Key problems and priorities in urban transport sector in SEE Regional Meeting on Sustainable Transport Policies in South Eastern Europe Budapest, June Wioletta Szymanska Project Manager 21 June 2007

Introduction Overall objective of meeting: to assist SEE in better understanding of sust. transport policies and practices in EU context, in sust. urban transport planning and operation using available best practices

Introduction Findings from interviews in 3 PILOT countries: Albania (Tirana), FYR Macedonia (Skopje), Serbia (Belgrade) Interviews - to investigate current problems of urban PT sector in SEE, in particular in cities in pilot countries to give background for further discussion at this meeting

Interviews Serbia, BelgradeMacedonia, Skopje Albania, Tirana 6 meetings with 8 people from: 1. City transport/env. secretariats 2. Public transport company 3. Urban planners/Land Development Agency 4. NGO 7 meetings with 10 people from: 1. City council 2. Public transport company 3. Ministry of Transport 4. Traffic Institute 5. NGO 6. Local bus factory 6 meetings with 8 people from: 1. City transport department 2. Association of the Private Bus Operators 3. Ministry of Transport 4. Institute for Transport Studies 5. NGOs

PT systems in PILOT countries: Belgrade Inhabitants: 1.6 million Price of single ticket: 27 dinars for 1st zone, (approx. 0.3 EUR) Main operator: "Beograd" City Transport Company (GSP Beograd)- urban transport by buses, trolleys, and trams under contract with city (36% of company budget from city) Directorate for Public Transport in the City of Belgrade responsible for transport In 1999 the private bus operators entered, since 2006 under integrated timetable Share of PT 40-50%

Public transport issues: Belgrade Biggest air pollutant in Belgrade is transport, old- fashioned air quality legislation Traffic congestion in the city, lack of parking places Old rolling stock (buses are in better condition), especially trams - investment in rolling stock and infrastructure Slow inclusion of cycling and walking Problems with coordination and inclusion of all relevant stakeholders at the right time, especially in planning process Lack of education and awareness both for citizens and in the institutions

PT systems in PILOT countries: Skopje Inhabitants: 506,926 Price of single ticket: 30 denars (approx. 0.5 EUR) Public Transport Operator JSP “Skopje” - only bus lines, 2 private operators Skopje City Traffic Department - responsible for transport Very old bus fleet - average age is 16 years (with some buses of 30 years) No subsidies from city, nor from the government

Public transport issues: Skopje No urban transport policy, no parking policy Old and unreliable and not safe bus fleet No subsidy from the city Social groups with discounted tickets not covered Number of passengers decreasing significantly, number of cars growing No investment possible – no funds from the city, no possibilities to take loans Deregulated public transportation and not defined relations between transporters (private operators) No priorities given to PT in decision making process – big road infrastructure projects have priority

PT systems in PILOT countries: Tirana Inhabitants: 520,000 (750,000) Price of single ticket: 20 leks (approx EUR) Since 2002, 20% of service provided by 1 public transport operator (buses), 80% provided by 5 private operators (buses and minibuses), no bus terminal City Public Transport Directorate responsible for PT The tariff policy is within the responsibility of the government Low number of cars per ca (1 car/10 persons) public transport share (Co-Plan data) %

Public transport issues: Tirana No urban transport strategy, no parking policy Decentralisation process is not complete – some responsibilities are still with central government Poor infrastructure, no traffic control center nor bus terminal Old bus fleet and crowded buses, unreliable transport service, number of cars growing Pollution and congestion in the city Gaps in legislation-not clear who has mandate to determine fare of service and its reimbursement Problems with “informal” bus service No priorities given to PT in decision making process Fragmentation of institutions

Common problems (1) PT systems in investigated cities are different, some more advanced, some need more improvements, but common problems can be identified:  No transport strategy – city level, develop Policy, strategy, programms, strategy linked t national strategy  proper regulatory framework for further improvements of PT  How to start the action at the city level?-implementation  How to make cities to make it more attractive in PT  How to involve stakeholders  No traffic control and management and no prioritisation to PT. No good parking policy (few exeptions)  Poor infrastructure, old rolling stock, poor transport service offered Problems with covering discounted fares of social groups

Common problems (2) Relatively high share of PT, but number of cars growing rapidly No political will, strategic vision and leadership to make few structural changes Financial problems very often caused by giving priorities to road construction and big infrastructure projects Slow inclusion of alternative and env. friendly modes of transport such as walking and cycling Low general environmental awareness of population

Actions needed Need for systematic preference (priority) and improvement of PT quality Formulate and implement transport strategy, including env. friendly transport More attention to the public opinion Good service contracts Need for complete renewal of rolling stock in PT or upgrade: second hand rolling stock, retrofitting etc. Capacity building for LA to be able to plan Better understanding of problems of operators institutions Improvement of coordination between institutions and inclusion of all stakeholders Awareness rising among citizens and politicians, education, for operators (directors) role of mass-media – should be used for promotion of PT Promote transport – LA can also learn from transport projects

Situation in other SEE cities? Most likely in other SEE cities the situation is similar to pilot cities Similar recommendations could be given Regional cooperation and exchange of experience should be enabled Do you agree?

Thank you!