Transit Cooperative Research Program
Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration
RESEARCH RESULTS DIGEST
May 1998C Number 27
Subject Area: VI Public Transit Responsible Senior Program Officer: Christopher W.
Jenks
International Transit Studies Program
Report on the Spring 1997 Mission, Part 1
Public-Private Partnerships and
Innovative Transit Technologies in Scandinavia
This TCRP Digest summarizes the sixth mission performed under TCRP
Project J-3, "International Transit Studies Program." The report includes
information on the cities visited, lessons learned, and discussions of policies and
practices that could be used in the United States. This digest was prepared by Tracy E.
Dunleavy of the Eno Transportation Foundation, Inc., the contractor for the project, on
the basis of reports filed by the mission participants.
INTERNATIONAL TRANSIT STUDIES PROGRAM
About the Program
The International Transit Studies Program (ITSP) is part of the Transit
Cooperative Research Program (TCRP). The ITSP is managed by the Eno Transportation
Foundation under contract to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The TCRP was
authorized by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. In May 1992, a
memorandum of agreement outlining TCRP operations was signed by the NAS, acting through
its Transportation Research Board (TRB); the Transit Development Corporation (TDC), which
is the education and research arm of the American Public Transit Association (APTA); and
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The TCRP is funded annually by a grant from the
FTA.
The ITSP is designed to assist in the professional development of
transit managers, public officials, planners, and others charged with public
transportation responsibilities in the United States. The program accomplishes this
objective by providing opportunities for participants to learn from foreign experience,
while expanding their network of domestic and international contacts for addressing public
transport problems and issues.
The program arranges study missions in which teams of public
transportation professionals visit exemplary transit operations in other countries. Each
study mission focuses on a central theme that encompasses issues of concern in public
transportation. Cities and transit systems to be visited are selected on the basis of
their ability to demonstrate new ideas or unique approaches to handling public
transportation challenges reflected in the study mission's theme. Each study team begins
with a briefing before departing on an intensive, 2-week mission. After this stimulating
professional interaction, study team members return home with ideas for possible
application in their own communities. Team members are encouraged to share their
international experience and findings with peers in the public transportation community
throughout the United States. Study mission experience also helps to evaluate current and
proposed transit improvements and can serve to identify potential public transportation
research topics.
Study missions normally are conducted in the spring and fall of each
year. Study teams consist of up to 15 individuals, including a senior official designated
as the group's spokesperson. Transit agencies are contacted
CONTENTS
International Transit Studies Program, 1
About the Program, 1
About the Report, 3
Public-Private Partnerships and Innovative Transit Technologies in Scandinavia (May
23-June 7, 1997), 3
Introduction, 3
Transportation Profiles, 3
Helsinki, Finland, 3
Stockholm, Sweden, 4
Gothenburg, Sweden, 4
Copenhagen, Denmark, 4
Stuttgart, Germany, 6
Innovative Transit Strategies and Technologies, 9
Competitive Tendering, 9
Finland, 9
Sweden, 10
Denmark, 12
Services for Persons with Disabilities, 13
Rail Accessibility, 13
Bus Accessibility, 13
Paratransit Services, 15
Service Routes, 15
Alternative Fuels Programs, 16
Marketing and Public Information Techniques, 18
Helsinki, Finland, 18
Sweden, 18
Copenhagen, Denmark, 22
Stuttgart, Germany, 26
Smart Cards, 27
Rail Resurgence, 27
Fare Integration, 28
Finland, 28
Sweden, 29
Denmark, 29
Germany, 29
Lessons for U.S. Cities, 29
APPENDIX A: Mission Participants and Their Titles and Affiliations at the Time of the
Mission, 31
directly and asked to nominate candidates for participation. Nominees
are screened by a committee of transit officials, and the TCRP Project J-3 Oversight Panel
approves the selection.
Study mission participants are transit management personnel with
substantial knowledge and experience in transit activities. Participants must demonstrate
potential for advancement to higher levels of public transportation responsibilities.
Other selection criteria include current responsibilities, career objectives, and the
probable professional development value of the mission for the participant and sponsoring
employer. Travel expenses for participants are paid through TCRP Project J-3 funding.
For further information about the study missions, contact the TCRP
(202/334-3089) or the Eno Transportation Foundation (202/879-4712).
About the Report
The following report is an overview of the sixth study mission. This
report reflects the views of the contributing participants, who are responsible for the
facts and accuracy of the data presented. The report does not necessarily reflect the
views of the TCRP, TRB, NAS, TDC, APTA, FTA, or the Eno Transportation Foundation.
PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
AND INNOVATIVE TRANSIT TECHNOLOGIES IN SCANDINAVIA (MAY 23-JUNE 7,
1997)
Introduction
The three northern European countries (Finland, Sweden, and Denmark)
visited by the study team have instituted public transit policy and operational reforms
over the past decade. These reforms have been aimed at reducing costs and providing more
efficient operations. The Scandinavian models are based on the contracting out of bus and
commuter rail operations by the public sector to private providers with the retention of
strict service standards and fare policy supervision.
Local authorities (in most cases, counties or comparable jurisdictions)
have organized management companies responsible for policy, financing, marketing, tenders
(i.e., bids) and contract supervision. Private, nationwide bus operators and
public-private rail companies are in charge of operating bus services, urban rail, and
commuter trains. The counties and local communities share in deficit financing under the
Scandinavian models. The national governments no longer provide subsidies.
Farebox recovery has climbed in all three countries since competitive
tendering (i.e., competitive bidding) was instituted in the late 1980s. There have been
three successive waves of bidding in which public and private carriers have won tenders
for bus and rail operation. Neither sector seems to have a definitive advantage.
In addition to visiting cities in Finland, Sweden, and Denmark, the
group also took a 2-day visit to the World Congress of the International Union of Public
Transport (UITP) in Stuttgart, Germany.
This report has two main sections. The first section provides an
overview of the transportation services in each city studied by the team (i.e., Helsinki,
Finland; Stockholm and Gothenburg, Sweden; Copenhagen, Denmark; and Stuttgart, Germany).
The second section focuses on the main transit strategies and technologies observed by the
mission participants and, where applicable, suggests application for use in the United
States. Appendix A lists the names of the study mission participants and their titles and
affiliations at the time of the mission.
TRANSPORTATION PROFILES
This section presents a brief discussion of the transportation services
offered in each of the cities visited by the study mission team.
Helsinki, Finland
The Helsinki Metropolitan Area Council (YTV) is responsible for
land-use planning, transit, waste management, and pollution control in the metropolitan
region. This region has a population of about 1 million—one-fifth of the entire
country—and includes the city of Helsinki and its suburbs, along with the cities of
Espoo (pop. 183,000), Vantaa (pop. 161,000), and Kauniainen (pop. 8,000). YTV was created
by an act of parliament, which specified the council's areawide responsibilities in
service provision.
Two million trips are made every weekday in the YTV area. Roughly
one-half of these trips are made by car, one-third by public transit, and the rest by
bicycle or on foot. In the current modal split, private cars (46 percent) and buses (19
percent) are the leading modes. The rest are divided among trips on foot (15 percent),
commuter rail (8 percent), bicycle (7 percent), and interurban trains (4 percent). Among
the trips on public transit, 60 percent are made by bus, 17 percent by tram, 12 percent by
commuter rail, and 11 percent by trains. Figure 1 shows the Helsinki train station.
Helsinki City Transport (HCT) is the largest transit provider in the
metropolitan region. It accounts for about 330 buses, 105 light rail cars, and 42 metro
coaches. HCT, one city-owned and five private bus companies, the state-run railway
company, and a private ferry handle the balance of public transit within the region. There
is full-fare integration throughout the region, which is divided into three fare zones. A
multizone ticket or monthly pass costs about double the single-zone fare.
HCT employs about 5,000 people and obtains about 55 percent of its
income from the farebox. The shortfall is paid by the member cities. The central
government does not contribute to the operation or construction of public transportation,
except for the railway lines and the commuter rail extension.
Private bus companies, which provide service to cities and regions
(e.g., YTV) and are closely monitored by them, form the backbone of the country's transit
services.
Electronic fare collection is being introduced throughout the region.
In some Finnish cities, contactless fare cards are already being used. Light rail is being
expanded, and passenger information systems are being upgraded. Route and timetable
information has been available to computer users since 1995, and real-time passenger
information systems on main bus routes and terminals are in the planning stage.
Stockholm, Sweden
To make public transit funding, policy, and operations more responsive
to the needs of users, a phased reform in Sweden, underway for more than a decade, has
shifted responsibility entirely to the nation's 24 counties. In most cases, the counties
have organized management companies responsible for policy, financing, marketing, tenders,
and contract supervision. Private bus firms and public-private rail companies are in
charge of operating local and commuter traffic.
Under this system, the counties and local communities share in deficit
financing; the national government no longer provides subsidies. Farebox recovery climbed
to about 44 percent in 1996 from less than 30 percent between 1988 and 1990. The counties
are responsible for most of the public transit subsidies (on average around 35 percent),
while the local communities absorb between 15 percent and 20 percent of the deficit
funding. In Stockholm, the share of the county council comes to about 54 percent; local
communities within the Stockholm region are not involved in meeting the shortfall.
Under the terms of the Dennis Agreement, worked out by the major
political parties, the government and the Stockholm County Council are funding new transit
infrastructure in the Stockholm region. This will amount to SEK 40 billion (U.S. $5.6
billion) in the 1992–2006 time frame, of which SEK 18 billion (U.S. $2.6 billion)
will be invested in public transit. Additional costs for the projected Stockholm Ring and
Outer Bypass Roads, designed to reduce traffic in the city, will be covered by road tolls.
A dedicated trunk network for buses in the inner city and new light rail lines in the
suburbs are expected to improve the street environment and cut transit times by more than
one-third.
Responsibilities for carrying out the transit reforms mandated by the
agreement are shared by Sweden's Road and Rail Administrations and Stockholm Transport
(SL).
At the time of this mission, roughly three-fourths of the bus and
metrorail lines were operated at major cost savings by the public and private carriers who
submitted successful bids. In addition, the bus trunk network was under construction. When
completed by the end of the century, the reserved lane trunk network, with intersection
priority throughout, will drastically reduce transit time and traffic congestion in the
inner city. Three-fourths, or 150 buses of the inner city fleet of 200, is already
methanol-powered, and 6 electric articulated buses are in revenue service on a trial
basis.
The metrorail system is being upgraded with 400 new ABB railcars. Bus
and train terminals have been modernized and equipped with convenient transfer and
passenger information systems.
Gothenburg, Sweden
Trafik Kontoret, Gothenburg’s traffic and public transportation
authority, is responsible for transit and infrastructure (e.g., maintenance and roads in
the city). Stadstrafiken, a department of Trafik Kontoret, is responsible for network
planning, service standards, finance, and fare policy and acts as purchaser of transit
services under the new competitive tender situation. The former public transit authority,
converted in 1989 into a city-owned holding company, GS, is the main operator for
Stadstrafiken. GS has won more than one-half of the tenders put out to bid to date;
Linjebuss has won the remainder.
Gothenburg had completed the contracting out of two-thirds of its bus routes by the
time of this mission visit; this contracting process has been underway since 1993. In
addition to its traditional city bus fleet, GS operates 29 Volvo natural gas buses.
The area also has a tram/light rail system that enjoys intersection
priority (see Figure 2). A new, computerized traffic control system, including real-time
passenger information, has been put into operation on the light rail route and in part of
the bus network. Real-time light rail departures are also available to home computer users
via the Internet, which is said to be a world's first (http://www.tkgb.se280/). The bus
and light rail transit (LRT) systems together account for 85 million passenger trips a
year.
Gothenburg recently instituted a hub-and-spoke bus line similar to
German and Swiss city buses. Under this concept, all lines at a specific terminal leave at
the same time in order to reduce transfer times between the lines. This results in simpler
transfers and timetables and more transfer options for passengers.
Copenhagen, Denmark
Copenhagen Transport (HT) was set up in 1974 as a joint body comprising
12 public bus companies, three counties, and two cities. HT covers the metropolitan
region, which includes 1.8 million inhabitants (about one-third of the country's
population). Danish law stipulates that public transportation in the metropolitan region
must function as a single, integrated system with complete fare integration.
Roughly 1,000 buses and 300 commuter railcars provide service in the
metropolitan region with more than 800,000 daily passenger journeys. An ambitious
"Vision 2005" concept aims to double the number of passenger trips by public
transit within the next 10 years. Farebox recovery of operating costs is slightly above 50
percent. Public subsidies (equivalent to $116 million annually) are required because of a
public policy decision to operate around the clock and to serve sparsely populated parts
of the region.
Two years ago, the bus division of HT became an independent company,
known as Bus Danmark (BD), and was allowed to compete for contracts. At the same
time, the Danish parliament passed a resolution stating that HT bus operations should be
fully contracted out by 2002. Currently, about two-thirds of the bus routes are contracted
out to roughly 12 providers. BD has won the largest share of contracts to date.
BD operates routes for which tenders have not yet been invited. Any
company, private or public, Danish or foreign, can freely compete for HT bus operation
contracts. HT continues to plan routes, prescribe service standards, fix fares, monitor
contracts, and be responsible for marketing and public relations. All fare revenue is
turned over to HT, which pays the contractors the contractual fee irrespective of the
number of passengers using the route.
To reverse declining commuter trends, the S buses, a network of
interconnected express bus routes, began in the early 1990s in the metropolitan region.
Routes are linked with commuter rail stations and run through the center of Copenhagen
(see Figure 3) and out to the suburbs (see Figure 4). High standards of speed, comfort,
and intermodal conveniences have helped to halt and reverse the decline in commuters using
public transit within the metropolitan region over the past several years.
In recent years, local authorities have opted for extra services for
people who are elderly, people who have mobility impairments, and people with baby
carriages. The routes and timetables for these low-floor service buses, which now run in
five metropolitan area communities, are carefully laid out with help from citizens. The
buses stop at such locations as housing projects, shopping plazas, downtown locations,
homes for the elderly, and public buildings.
HT is responsible for operations; local authorities pay expenses.
Anyone may use these buses with regular tickets and passes. Those with severe physical
disabilities are served by a separate fleet of wheelchair-accessible, lift-equipped
minibuses that provide door-to-door transportation. Ten thousand certified users are
allotted 26 rides in a 3-month period.
The Danish State Railways (DSB) manages all rail services in the
metropolitan region. The same farecards can be used on buses and trains. Plans are
underway to expand light rail service in the Greater Copenhagen region. Alternative
solutions being considered include expansion of the Orestad minimetro, light rail lines,
and rail buses.
Copenhagen is encouraging the use of nonmotorized transportation
through a novel bicycle program. This approach gives ecology-minded tourists a new reason
to visit the city (see Figure 5). Bicycles are available at any one of the 120 bicycle
stands within the historic inner city. To release a bicycle from its rack, one inserts a
20-kroner coin (U.S. $3.30) in the deposit lock, thereby releasing the locking clamp. The
coin is refunded when the bicycle is returned to one of the stands and pushed into the
locking position. Users must stay on public streets and can only use the bicycles within
the historic inner city.
A city map with the location of the bicycle racks is available at the
bicycle stands. A major source of funding for the project comes from the map’s
colorful, yet tasteful, advertisements for local products and services. The bicycles are
virtually theft-proof because a tiny directional beeper is built into them for easy
retrieval. Should a bicycle be abandoned on a city street, the 20-kroner refund is an
incentive for a passerby to return it to the closest stand.
The project, which is managed by the Copenhagen Bike Foundation, was
set up with support from the county council, several government ministries, the Copenhagen
tourist promotion board, the country's leading daily paper, and a supermarket. The
foundation operates the project with advertisement revenue, the sale of posters,
sponsorships, and other sources.
Stuttgart, Germany
This city’s exemplary state-of-the-art light rail system,
supported by bus feeder lines operated by Stuttgarter Strassenbahnen (SSB), host of the
UITP World Congress, is considered the paradigm of a modern, efficient local public
transit company. SSB runs 150 miles of tracks through 330 square miles of urban and
suburban neighborhoods (see Figure 6). The metropolitan area has a population of 900,000
and the 12 SSB light rail and tramway lines that serve this area are almost evenly split
between modern, DUEWAG twin LRT units custom-designed for Stuttgart, and about 100
narrow-gauge articulated tramways of an earlier vintage. (The bus fleet of 255 is used in
a support role on 55 coordinated feeder routes.)
The high-floor, eight-axle DUEWAG twin unit is 2.65 m wide and operates
on the standard German rail gauge of 1.435 m. The 2.2-m-wide tramway operates on a
narrow-gauge, 1-m-wide track. An innovative Stuttgart solution—a third set of
tracks—allows the narrow-gauge tramway and the wider LRT to operate on the same
route. The third rail is situated so that both types of equipment maintain the same
distance to a common platform.
On lines used by the two types of vehicles, there are both high and low
platforms at common stops. The high-level platforms, reached by ramps, allow faster and
safer access to the interior of vehicles, thus reducing dwell time. SSB has reduced dwell
times and increased average speeds from 15 to 25 km/h with signal preemption throughout
the city.
Passenger totals have increased by as much as one-third since the start
of the modernization program 20 years ago. Though Stuttgart is the home of several large
automobile manufacturers, private car use in the metropolitan area actually declined from
48 percent of the modal split to 43 percent, while public transit increased to 23 percent.
The remainder of the public transportation share is split between walking (28 percent) and
bicycling (6 percent). This development flies in the face of increasing car ownership,
which has doubled over the past 20 years and now stands at nearly 500 per 1,000 residents,
or more than 1 per household.
The LRT/bus network carries roughly 170 million passengers a year and
takes in more than $140 million, resulting in a farebox recovery of about 80 percent of
total costs, including debt service. The figures demonstrate that residents of Stuttgart
are solidly supportive of their public transit system.
Public budgets cover the shortfall. A mix of federal, state, and local
appropriations cover investments in new rolling stock and infrastructure.
INNOVATIVE TRANSIT STRATEGIES AND TECHNOLOGIES
This section focuses on the main strategies and technologies observed
by study mission team members. Topics examined include
- Competitive tendering,
- Services for persons with physical disabilities,
- Alternative fuels programs,
- Marketing and public information techniques,
- Smart cards,
- Rail resurgence, and
- Fare integration.
Competitive Tendering
All the Scandinavian countries studied have undertaken national public
transportation policy reforms over the last decade. One of the main thrusts of the reforms
has been to reduce unit operating costs of services by tendering (i.e., contracting out)
services to the most competitive bidder.
The results in all three countries appear to be consistent:
- Lower unit operating costs,
- Improved quality of the bus fleet, and
- Improved customer satisfaction.
The three Scandinavian countries have approached contracting out of
operations in a deliberate, closely managed manner. The Scandinavian model is like
franchising services in the United States (e.g., trash collection). Standards are employed
in the tendering process to consider quality and age of buses, driver performance,
reliability of service, and bidder’s managerial competence.
Transit authorities are being transformed under the tendering policy
into two distinct entities: one as an operator of services and the other as a purchaser of
services that is also responsible for planning, fare policy, service standards, and
marketing. As a purchaser of services, the management company prepares tenders, selects
the most competitive bidders, and supervises and evaluates the contractors’
performances under the terms of the agreements.
The Scandinavian systems studied seem to have had better success in
contracting out transit services than their U.S. counterparts. Although the U.S. systems
have also achieved cost savings, service quality has not increased as consistently as it
has in Scandinavia. The United States should consider the Scandinavian approach to
explicitly emphasize quality in the selection of the most competitive bidder. The thorough
evaluation of contractors’ performances through customer surveys may be a useful aid
to U.S. practices.
The United States should also be appreciative of the resilience of the
Scandinavian transit systems in adapting to the dramatic policy changes over the last
decade. All of the systems observed appeared to be growing and making major improvements
in service quality. They face challenges similar to many U.S. systems in retaining and
attracting more passenger trips in an increasingly competitive environment. They seem well
able to accept and meet these challenges.
Finland
Bus services have been progressively privatized throughout Finland
since 1994. The nation’s public-private model for privatization of public transit
services confirms that transit can be operated cost-effectively by private carriers. Much
of the savings is attributed to lower labor costs—not through wage reduction, but
through elimination of unproductive bus lines, reduction of administrative and management
personnel, and deployment of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technology. Higher
standards of service can be achieved without raising costs by the deployment of service
strategies that emphasize simplicity and innovation.
Although the City of Helsinki still owns and operates its bus and light
rail fleet, it has outsourced 20 percent of its bus service to date. Transit ridership
declined in the early 1990s. As the standard of living improved throughout the country,
more people had a choice between driving and using public transit. In response, Finland,
and especially Helsinki, instituted policies that favored public transit. As a result,
public transit carries more than 70 percent of all trips during rush hour in central
Helsinki, and 60 percent of all off-peak trips. A total of 25 percent of the region’s
trips are made by public transit.
The initiation of tendering has attracted two of Sweden’s largest
bus companies— Linjebuss and Swebus. These companies purchased the municipal
operations of the Helsinki area cities of Espoo and Vantaa. As a result, most transit
services outside the Helsinki region are privately operated. The contracts are turnkey
operations with private operators providing labor, equipment, and facilities for service
operation. The contracts are fixed price and are based on revenue hours and miles of
service. The tendering approach allows public and private operators to bid on service
contracts.
Operating costs have dropped by one-third and service delivery has
improved. In some cases, service has increased while costs have been reduced. Strict
service performance standards have been implemented and are closely monitored by Helsinki
City Transport (HCT) and the Helsinki Metropolitan Area Council (YTV), the regional
council of government responsible for public transit. Important performance standards
include on-time performance, customer satisfaction, vehicle cleanliness, and safety.
The YTV and HCT monitor service through onboard and direct phone
surveys to riders. The surveys measure the level of customer satisfaction with the
service. These surveys regularly indicate strong support for the service quality provided
by the private operators. The provision of bid specifications requiring newer vehicles,
expansion of service routes, and increased service frequency has enhanced service quality.
As a result, ridership has increased.
In 1995, HCT, in conjunction with local municipal authorities,
finalized a comprehensive regional transportation plan that provides for no less than 60
percent of funding to be dedicated to public transit. Rail receives priority with the
funding.
Helsinki is scheduled to begin offering its tram fleet for
public-private tendering. This fleet represents one-fourth of all public transit trips
generated in Helsinki. The success of privatization with trams will solidify Finland as a
leader in public-private partnerships and may serve as a model for other transit agencies
to follow.
Sweden
Farebox recovery has climbed in Sweden since competitive tendering was
instituted, and competitive tenders for bus and rail operations have been won by both
public and private carriers.
Sweden, one of the most egalitarian societies in the world, has a
strong capitalist economy (see Figure 7), yet the Swedes enjoy one of the shortest
workweeks in the industrialized world. Therefore, competitive tendering offers advantages
and disadvantages. Advantages include savings resulting from a clear organizational focus
on cost efficiency and savings generated from the sale of capital resources as public
transport is outsourced. However, a possible disadvantage is that the competitive
tendering has increased the standard workweek for transport workers (which accounts for
some of the cost reductions). Another possible disadvantage is that, in Sweden, major
operators tend to grow and expand (e.g., Swebus and Linjebuss), while smaller operators,
including several public transport operators, have been absorbed or gone out of business.
In the short run, passengers and taxpayers have benefited from higher
quality transport at lower costs. Whether this advantage can be sustained is not clear.
Also to be determined is whether publicly owned companies will continue to dominate the
Swedish market for rail and bus transport.
Stockholm. In Stockholm, the Stockholm Transport (SL) exists
as a limited company, wholly owned by the county council. SL is charged with
"offering customers a fully developed transport system—easy to use, reliable,
pleasant, and affordable, with reasonable journey times."
The organizational structure of SL shows a clear division of
responsibility between the planning, procurement, and marketing arm of the organization
and its operational subsidiaries. Nine independent subsidiaries supply transport services
according to market conditions and in competition with other suppliers. The subsidiaries
include Metro (the subway system), local and suburban railways, airport services, buses,
and special services.
Since 1993, SL has procured public transport services in open
competition. Since then, 71 percent of the bus operation and a significant portion of the
fixed-track service have been competitively tendered. Under the current agreement with
Swedish State Railways, commuter rail will not be competitively bid until the year 2000.
Operations on SL’s three Metro lines have been competitively
tendered one time. SL Metro was successful in that tender. Plans are now underway to offer
the Metro lines for tender a second time.
Approximately 35 percent of the local and suburban train and tram
service has been competitively tendered. Four different train and tram systems exist in
Stockholm County. Competition among SL subsidiaries has resulted in bid awards to both the
rail subsidiary and to SL Metro. Linjebuss has recently won a rail tender and will be
adding a rail component to its Swedish operations.
Virtually all bus operations are now being competitively tendered. Two
major international private bus companies—Swebus, recently bought by Stagecoach
Holdings of the United Kingdom, and Linjebuss—have won an increasing number of the
tenders. Swebus now accounts for 31 percent and Linjebuss for 19 percent of the urban bus
lines that have been put out to tender. SL Bus has also won several tenders and provides a
significant portion of the bus service. When a new operator wins a tender, that
organization, by law, must accept the employees of the former organization and continue
their salary and benefits at their existing level for at least 1 year.
Competitively tendered contracts are typically signed for a 5- to
10-year period, with a limited option for extension. Timelines vary by type of service.
The procurement covers overall responsibility for provision of quality service (as defined
by SL) and for operation and rail
traffic control, including staffing and technical maintenance of
rolling stock. SL owns the tracks and installations, and rail stock is normally leased
from SL. SL sets the fares for all parts of the system.
From 1989 through 1996, the competitive tendering process has resulted
in a cost reduction of nearly 20 percent, a decrease of more than one billion Swedish
knoner a year. Many think open competition is the major reason for the cost reduction.
During the 1990s, the volume of transport services offered to customers has increased by
13 percent, with the same or higher levels of quality. The total public subsidy for
transport has also fallen during this time, from 70 percent in 1989 to 55 percent in 1996.
This has resulted in annual savings of about $145 million in the region's annual transit
budget of $750 million.
Gothenburg. At the time of this mission visit, Gothenburg
had just tendered another one-third of its 35 bus routes. The city-owned bus company now
also competes for tenders on a regional basis. This means that, instead of always facing
the possibility of losing tenders, it now may win new service lines.
Gothenburg’s tendering process was inaugurated in 1992, with
one-third of the bus service being put out for tender. Another one-third was tendered in
the autumn of 1996, and in 1997 the remaining third will have been competitively tendered.
Contracts are written for 5 years with an optional extension of up to 2 years.
Regional bus lines have also been tendered. One-third of these lines
was tendered in 1996 as part of the tender for city bus operation. Another third will be
tendered during each of the next 2 years.
The first tender, in 1992, resulted in considerable cost reductions and
higher quality service. The 1996 tender saw a further cost reduction of 5 percent for
local service. In 1996, Swebus won 74 percent of the tender for local service. The
city-owned company and the private operator, Linjebuss, each received 13 percent. For
regional service, Swebus, in a consortium with some 50 smaller bus companies, successfully
competed for most of the service.
Nine tram system routes, with 200 trams, constitute an important part
of Gothenburg’s public transport system. Collectively, the bus and tram systems
provide 85 million passenger trips per year, with a farebox recovery rate of 56 percent.
Gothenburg was the only one of the systems studied that uses a partial net contract under
which operators keep 25 percent of passenger fares.
Denmark
Denmark’s experiences with privatization of services is of
interest because of the following factors:
- The multimodal approaches,
- The involvement of customers in monitoring services, and
- Integrated planning and traffic management.
In the Scandinavian countries, the transportation systems include
pedestrian travel, taxis, road networks, traffic management, and rail and air systems, as
well as the traditional inner-city bus and rail systems. This intermodality characterizes
Denmark, particularly Copenhagen, the capital city.
The Danish model for transportation service delivery has changed
dramatically over the past 20 years. Prior to 1975, Copenhagen, for example had a large
bus system operated by more than 30 public and private companies that held concessions to
those routes. Each company had its own fare system and time schedules that, only in
limited degree, were coordinated with the other companies. Copenhagen Transport (HT) was
established by merging the 12 public companies. HT made contracts with 19 private bus
companies in the region. In 1975, a common fare system and coordinated schedules were
introduced.
Although public transit has always been important in Copenhagen,
ridership began to fall during the 1980s, and Denmark’s parliament initiated several
important policy changes.
Tendering has established the need for clearer and more public
performance measures for each mode. The goal of allowing many private operators to compete
has not been entirely successful. For example, after the first round of tenders, there
were 14 operators; for the second round, 10 small operators dropped out completely, and 4
operators combined to create a stronger bid. Copenhagen offers small units to attract very
small companies with 4 to 15 buses. In some cases, the units are for a single line or even
just for some of the buses on a line.
Given the basic requirements of achieving quality for the customers,
offering fair competition among operators wanting to provide services, and simplicity for
the customers to use, the tendering system in Denmark is a success. The goal of reducing
costs to the government is a success as well—services have expanded greatly and the
level of subsidy from each jurisdiction has not had to increase in order to obtain those
improvements.
Over the long term, the cost savings experienced in the first 5 years
of tendering will probably not be sustained. The savings related to consolidation of
planning, scheduling, and marketing have probably been reached. Reductions in price from
$70 an hour to $53 will probably stabilize at $55 over the next few years while operators
begin to collaborate and form joint partnerships.
Copenhagen maintains control of the services offered by constantly
measuring the performance of the operators and using that information to evaluate and
establish incentives for the operators. This ongoing monitoring and public measuring of
results will help HT continue to provide excellent transportation services.
Services for Persons with Disabilities
Providing transportation services for persons with disabilities is
recognized as both a legal and a social responsibility in Scandinavia. While legislation
mandating accessible transportation in these countries is not as comprehensive nor as
prescriptive as the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), all three countries have a
tradition of providing social service and, in some cases, accessible fixed-route
transportation that predates the ADA. Within these countries, transportation for persons
with disabilities is primarily provided by paratransit, which tends to be viewed as a
social service rather than a transportation program. Recent efforts have been aimed at
making fixed-route services, especially rail, accessible and usable by persons with
disabilities.
Unlike U.S. policies resulting from passage of the ADA, Scandinavian
countries have not established national or even regional standards for how access may
occur or is defined. Among the cities visited in Scandinavia, differences were observed
both in how accessibility is provided and in the level of financial support for these
services. Given that only major cities were visited, one can assume that variations in
service are even greater in rural areas.
Another significant difference between Scandinavian and U.S. public
transit programs is in the level of public participation guiding the planning process.
While the ADA requires and expects extensive participation and consultation with members
of the public, there is no such requirement in Scandinavia. In the countries visited,
transit officials are not required, for example, to conduct public hearings when
instituting major service changes or increasing fares. Transit personnel in several cities
indicated that they consult with staff of social service agencies, who presumably are
effective advocates for their clientele. Otherwise, however, the presence or influence of
organized disability advocacy groups was not observed nor even mentioned at any of the
sites visited.
Rail Accessibility
Interestingly (because one could argue that the largest challenge faced
by transit operators in the United States as a result of the ADA is making older rail
systems accessible), Scandinavian heavy rail systems are more accessible than other modes,
such as bus or light rail. Helsinki, Stockholm, and Copenhagen (Stuttgart as well) have
elevators serving nearly all rail stations, tactile warning strips for those with visual
impairments, either low-floor or ramped access to rail cars, and other accommodations for
those with visual and mobility impairments. Stuttgart also provides these features (see
Figure 8).
An excellent example of the level of accessibility that can be achieved
on a major rail system was observed in Stockholm. Stockholm’s Metro system, among the
largest in the world, was originally build in the 1940s. Plans for greater accessibility
were adopted in connection with the second major expansion of the system, which was
completed during the 1960s. During that time, elevators and escalators were put in most
stations, and other improvements have been made since then. One such innovation is an
automatic announcement system, triggered by a sensor when a person steps in front of it on
the platform. A pre-taped message announces when the next train is coming. In the future,
elevators will also be equipped with audible signals to help travelers with visual
impairments better navigate the station.
In Stockholm, subway elevators have been installed next to escalators
at a slant (parallel to the escalators), similar to a funicular. Because the elevators
have glass walls and are directly adjacent to the escalators, persons using them can
easily signal for assistance should it malfunction. Furthermore, the glass walls deter
vandalism, a chronic problem in U.S. subway systems.
U.S. architects and transit planners should take notice of some of the
innovative design features observed in Scandinavia. Many of these are aesthetically
pleasing and have practical application to assist travelers. In Copenhagen, for example,
design of the new S-Train took into consideration the desire of passengers to see the
length of train. Throughout the train, cars are connected with glass doors that can
literally be opened by a touch of the hand. This results in a spacious, open atmosphere
for travelers that makes them feel less vulnerable, a fear which sometimes prevents the
elderly or those with mobility impairments from using public transit.
The design of the floor in the Copenhagen rail station is not only
attractive, but also serves to assist travelers with visual impairments. The raised
markings on the tile are arranged in distinct directional patterns so that persons with
canes can better navigate the busy and complicated station.
Bus Accessibility
As in the United States, the trend in Scandinavian countries is to
provide access with low-floor buses, rather than lifts, which in the past have been
unreliable and the cause of increased maintenance costs. In Helsinki, 15 percent of the
current bus fleet has low-floor vehicles to allow for easier access for persons who need
it (see Figure 9). As the fleet is replaced, low-floor buses will be purchased. New light
rail cars about to be put into service will also have low floors and will be able to
accommodate three wheelchairs.
An impressive urban planning feature observed in Helsinki was the
tendency to locate parking meters and bus stop signs away from curbs and directly adjacent
to buildings. The lack of such barriers on the sidewalk helps persons with visual or
mobility impairments better navigate
the path to a bus stop or rail station, thus encouraging their use of
public transportation.
In Stockholm and Copenhagen, all inner-city buses have low floors. Of
the cities visited, Stuttgart had the least accessible buses—of 69 bus routes, only 1
operates with low-floor buses and there are no plans to acquire more.
In Scandinavia, most buses are equipped with very simple mechanisms
(e.g., a metal ring bolted to the floor) for securing wheelchairs in the vehicle. Some
buses and virtually all the rail cars had no securement system at all, although spaces
were designated for wheelchair users.
Scandinavian planners were quick to point out the benefits of low-floor
buses for other passengers, especially people with children in strollers. In both Helsinki
and Stockholm, a person with a baby in a stroller can ride for free. Bus schedules
indicate which vehicles have low floors. The same space designated for wheelchair users is
also made available for strollers and, in some cases, special securement devices for
strollers have been installed.
Marketing the use of low-floor buses for groups other than those with
disabilities is an interesting strategy that probably would produce mixed results in the
United States. "mainstreaming" (i.e., including persons with disabilities in the
same services and programs as those available to the general public) is a basic premise of
ADA. While encouraging the use of low-floor buses could result in a wider constituency
group and a higher level of support for accessible vehicles as well as promoting
mainstreaming, it could also cause problems if these groups competed for limited space and
attention from the vehicle driver.
Unlike in the United States where efforts are made to encourage persons
in wheelchairs to use fixed-route accessible buses, little such effort is being made in
Scandinavia. Because such a high level of paratransit service is available, the use of
this mode is promoted, even though fixed-route service allows for more independence for
the traveler having disabilities and is far more cost-effective for the transit operator
to provide.
Paratransit Services
In Scandinavia, paratransit tends to be managed and/or financially
supported by social service agencies.
The paratransit program in Helsinki is managed by the Ministry of
Social Affairs, a department of the city separate from the transportation program. Nearly
30 percent of the agency’s budget is dedicated to paratransit. Federal legislation in
Finland requires that qualified individuals be provided a minimum of 18 trips per month, a
standard of service that is somewhat consistent throughout the three countries visited.
Most paratransit trips in Helsinki are provided by taxi. To accommodate wheelchairs, 2,000
of 9,000 taxis are ramped, an unusually high rate compared with other countries.
The paratransit program in Stockholm is governed by a board within the
Stockholm City Council. Its annual budget is approximately $111 million. About 5 percent
of the city’s population is entitled to receive paratransit services, which is
primarily provided by taxi. Service is provided door-to-door with some personal assistance
from the driver. A national subsidy reimburses up to 35 percent of the city’s cost in
providing the service, and about 20 percent is recovered through fares.
In 1991, the Gothenburg Transit Authority Special Transport became an
independent agency, which currently employees 100 persons to serve 26,000 customers. Its
paratransit program is extraordinarily well funded, providing 6,500 trips per day (or 2.1
million trips per year) with an annual budget of $30 million. All trips are dispatched
from a central office, and customers can reserve trips up to 2 weeks ahead. Immediate
demand-response trips are available as well. Planners report that costs have been reduced
as a result of competitive bidding; of their budget, 50 percent is recovered from
government sources, 25 percent from fares, and 25 percent from social service agencies.
Paratransit services in Copenhagen have been publicly funded since
1979. The program directly employs 20 administrative staff members, 3 drivers, and 1
traffic manager. All other personnel needed to operate the service are contract employees.
Service is provided with 200 contract vehicles (minivans) and is door-to-door, including
stair assist. Service is 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and eligible persons are allowed
up to 26 trips per quarter (104 trips per year), although extra trips can be arranged at a
premium cost. No medically related trips are provided through this program. Fifty percent
of the users are in wheelchairs, and the user’s average age is 75.5 years old. Unlike
Helsinki and Stockholm, only 2 percent of the trips in Copenhagen are provided by taxi;
most are provided by minivans. The average cost per trip is $30.75.
Copenhagen’s long-term program goals include improving
efficiencies through advanced technology, competitive bidding, and the installation of a
new telephone system. The application of related technology, such as automated vehicle
locators and geographic information systems, is also being considered. Extensive use of
advanced technology related to paratransit operations was not observed in any of the other
cities visited.
Unlike its Scandinavian counterparts, Germany has no federal
requirement for providing paratransit. Limited services are available through social
service agencies, such as the Red Cross, or other agencies serving a particular clientele.
Table 1 shows the level of funding available for paratransit in the
various cities visited, as compared with a few U.S. cities providing ADA-related
complementary paratransit service.
Service Routes
In addition to providing some accessible fixed-route services and a
very comprehensive level of paratransit, the Scandinavian countries are also using
"service routes," a hybrid of fixed route and paratransit. Originally developed
in Sweden, service routes are now in use throughout that country, as well as in the cities
of Helsinki and Copenhagen. Service routes operate with small, low-floor vehicles on a
designated route and schedule. The routes have been developed specifically to serve a
particular clientele, usually senior citizens, and tend to be neighborhood-oriented. In
many cases, the vehicle can be flagged down along the route if the rider has difficulty
getting to the nearest stop, and extra assistance is provided by the driver.
In Stockholm, 15 service routes operate between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m., with a frequency of every half-hour to every hour. The routes have been planned with
input from various constituency groups. Gothenburg has two service routes; Helsinki and
Copenhagen operate several as well. As with other aspects of transit observed in these
countries, the operation of service routes is competitively bid.
Service routes could be adapted for use in the United States. To date,
transit operator efforts have been focused on providing a complementary paratransit
program that meets standards established in the legislation (e.g., no capacity
constraints). Although almost all transit operators are in compliance with the law, they
are struggling to maintain compliance as demand continues to escalate. Many are using
technology or seeking other strategies to help them provide paratransit services more
cost-effectively.
Some operators (most notably Madison, Wisconsin) have been
experimenting with alternative service delivery methods such as service routes, but few
have had an opportunity or developed the expertise to do so. In many communities, service
routes could be targeted for persons who are conditionally ADA-eligible or who could use
fixed-route services if they were more "user-friendly."
Go to Part 2
Some of these pages may include links to documents in the Adobe PDF format. Please download the Adobe PDF reader if you have not already done so.
