You are on page 1of 28

Benchmarking London’s Public Transport Systems: An International Comparison

Second UK Transport Practitioners Meeting Stephen Bennett (MVA) and Keith Gardner (TfL)
7 July 2004


Benchmarking concept Recent MVA studies Research methods and issues Key findings The future of bus benchmarking

Benchmarking A structured approach used to identify actions that lead to superior performance Comparing operational performance Understanding best practice Attaining measurable performance improvements .

transportbenchmarks.The Benchmarking Process Self Analysis + Identify Best Practices + Analyse Performance Differences + Implement Findings = Narrowed Performance Gaps & Tangible Performance Improvements Successful Benchmarkin g= Based on UITP Urban Transport Benchmarking Initiative website ( .

identified through case studies .Benchmarking provides opportunities for: Identifying areas for improvement Best practice transfer and implementation Structured information exchange and networking Informed dialogue with stakeholders Setting challenging and yet realistic performance targets Process improvements.

Paris. and Tokyo NOVA group: Glasgow. Mexico. London Objective: identify/disseminate best practice CoMET group: Berlin. Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Singapore . New York. Madrid. Moscow. Hong Kong MTRC. Lisbon. London. Hong Kong KCRC. Sao Paulo.Public Transport Benchmarking CoMET and NOVA programmes Run by Railway Technology Strategy Centre at Imperial College.

Benefits Achieved Increases in line capacity. by adopting world best practice in maintenance methods Reduction in station staff. through dwell time and passenger management Reliability improvements. through station management rationalization Life cycle cost savings. through asset replacement programmes by experimenting with life extension methods used in other railways .

Recent MVA Studies (2003) International Public Transport Funding Study For TfL (Fares Analysis) Aims: To make an objective comparison between London and comparable cities of costs of operating and sources of funding for public transport To update and expand on previous work by London Transport in 1998 Comparable Cities Study Part of London Buses Strategic Review Aims: To compare role played by the bus in London with that in similar cities across the world To provide a wider perspective on the role and performance of buses in London .

New York. role of the bus Focused particularly on certain aspects of bus operations. operational data.Recent MVA Studies (2003) contd International Public Transport Funding Study Cities: London. Manchester. metro and light rail. and commuter rail services Issues: Operating costs. Hong Kong Modes: Bus only Issues: Urban form and structure. Tokyo Modes: Conventional bus. Paris. New York. Hong Kong. fare revenue. Glasgow. Singapore. and funding sources Comparable Cities Study Cities: Manchester. Birmingham. Tyne and Wear. Paris. transport networks. and performance against a number of key indicators . Birmingham. Berlin.

of data and publications available online Direct contact with representatives of organisations holding relevant information (questionnaire) .Research Methods Literature review Internet search.

Research Issues Definition of city area Definition of public transport modes Comparison of data from different years Comparison of data in different currencies ‘Hidden’ subsidies Logic checking issues .

Time/Resource Constrained Research There’s a lot of information out there: Specify focused. realistic requirements and identify key sources Use draft tables/charts to aid this process Start with all guns blazing: Use all means available simultaneously to gather all available information Then refine search to fill gaps and clarify definitions This is only the beginning: Second phase to absorb and compare information is essential to explain and understand differences .

Key Findings Main mode share Public transport mode share Public transport operating cost per passenger-kilometre Public transport operating cost per vehicle-kilometre Public transport fare revenue per passenger Public transport fare revenue per vehicle-kilometre Cost recovery ratio Sources of funding for public transport NB: This excludes a lot of data produced (eg trend data). and is pre congestion charging in London .

Main Mode Share (Trips) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Manchester New York Public Share Private Share Birmingham Hong Kong Tyne and Wear Glasgow London Tokyo Paris .

Public Transport Share (Passengers) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Tokyo Bus share Metro share Rail share Tyne and Wear Manchester Hong Kong Glasgow London Birmingham New York Paris .

00 40.00 0.Operating Cost Per Vehicle-Kilometre 70.00 20.00 50.00 10.00 30.00 Birmingham Manchester Hong Kong New York Glasgow Paris Tyne&Wear London Tokyo Bus Metro Rail .00 £ 2001/02 prices 60.

50 3.00 Paris Rail Bus Metro Tokyo Birmingham Hong Kong New York Glasgow Tyne&Wear Manchester London Fare Revenue Per Passenger .50 1.00 0.50 2.50 0.£ 2001/02 prices 3.00 1.00 2.

00 20.00 10.00 30.Fare Revenue Per Vehicle-Kilometre 70.00 40.00 Manchester Birmingham £ 2001/02 prices Bus Metro Rail Tyne&Wear Glasgow Hong Kong New York London Tokyo Paris .00 60.00 50.00 0.

00 2.Revenue/operating cost 0.00 Cost Recovery Ratio .00 London Birmingham Manchester Tyne&Wear Glasgow Paris New York Hong Kong Tokyo Rail Bus Metro 0.50 3.50 2.00 1.50 1.

Cost Summary (Bus Only) Lowest Cost Per1 Kilometre Paris New York London Lowest 3 Cost Per Passenger 2 Highest Cost Recovery Ratio .

Cost Summary (Bus Only) Lowest Cost Per Kilometre Singapore Manchester Birmingham Hong Kong London Berlin Paris New York Lowest Cost Per Passenger Highest Cost Recovery Ratio .

Sources of Funding for PT 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Other Employers Specific Taxes/Tolls Government Grant Fare Revenue Birmingham London Manchester New York Tyne and Wear Glasgow Paris .

The Future of Bus Benchmarking TfL and STM Montreal proposals to establish international bus benchmarking group Objectives Establish a system of measures for internal management Use the system of measures to identify best practice Support decision making within the organisations Provide comparative information for senior management and government .

The proposed benchmarking process: Annual cycle Small group of participants (5-10) Board-level commitment – “benchmarking must be a central. not peripheral activity” Strict confidentiality agreement One annual meeting and one management meeting. held by a host organisation Expert groups .

known as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) Enable direct comparisons between systems to be made Provide internal motivation within the organisations Provide information for external use with stakeholders .Benchmarking Framework Built around a standardised set of performance measures.

Benchmarking Framework contd Five proposed KPI categories Growth and learning Customers Internal processes Safety and security Financial Case studies to identify best practices which could be emulated .

Proposed Timescale Period On-going June 2004 From Summer 2004 Winter 2004/05 2005 Summer 2005 Task Initial development Kick-off meeting Phase One development with members Six month review meeting Initial case studies Commencement of second annual cycle .

Thank You .