EXCELDATEIPFAD.xls

1. Grant Agreement number: 265392Project Acronym: USEmobilityProject title: Understanding Social behaviour for Eco-friendly multimodal mobilityFunding Scheme: Coordination and Support Action (Supporting)Project starting date: 01.01.2011Project duration: 26 months Short summary of: Deliverable D2.2 (National trends in passenger transport regarding the choice of transport mode) Due date of deliverable: 05.05.2011Completion date of deliverable: 11.05.2011Lead partner for deliverable: BSL TransportationDissemination level: Public Name of the document: Short summary of the deliverable D2.2 Full report can be downloaded at: www.usemobility.eu

2. 35 Management Summary Key Findings Statistics / Data National trends in passenger transport show a general increase of mobility and high growth rates in public transport, especially in recent years. National policy Political attempts to foster public transport exist in all research countries but do not dominate transport policies Implication for USEmobility Results of statistics and policy National statistics and policies give an aggregate overview of national trends in passenger transport regarding the choice of transport mode at a macroeconomic level. Need for USEmobility An individual analysis of passengers behaviour questioning why people use public transport modes more intensely will help all actors to exploit to the full the potential of public transport in the future. 2 EXCELDATEIPFAD.xls

3. Content • 1. Overview and comparison of the countries • 2. Quantitative analysis • Macroeconomic analysis of transport markets • Research period of ten years (2000 – 2010) • Based on statistics (e.g. transport volume, number of vehicles, economic and demographic development, development of fuel prices and ticket prices in public transport) • 3. Qualitative analysis • Examination of transport policy • Based on political programs of national/regional governments, relevant legislation, publications of governments, ministries, public transport authorities and providers, civil society organisations (e.g. consumer organisations, environmental organisations). • 4. Results of the analyses 3

4. NL A • Inhabitants: 16.6 Mio. • Population density: 399 inh./ km² • GDP per capita: 34,600 € • Modal split public transport: 17.0 % • Inhabitants: 8.4 Mio. • Population density: 100 inh./ km² • GDP per capita: 32,800 € • Modal split public transport: 24.9 % B HU • Inhabitants: 10.8 Mio. • Population density: 355 inh./ km² • GDP per capita: 31,400 € • Modal split public transport: 22.3 % • Inhabitants: 10.0 Mio. • Population density: 108 inh./ km² • GDP per capita: 9,300 € • Modal split public transport: 33.8 % HR GER • Inhabitants: 81.8 Mio. • Population density: 229 inh./ km² • GDP per capita: 29,300 € • Modal split public transport: 15.9 % • Inhabitants: 4.4 Mio. • Population density: 79 inh./ km² • GDP per capita:10,800 € • Modal split public transport: 19.5 % The research countries are structured very heterogeneous concerning their dimension and economic performance Sources: Inhabitants, population density and GDP per capita: Eurostat, 2010. Modal split public transport: Eurostat 2008. Hungarian modal split public transport: Hungarian Central Statistical Office, 2008. Map created with Mappoint 2010 European Maps. 4

5. Content • 1. Overview and comparison of the countries • 2. Quantitative analysis • Macroeconomic analysis of transport markets • Research period of ten years (2000 – 2010) • Based on statistics (e.g. transport volume, number of vehicles, economic and demographic development, development of fuel prices and ticket prices in public transport) • 3. Qualitative analysis • Examination of transport policy • Based on political programs of national/regional governments, relevant legislation, publications of governments, ministries, public transport authorities and providers, civil society organisations (e.g. consumer organisations, environmental organisations). • 4. Results of the analyses 5

6. Trends identified in the research countries at a glance • Socio-economic and demographic trends • Stagnating population figures • Ageing of the population • General urbanization • High economic growth rates in Eastern Europe • Price increases in individual transport higher than in public transport • Transport and mobility trends • Public transport is gaining on individual transport throughout Europe • Eastern Europe is gaining on Western Europe concerning motorization • Eastern Europe makes up for motorway network expansion • Supply in passenger transport by railway increases (train-kilometres) • Stagnation or reduction of rail infrastructure 6

7. Focus of USEmobility Focus of USEmobility Focus of USEmobility Focus of USEmobility Focus of USEmobility Focus of USEmobility Growth rates in public transport are mostly higher than in individual transport (especially in recent years) Belgium Germany Netherlands % % % IT PT IT PT IT PT 1990 1995 2000 2005 2008 1990 1995 2000 2005 2008 1990 1995 2000 2005 2008 Austria Hungary Croatia % % % IT PT IT PT IT PT 1990 1995 2000 2005 2008 1990 1995 2000 2005 2008 1990 1995 2000 2005 2008 Annual growth rates in public and individual transport 1990 – 2008. Source: European Commission – Statististical Pocketbook 2010. Hungarian Data: Hungarian Central Statistical Office. 7

8. Increasing demand for mobility in almost all research countries CHANGE OF INDICATORS IN % (2000 – 2008) DEMAND SUPPLY TRANSPORT PERFORMANCE [in pkm] MEANS OF TRANSPORT OFFER[car stock and train kilometres¹] INFRASTRUCTURE[length in km] 5.1 9.7 3.6 Belgium 45.1 7.2 1.2 2.5 5.8 8.0 Germany 1.5 5.7 -7.5 4.2 15.3 14.0 Netherlands 9.9 9.7 3.4 9.9 4.6 3.9 Austria 13.0 14.7 0.0 16.9 29.2 114.3 Hungary -10.1 12.7 -1.4 35.0 37.9 153.8 Croatia 28.3 15.4 0.0 ¹) Data for train kilometres in the Netherlands from 2007. Individual transport (only individual transport by car, without powered two-wheelers) Public transport by rail (exception: Demand values present public transport performance in general) In several countries the demand for public transport showed a greater increase than the demand for individual transport. 8

9. Belgium Germany Hungary Croatia Netherlands Austria Increasing market shares in public transport in some countries 15.9 16.1 16.2 17.0 17.2 19.5 20.3 22.3 24.4 24.9 33.8 39.9 84.1 83.9 83.8 83.0 82.8 80.5 79.7 77.7 75.6 75.1 66.2 60.1 2000 2008 2000 2008 2000 2008 2000 2008 2000 2008 2000 2008 public transport Comparison of Modal splits 2000 and 2008 [in % of total pkm] Source: European Commission – Statistical Pocketbook 2010. Hungarian Data: Hungarian Central Statistical Office. individual transport There seems to be a changefrom declining market shares in public transport in the past towards increasing market shares at least in some countries. 9

10. Content • 1. Overview and comparison of the countries • 2. Quantitative analysis • Macroeconomic analysis of transport markets • Research period of ten years (2000 – 2010) • Based on statistics (e.g. transport volume, number of vehicles, economic and demographic development, development of fuel prices and ticket prices in public transport) • 3. Qualitative analysis • Examination of transport policy • Based on political programs of national/regional governments, relevant legislation, publications of governments, ministries, public transport authorities and providers, civil society organisations (e.g. consumer organisations, environmental organisations). • 4. Results of the analyses 10

11. Positive approaches towards increased multimodality but also obstacles and problems • Transport sector is facing major challenges • Need for political action to make mobility more sustainable isgenerally seen • Noticeable increase of attractiveness of public transport Positive approaches • Making public transport and multimodality more attractive for the users • Increasing market share of public transport and multimodality (modal shift) Political objectives • Fostering public transport is mostly not dominating transport policy • Measures and implementations are often avoided or delayed due to financial problems • Still numerous measures fostering individual transport (road construction, tax benefits for company cars, car-scrap bonus, etc.) Obstacles and problems • NGO’s claim for more a consistent policy fostering public transport • NGO’s contribute to a rising awareness of problems concerning public transport and multimodality, both in politics and the population Rising awareness 11

12. Content • 1. Overview and comparison of the countries • 2. Quantitative analysis • Macroeconomic analysis of transport markets • Research period of ten years (2000 – 2010) • Statistics (e.g. transport volume, number of vehicles, economic and demographic development, development of fuel prices and ticket prices in public transport) • 3. Qualitative analysis • Examination of transport policy • Political programs of national/regional governments, relevant legislation, publications of governments, ministries, public transport authorities and providers, civil society organisations (e.g. consumer organisations, environmental organisations). • 4. Results of the analyses 12

13. 35 Conclusions • …viewable in individual as well as in public transport • Demand for public transport is growing faster than for individual transport, especially in the last five years • There seems to be a change concerning market shares of public transport Increasing demand for mobility... • …of public transport towards individual transport • Competition within the passenger market • And for political support Challenging competitive situation... Implication for USEmobility Objectives to foster public transport exist... • …in all research countries at all political levels • But still do not dominate transport policies • Are often not consistently implemented and delayed • Focus on urban areas • ...for increased use of public transport • Report D2.2 will help to understand transport behaviour in a general way • Analysis of changes in passenger’s individual behaviour is the focus of USEmobility. Potential still not exploited to the full… 13 EXCELDATEIPFAD.xls