low, even though the capital of
public-transport navigation for Argentina is one of the top ten cities in
passengers. this subgroup of metrics.
The intermodality leaders among the
examined cities are Toronto, Chicago,
and Milan (Exhibit 43). In all those cities,
it takes less than one minute to switch
from one mode of public transport
to another, while the average value
across all examined cities reaches
two minutes. Toronto also boasts the
shortest distance from an underground
station to the three nearest surface
transport stops: less than 90 meters, Chicago has one of the highest
versus the average of 135 meters. intermodality levels among the
examined cities
Exhibit 43
Perception and reality: Intermodality
London
Dissatisfied
25 20 15 10 5 1
Underperformers Leaders
Score based on objective metrics
Exhibit 44
Perception and reality: Physical safety
Toronto
Seoul
Tokyo
Berlin London
Dissatisfied
25 20 15 10 5 1
Underperformers Leaders
Score based on objective metrics
82 37
Analysis of specific aspects of transport systems
Exhibit 45
Perception and reality: Environmental safety
Exhibit 45
Perception and reality: Environmental safety
Singapore
Level of current satisfaction
Dissatisfied
25 20 15 10 5 1
Underperformers Leaders
Score based on objective metrics
At this time, we are observing several Exhibit 46 lays out the interaction of
key trends: these trends in terms of six key insights.
— lower mobility with an increasing This section discusses the key short-
share of private cars in the modal term and long-term trends engendered
split of most transport systems by COVID-19, presents a comparative
description of measures taken by
— lower popularity of public transport, city authorities to combat COVID-19
as it is more frequently perceived as (showing how city residents perceive
associated with risks of COVID-19 those measures), and identifies the key
infection activities carried out in cities to assure
long-term sustainable development of
— declining revenue of transport their transport systems.
systems due to lower mobility and,
therefore, inevitably poorer service
in urban public transport
In the long run, these trends may lead to
further growth in the number of private
cars on the roads, which will place an
additional burden on transport systems
and cause an even more substantial
decrease in the ticket revenue of public
transport. We anticipate that city
governments will respond with projects
designed to improve the sustainability
of their transport systems.
1. Restrictive measures and an 3. As follows from data on the eight most of them indicated that they will
increased share of remote employment cities we examined, the lower the level remain active users of their private
resulted in much lower mobility of service, the lower city residents’ cars after the pandemic. With a further
(hereinafter, mobility shall mean the satisfaction with public transport and decrease in the share of remote
number of trips). Thus, at the peak of its popularity. This drives up the share employment, this trend may lead to
restrictions, the average mobility of of private cars in the modal split. In the serious adverse effects, including lower
residents in the examined cities was cities where the level of service is the efficiency of transport systems and
just 32 percent of the level recorded same or growing, however, we observe higher early-death rates.
before the pandemic outbreak. At the a less notable decline in the share of
6. Sustainable development of urban
time of this writing, mobility has not public transport in the modal split.
environment will be facilitated by
recovered fully; in the examined cities,
4. City residents believe the risk of viral projects designed to reduce the use of
it averages merely 69 percent of the
infection in public transport is much private cars and popularize the modes
level observed before the pandemic.
higher than in a private car. Thanks of travel associated with physical
Considering an ever-greater spread of
to safety measures and competent activity (walking, cycling, etc.).
remote working formats, one may also
communication with the people, some
presume that mobility might not recover
city authorities have been able to
even after the pandemic is over.
soften perception of public transport
2. Since people now use public as a “hazard” and have sustained its
transport less frequently, giving popularity during the pandemic.
preference to their private cars, ticket
5. As private cars are perceived to be
revenue of transport systems covered
safer and people are less satisfied with
by the study has dropped by 37 percent
public transport, the share of private
on average, which made some
cars in the modal split in the examined
administrations reduce public-transport
cities has grown from 40 to 48 percent
service levels.
on average. In a poll of city residents,
Exhibit 47
Mobility change in the examined cities during the pandemic
ХХ% – mobility level vs. beginning of 2020 Average mobility Asian cities European cities
COVID-19 infection cases North American cities Latin American cities
68%
Singapore, Bangkok, Tokyo
140
120
32% 1.4
1.2
100 1.0
80 0.8
60 0.6
40 0.4
20 Paris, London, Madrid 0.2
0 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
40
Some residents plan to come back to they intend to return to their offices. In
the way of life they were used to before North America and Europe, however, we
the pandemic. On average, 10 percent of expect a more substantial decrease in
respondents said that once the COVID- remote employment after the pandemic.
19 pandemic is over, they will stop According to our survey, 14 percent of
working remotely and return to their North American city residents and 12
offices. percent of European city residents will
switch from remote work to office work
People from different regions assess
in 2021–22.
that prospect differently. In Asian
and Latin American cities, the post- Along with overall mobility, the
pandemic share of employees working pandemic forced people to change their
remotely is not likely to sustain any attitude to existing modes of transport.
significant changes: only 6 percent At the peak of restrictions, mobility
of Asian city residents and 5 percent declined rapidly on average, but the
of Latin American city residents said rates of decline differed depending on
Exhibit 48
Averaged modality change in the examined cities relative to early 2020
ХХ% Mode of transport share in modal split Public transport Personal transport
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
60%
0.6
0.5
52%
0.4
0.3
46%
0.2 40%
48%
0.1 54%
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
41
From the standpoint of long-term pandemic, they plan to make 47 percent
development of transport systems, this of their trips by private cars, versus
trend is associated with a multitude 48 percent at this time (Exhibit 49).
of adverse effects, including traffic Although some city residents will keep
congestion, city air pollution, and rising using public transport, most transport
early death rates. The most important systems will see the shift toward
question, however, is whether the personal transport persisting through
increasing share of personal transport 2021–22.
is systemic or temporary—that is, due to
Since many residents will begin
the pandemic only.
traveling to work again and use
Judging by the responses to our survey personal transport for that purpose
of examined-city residents, we expect more frequently, city transport systems
that the trend will persist in the longer will come under growing pressure.
term. Respondents said that after the
Exhibit 50
Trips by mode of transport: city-level example
100 95
Active private-car users 35% 25%
65% 75%
100
Active public-transport 65
Share of public-transport trips
u s e rs 80%
65% Share of private-car trips
20% 35%
Before the pandemic At this time Active private-car users
100 95
The declining share of remote the second wave of the pandemic in the
employment combined with people’s 2020, new restrictions were put in 35% 25%
reluctance to use public transport may place. The existing conditions enabled
cause street and road traffic in some us to assess the correlation between
cities to exceed the values recorded traffic volume and personal transport 65% 75%
before the pandemic. mobility.
Throughout the year, we have observed For the examined cities, this
significant fluctuations in the number correlation is described in the form Active public-transport users
of cars driven in all examined cities. of exponential functions, which differ
Street and road traffic levels also have due to city specifics, such as street
been changing. For example, at the and road building density, maturity of 100
peak of restrictions in the examined smart transport systems, and other
cities, the number of motor vehicles on characteristics (Exhibit 51). 65
the roads decreased to unprecedented 80%
lows. Later on, personal-transport 65%
mobility gradually recovered, but with
20% 35%
90
BeforeImpact of the COVID-19
At this time
pandemic
the pandemic
Exhibit 51
Observed changes in mobility and traffic congestion index and their description using exponential
functions
Actual mobility and traffic congestion index values in 2020 Simulated values of correlation between traffic volume and mobility based on 2020 data
P a r is L o n do n
Traffic 100 90
congestion 90 80
i n dex 80 70
70 60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Personal-transport mobility Personal-transport mobility
45
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Saint Petersburg
Johannesburg
Buenos Aires
Los Angeles
Mexico City
Hong Kong
Singapore
São Paulo
New York
Bangkok
Moscow
Chicago
Istanbul
Toronto
London
Sydney
Madrid
Tokyo
Berlin
Milan
Paris
One of the critical tasks currently facing in making their public transport more
most examined transport systems attractive, primarily by informing 46
Buenos Aires
Los Angeles
Mexico City
Hong Kong
Singapore
São Paulo
Shenzhen
New York
Shanghai
Bangkok
Moscow
Chicago
Istanbul
Toronto
London
Sydney
Madrid
on performance metrics
Tokyo
Berlin
Seoul
Milan
Paris
Decreased mobility has led to (Exhibit 53). This was also affected by
a reduction in the number of trips by the overall decline in public-transport
public transport in the examined cities popularity among city residents.
Exhibit 53
Public-transport passenger
Public-transport passenger traffic
traffic in
inthe
theexamined
examinedtransport
transportsystems
systemsinin2020
2020vs.
vs.pre-pandemic
pre-pandemic
levels
levels, %
101
73 75 76 77 82
60 60 61 61 63 63 64 66 70
50 51 51 51 53 54 56
45
Saint Petersburg
Buenos Aires
Los Angeles
Mexico City
Hong Kong
Singapore
São Paulo
Shenzhen
New York
Shanghai
Bangkok
Moscow
Chicago
Istanbul
Toronto
London
Sydney
Madrid
Tokyo
Berlin
Seoul
Milan
Paris
However, considering the important examined transport systems suffered Some city authorities have done the
social role that transport systems play an actual decline in ticket revenues. opposite, however. They abstained from
in people’s lives, administrations of reducing service levels in 2020, raising
On the back of trends associated
most transport systems did not pass them instead. This enabled them to
with declining revenues and shrinking
the burden of declining revenue on to maintain higher passenger traffic than
Exhibit 54 passenger traffic, some of transport
city residents: during the pandemic in megacities where the level of service
Correlation
period. between
Fare increases in 22public-transport
cities were passenger
systems had to lowertraffic decline
the level of and was
service-level changes
reduced (Exhibit 54). in 2020
service, at least judging by what city
maintained at or below the inflation
administration and transport operator
rate. This indicates that most of the
spokespersons said to the press.
Exhibit 54
Correlation between public-transport passenger traffic decline and service-level changes in 2020
Higher
frequency
Service
lev el No change
changes
in 20 20
Lower
frequency
High, >40% Medium, 25–40% Low, <25%
47
Higher
frequency
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic 93
Impact of safety perceptions
and COVID-19 response
measures
During the COVID-19 pandemic, city to use public transport and preferred Residents’ perception of the risk of
residents have traveled by public using personal transport. According to infection affects their preferred modes
transport less frequently because they our respondents, the risk of viral infection of travel. Thus, in cities where risk of
believe it exposes them to a higher risk while traveling by public transport is two infection in public transport is perceived
of viral infection. To a great extent, this times higher than while using a private to be low, we observe higher public-
attitude results from low visibility of car. People view private cars as the transport mobility during the pandemic
biological safety measures. safest mode of transport; private-car (Exhibit 55).
transportation outperforms taxis, car
The results of our study show that in
sharing, and even the modes of travel
2020, big-city residents were less willing
associated with physical activity.
Exhibit 55
Correlation
Exhibit 55 between perceived risk of infection while traveling by public transport and passenger
Correlation between
traffic decrease perceived risk of infection while traveling by public transport and passenger
in 2020
traffic decrease in 2020
High
P u bl i c Chinese cities
transport
m o b i l i t y d u ri n g
the pandemic Medium
v s m ob ilit y
b e f o re
restrictions, %
Low
High Average Low
48
Exhibit 56
Activities carried out in cities to improve public-transport safety
Mandatory use of PPE Frequent disinfection Stickers, markers, and Same or higher Better cycling Limits on the number
by passengers and and implementation barriers to support public-transport infrastructure of passengers in
employees of effective social distancing frequency public transport
innovations
Number of cities actively taking safety measures City actively taking measures
in the respective category
Efficacy of such activities was noted in transport travel (Exhibit 57). This might
multiple studies published in 2020, but be because city authorities have not
the fact that they are being carried out effectively distributed information on
in a city does not have direct impact on such initiatives.
how city residents perceive the risk of
infection in public transport. Despite
the existence of an indirect relationship
between the two metrics, in some
cities the measures have had a less
significant impact on perception of
biological risks associated with public-
>6
Number of
safety
4–5
measures
taken in cities
<3
High level Average level Low level
49
The data we acquired during our study they prefer to use. In cities where
testify to the fact that it is the visibility authorities managed to arrange
of biological safety measures that effective communication, and the
immediately influences how residents residents were more aware of relevant
perceive the level of risks associated activities, respondents assess the risk
with traveling by public transport and, of infection in public transport to be
therefore, what modes of transport lower (Exhibit 58).
Exhibit 58
Exhibit 58
Correlation between perceived risk of infection while traveling by public transport and visibility
Correlation between
of biological perceived risk of infection while traveling by public transport and visibility
safety measures
of biological safety measures
High
V isib ilit y of
safety
Medium
measures for
city residents
Low
Low level Average level High level
Exhibit59
Exhibit 59
Correlation between
Correlation between perceived
perceivedrisk
riskof
ofinfection
infectionwhile
whiletraveling
travelingbybypublic
publictransport
transportand
andnumber
number of
new infection cases
of new infection cases
High
Number of
new cases of
COVID-19 per Medium
1 , 0 00
population
Low
Low Average High
50
Exhibit 60
Categories of projects implemented by cities during the COVID-19 pandemic
Improvement of public-transport
efficiency
Construction of new dedicated lanes
10%
90%
Mitigation of traffic accident fatality risk
(MCDs)
who mentioned the project
132 km
Public-transport infrastructure development Total length of MCDs
The Ivolga (Oriole) new-generation train has 11 cars and carries more than 3,000 passengers
The Tuen Mun–Chek Lap Kok undersea tunnel has a depth of 50 meters and length of 5 kilometers; no fare is charged
Creation of bicycling infrastructure in Milan aims to increase the safety of all residents
Restrictions on using motor vehicles equipped with petrol and diesel engines have been imposed on 72 percent of Milan’s
territory
The Istanbulkart transport card costs ten Turkish liras when purchased at an office or in a kiosk, and six Turkish liras when
purchased through a vending machine. The associated mobile application can be used to top up the travel card
17%
Madrid survey respondents
who mentioned the project
80%
Share of streets subject
to 30 km/h speed limit
85%
Share of of total city road length
subject to 30 km/h speed limit
5 km/h
Sidewalk speed limit for people
using skateboards or roller skates
Project impact
After the applications filed by city
residents were collected, scrutinized,
and categorized, city authorities
published a report presenting key
insights. The report also offered detailed
descriptions of the most frequently
asked questions and provided answers
City residents asked for more discounts in Buenos Aires’ new fare system
Trucks with maximum permitted mass of more than 12 tons can enter the city only between ten o’clock in the evening and six
o’clock in the morning
Shops, galleries, and public spaces have been created in an area adjacent to the Wood Lane tube station
697 km
City population GRP per capita, based on PPP
2
8,200/km2 110
Examined territory area Population density Motor vehicles per 1,000 people
91% 81%
Share of residents Share of residents
satisfied with the current satisfied with the current
situation situation
89% 86%
Share of residents Share of residents
satisfied with the recent satisfied with the recent
changes changes
6 Personal-
transport
Ticketing
cost and use
system
7 barriers
Travel Public-
comfort Personal-transport transport
efficiency efficiency
0.70 68%
Public 61
transport 0.60 65%
71
0.50 70%
42
Taxi
48
0.40 35%
50
Car sharing 0.30
44 32%
0.20 51% 30%
9
Private car 0.10
7
49%
10 0.00
Walking Before the Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec After
>10 minutes 11 pandemic the pandemic
(2019) 2020
Visibility of COVID-19 Increase Increase in the share
56% response in public +3 pp in Mobility Index +3 pp of personal transport
transport after the pandemic in modal split after the
vs 2019 pandemic vs 2019
1,361 km
City population GRP per capita, based on PPP
2
13,700/km2 305
Examined territory area Population density Motor vehicles per 1,000 people
93% 85%
Share of residents Share of residents
satisfied with the current satisfied with the current
situation situation
98% 94%
Share of residents Share of residents
satisfied with the recent satisfied with the recent
changes changes
6 Personal-
transport
Ticketing
cost and use
system
7 barriers
Travel Public-
comfort Personal-transport transport
efficiency efficiency
Fare payment
using QR codes
Number of system users: 12 million people
38%
Smart parking
system
Available information on 120,000 parking spaces
37%
Construction
of bicycle lanes
Expansion of the bicycle lane southward to Shizhimen
31%
Public 47
transport 71
28
Taxi
48
22
Car sharing
44
7
Private car
7
Walking 9
>10 minutes 11
11,600/km2 325
Population density Motor vehicles per 1,000 people
74% 56%
Share of residents Share of residents
satisfied with the current satisfied with the current
situation situation
Satisfied
Satisfaction better than objective status
Rail transport
Satisfaction of residents
External connectivity
Intermodality Travel comfort ticketing system
Physical safety Road network electronic services
Neutral
attitude Shared transport
Public transport
Public transport affordability efficiency
Turnstile-free fare-
payment system
The use of the turnstile-free fare payment system on surface transport
vehicles produces time savings of up to 25% 39%
MCD-1 and
MCD-2 launch
Total length: 132 km; number of stations: 60
38%
Deployment
of e-buses
No atmospheric emissions, noise pollution 30% less vs ordinary buses
31%
0.70
Public 70 62%
transport 71 0.60
41 0.50
Taxi 56% 52%
48
0.40
41 38%
Car sharing 0.30 48%
44 44%
0.20
59%
4
Private car 0.10
7
41%
7 0
Walking Before the Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec After
>10 minutes 11 pandemic the pandemic
(2019) 2020
Visibility of COVID-19 Increase Increase in the share
47% response in public −27 pp in Mobility Index +14 pp of personal transport
transport after the pandemic in modal split after the
vs 2019 pandemic vs 2019
90 km
City population GRP per capita, based on PPP
2
83,400/km2 100
Examined territory area Population density Motor vehicles per 1,000 people
86% 78%
Share of residents Share of residents
satisfied with the current satisfied with the current
situation situation
88% 85%
Share of residents Share of residents
satisfied with the recent satisfied with the recent
changes changes
6 Personal-
transport
Ticketing
cost and use
system
7 barriers
Travel Public-
comfort Personal-transport transport
efficiency efficiency
Satisfied
Satisfaction better than objective status Ticketing system Physical
Rail transport
External connectivity Travel comfort safety
Satisfaction of residents
Intermodality
Road network Public-transport
efficiency Electronic services
Neutral Personal-transport efficiency
attitude Shared transport Environmental
Public-transport
safety
Personal-transport affordability
cost and use barriers
0.80
Public 55
transport 71
0.70 78%
76%
0.60
59 81%
Taxi 0.50
48
0.40
52 78%
Car sharing
44 0.30
0.20 19%
18
Private car 24%
7 0.10 22% 22%
10 0.00
Walking Before the Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec After
>10 minutes 11 pandemic the pandemic
(2019) 2020
Visibility of COVID-19 Increase in Mobi- Increase in the share
35% response in public −18 pp lity Index after +2 pp of personal transport
transport the pandemic vs in modal split after the
2019 pandemic vs 2019
1,919 km
City population GRP per capita, based on PPP
2
7,000/km2 260
Examined territory area Population density Motor vehicles per 1,000 people
94% 87%
Share of residents Share of residents
satisfied with the current satisfied with the current
situation situation
98% 93%
Share of residents Share of residents
satisfied with the recent satisfied with the recent
changes changes
Rail transport
Environmental Road
safety network
Physical Shared
safety transport
3
Inter- External
modality 4 connectivity
Public-
Electronic 5 transport
services affordability
6 Personal-
transport
Ticketing
cost and use
system
7 barriers
Travel Public-
comfort Personal-transport transport
efficiency efficiency
Shared
Intermodality transport External transport Electronic services
connectivity
Personal-transport Environmental
Neutral cost and use barriers safety
attitude Public- Personal-
transport transport
efficiency efficiency
0,80
Public 43 73%
transport 71
0.70 63% 69%
0.60
36
Taxi 0.50
48 53%
0.40
28
Car sharing
44 0.30
37% 47% 27%
31%
0.20
22
Private car
7 0.10
30 0.00
Walking Before the Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec After
>10 minutes 11 pandemic the pandemic
(2019) 2020
Visibility of COVID-19 Increase Increase in the share
78% response in public +8 pp in Mobility Index −10 pp of personal transport
transport after the pandemic in modal split after the
vs 2019 pandemic vs 2019
2,758 km
City population GRP per capita, based on PPP
2
8,800/km2 171
Examined territory area Population density Motor vehicles per 1,000 people
94% 87%
Share of residents Share of residents
satisfied with the current satisfied with the current
situation situation
98% 93%
Share of residents Share of residents
satisfied with the recent satisfied with the recent
changes changes
Public-
Electronic 5 transport
services affordability
6 Personal-
transport
Ticketing
cost and use
system
7 barriers
Travel Public-
comfort Personal-transport transport
efficiency efficiency
Fare payment
using QR codes
Available on all Shanghai buses
67%
Fully automated
underground transit
Driverless automated underground trains available on Lines 10, 14, 15,
and 18 40%
system
Underground Line 13 3 connecting passages to Lines 14, 15, and 18 built in 2020
37%
0,80 73%
Public 51
transport 0.70
71 72%
0.60 72%
26 69%
Taxi 0.50
48
0.40
28
Car sharing
44 0.30
31%
28%
7 0.20 27% 28%
Private car
7 0.10
9 0.00
Walking Before the Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec After
>10 minutes 11 pandemic the pandemic
(2019) 2020
Visibility of COVID-19 Increase Increase in the share
72% response in public −6 pp in Mobility Index +1 pp of personal transport
transport after the pandemic in modal split after the
vs 2019 pandemic vs 2019
1,607 km
City population GRP per capita, based on PPP
2
5,600/km2 348
Examined territory area Population density Motor vehicles per 1,000 people
84% 76%
Share of residents Share of residents
satisfied with the current satisfied with the current
situation situation
85% 78%
Share of residents Share of residents
satisfied with the recent satisfied with the recent
changes changes
Public-
Electronic 5 transport
services affordability
6 Personal-
transport
Ticketing
cost and use
system
7 barriers
Travel Public-
comfort Personal-transport transport
efficiency efficiency
Streetspace
for London
89 kilometers of new bicycle lanes
32%
Publication of train
schedules in “TFL Go”
Enables en route tracking for subway, rail trains and tramways
23%
application
Parking fee increase Parking fees increased by 50% for diesel motor vehicles purchased before
2015, if they fail to meet current environmental standards 19%
0.90
Public 66
0.80
transport 71
0.70 70%
47
Taxi 0.60
48
0.50 63%
63%
57 0.40
Car sharing
44 0.30
30% 51%
8 0.20 37%
Private car 37%
7 0.10
49%
11 0.00
Walking Before the Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec After
>10 minutes 11 pandemic the pandemic
(2019) 2020
Visibility of COVID-19 Increase Increase in the share
37% response in public −29 pp in Mobility Index +7 pp of personal transport
transport after the pandemic in modal split after the
vs 2019 pandemic vs 2019
606 km
City population GRP per capita, based on PPP
2
15,900/km2 308
Examined territory area Population density Motor vehicles per 1,000 people
82% 75%
Share of residents Share of residents
satisfied with the current satisfied with the current
situation situation
89% 87%
Share of residents Share of residents
satisfied with the recent satisfied with the recent
changes changes
6 Personal-
transport
Ticketing
cost and use
system
7 barriers
Travel Public-
comfort Personal-transport transport
efficiency efficiency
Public-transport
application
Displays information about public-transport passenger traffic
30%
Electric bicycles
to lease
2 new e-bicycle lease stations opened in 2019
29%
Gyeongui–Jungang
Line extension
Part of the plan to extend the line to Dorasan Station
26%
0,70
Public 58
60%
transport 71 0.60
41 0.50
Taxi 58%
48
0.40
59%
41
Car sharing 0.30 42%
44 59%
0.20
9 41% 41%
Private Car 0.10
7 40%
10 0.00
Walking Before the Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec After
>10 minutes 11 pandemic the pandemic
(2019) 2020
Visibility of COVID-19 Increase Increase in the share
50% response in public −51 pp in Mobility Index +1 pp of personal transport
transport after the pandemic in modal split after the
vs 2019 pandemic vs 2019
762 km
City population GRP per capita, based on PPP
2
9,300/km2 344
Examined territory area Population density Motor vehicles per 1,000 people
70% 68%
Share of residents Share of residents
satisfied with the current satisfied with the current
situation situation
81% 75%
Share of residents Share of residents
satisfied with the recent satisfied with the recent
changes changes
Inter- External
modality 4 connectivity
Public-
Electronic 5 transport
services affordability
6 Personal-
transport
Ticketing
cost and use
system
7 barriers
Travel Public-
comfort Personal-transport transport
efficiency efficiency
Ticketing system
efficiency
Intermodality
Travel comfort
Shared transport Road
Electronic services
Neutral network
attitude
Physical safety
Personal- Public-transport affordability Environmental
transport Personal-transport safety
efficiency cost and use barriers
Satisfaction worse than objective status
Dissatisfied
25 20 15 10 5 1
Objective position of city authorities
0.90
Public 74
0.80
transport 71 70%
0.70
42
Taxi 0.60
48 74% 71%
0.50
50 0.40
Car sharing
44 0.30
58% 29%
10 0.20 30%
Private car
7 0.10 26%
42%
14 0.00
Walking Before the Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec After
>10 minutes 11 pandemic the pandemic
(2019) 2020
Visibility of COVID-19 Increase Increase in the share
21% response in public −28 pp in Mobility Index −1 pp of personal transport
transport after the pandemic in modal split after the
vs 2019 pandemic vs 2019
633 km
City population GRP per capita, based on PPP
2
15,100/km2 286
Examined territory area Population density Motor vehicles per 1,000 people
79% 74%
Share of residents Share of residents
satisfied with the current satisfied with the current
situation situation
95% 95%
Share of residents Share of residents
satisfied with the recent satisfied with the recent
changes changes
Inter- External
modality 4 connectivity
Public-
Electronic 5 transport
services affordability
6 Personal-
transport
Ticketing
cost and use
system
7 barriers
Travel Public-
comfort Personal-transport transport
efficiency efficiency
Satisfied Satisfaction better than objective status Travel comfort Rail transport
External connectivity Ticketing system
Electronic
Satisfaction of residents
Takanawa Gateway
Underground Station
By 2024, the station will be visited by >120,000 people per day
34%
Fare payment
with points
The program is designed to stimulate underground trips outside of rush
hour 30%
New bike lanes New bike lanes will be opened in 24 Tokyo districts
21%
1.20
Public 67 1,10
transport 90% 89%
71 1.00
91%
0,90
45
Taxi 0.80
48 0,70
0.60 88%
44
Car sharing 0,50
44 0.40
0,30
6 12%
Private car 0.20 11%
7 10%
0,10 9%
9 0
Walking Before the Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec After
>10 minutes 11 pandemic the pandemic
(2019) 2020
Visibility of COVID-19 Increase Increase in the share
24% response in public +3 pp in Mobility Index -1 pp of personal transport
transport after the pandemic in modal split after the
vs 2019 pandemic vs 2019