The 60th edition of the UITP Congress, organised in one of the world’s financial capitals, Geneva, has recently come to an end. A host city with many international organisations developed by the UNO which knows how to move a comprehensive public transport mechanism aimed to link the suburbs to the city centre, the airport and, last but not least, the exhibition centre. Located at the border with France, Geneva has known in time how to integrate the ultra-peripheral French space into the Swiss conurbation. Public transport vehicles link the Swiss-French area which could thus increase its living standards by attracting many tourists (for business or leisure) and specialized labour force which don’t depend on the existence of ultra-central residential areas, but scattered in a picturesque environment. It is a “metropolitan” public transport which permitted a horizontal development, rather than a vertical one.
So, it is obvious that such an environment could not host but talks about public transport sustainability and the relation between public authorities and transport operators.
The endless years of crisis have left marks in the budgets of public transport operators, especially in developing countries. Often seen as a necessary evil by the authorities, public transport is pushed into the arms of a sort of savage economic liberalism, underestimating its role of growth instrument in the city or region.
The discussions dedicated to financing systems, together with those on the activity in Central and Eastern Europe, have emphasized this risk which threatens on the one hand the financial health of operators and on the other hand the people’s mobility right. Regulation structures which permit semi-pirate activities and the cut of network exploitation funds lead to poorer fleets of vehicles and the obligation of limiting the area covered by mandatory public services.
In this context, it was interesting to follow the dialogue of the large international operators with different public authorities (including European), on the opening of public transport markets, either through liberalisation or through competitive tenders.
It lacks a single vision and however, a leitmotiv can be seen gravitating around the idea of drafting flexible contracts with vision for the future that would permit adaptation to market dynamics, while guaranteeing the financing of this important activity.
Unfortunately, a standard universally accepted is difficult to draft as regards both costs and direct revenues which will continue to deepen the gap between pro-developed cities and pro-public transport cities (maybe, even richer, but not always) and other cities which will leave their citizens to face the traffic fluctuations and high costs imposed by motorised individual transport.
by Ştefan Roşeanu
Share on:
