ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING AND TRANSPORT COMMITTEE

REVIEW OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT

VISIT TO FRANKFURT

Friday 30 March, 2001

Rapporteur’s Report Back and Notes

Visit

The visit was facilitated by the Institute for Integrated Traffic and Transport Systems (ZIV) at Darmstadt University of Technology. In attendance were :-Dr.-Ing. Manfred Boltze Transport Planning and Traffic EngineeringDr.-Ing. Stefan Bald Road Design, Construction and MaintenanceHansjorg Rohrich Transport Authority for Rhein-Main Region (RMV)Gerd Riegelhuth Hessian State Road and Traffic AuthorityRalf Juttemeyer RMS- Rhein Main ServiceBernhard Lange RMS- Rhein Main ServiceRichard Edwards AMTom Middlehurst AMDenys Morgan Adviser to CommitteeRobin Shaw NAW - Transport DirectorateVaughan Watkins NAW - OPOJulie NAW - OPOBackgroundDr.-Ing. Boltze explained the format of the Darmstadt University of Technology, with its three current Faculties:-

• • Transport Planning and Traffic Engineering
  • Road Design Construction and Maintenance
  • Railway Planning and Engineering

To this was being added a fourth, in view of its increasing significance to the Region:-

• • Air Transport Planning

The University was confederated with a series of other organisations through two "umbrella" groupings - ZIV and FIV. ZIV comprised German Rail (DB), the Airport Company, the Regional Transport Authority (Rhein-Main- Verkehrsverbund GmbH), and around 10 promoting associations from industry, consultancies and suppliers. Here was also support from the Hessen State Administration. ZIV’s Executive and Management covered the areas of:-

• • Simulation
  • Traffic Control / Data Collection
  • Intermodality
  • Public Transport and Telematics
  • Mobile Navigation Systems
  • Railway systems and technology

FIV was an organisation allying the various agents involved in transport in a consultative / co-operative "Association for Promoting Integrated Traffic and Transport Systems" (Forderverein fur integrierte Verkehrssysteme)The State area covered inner urban areas with up to 90% public transport, through smaller towns, to rural areas. Planning had to cover all circumstances. The main City was Frankfurt, but with significant urban areas at Wiesbaden, Mainz, Hamau, Russelheim, Offenbach and Darmstadt, where we were situated. Wiesbaden was the State administrative town. Transport ManagementSignificant points out of the presentation were:-

• Much of Frankfurt’s traffic problem was of "through passing" allied to the demand for mobility
• Frankfurt Airport was the largest on Continental Europe, second only to London LHR in all Europe
• 40 million passengers per year, 1.4 million tonnes of freight p.a., 170 airlines
• Rail included national High Speed Trains such as Cologne to Frankfurt, long distance, regional and local services.
• Frankfurt 21 Project to drive a new rail tunnel under central area for through traffic, in lieu of present terminal station.
• No "parallel" new road build proposed, but connections and interchanges to receive considerable attention
• Frequent congestion on up to 70% of their network
• High Speed Train Interchange built at Airport
• Developed Park and ride structure - "outer" areas rather than close in to Cities - at public transport nodes
• Found co-operation needed because of the number of agents involved in transport
• Hence, in 1994, PTA set up and, in 1998, ZIV and FIV set up
• Involved in several EU projects - FRUIT, RHAPIT, ENTERPRICE, TASTe etc
• Sophisticated strategies in place for dynamic traffic management around outputs for - influence; diversion; advice
• Effected by sophisticated computer simulation of events and traffic leading to intervention for dynamic and real time signing of traffic, parking advice, passenger information (all modes)
• The concept of "help centres" to advise on all modes in one place

-"mobility service centres"

• 15 centres in Hessen State to date
• "Wayflow" was a current large project to provide regional traffic management on a comprehensive basis, with "subsets" of:-
• MobiManagement (Regional TM)
• InfoPool (Data Base)
• MobiChip (individual help)
• Main aims for future development were :-
  • better integration of municipalities
  • improve organisation
  • dynamic TM
  • overall ITS implementation plan for cities and region
  • new technology - employ
  • research / "useful bundles of measures"
  • information exchange
• Organisation

Hansjorg Rohrich explained the organisational arrangements in Germany. There were 22 Regional Transport Authorities, of which one was Rhein-Main. They were subject to German National Law and to Hessen State law. The RMV (Rhein-Main-Verkehrsverbund GmbH, or Transport Authority for the Rhine-Main-Region) area covered circa 5 million people, of whom 645,000 were in Frankfurt, and there were 15 Counties, 11 Cities, 150 operators,14,000 square kms of area, 43 rail lines, 400 stations, 780 bus routes.Factors coming out of discussion were:-

• Before the RMV there were 40 different tariff systems which had been rationalised.
• There was a three level model for decision making :-

Policy LevelMade by State - County - City AdministrationsManagement Level Controlled by RMVOperational LevelIn two parts:-Companies DB (national rail)Hessen Landes Bahn (regional rail)Regional Bus (long distance buses)Local Authorities Local busesPublic local bus companiesPrivate transport companies

• RMV control specification, standards, and ticketing.
• One success had been bringing national rail and local services together
• RMV "contracts" with local authorities for services
• RMV financed by partners for most of management costs and the remainder are financed by the Hessen State.
• Each partner has one vote!
• There is a 2.2billion DM cost (circa £700m) against which there is a 1.5 billion DM income (circa £500m). Hence State meets the gap of 0.7 billion DM (circa £200m)
• RMV directly employ about 90 people, and currently have circa 60 projects on the go
• RMV has 4 Divisions :

Planning - timetables; regional buses; regional PT PlanTransport services - railway; bus; access / contractsMarketing - tariffs /sales; communication; quality management; innovationControlling - budget; revenue allocation; final accounts

• The framework can thus be summarised as:-

European region The Traffic AreaRMV Agent for mobility in Region

• There is a division between political and economic responsibilities. Responsibility for budgets in one place seen as an advantage.
• RMV can ensure intermodal planning and co-ordination of interfaces. They have a major influence over DB contracts
• Pressure in Germany to make PT pay. Hessen State has required 2% reduction in subsidy for each of last two years
• Procurement via franchising rather than UK type competition. Their proposals are very similar to Quality Bus contract concepts.
• Students have travel cards at preferential rates - travel anywhere for 6 months (all modes) on 80 DM (circa £27) card!
• There is an interesting revenue gathering and redistribution process managed by RMV. Most stations and PT vehicles are "open" i.e. not barriered. Redistribution is according to performance.
• Between 1995 and 1999, regional ridership has gone from 520m to 575m, and cost recovery rate (i.e. what the fares pay for) from 51% to 57%. German and State Administrations are specifying 65% as an early target.
• Train kilometrage has risen from 34.9 mkm to 37.6 mkm
• Optimisation of vending machinery within 4-5 years to standard system.
• Major traffic / ridership surveys every two years to satisfy Hessen State Finance Ministry.

Hessian Road ServiceGerd Reigelhuth explained the Hessian State role, which is largely parallel to that of the NAW Motorway and Trunk Road operation. Current issues were:-

• Variable message signs (VMS) on the network to adapt to changing traffic circumstances
• Lane control systems
• Congestion prediction and corrective actions
• Reaction to personal injury accidents

RMV Information Platform and Looming CompetitionRalf Juttemeyer and Bernhard Lange explained the RMS Rhein Main Service, a consultancy and data collection section of RMV devoted to forward planning and new directions. It was set up three years ago.The idea is to ensure a robust data base for all financial and political decisions and to suggest best value for money for future investment. Further clarification was given concerning money passed over from the Federal Government and Sate Government in the form of block grants for packages of services, not specified in detail, which RMV then spends according to agreed policy and service outcomes and targets.The move towards competition in the German system was explained, with considerable debate on the form of legal requirements and the specification of minimum service levels. There seems to be no discretion for support of socially necessary services not operated by the commercial sector, as per UK practice. Rather the RMV will specify (like in a QBC in UK) the packages and levels of service to be provided, and competition will be in the form of who can best provide that package. This is fundamentally different from the UK where deregulation has given us the position where the public sector picks up, on a route or individual service basis, what the commercial sector cannot / does not provide.Considerable debate ensued upon the relative merits of the schemes, with AM’s strongly advising German colleagues to avoid the pitfalls of UK deregulation and competition.In debate it became clear that the Federal Government transferred responsibility for regional rail services to the Lander (in this case Hesse, but equivalent to Wales in a UK contextThe present German timescale is for the competition process to be completed within 8 years. It is possible that current Court actions, if successful, could force this change down to a 5 year period.Rapporteurs:- Richard Edwards (Spokesperson)Tom MiddlehurstCommittee Adviser Denys MorganCommittee Secretariat Vaughan Watkin