THE METROPOLITAN MOBILITY OBSERVATORY 2008 REPORT Summary June 2010
GOBIERNO DE ESPAÑA
MINISTERIO DE MEDIO AMBIENTE Y MEDIO RURAL Y MARINO
MINISTERIO DE FOMENTO
METROPOLITAN MOBILITY OBSERVATORY MEMBERS PUBLIC TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES
OBSERVATORIO de la Movilidad Metropolitana
Editors: Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino NIPO: 770-11-130-5 Production: Andrés Monzón, Rocío Cascajo TRANSyT, Transport Research Center Universidad Politécnica de Madrid Dirección General de Calidad y Evaluación Ambiental Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino
Àrea de Lleida Autoritat Territorial de la Mobilitat
OTHER MEMBERS
GOBIERNO DE ESPA A
MINISTERIO DE INDUSTRIA, TURISMO Y COMERCIO
Information Sources: Consorcio Regional de Transportes de Madrid Autoritat del Transport Metropolità de Barcelona Entitat de Transport Metropolità de València Entidad Pública del Transporte de la Región de Murcia Consorcio de Transporte Metropolitano Área de Sevilla Consorcio de Transportes de Bizkaia Consorcio de Transportes de Asturias Consorcio de Transporte Metropolitano Área de Málaga Consorci de Transports de Mallorca Autoridad Única del Transporte de Gran Canaria Consorcio de Transportes del Área de Zaragoza Autoridad Territorial del Transportes de Gipuzkoa Consorcio de Transportes de Bahía de Cádiz Consorcio de Transporte Público del Camp de Tarragona Consorcio de Transporte Metropolitano Área de Granada Consorcio de Transporte Metropolitano Área de Almería Dirección General de Transportes de la Generalitat Valenciana (Alicante) Mancomunidad de la Comarca de Pamplona Ayuntamiento de Vigo Ayuntamiento de A Coruña Consorcio de Transporte Público del Área de Lleida Dirección General de Viajeros de RENFE Ministerio de Fomento Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino Madrid. June 2010
GOBIERNO DE ESPA A
MINISTERIO DE FOMENTO
GOBIERNO DE ESPA A
MINISTERIO DE MEDIO AMBIENTE Y MEDIO RURAL Y MARINO
Centro de Investigación del Transporte Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
3
MMO – 2008 Report Summary
Contens
Presentation .........................................................................................................................5 1
The Metropolitan Mobility Observatory (MMO) ................................................7
2
Mobility and the efficiency of urban transport ...................................................9 2.1
Basic information on the participating metropolitan areas ..................9
2.2
Transport demands...............................................................................11
2.3
Public transport supply ........................................................................13
2.4
Economic and fare-based aspects........................................................19
3
Changes in 2002-2008 indicators ...........................................................................23
4
Mobility and the urban environment ..................................................................25 4.1
Transport and climate change..............................................................25
4.2
Air quality in urban areas .....................................................................27
4.3
Road safety in urban areas ...................................................................28
Web links ............................................................................................................................29
4
Presentation
Presentation
In recent years, the evolution towards low carbon economic models and reduced energy consumption has become one of the main challenges of developed societies in terms of mobility. If, furthermore, this evolution is brought about within the criteria of social equity and a just repartition of wealth, the objective becomes guaranteeing that transport systems respond well to economic, social and environmental needs, reducing to a minimum their negative repercussions. It has become necessary to adopt strategies that make it possible to resolve the serious mobility problems that manifest themselves in many Spanish cities. These mobility strategies must focus not only on congestion problems but also on the variables that accompany them – which is to say, the solution must be consistent and comprehensive in every way to take on the complexity this situation implies. Indeed, the Spanish Strategy for Sustainable Mobility, approved by the Council of Ministers on April 30, 2009, contains action proposals to be adopted by administrations, businesses, social agencies, institutions and citizens in general, to bring about the necessary changes to the current mobility model. What is needed is a more efficient and sustainable model, one that will contribute to the fight against climate change by means of the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. At the European level, the Action Plan on Urban Mobility was approved on September 30, 2009. This plan, which will be developed over four years, contains 20 concrete measures to help national, regional, and local authorities achieve their sustainable urban mobility objectives by making urban transport more sustainable and efficient. These measures extend from greater rights for urban transport users to increased funding for research into zero emissions vehicles. An improved urban transport system will also aid in the fight against climate change, improve public health, and reduce interregional disparities. Lastly, in the same vein of attaining a sustainable mobility model, the Spanish Sustainable Economy Act, whose first draft was approved in March of 2010, centers on five main points: competitiveness, environmental sustainability, standardisation of real estate, professional formation and innovation, and economic funds for new sectors. In terms of environmental sustainability, this law lays the foundation for a new energy model based on security of supply, economic efficiency, and respect for the environment, outlining energy savings objectives for the Administration. It incorporates into the juridical ordinances on issues of emissions, savings, energy efficiency, and renewable energy, objectives in accordance with the commitments of the European Union for 2020: energy savings of 20%, the reduction of CO2 emissions by 20%, and 20% of energy coming from renewable sources. Furthermore, it promotes sustainable mobility by means of incentives for the purchase of ecological vehicles for the Administration. 5
MMO – 2008 Report Summary
The Metropolitan Mobility Observatory views the Spanish Strategy for Sustainable Mobility as an essential coordinating instrument for developing mobility policies within sustainability criteria. It must not be forgotten that, in addition to involving all the administrations, it is necessary that businesses and citizens feel responsible for their actions and the impacts they imply.
.
6
The Metropolitan Mobility Observatory
1 · The Metropolitan Mobility Observatory (MMO)
The Metropolitan Mobility Observatory (MMO) is an analysis and observation initiative made up of the Public Transport Authorities (PTAs) of the main Spanish metropolitan areas, the Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs, and the Ministry of Public Works and Transport, with the aim of reflecting the contributions of public transport to the improvement of quality of life and sustainable development in cities. Other collaborators include the National Rail Board RENFE, the Institute for Energy Diversification and Savings (I.D.A.E.), the Spanish Railway Foundation, the Association of Urban Transport Collectives, the Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces, and the CCOO Trade Union Federation. The MMO’s objective is to analyse the general mobility tendencies of the main metropolitan areas of Spain by studying a set of key transport indicators such as public transport supply and demand, financing and investments, environmental aspects, and road security. This document is a summary of the 2008 MMO Report. Both said report and this summary were compiled by TRANSyT-UPM, using the information provided by various PTAs, the Directorate General of Suburban and Mid-distance Rail Services RENFE, the Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs, the Directorate General of Traffic and the National Statistics Institute. 17 PTAs contributed data for the report, though the MMO is made up of 21 PTAs in total: Consorcio Regional de Transportes de Madrid, Autoritat del Transport Metropolità de Barcelona, Agència Valenciana de Mobilitat Metropolitana, Entidad Pública del Transporte de la Región de Murcia, Consorcio de Transporte Metropolitano Área de Sevilla, Consorcio de Transportes de Bizkaia, Consorcio de Transportes de Asturias, Consorcio de Transporte Metropolitano Área de Málaga, Consorci de Transports de Mallorca, Autoridad Única del Transporte de Gran Canaria, Consorcio de Transportes del Área de Zaragoza, Autoridad Territorial del Transportes de Gipuzkoa, Consorcio de Transportes de Bahía de Cádiz, Consorcio de Transporte Público del Camp de Tarragona, Consorcio de Transporte Metropolitano Área de Granada, Consorcio de Transporte Metropolitano Área de Almería, Dirección General de Transportes de la Generalitat Valenciana (Alicante), Mancomunidad de la Comarca de Pamplona, the Municipality of Vigo, the Municipality of Corunna and Consorcio de Transporte Público del Área de Lleida. The population of the 17 metropolitan areas included in the 2008 Report comes to 23 million inhabitants: 50% of the nation’s population.
7
MMO – 2008 Report Summary
Below is a data summary that illustrates how public transport contributes to improve mobility for residents of 151 Spanish metropolitan areas (of the 21 that participated this year), which together represent a population of 22.4 million inhabitants. In 2008, a total of 3.376 billion public transport journeys were taken: 1.675 billion by bus and 1.702 billion by rail modes. In the larger metropolitan areas, an average of 163 journeys is taken per resident per year. In mid-sized metropolitan areas 78 journeys, and in small areas 90 journeys, are taken annually per resident. The annual demand in passenger kilometres for these 15 areas is 28.855 billion passenger-km: 11.505 billion for buses and 17.350 billion for rail modes. The average journey distances for the different modes are: 4.3 km for urban buses, 5.5 km for trams, 6.9 km for metros, 16.1 km for metropolitan buses, and 23.4 km for RENFE commuter trains. The length of bus routes in the 15 areas reaches a maximum of 57,610 km, while the length of rail networks reaches a maximum of 3,245 km. The public transport supply is 1.108 billion vehicle-km: 576 million for buses and 604 million for rail modes. In 2008, some 160 million euro were invested in bus systems, while the total investment in rail modes was more than 1.6 billion euro – a difference of ten times2. The fare revenue from public transport modes in the 15 metropolitan areas was 1.652 billion euro, while the operating costs of these same transport modes reached 3.77 billion euro, making for a global coverage ratio of 44%.
1 · Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Murcia, Seville, Asturias, Malaga, Mallorca, Gran Canaria, Gipuzkoa, Cadiz Bay, Granada, Alicante, Pamplona and Vigo. 2 · Of these 1.6 billion euro, 1.533 billion were invested in the rail networks of Barcelona
8
Mobility and the Efficiency of Urban Transport
2 路 Mobility and the efficiency of urban transport 2.1 路 Basic information on the participating metropolitan areas The following presents the general characteristics of the 17 metropolitan areas that participated in the creation of this report. These areas are very heterogeneous, differing from one another as much in terms of population as in terms of surface area and centrality, aspects that one must bear in mind when interpreting the results.
Table 1 路 General characteristics of the metropolitan areas on January 1, 2008 Metropolitan area (PTA Action Sphere)
Extension Population (km2)
Madrid 8,030 Barcelona 3,239 Valencia 1,415 Murcia 11,313 Seville 1,997 Asturias1 10,604 Malaga 1,258 Mallorca 3,623 Gran Canaria 1,560 Gipuzkoa 1,980 Cadiz Bay2 2,905 Camp de Tarragona3 2,999 Granada Alicante Pamplona Vigo Corunna
861 355 92
Main city
Built-up Built-up extension/Total Urban Density Number of urbanizada extension Density (inhab/km2) Municipalities (km2) Ratio (inhab/km2)
6,271,638 4,929,000 1,775,714 1,426,109 1,293,703 1,080,138 972,762 855,343 829,597 701,056 701,275 599,804
781 1,522 1,255 126 648 102 773 236 532 354 241 200
179 164 60
1,049 588 325
13% 18% 23%
5,978 8,383 5,464
32 78 13 53 21 88 9 131
374 n.a. 75 206 330 n.a. 140 n.a.
19% n.a. 6% 6% 21% n.a. 5% n.a.
3,455 n.a. 13,005 4,155 2,514 n.a. 5,009 n.a.
500,479 452,462 318,865
582 1,275 3,481
32 5 18
n.a. 74 46
n.a. 21% 50%
n.a. 6,114 6,900
Density (inhab/km2)
Main. city/Metrop. Area Population Ratio
Extension (km2)
Population
606 102 137 886 141 187 395 214 101 267 14 65
3,213,271 1,616,000 807,200 430,571 699,759 220,644 566,447 396,570 381,123 184,248 127,200 137,536
5,304 15,921 5,898 486 4,952 1,182 1,435 1,857 3,773 690 8,958 2,109
51% 33% 45% 30% 54% 20% 58% 46% 46% 26% 18% 23%
19 201 25 109 37
236,988 331,750 197,275 298,648 245,164
12,216 1,650 7,860 2,740 6,662
47% 73% 62% 100% 100%
In the report, the population referred to is always that of January 1, 2008. 1: The use of integrated tickets is permitted in 77 municipalities (except Oviedo). In all of the municipalities of Asturias there are public transport services. The main city is Oviedo, as it is the capital of the province. 2: Arcos de la Frontera is included. The main city is Cadiz, as it is the capital of the province. 3: The main city is Tarragona, as it is the capital of the province. Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs
The metropolitan area with the largest surface area is Murcia (11,313 km2), while Pamplona has the smallest (92 km2); with regard to main cities, Murcia is the largest (886 km2) and Cadiz the smallest (14 km2).
9
MMO – 2008 Report Summary
The population structure also differs significantly between cities. Thus, the population ratio between the main city and the total metropolitan area varies from almost 73% of Alicante’s population centered in the capital, to a mere 18% in Cadiz Bay. Table 2 presents some of the socioeconomic data of the metropolitan areas, as well as the motorisation index of cars and of motorcycles and scooters in each of these areas. Important differences can be seen in the GDP values per capita, with difference of up to 17,000 euro between Madrid and Cadiz Bay, as well as in the unemployment rate, which in parts of Andalucía is twice as high as in other areas of Spain. In terms of motorisation levels, it is interesting to note that the metropolitan area with the highest number of cars per 1,000 inhabitants is Madrid, with 546. However, Granada is the city with the highest motorisation rate (518). The metropolitan area with the lowest index is Cadiz Bay (412), and Palma de Mallorca boasts the lowest motorisation level of any city, with not even 205 cars per 1,000 inhabitants. Table 2 · Socioeconomic data and motorisation rate (vehicles / 1,000 inhabitants) for the metropolitan areas (2008)
Madrid Barcelona1 Valencia Murcia Seville Asturias Malaga Mallorca2 Gran Canaria3 Gipuzkoa4 Cadiz Bay Camp de Tarragona Granada5 Alicante Pamplona
Family size
Unemployment (%)
Provincial GDP per capita (€)
2.8 2.7 2.5 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.9 2.7 3.3 2.7 2.4 2.7 2.8 3.2 2.8
8.7 11.8 11.5 11.5 22.2 8.5 18.5 10.2 16.7 6.7 26.3 13.7 32.5 13.6 8.12
30,850 29,836 21,462 19,541 18,604 22,559 n.a. 25,967 20,673 27,250 12,621 n.a. 16,938 20,149 30,614
1: Data for all of Catalonia. 2: Household size, 2005. 3: 2007. 4: GDP, 2005. Household size, 2006. 5: GDP, 2007. Source: PTA and National Statistics Institute.
10
Motorisation rate in the Metropolitan area Private Motorcycles cars and scooters
546 446 484
40 88 61
478 457 487 513 445 430 412 469 500 465 n.a.
134 36 n.a. 62 41 60 159 73 196 51 n.a.
Motorisation rate in the Main City Private Motorcycles cars and scooters
497 378 480 498 489 n.a. 473 205 429 413 387 460 518 465 443
46 125 60 161 137 n.a. n.a. 47 45 139 170 75 199 94 61
Mobility and the Efficiency of Urban Transport
2.2 路 Transport demand Modal split for journeys Journeys by car and on foot are the transport modes most often used for all motives. Cadiz Bay is the area which has, at the same time, the highest percentage of journeys taken on foot or by bicycle (47%) and by car (47.9%). In larger areas, the use of public transport has a greater representation, reaching more than 30% in Madrid. Figure 1 路 Modal split for all motives 100%
2.5
80%
31.2
31.8
36.7
42.9
60%
47.0
44.8
16.0
5.2
5.4
41.8
47.9
49.8
Gipuzkoa 2007
Cadiz Bay 2007
45.9
12.1
9.8 31.6
42.2
22.9
11.6
40% 56.1
53.5
20% 0%
34.7
34.2
Madrid 2004
Barcelona 2008
Murcia 2007
Car
Seville 2007
Public transport
On foot and bicycle
42.5
C. Tarragona 2006
Alicante 2007
Other
Source: PTA
Figure 2 路 Modal split for work-related motives 100%
2.4 12.1
80% 60%
40.4
28.1
44.9
48.2
0%
Barcelona 2008
22.4
27.7
33.4
6.8
16.5
8.8
7.8
71.5
71.0
Madrid 2004
21.5
11.4
9.0
40% 20%
17.1
20.0
23.7
Murcia 2007
Car
Seville 2007
Public transport
70.8
62.0
63.5
58.9
Gipuzkoa 2007
Cadiz Bay 2007
On foot and bicycle
C. Tarragona 2006
Alicante 2007
Other
Source: PTA
Figure 3 路 Modal split for non work-related motives 100%
2.4
80%
41.4
38.9 51.3
55.2
62.7
60% 40%
12.5 4.0
26.9 15.9
13.4
4.2 48.6
20% 0%
57.7
29.3
Madrid 2004
44.7 33.1
28.8
Barcelona 2008
Car
Seville 2007
Cadiz Bay 2007
Public transport
On foot and bicycle
28.9
C. Tarragona 2006
Other
Source: PTA
11
Alicante 2007
MMO – 2008 Report Summary
Journeys undertaken for work-related motives (Figure 2) are preferably made by car, with a modal distribution of 45-72%, although in the larger areas, such as Madrid and Barcelona, the public transport is capable of competing with cars, reaching more acceptable quotas of 40% and 28% respectively. The smaller areas show a greater percentage of journeys taken on foot or by bicycle – between 18 and 33%. The trend in journeys for other motives (Figure 3) is completely the opposite: the primary mode is on foot and by bicycle (40-63%), compared to cars and motorcycles (2949%). For non-mandatory activities, when one is not in a hurry, other transport modes are chosen over cars. Annual journeys in metropolitan areas Table 3 presents the annual journeys for each of the existing public transport modes in the different metropolitan areas. If this number of journeys is divided by the population of the area, the larger areas, such as Madrid and Barcelona, present a greater number of annual journeys per inhabitant, with 262 and 190 journeys respectively. In these areas, the rail modes are the most used and surpass the buses in number of journeys, with the metro being the mode which presents the greatest number of journeys (in Madrid, 110 annual journeys are taken per inhabitant by metro). However, in the mid-sized and small metropolitan areas, urban bus is the most frequently employed mode of transport. In these areas, the average number of journeys per inhabitant varies significantly, with a minimum of 35 in Camp de Tarragona and a maximum of 121 in Gipuzkoa.
Table 3 · Annual journeys per public transport network (Millions) Urban Metropolitan Bus Bus Metro Madrid1 Barcelona2 Valencia Murcia Seville Asturias3 Malaga Mallorca Gran Canaria Gipuzkoa Cadiz Bay4 C. de Tarragona Granada Alicante Pamplona Vigo
425.6 194.9 98.4 16.5 84.7 14.9 49.3 42.2 32.2 28.0 12.1 36.3 20.1
268.1 144.9 13.1 n.a. 13.4 40.8 9.6 10.5 26.0 17.2 4,7 8,9 10.9 12.4 38.5 21.4
688.4 376.4 63.0 0.5 -
Tram
RENFE* (Commuter trains)
14.8 n.a. 5.3 n.a. 4.5 2.1 -
245.2 114.4 23.9 5.0 7.4 8.1 9.5 7.7 3.0 -
Regional. Railway Annual and FEVE Journeys/Inhab n.a. n.a. 3.8 3.4 11.1 -
262 190 115 15 85 60 70 66 70 91 11 35 94 77 121 72
*Source: RENFE Directorate General of Passengers 1: Metro includes the Metro of Madrid and the Railway Transport of Madrid, Inc. 2: These values are based on the validations registered by the Fare Integration System, which correspond to stages of a journey. 3: Urban buses, only in Oviedo. 4: Throughout the report, the term “metropolitan buses” refers to intercity services, not including the urban buses of municipalities separate from the city of Cadiz. Source: PTA
12
Mobility and the Efficiency of Urban Transport
2.3 · Public transport supply In this section, data related to the supply of buses and rail services (metros, trams, regional rail services, and RENFE commuter trains) in 2008 in the different metropolitan areas have been compiled. Bus services Table 4 exhibits the main characteristics of bus services: route lengths; number of stops, routes, and operators; and average route length. Table 4 · Bus route characteristics (2008) Number of Routes Urban
Madrid Barcelona Valencia Murcia Seville Asturias1 Malaga Mallorca Gran Canaria Gipuzkoa Cadiz Bay C.Tarragona Granada Alicante Pamplona Vigo Corunna
Metrop.
212 108 60 41 40 14 40 25 40 26 22 28 15
479 522 57 n.a. 52 329 73 106 132 n.a. 52 90 56 20
Route length (km) Urban
Metrop.
3,781 1,830 879 658 535 196 610 709 813 177 n.a. 345 251
21,887 9,811 2,126 n.a. 1,689 3,750 2,039 8,436 3,232 n.a. 2,820 n.a. 1,502 570 370 780 147
23 30 22
Route stops Urban
10,838 5,599 2,045 3,434 1,640 750 1,774 2,191 1,828 1,117 n.a. n.a. 717
Metrop.
21,295 19,524 1,942 n.a. 1,931 6,181 837 1,317 4,312 0 963 n.a. n.a. 1,103 805 2,472 961
Public operators Urban
Metrop.
1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 0
2 0 0 n.a. 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 0 0 0
Private operators Urban
Metrop.
Urban
33 42 8 n.a. 8 45 10 14 5 10 0 8 13 1
17.8 16.9 14.6 16.1 13.4 14.0 15.3 28.4 20.3 6.8 n.a. 12.3 16.7
0 3 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 3 1
0 0 0
Average Route Length (km)
1 1 1
Metrop.
45.7 18.8 37.3 n.a. 32.5 n.a. 27.9 79.0 24.5 n.a. 54.2 n.a. 26.8 28.5 16.1 26.0 n.a.
1: Urban buses, only in Oviedo. Route length and metropolitan route stops refer to the length of the network and the number of stops in the network. Throughout the report, Gijón’s urban bus service is included in the metropolitan bus services. Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs
Figure 4 shows the density of bus route lengths per inhabitant and surface area of the metropolitan area. The greatest route densities per person are found in mid-sized areas, such as Gran Canaria, Mallorca or Cadiz Bay (between 4,000 and 5,000 km of bus routes per 1 million inhabitants). However, the route density per surface area reaches a maximum in Pamplona (4,000 km per 1,000 km2), followed closely by Corunna. Figura 4 · Density of bus supply (2008) 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0
Madrid Barcelona Valencia
Murcia
Seville
Asturias
Malaga
Mallorca G. Canaria Gipuzkoa Cadiz Bay Granada Alicante Pamplona
km of bus route length/million inhab.
km of bus route length (km)/ 1.000 km2
Murcia, Asturias and Gipuzkoa: only urban buses. Mallorca: bus network length instead of route length. Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs
13
Vigo
Corunna
MMO – 2008 Report Summary
Rail services Table 5 shows the main characteristics of the rail services of the analysed areas. One can observe that Madrid’s metro network is the most extensive (279.3 km). However, Barcelona is the area with the largest RENFE commuter train network (440 km). It bears mentioning that of all the existing rail networks in Spain, the largest is the FEVE narrowgauge rail system in Asturias, with 473 kilometres of network, covering the entire region. Table 5 · Rail mode characteristics (2008) Nº de líneas Network length (km) RENFE* Regional Commuter Railway Metro Tram trains and FEVE
Madrid Barcelona Valencia Murcia Seville Asturias Malaga Mallorca Gipuzkoa Cadiz Bay Alicante Corunna
278.7 110.3 126.7 8.7 -
36.0 29.1 20.1 2.2 1.4 18.4 6.6
357.7 440.6 349.8 202.6 159.9 117.7 67.9 82.2 51.2 -
120.0 n.a. 473.0 105.6 85.2 -
Number of stations on network RENFE* Regional Commuter Railway Metro Tram trains and FEVE
281 132 90 9 -
52 56 42 4 4 20 10
97 110 66 29 23 45 25 27 12 -
54 n.a. 167 23 39 -
*Source: RENFE Directorate General of Passengers Source: PTA
The supply density of rail services, in reference to population and surface area, shows smaller ranges than the density of bus services (Figure 5). Asturias stands out with the highest rail network density per person (609 km of network per one million inhabitants) and Valencia with the greatest network density per surface area (218 km of network per 1,000 km2). Even though Madrid has a very extensive rail network (672 km), the rail network density values are not very high due to its large population and the size of its metropolitan area (which consists of the entire province, with a surface area of 8,000 km2). Figure 5· Rail network density (2008) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Madrid Barcelona Valencia Murcia
Seville
Asturias Malaga Mallorca Gipuzkoa Cadiz Bay Alicante Corunna
Rail network length (km)/million inhab.
Rail network length (km) / 1,000 km2
Valencia: includes all RENFE services, though they extend beyond the jurisdiction of the Municipal Transport Company. Murcia and Asturias: the population and surface area of the entire region were used. FEVE is not included in Murcia. Gipuzkoa: the population and surface area of the entire region were used. Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs and the RENFE Directorate General of Passengers
14
Mobility and the Efficiency of Urban Transport
Supply-demand balance The supply-demand balance has been calculated based of the average occupancy per vehicle (Figure 6). In general, the occupancy of train cars (25-40 people) is greater than that of buses (15-30), due to the higher capacity of the former. The values from European metropolitan areas maintain an average of 18 passengers per bus, with a maximum of 29 in Budapest. Figure 6 路 Supply-demand balance: average occupancy per vehicle (2008) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Madrid
Barcelona
Valencia
Murcia
Seville
Asturias
Malaga
Buses
Mallorca
G. Canaria Gipuzkoa
Cadiz Bay
Granada
Alicante
Pamplona
Rail modes
Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs and RENFE
Taxi supply The taxi constitutes another form of public transport, though it is not collective. Figure 7 shows the number of taxis per 1,000 inhabitants, with the highest values in the larger metropolitan areas and in tourist locations, such as Mallorca or Gran Canaria. The values of this indicator in the cities of Madrid and Barcelona are more than twice those of some of the smaller cities. Figure 7 路 Taxi density by area (2008) Taxis / 1,000 inhab
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Madrid
Barcelona
Valencia
Seville
Asturias
Malaga
Mallorca G. Canaria Gipuzkoa
Metropolitan area
C谩diz Bay C. Tarragona Granada
Main city
Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs
15
Alicante
Pamplona
MMO – 2008 Report Summary
Public bicycle rental services in main cities Another form of public transport that has begun to be more visible in Spanish cities in the last few years is the bicycle, thanks to public bicycle rental services. The bicycle is ideal for covering short and medium distances, as well as for completing the multimodal chain, serving as a mode of access to or dispersion from other long-distance modes, such as railways. Tables 6 and 7 compile the supply and demand indicators of public bicycle rental services in certain Spanish cities. One may observe that, except in Barcelona and Seville where the service has been well accepted, in the rest of the cities the use of these services is merely incidental.
Table 6 ¡ Public bicycle supply in main cities (2008) Rental points Barcelona
Total number of bicycle racks
Bicycles available
Main city service ratio (service/surface area)
Service availability (hours daily)
390
8,500
6,000
64.0%
19-24
Murcia
15
n.a.
130
7.0%
11
Seville1
58
148
670
n.a.
13-24
San Sebastian
5
110
100
1.7%
13.5
Cadiz
1
n.a.
15
n.a.
15.5
Pamplona
5
120
101
n.a.
10-12.5
1: There are two services in Seville: Bus+Bici and SEVICI. Bike racks only provided by Bus+Bici. Source: PTA
Table 7 ¡ Demand for public bicycle services in main cities (2008) Registered Users Barcelona Murcia
Rentals (year)
Passenger-km (year)
Bicycle turnover (day)
181,962
12,200,000
36,600,000
8.5
264
4,900
7,350
n.a. n.a.
Seville1
7,178
19,294
n.a.
San Sebastian
1,534
44,300
155,050
0.8
450
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
2,680
10,860
49,956
0.3
Cadiz Pamplona
1: Rentals on average work days. Registered users, only Bus+Bici. Source: PTA
Road network: high-capacity lanes, bicycle lanes and bus lanes Using basic information from high-capacity lanes, bicycle lanes and bus lanes, the road networks of the areas considered in the report have been compared below. In terms high-capacity lanes (Figures 8 and 9), Camp de Tarragona is notable because of its significant density of high-capacity lanes per inhabitant (490 km per one million inhabitants). Valencia also stands out, as it has the greatest density of high-capacity lanes per surface area (173 km per 1,000 km2). 16
Mobility and the Efficiency of Urban Transport
Figure 8 路 Density of high-capacity lanes per inhabitant (2008) 490 420 350
335.1
280 210
115.5
140
23.0
70
130.7
16.5
51.3
Madrid
Barcelona
185.9
138.0
173.3
158.3
156.7
177.8
82.8
52.5
0
22.8
265.7
Valencia
Seville
43.1
Asturias
Mallorca
Gipuzkoa
Free motorway (km)/million inhab.
C. Tarragona
Cadiz Bay
Granada
Alicante
Toll motorway (km)/million inhab.
Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs
Figure 9 路 Density of high-capacity lanes per surface area (2008) 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0
17.9
78.1 173.2 40.9 10.7
67.0 103.4
102.1 80.0 53.6
43.9
27.1
Madrid
Barcelona
Valencia
Seville
Asturias
Mallorca
Free motorway/1,000 km2
56.1
Gipuzkoa
54.9
41.8
Cadiz Bay
31.3
C. Tarragona
Granada
Alicante
Toll motorway/1,000 km2
Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs
The supply of bus lanes, protected or unprotected, is greatest in the largest areas, reaching values in Barcelona of 113 kilometres of, for the most part, unprotected bus lanes. However, in Valencia, almost 50% of bus lanes are protected and Seville has the highest proportion of protected bus lanes (84%). Figure 10 shows the ratio between the length of the bus lanes and the length of the entire urban network, which indicates the length of the urban bus network with existing bus lanes, giving an idea of the quality of bus circulation in the city. Some of the urban areas surpass 4%. The cities with the highest coverage values are Valencia, with 20% coverage, and Barcelona with 12%. Figure 10 路 Percentage of bus network with bus lanes in the main city (2008) km bus lane / km urban bus network (%)
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
19.7
12.1
6.0
5.3
4.6
4.0 1.2
Madrid
Barcelona
Valencia
Seville
Asturias
0.6
Malaga
Mallorca
0.4
Gipuzkoa
Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs
17
Granada
1.3
Vigo
2.0
Corunna
MMO – 2008 Report Summary
In terms of the density of bicycle lanes per inhabitant (Figure 11), the highest value is that of Pamplona (300 km per 1 million inhabitants), followed by Seville, with 210 kilometres per 1 million inhabitants. Figure 11 · Density of bicycle lanes in main cities (2008) km urban bicycles lanes / million inhab 300
300 250 210
200 149
150 100 50
87
107
99
69 47
44
38
0 Madrid
Barcelona
Valencia
Sevill
Malaga
Mallorca
Gipuzkoa
Granada
Alicante
Pamplona
Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs
Parking Parking policy is very closely related to that of public transport, as an abundant supply of low-cost parking spaces in a city encourages the use of cars. However, park and ride lots in key city access points contribute to reducing congestion in city centers. Tables 8 and 9 summarise the supply of parking spaces in main cities and metropolitan areas. Table 8 · Parking spaces in the main city (2008) Public underground parking Number of spaces
Madrid1 16,895 Barcelona2 53,386 Valencia 13,794 Seville 4,826 Asturias n.a. Malaga 6,505 Mallorca 9,609 Gipuzkoa3 6,000 Cadiz Bay 11,141 Camp de Tarragona n.a. Alicante 2,742 Pamplona4 3,157 Vigo n.a.
€/hr
n.a. 2.65 2.50 1.94 n.a. 2.82 1.70 1.88 1.40 n.a. 1.20 n.a. n.a.
Unregulated public street level parking Number of spaces
n.a. 137,119 n.a. 119,869 n.a. n.a. 102,426 n.a. 23,950 10,000 34,864 30,202 n.a.
Regulated public street level parking Number of spaces
166,304 37,130 9,158 5,050 2,200 n.a. 13,191 8,000 868 n.a. 1,083 11,178 2,600
€/hr
1.00-1.80 1.08-2.42 0.70 0.60-1.10 0.75 n.a. 0.67-1.3 1.27 0.75 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
1: 2007. 2: Public, street level parking costs €0.20 per hour for residents. 3: Underground lots are rotational. There are 7,300 additional underground spaces for residents. 4: Underground lots are rotational. There are 6,661 additional underground spaces for residents and 2,244 mixed spaces. Source: PTA
18
Mobility and the Efficiency of Urban Transport
Table 9 ¡ Park and Ride spaces in the metropolitan area (2008) Number of spaces Madrid1 Barcelona Valencia Seville Mallorca Gipuzkoa2 Camp de Tarragona Pamplona
% paid
20,758 13,290 1,672 442 1,077 780 400 8,271
33% 21% 0% n.a. 0% 28% 0% 0%
1: 2006. 2: Paid spaces, only in summer. Source: PTA
2.4 ¡ Economic and fare-based aspects Ticket and fare types Fare systems in Spain are quite diverse. The systems are based on concentric rings and
A single ticket costs
other zones, according to the geographic distribution of a region. The areas that offer
about one euro in
fare integration are: Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Bizkaia, Seville, Asturias, Malaga,
Spain, but multiple
Mallorca, Gipuzkoa, Cadiz Bay, Camp de Tarragona and Granada.
journey tickets can offer a savings of 30-
When it comes to determining the cost of a journey, the fare can be established based on the zones of the origin and the destination or on the number of zone changes. The single ticket costs about one euro in Spain, without any significant variation among the areas analysed here. A significant difference does exists, however, when one compares Spain with other European nations, as the single ticket fare varies from â‚Ź0.32 in Vilnius to more than four euro in London, due to the fact that, among other things, the income differences between the European countries are more marked than between areas within Spain. Table 10 shows journey cost as a function of the type of ticket used: multiple journey tickets are preferred, offering a savings of 30-40% with regards to a single ticket. In the last 20 years, single ticket fares have doubled, or even tripled, in some areas.
19
40% per journey.
MMO – 2008 Report Summary
Table 10 · Journey cost by ticket type (€/journey), 2008 Minimum Concentric Zone Single ticket
Multiple Journey ticket
Maximum Concentric Zone Smart card
Single ticket
Multiple Journey ticket
Smart card
Madrid
1.00
0.67
-
4.25
2.74
-
Barcelona
1.30
0.72
-
5.40
3.12
-
2.00
1.54
-
2.20
0.91-1.33
1.80 1.69
Valencia
1.20
0.56
-
Murcia
1.00-1.95
0.45-1.17
-
Seville1
1.10
0.77-1.19
0.77
Asturias2
1.20
0.75
-
Malaga3
1.20
-
0.77
2.55
-
Mallorca4
0.90
0.48-0.60
-
6.05
2.25-1.50
-
Gran Canaria
1.10
0.58
-
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
Gipuzkoa5
1.20
0.70
-
-
-
-
Camp de Tarragona
1.15
-
-
1.34
-
-
Granada
1.10
0.57-0.65
0.46
1.05-2.00
-
0.79-1.55
Pamplona6
1.00
-
0.50
-
-
-
Vigo
1.08
0.72
-
1: Only metropolitan. Multiple journey tickets, with or without transfers. 2: CTA integrated ticket. 3: Only metropolitan. 4: Ratio with T-40 ticket. 5: Only urban. 6: Smart card makes reference to the normal fare. Source: PTA
Table 11 illustrates the number of ticket validations per ticket type. In larger areas – Madrid and Barcelona – the use of single tickets is quite low (10-20%) in comparison with the use of passes (80-90%). However, the use of the single ticket is more significant in smaller and mid-sized areas (20-50%), where there are more incidental public transport users. Table 11 · Number of ticket validations (millions), 2008 Single Ticket
Multiple Journey Ticket
Madrid1
176.6
396.3
Barcelona2
161.8
Valencia3
30.4 7.7
Murcia
Daily Pass
Monthly Pass
Student Pass
Senior Pass -
Smart card
Transfers
Other
-
1,007.0
-
18.3
458.6
1.4
183.5
12.6
-
-
-
70.1
0.5
27.0
8.6
32.6
-
6.3
-
1.4
-
-
1.9
1.7
-
2.3
0.4
116.7
Seville4
6.0
2.2
-
-
-
0.9
3.0
1.3
-
Asturias5
26.0
24.6
-
5.9
2.2
0.6
1.2
2.4
1.7
Malaga6
19.8
13.8
6.9
3.1
5.8
3.4
-
2.5
Mallorca
13.7
1.3
-
-
-
-
31.4
-
-
Gran Canaria7
20.9
18.4
-
18.9
-
-
-
Gipuzkoa8
14.3
24.9
2.4
4.3
1.6
6.5
-
2.0
0.3
Cadiz Bay9
3.5
-
-
-
-
-
1.7
-
-
Granada
11.7
19.5
-
1.6
0.9
2.4
6.7
2.0
2.4
Alicante
6.8
17.5
-
-
1.9
5.0
-
3.7
0.5
Pamplona10
4.2
-
-
-
-
-
24.2
3.4
6.7
Vigo
5.7
10.7
-
-
1.9
3.2
-
-
-
Corunna11
7.1
10.9
-
-
0.8
-
-
-
2.0
1: Other includes tourist day passes. 2: Other includes special discount passes for low-income, retired, disabled users, etc. 3: RENFE is not included. Student is included in youth pass. 4. Only metropolitan. 5: This includes all operators. Transfers only permitted by CTA and EMTUSA. Other includes low-income urban bus passes in Oviedo and Gijón. 6: Other includes employee passes, family passes, etc. 7: Passes includes the Island Card. 8: Urban bus and day pass transfers only permitted by Euskotren. 9: Transfers are zone changes. 10: Other includes retiree and large family discounts with smart card. Transfers also with smart card. 11: Other includes discount passes for the unemployed, retired, and disabled. Source: PTA
20
Mobility and the Efficiency of Urban Transport
Coverage ratio and investments The coverage ratio of the public transport system in the metropolitan areas falls between 37% and 80%, with the highest values seen in the smallest areas, where there are only bus systems which have lower operating costs than rail modes. European areas show an average coverage ratio of 44% (EMTA Barometer, 2009), lower than in most of the Spanish metropolitan areas. One must keep in mind that fares in Spain are lower than in the majority of European countries, a fact which makes the Spanish system even more commendable. Figure 12 · Coverage ratio for the public transport system in the metropolitan areas (2008) Operating costs / Fare revenues (%) 79
80
77 73
70
67 60
60
56 50
50 40
47
44
65 59
58
47 41
39
37
30 20 10 0
Madrid Barcelona Valencia
Murcia
Seville
Asturias
Malaga
Mallorca G. Canaria Gipuzkoa Cadiz Bay Granada Alicante Pamplona
Vigo
Corunna
Murcia, Seville, Asturias, Malaga and Gipuzkoa: only main city urban bus. RENFE has not been taken into account in any of the cases. Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs
Figure 13 shows public transport subsidies per inhabitant, demonstrating that rail modes present a significant cost to society in the areas where rail networks are important. Figure 13 · Public transport subsidies, per inhabitant (2008) 210 175 140
131.8
105 45.8
70 35
52.0 69.0
52.4 6.6
0 Madrid
Barcelona
Murcia
7.2
Asturias
30.0
Málaga
51.9
34.2
Mallorca
16.5
G. Canaria Gipuzkoa
Subsidies: €/inhab. Buses
4.0
Cadiz Bay
13.2
Granada
Subsidies: €/inhab. Rail modes
Murcia, Seville, Asturias, Malaga and Gipuzkoa: only main city urban bus. RENFE has not been taken into account in any of the cases. In all cases the total population of the metropolitan area has been considered. Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs
21
24.9
Alicante
25.4
Pamplona
25.8
Vigo
0.6 21.5
Corunna
Changes in 2002-2008 indicators
3 · Changes in 2002-2008 indicators In this section, the variation of certain population, motorisation, supply, demand and financial indicators have been compiled for review. Figure 14 · Variation of population and motorisation rates, 2002-2008 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0 -5% Madrid
Barcelona Valencia
Seville
Asturias
Malaga
Mallorca G. Canaria Zaragoza Cadiz Bay Granada
Population of the Metropolitan Area
Alicante Pamplona
Vigo
Corunna
Motorization Rate
*Seville, Malaga, Cadiz Bay, and Granada have incorporated other municipalities into their jurisdiction over the years which has caused major population variations. Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs
Table 12 shows the variation of journeys and passenger-km for the bus and rail systems. In some cities where the rail networks have been expanded, one can observe a decrease in the number of bus journeys – or at least slower growth than in areas where such investments have not taken place. As such, there seems to exist a certain user shift from buses to the new rail modes. Table 12 · Variation of demand indicators (%). 2002-2008 Bus journeys Madrid Barcelona Valencia Murcia Seville Asturias Malaga Mallorca Gran Canaria Cadiz Bay Granada Alicante Pamplona Vigo
-8.3 6.1 -6.7 n.a. -5.1 3.5 34.8 n.a. -5.7 -9.8 20.3 6.2 15.4 6.2
Rail journeys 25.1 18.3 13.0 n.a. 356.2 -4.1 11.9 n.a. n.a. -1.0 n.a. 1212.5 n.a. n.a.
Passenger-km by bus
Passenger-km by rail modes
-5.8 74.0 -4.7 -8.2 -1.4 2.3 n.a. 0.5 -8.5 -9.0 21.0 5.5 n.a. n.a.
29.9 24.4 29.5 19.1 24.4 -17.1 29.8 -1.5 n.a. 3.0 n.a. 30.9 n.a. n.a.
Bus journeys: excluding exceptions, refers to route journeys. Seville, Granada, and Alicante: network journeys. Rail mode journeys: excluding exceptions, refers to network journeys. Suburban railway services provided by RENFE. Asturias does not include FEVE. Passenger-km by bus: Granada and Gran Canaria, only metropolitan. Asturias, only Oviedo urban bus. Passenger-km by rail modes: Suburban railway services provided by RENFE. Asturias and Seville, only RENFE. Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs
23
MMO – 2008 Report Summary
In terms of the supply of vehicle-km (Table 13), something similar occurs to that which happened with the infrastructure, as the supply, in many cases, has grown at a lower rate than that of the population, causing the density per inhabitant to decrease. This fact can be clearly observed in the case of rail modes, where areas such as Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Seville or Alicante have expanded their networks to a significant extent, and therefore have positive numbers while other areas, such as Asturias, Malaga or Cadiz Bay, where there is no new infrastructure, have seen their ratio per inhabitant decrease. Table 13 ¡ Variation of supply indicators (%). 2002-2008
Vehicle-km Madrid Barcelona Valencia Seville Asturias Malaga Mallorca Gran Canaria Zaragoza* Cadiz Bay Granada Alicante* Pamplona Corunna
Buses Vehicle-km / inhab.
4.8 21 -3.4 2.1 12.9 14.5 4.8 -5 6.3 -0.8 30.4 7.7 18.1 2.6
Vehicle-km
-4.5 13.3 -9.4 -1.3 8.6 9.7 -0.2 -7.6 3.6 -6.2 16.9 -3.2 9.4 1.8
Rail modes Vehicle-km / inhab.
35.6 35.2 1.9 25.4 2.6 6.7 1.8 53.5 -
23.7 26.7 -2.1 10.6 -11.3 -18.4 -8.7 182.4 -
* 2007 Vehicle-km by bus: Murcia, Seville, and Asturias, only main city urban bus. Suburban railway services provided by RENFE. Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs
Table 14 presents the variation of single ticket fares, along with fare revenues and operating costs. It is interesting to note that in some cases the operating costs have grown twice or three times as much as revenue, making the financial balance of the services unsustainable. This situation is due to the fact that the new rail services have greater operating costs than buses and the policies of integrated tickets and fare systems complicate the transfer of the real usage cost of the rail modes to the passengers. Table 14 ¡ Changes in fares and financial aspects (%). 2002-2008
Madrid Barcelona Valencia* Seville Asturias* Malaga Mallorca* Gran Canaria Zaragoza* Cadiz Bay* Granada Alicante Pamplona Vigo* Corunna*
Single Ticket Fare
Fare Revenues
Operating Costs
0.0 13.0 9.1 5.0 n.a. 16.5 n.a. 10.0 13.3 11.8 15.8 6.0 22.0 n.a. n.a.
13.1 19.6 28.9 12.4 6.4 18.4 2.1 -0.3 8.1 23.8 17.3 32.2 24.5 12.6 17.7
104.0 44.1 29.4 44.3 9.7 38.0 19.7 10.4 6.5 0.00 16.6 64.1 53.3 14.6 31.0
* 2007 Revenue: Valencia, Malaga and Cadiz Bay do not include RENFE. Asturias, only urban Oviedo.Operating costs do not include RENFE. Asturias and Malaga, only urban city center. Source: compiled by authors based on data provided by the PTAs
24
Mobility and the urban environment
4 路 Mobility and the urban environment 4.1 路 Transport and climate change The transport sector is the most important in terms of
Figure 15 路 Final energy consumption by sectors. 2008
final energy consumption (Figure 15), with 41% of Several uses 29%
the total final energy consumed. The evolution of final energy consumption, begin-
Industry 30%
ning in 1990, indicates that transport is clearly an expanding sector, reaching rates 82.5% higher than those seen in the reference year. In 2007, this growth begins to slow and in 2008 it returns to consumption values similar to those of 2006. This can be attributed
Transport 41%
to the technological development achieved by the transport industry and to the economic situation of the country, among other factors.
Source: Institute for Energy Diversification and Savings
Figure 16 路 Transport sector: final energy consumption and final energy intensity
Index: 1990=100
200% 180% 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Energy Cosumption- Transport Sector
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Final Energy Intensity of the Transport Sector
Source: Institute for Energy Diversification and Savings
25
2007
2008
MMO – 2008 Report Summary
It is important to point out that this growth has not been accompanied, at least in the same order of magnitude, by growth in the final energy intensity3 of the sector (a mere 5.4%, which can be interpreted as a stabilisation throughout the time series considered here). Even so, final energy intensity in Spain reaches values that are 40-50% higher than those of the EU-15, meaning that there are still challenges to be met in this respect. In terms of the modal distribution of final energy consumption within the transport sector, highway transport is the most intensive mode, with 78.9% in 2008. Even though in the last few years there has been a slight decrease in this percentage, with the difference being transferred to rail and air modes, it continues to be the predominant mode by a large margin.
Figure 17 ¡ Modal distribution of greenhouse gas emissions for the transport sector Kt CO2 eq
120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0
1990
1992
1994
1996
Aviation (national traffic)
1998
Road Transport
2000
Rail
2002
Navigation
2004
2006
2008
Total Transport Sector
Source: Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs (Spanish Climate Change Office)
If one analyses the modal distribution of the greenhouse gas emissions of the transport sector (Figure 17), one can see that more than 80% are attributable to highway transport. This is consistent with the modal distribution of final energy consumption, as the main component of greenhouse gases is CO2, which is produced by fuel consumption. In comparison with the other modes, highway transport shows a much greater growth tendency, almost doubling emissions in the time period considered here.
In the same vein, keeping in mind that more than 80% of greenhouse gas emissions originate with CO2, the Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs has been collaborating closely with the Directorate General of Traffic within the framework of the European regulations for the limitation of CO2 emissions proceeding from 3 ¡ Energy intensity is the relationship between the energy consumption of the sector and the Gross Domestic Product.
light-duty vehicles (Regulation 443/2009). This collaboration is closely related to the emissions monitoring and reporting process stipulated in Article 8 of said regulation. 26
Mobility and the urban environment
4.2 · Air quality in urban areas The economic, technological and urbanistic evolution that society and cities in particular, have undergone in recent years has made it such that today traffic is the most decisive factor in the air quality of urban environments. Policies and measures such as those developed in Law 34/2007 on Air Quality and Protection of the Atmosphere, of November 15, will be decisive in improving air quality in all environments. Figure 18 shows the temporal evolution of the main contaminants linked to urban traffic, adjusting the average values for population in the municipalities of more than 50,000 inhabitants. Taking 2001 as a reference point, one can see decreases in all the indexes, except for ozone, which also shows a clear decreasing tendency (of more than 50 points), though one that is concentrated in the last four years. Figure 18 · Evolution of the main contaminants in urban environments. Average values adjusted for population in Spanish municipalities of more than 50,000 inhabitants. Index: 2001=100
250 200 150 100 50 0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
PM10: Average annual concentration adjusted for population (µg/m3 ) PM10: Average number of days per year with an average daily concentration of greater than 50µg/m3, adjusted for population NO2: Average annual concentration adjusted for population (µg/m3 ) NO2: Average number of hours per year with an average hourly concentration of greater than 200 µg/m3, adjusted for population O3: Average number of days per year with a daily maximun eight-hour average concentration of greater than120 µg/m3, adjusted for population Source: Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs (Environmental Strategic Information Unit)
With regard to the generalised decreases in the time series analysed here, it is interesting to highlight the relationship that this tendency has with the various policies and measures that the Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs carries out in the field of urban environments, of which the following are the most notable: Spanish Strategy for Sustainable Mobility. European Mobility Week. Metropolitan Mobility Observatory. Network of Local Sustainable Development Networks. Network of Cities for the Climate. Law 34/2007 on Air Quality and Protection of the Atmosphere, November 15. Spanish Strategy for Local and Urban Sustainability. 27
2008
MMO – 2008 Report Summary
4.2 · Road safety in urban areas In 2008, 634 fatalities were documented in urban zones, a decrease of more than 14% in comparison to 2007. The decrease is much more significant (31%) if one considers the entire period analysed, from 2003 to 2008. Likewise, the parameters related to injuries (light and serious) and total victims show significant decreases with regard to the previous year. Table 15 · Traffic accidents in urban areas (2003-2008)
Accidents with victims
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2008/2007
52,420
50,222
48,563
50,576
50,688
49,330
-2.68%
-5.89%
919
900
790
737
741
634
-14.44%
-31.01% -25.87%
Fatalities Seriously injured
2008/2003
7,299
7,174
6,939
6,619
6,094
5,411
-11.21%
Slightly injured
63,864
60,119
57,081
59,762
59,639
58,237
-2.35%
-8.81%
Victims
72,082
68,193
64,810
67,118
66,474
64,282
-3.30%
-10.82%
Fatalities /100 accidents Fatality rate per 1,000 victims
1.75
1.79
1.63
1.46
1.46
1.29
12.75
13.20
12.19
10.98
11.15
9.86
Fuente: DGT. Cómputo de muertos a 30 días
Figure 19 · Evolution of the number of traffic accident deaths in urban zones (1980-2008)
1,400 1,200 1998-2003 Moderate decrease -10.69%
1,000 800 1983-1989 Sharp increase 37.29%
600
1990-1997 Sharp decrease -37.87%
400 200
2004-2008 Consolidation of decreasing tendency -19.18%
0 1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
Source: Directorate General of Traffic
This decreasing tendency in the evolution of the number of fatalities, noted earlier, is more clearly visible in Figure 19, in which one can observe the evolution of this indicator in the period from 1980-2008. This period has been separated into four intervals: 1982-1989: sharp increase (+37.29%) 1900-1997: sharp decrease (-37.87%) 1998-2003: moderate decrease (-10.69%) 2004-2008: consolidation of decreasing tendency (-19.18%)
28
Web links
Web links Consorcio Regional de Transportes de Madrid www.crtm.es Operador autobús metropolitano Gipuzkoa www.lurraldebus.net Autoritat del Transport Metropolità de Barcelona www.atm.cat Consorcio de Transportes de Bahía de Cádiz www.cmtbc.es Agencia Valenciana de Movilidad Metropolitana www.etmvalencia.es Autoritat Territorial de la Mobilitat Camp de Tarragona www.atmcamptarragona.cat Entidad Pública del Transporte de la Región de Murcia www.entidadpublicadeltransporte.com Consorcio de Transporte Metropolitano Área de Granada www.ctagr.com Consorcio de Transporte Metropolitano Área de Sevilla www.consorciotransportes-sevilla.com Consorcio de Transporte Metropolitano Área de Almería www.ctal.almeria.es
Transporte Público del Área Metropolitana de Alicante (TAM) www.alicante-ayto.es/trafico/tam.html Consorcio de Transportes de Asturias www.consorcioasturias.com Mancomunidad de la Comarca de Pamplona www.mcp.es Consorcio de Transporte Metropolitano Área de Málaga www.ctmam.es Operador autobús urbano Vigo www.vitrasa.es Consorci de Transports de Mallorca www.caib.es Operador autobús urbano A Coruña www.tranviascoruna.com/ Autoridad Única del Transporte de Gran Canaria www.autgc.org Autoritat Territorial de la Mobilitat Àrea de Lleida www.atmlleida.cat Consorcio de Transportes del Área de Zaragoza www.consorciozaragoza.es
Consorcio de Transportes de Bizkaia www.cotrabi.com
The entire Observatory’s reports (2002-2008) as well as the reports from the Technical Conferences (Oviedo, Pamplona, Seville, Barcelona, Valencia and Las Palmas) can be found on the MMO’s website: www.observatoriomovilidad.es
29