Article
citation information:
Zioło, M., Niedzielski, P. Tariff
as a tool for financing public transport in cities. Scientific Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series
Transport. 2019, 102, 231-242.
ISSN: 0209-3324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2019.102.19.
Magdalena
ZIOŁO[1], Piotr NIEDZIELSKI[2]
TARIFF
AS A TOOL FOR FINANCING PUBLIC TRANSPORT IN CITIES
Summary. The aim of the article is to
present the role of public transport and its financing methods, with particular
emphasis on the role of transport tariffs in Poland. Tariffs in collective
transport, in addition to its financing functions, that is, covering the cost
of services, are increasingly fulfilling the functions of shaping the
desirability of public transport, thereby supporting the city's competitiveness
as a whole, both in relation to its residents and people who have jobs in the
city or are guests/tourists. The article hypothesises that third generation
tariffs are financial tools that allow cities to manage local finance more
effectively and affect the competitiveness and appeal of public transport. The
research process used methods of critical analysis of literature, induction and
deduction, logical inference and economic and financial analysis.
Keywords: tariff, local finance,
public transport, public transport
1. TRANSPORT TARIFF AS A TOOL TO
ACHIEVE CITY GOALS
Etymologically, the word 'tariff'
derives from Arabic, in which the word 'tarif' means an announcement or
announcement. The concept of tariff methodically identifies systematic lists of
prices for goods and services. The tariff definition describes it as a price
list for services, including the terms of applying these prices, given in a
suitable form to public knowledge (Grzywacz, 1985:p.31). The tariff tool is
often used to calculate the price for services such as telecommunication,
electricity supply, gas supply and a range of other services, including
transport services.
Tariff systems are often internal
in nature, due to the lack of necessity for them to be confirmed by a competent
state authority. The necessity of approving selected tariffs is, in turn, one
of the tools of the socio-economic policy of the state. Regarding public
transport in cities and agglomerations, shaping prices for public mass communication
services is part of the city's policy by authorised bodies.
The concept of transport tariff has
practically a different interpretative range, from very narrow to very wide. In
terms of narrow transport, tariff is identified with the table of charges for
transport services (Grzywacz, 1985:p.99). In the broader sense "(...) by
the transport tariff is understood as an official list of fees (unit prices)
for the performance of specific transport services (transport and special), as
well as a set of regulations specifying the conditions of applying these rates
and the manner calculating the fees for individual transport services according
to them "(Grzywacz, 1985:p. 99). Summarily, the transport tariff is
understood not only as a table of fees along with the rules for calculating the
fees but also a set of rules and regulations defining the conditions for the
performance of specific transport services (transport and forwarding)
(Jackiewicz et al., 2010). The scope of the tariffs currently in force has been
influenced by the regulation of civil law relations and the association of
economic turnover, as regards the provision of transport services or, more
generally, transport and logistics services, including insurance services.
Thus, the concept of tariff is very often understood in very narrow and
colloquial terms, identified with the price list itself (Koźlak
2007:p.329).
A high multiplicity of tariff
solutions characterises the modern market of passenger mass transport in urban
areas with the goal of attempting to satisfy the expectations of as many
customers as possible, optimally. Due to the period of application of
individual tariff systems/tariffs and the scope of their application, we can
distinguish three consecutive generations (Pietrzak 2017: 48) (Figure 1).
Public transport organisers were
forced to replace the standard forms of travel settlement, single-pass tickets
(enabling one-way travel only), which give the ability to travel
in a more flexible way, owing to changes in the needs and requirements of
customers, as well as their more frequent choice of means of individual
transport. To meet clients' needs, the tariff based on travel settlement
centred on its duration was becoming more and more popular in cities. Time
tariff is usually built on the principle of creating several time windows (for
example, 20, 40 and 60 min) and using different ticket denominations for them.
For obvious reasons, this accounting system is accepted primarily by those
groups of customers who, while making their journey, make maximum use of the
time provided for the selected ticket. The remaining groups are forced to buy a
ticket that exceeds their real-time need to complete the journey. Carriers,
realising that the indicated ticket was not used often, even stipulated in the rules
of carriage that it was not possible to transfer such a ticket, still active
temporarily, to another user. Such carrier practices also met with the reaction
of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, which called in some
instances for "discontinuation of activities that could constitute
practices infringing collective consumer interests". The introduction of
the time tariff (Table 1) in place of (or as an additional form) single-trip
ticket was theoretically a significant "nod" by the public transport
organiser towards new customer requirements; Customers who wanted to travel by
only one means of transport on a fairly short distance or making their trip
required using more vehicles (multimodal travel/broken journey). A very
important aspect of the time tariff is the impact of traffic on the network and
the density of stops on the varied distance range of the ticket. Individual
customers, when purchasing a timed ticket with the same denomination, due to
the diverse nature of the network, have a significantly opposing buying power
of such a ticket (in terms of its potential for servicing a specific travel
distance expressed in kilometres, possible to travel). In addition, due to the
differences between the timetable and the actual travel time, resulting from
delays in public transport, there is a discrepancy in the interpretation at
which moment the time ticket expires - whether after the actual time provided
for its denomination, or after reaching the place chosen by the customer, which
according to the timetable falls within the time value provided for the given
ticket. Organisers of public transport, observing changes in the preferences
and needs of customers, as well as the process of the annual decrease in the
number of purchased tickets in most urban areas, began in recent years to
implement the process of broadly understood changes in the construction of a
transport tariff. They aimed to create such a tariff that would contribute to
increasing interest in public transport.
-
Fig.
1. Tariffs generations used in public mass transport
Source:
[6]
The new, emerging tariff solutions,
generally defined as the third-generation tariff group, are intended to allow
the application of different rates depending on the length of the journey,
while providing, within the purchased ticket, the possibility of changing modes
or transport modes (broken and multimodal transport). The implementation of the
indicated solutions is currently facilitated mainly due to the highly developed
ICT tools system. One example is the so-called stop tariff and kilometre tariff
(Table 1).
Tab.
1
Selected
features of individual types of ticket tariffs in public transport
|
TICKET
KIND |
• simple and
clear tariff • only one
denomination available - a ticket for one journey • the
possibility of using a paper ticket • no need to
introduce tele-format tools - an electronic ticket is not required |
•
availability of tickets with various denominations •
the occurrence of different tickets requires that you read the timetable and
fit the appropriate ticket until the journey provided for in the breakdown •
possible use of an electronic ticket |
• lack of
unambiguously defined tickets - a system based on calculating the number of
stops travelled is used • the need to
use an electronic ticket |
•
lack of clearly defined tickets - a system based on calculating travel
distance is used (usually based on the number of kilometres travelled) •
the need to use an e-ticket |
|
TICKET
PRICE |
• the fixed
fee charged for the journey is independent of the length of the journey
(ticket valid to the end stop of the given route) • a solution
that is beneficial for passengers who make long journeys with one means of
transport, • an
unfavourable solution for passengers making short trips one means of transport |
• toll
depending on travel time • availability
of tickets with various denominations allows selection of the most suited to
the needs • a solution
that is beneficial for passengers making long journeys, usually a degressive
tariff is used when creating new "time windows" • the use of
specific "time windows" of specific tickets, usually with the
adoption of a certain minimum value (for example, 10 or 15 min), is not
beneficial for passengers making very short trips |
• toll
depending on the number of stops • a solution
beneficial for passengers making short trips (they apply a reduced fee
accordingly), as well as for long trips (usually a degressive tariff is used
for settlement) |
• a toll
depending on the number of kilometres driven • a solution
that is beneficial for both passengers who travel short distances (they use a
correspondingly reduced fee), as well as long travels (usually a degressive
tariff is used for settlement) |
|
IMPACT
OF ENVIRONMENT |
• no
influence of the number and density of stops on the validity of the ticket • no impact of the travel time of the
means of transport (planned in the timetable and real) on the validity of the
ticket |
• significant
impact of the number and density of stops and estimated travel time of the
means of transport on timetable design - and thus the validity of the ticket, • significant
impact of road conditions, congestion, failure on the validity of the ticket, • disputable
issues regarding ticket control when its validity is exceeded |
• no impact
of the travel time of the means of transport (planned in the timetable and
actual) on the validity of the ticket • noticeable
influence of the density of stops on a given line on the potential range
"distance" ticket |
·
no impact of the number and density of
stops, as well as the travel time of the means of transport (planned in the
distribution and the actual one) on the validity of the ticket |
|
MULTIMODAL TRAVEL |
•
no possibility to use the ticket in the next means of transport •
the need to purchase a new ticket for the next means of transport as part of
a multimodal journey |
•
connecting transfer limited only by the period of validity of the ticket •
during the multimodal journey, the validity period of the ticket expires also
during the waiting period for the next means of transport •
delay of one means of transport limits the possibility of continuing the
multimodal journey within one ticket |
•
possibility of changing between one journey (if the organiser does not exceed
the maximum time allowed between leaving the first means of transport and
starting to use the next one - usually 10 - 15 min) • •
the delay of one means of transport does not affect the final price of the
journey as part of one multimodal journey |
•
possibility of transferring as part of one journey (if the organiser does not
exceed the maximum time between leaving the first means of transport and
starting to use the next one - usually 10 - 15 min) •
the delay of one means of transport does not affect the final price of the
journey as part of a single multi-modal journey |
|
OTHER |
• the
possibility of extending the planned journey by successive stops on a given
line without the necessity of incurring additional costs |
•
significantly shorter "distance" distance of time ticket in city
centres - the client of municipal public transport, consciously taking action
to minimise congestion - paradoxically - is burdened with its consequences, •
starting next stops on a given line may cause the customer to move to
another, more expensive "time window" |
•
significantly shorter "distance" distance of the stop ticket in
city centres •
the higher density of stops in selected locations •
starting next stops on a given line causes an increase in the fee that the
client must incur when completing his journey (while maintaining an unchanged
travel distance) |
•the
system of records of kilometres travelled by the passenger must take into
account the problems resulting from: the need to correct the calculation of
the kilometres travelled during a multimodal journey (changeovers) on the
need to correct the calculation of kilometres travelled during detours /
one-off route changes |
|
IMPLEMENTATION/
USAGE |
• due
to the adaptation of the ticket for only one trip, the solution indicated for
use mainly in small cities with a small number of lines |
• solution
recommended for use mainly in large cities with a dense network of lines well
integrated temporarily |
• solution
indicated for use mainly in urban areas, with evenly spaced public transport
stops |
solution
indicated for use in large cities, metropolitan areas, metropolitan areas,
where there is a great opportunity to choose different public transport
means, including means of railway transport (urban, agglomeration and metro
railways). |
Source:
[6]
2. EXAMINATION OF BUDGETS OF SELECTED POLISH CITIES IN
THE ASPECT OF CO-FINANCING PUBLIC TRANSPORT
Municipal tasks execution in the
field of local public transport requires securing sources of financing, as fees
charged pursuant to the Act of 16th December 2010 on public
collective transport, in connection with the provision of public transport
services, do not cover the entire expenditure spending by municipalities or
their organisational units. The amount of expenses related to the local
collective transport varies depending on the municipality and the urban public
transport system. The shape of the urban local transport system and its
organisation are mainly determined by the size of the commune, usually measured
by population and area. When selecting cities for analysis, it should be borne
in mind that not all small urban centres have urban public transport systems;
in large and major cities, however, these systems are an inseparable part of
them (Dydkowski, 2014: pp. 74-86). Considering the parameter, which is the size
of the unit, for the purpose of analysing and examining budgets in terms of
financing local public transport by municipalities, the study selected cities
on the rights of the poviat over 200,000 inhabitants (the exception is Sopot,
which was considered due to its transport connections within the Tri-City). The
purpose of the analysis of municipal budgets (cities with poviat rights) was to
assess the total expenditure borne by municipalities for financing local public
transport and to determine the number of subsidies that these municipalities
incur in connection with the implementation of tasks related to local public
transport. The analysis allowed us to make a diagnosis, and, in particular, to
study the amount of expenditure and the amount of subsidies realised by the
selected cities in 2007 - 2017, with data for 2017 being the forecasted
figures. The analysis covered 11 cities considered comparable due to the
specificity of local public transport, including Szczecin, Poznań,
Wrocław, Warsaw, Kraków, Toruń, Bydgoszcz, Gdańsk,
Gdynia, Sopot and Łódź. For the purpose of budget analysis and
analysis, data from public statistics available in the Public Information
Bulletin (BIP) were used. For the analysis of communal expenditure incurred in
connection with the implementation of the task defined as local collective
transport, financial data from budget classification 6004 was used. Local
collective transport including current and property expenditure departments,
own income, whereby the category of own income corresponds to that defined by
the Act of 13th November 2003 on the income of local self-government
units by Local Government Unit (LGU) revenues. Data on the population of
individual cities come from the Local and Regional Data Bank. The number of
subsidies to the public collective transport port was calculated as the amount
of current expenditure on local public transport reduced by revenues from
public transport tickets. The study of budgets of selected cities was carried
out in terms of diagnosing the amount of co-financing of public transport in
the overall budget structure and as a subsidy per capita. Overall, Warsaw and
Sopot stand out clearly in terms of the highest and lowest data volumes,
respectively. However, these differences are not so significant for both cities
in the per capita ranking. Warsaw is a specific unit, both because of its
functions as the capital, and its central location, which determines its
communication with the surroundings. Warsaw is also the city with the largest
population, area, population density and the largest number of entities and
jobs in Poland (Dydkowski, 2014: p. 77). Sopot, in turn, in the subsequent
years covered by the analysis was the leader in the ranking. Analysis of
budgets of selected cities in terms of the amount of expenses incurred in
connection with the implementation of local public transport services in 2007 -
2017 showed that among the surveyed units, Warsaw had the highest spending
level in the analysed period, while the lowest level of expenditure was shown
by Sopot (Table 2).
Tab. 2
Expenditure on local public transport (6004) in the
examined cities of Poland in the years 2007 - 2017 [PLN]
|
|
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
|
Bydgoszcz |
139 906 983,09 |
167 317 676,27 |
165 419 625,82 |
175 502 795,03 |
215 201 817,00 |
224 112 992,21 |
190 381 673,57 |
223 597 680,21 |
215 152 696,15 |
209 808 039,62 |
258 119 269,00 |
|
Gdańsk |
274 334 240,00 |
211 682 777,00 |
217 234 502,00 |
289 039 217,00 |
252 303 821,00 |
322 726 350,00 |
304 700 192,00 |
373 401 344,00 |
311 584 802,35 |
312 601 901,00 |
341 179 614,00 |
|
Gdynia |
112 862 123,00 |
130 548 149,00 |
158 018 426,00 |
165 159 855,00 |
169 346 831,00 |
166 963 701,00 |
162 132 044,00 |
163 244 388,00 |
160 238 834,00 |
191 697 165,00 |
166 365 242,00 |
|
Poznań |
133 883 649,00 |
162 990 995,08 |
355 769 051,47 |
376 330 141,14 |
642 932 762,20 |
625 361 371,40 |
559 767 408,43 |
460 243 607,60 |
497 792 126,41 |
485 160 155,55 |
550 005 640,00 |
|
Kraków |
292 829 050,00 |
341 479 362,00 |
351 500 000,00 |
364 284 660,00 |
333 355 491,00 |
450 461 818,00 |
548 560 465,00 |
518 178 040,00 |
515 499 549,00 |
507 095 803,00 |
468 098 550,00 |
|
Łódź |
269 191 035,77 |
306 126 307,00 |
334 251 263,68 |
336 952 179,33 |
353 682 074,00 |
368 617 082,00 |
379 542 834,00 |
331 353 003,00 |
349 797 265,00 |
377 457 032,00 |
410 692 818,00 |
|
Sopot |
2 564 584,73 |
3 057 518,23 |
3 343 542,00 |
7 351 500,00 |
6 263 100,00 |
3 960 534,99 |
4 280 482,08 |
4 358 237,04 |
4 411 920,00 |
4 382 723,89 |
4 201 500,00 |
|
Szczecin |
78 984 225,00 |
107 523 300 |
183 781 563,00 |
129 809 786,00 |
100 727 942,00 |
210 293 553,00 |
213 472 200,00 |
300 784 633,00 |
614 634 860,00 |
242 291 554,00 |
236 187 299,00 |
|
Toruń |
12 499 461,00 |
12 884 244,00 |
13 599 143,00 |
16 871 105,00 |
24 212 058,00 |
62 612 932,00 |
67 814 889,00 |
78 634 007,00 |
71 787 587,00 |
72 673 853,00 |
81 335 000,00 |
|
Warszawa |
1 283 813
252,00 |
1 868 492
556,08 |
1 737 522
647,18 |
2 030 390
185,72 |
2 796 942
663,27 |
3 543 903
919,73 |
3 416 400
977,30 |
4 096 535
448,72 |
2 801 899
049,46 |
2 939 691
133,83 |
3 331 335
659,00 |
|
Wrocław |
289 631 962,44 |
313 162 830,51 |
322 696 800,60 |
325 464 309,49 |
312 451 387,96 |
330 603 369,40 |
329 740 377,64 |
349 439 215,57 |
349 874 150,15 |
370 578 950,63 |
373 967 850,00 |
Source: own elaboration based on BIP
On average, in the analysed period
of the city covered by the analysis, they spent PLN 470 million on purposes
related to urban transport, the minimum expenditure amounted to PLN 2.6
million, and the maximum was PLN 4.097 million. Detailed data are presented in
Table 2.
Analysing the budget
data of cities, the crisis of 2008+ should be taken into account, as it
impacted on the budgets of the local government units in Poland, both to the
income side and the expenditure side of budgets. In particular, the impact of
the crisis was manifested by a decrease in revenue from the local government
taxes and income from the local government shares in taxes: income from
individuals and from legal persons. On the expenditure side, on the other hand,
self-governments reduced expenses or postponed investment acquisitions by
making financial restructuring
The
impact of the crisis was mitigated by the availability of EU funds from the
financial perspective 2007 - 2013, which selected local governments who spent
on investments in the field of local transport. After 2014, the amount of
investment expenditure incurred by local governments with the participation of
EU funds from programmes financed under the 2014-2020 financial perspective
should also be considered. An important analysis is provided by the analysis of
expenditure on local public transport in selected cities per capita. Two
cities, Warsaw and Poznań, stood out, and in 2015 also Szczecin, which has
spent additional funds (PLN 399.5 million) on investment and investment
purchases. Taking into account the ratio of expenditures incurred from the
budgets of the analysed cities to local collective transport in relation to
their total revenues, local transports are issued by individual cities: Warsaw
- on average 22%, Poznań - 16%, Bydgoszcz - 15%, Gdynia - 14%, Gdańsk
- 13%, Toruń - 13%, Szczecin - 13%, Kraków - 12%, Łódź
- 11%, Wrocław - 10%, Toruń - 5%, Sopot - 1%. In addition to
investment costs, such as exchange and modernisation of rolling stock, the
parameter explaining the sum of costs incurred is saturation with communication
services and transport performance, which in the capital is at the highest
level compared to the analysed cities (230 million per kilometre according to
2016 data). When comparing the total expenditure incurred for communication
with the number of carriages taken, then for Warsaw (PLN 10.17 for one wzkm)
there are successive: Poznań (PLN 6.96), Olsztyn (PLN 6.16), Gdańsk
(5, PLN 90), Gdynia (PLN 5.25), Szczecin (PLN 4.87), Bydgoszcz (PLN 4.75),
Kraków (PLN 4.33), KZK GOP (PLN 4.26), Wrocław (4.21) PLN), Lublin
and Rzeszów (PLN 3.97 each), Białystok (PLN 3.83),
Łódź (PLN 3.62), Kielce (PLN 3.05) and Opole (PLN 2.88)
(Wroński, 2016). The analysis of co-financing of public transport costs in
individual cities was based on current expenditures incurred by individual
units for this purpose. The amount of current expenditure on local collective
transport is presented in Table 3.
Tab.
3
Current expenditure on local public
transport (6004) in the analysed cities of Poland in the years 2007 - 2017 [PLN
per capita]
|
|
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
|
Bydgoszcz |
359,21 |
411,62 |
427,63 |
445,52 |
462,07 |
487,02 |
4 884,73 |
589,32 |
585,40 |
492,66 |
509,78 |
|
Gdańsk |
493,44 |
386,49 |
460,18 |
485,41 |
484,15 |
626,13 |
588,09 |
641,41 |
651,75 |
641,72 |
645,65 |
|
Gdynia |
438,26 |
518,14 |
600,16 |
619,07 |
642,67 |
655,67 |
640,47 |
625,33 |
623,94 |
635,36 |
665,11 |
|
Poznań |
238,68 |
292,48 |
641,93 |
624,26 |
648,48 |
669,36 |
706,17 |
743,19 |
780,82 |
772,91 |
881,28 |
|
Kraków |
387,04 |
452,52 |
465,56 |
480,75 |
439,12 |
594,02 |
722,75 |
680,14 |
677,34 |
662,59 |
611,64 |
|
Łódź |
357,40 |
409,72 |
450,24 |
461,18 |
487,80 |
512,71 |
533,57 |
469,34 |
499,01 |
541,93 |
589,65 |
|
Sopot |
65,50 |
78,76 |
86,94 |
156,64 |
97,53 |
103,63 |
112,93 |
115,74 |
118,50 |
118,94 |
114,02 |
|
Szczecin |
131,38 |
159,34 |
203,73 |
195,40 |
215,72 |
500,31 |
505,70 |
517,43 |
547,68 |
542,65 |
571,89 |
|
Toruń |
24,90 |
38,44 |
38,61 |
45,53 |
88,13 |
283,57 |
304,69 |
329,87 |
335,63 |
345,56 |
349,03 |
|
Warszawa |
729,49 |
835,02 |
986,14 |
1 110,97 |
1 277,00 |
1 433,17 |
1 345,97 |
1 648,18 |
1 513,20 |
1 663,75 |
1 682,48 |
|
Wrocław |
457,61 |
495,38 |
510,48 |
516,04 |
494,98 |
523,78 |
521,69 |
550,74 |
550,33 |
581,13 |
586,45 |
Source:
own elaboration based on BIP
Analysis of current expenditure per capita incurred on local collective
transport in cities confirms similar trends that occurred in the analysis of
total public transport expenditure. The largest number of local congregational
transport per capita is generated by Warsaw, Poznań, Gdynia and
Gdańsk, the lowest expenditure level is found in Sopot and Toruń. An
analysis of the level of co-financing of public transport in individual cities
showed that only in three of them; Kraków, Szczecin and Toruń in
the selected years with the receipts from communication tickets, were dominated
by the value of current expenditure incurred, and these cities thus obtained surpluses.
In Table 4 these periods have been marked with the number 0.
Tab. 4
Co-financing of local public transport per capita in
the examined cities of Poland in the years 2007 - 2017 [PLN]
|
|
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
|
Bydgoszcz |
170,66 |
214,22 |
235,79 |
244,02 |
264,07 |
280,77 |
4 677,19 |
372,24 |
373,64 |
281,46 |
288,81 |
|
Gdańsk |
293,08 |
162,39 |
234,97 |
255,77 |
265,26 |
407,20 |
370,77 |
413,88 |
309,30 |
411,38 |
406,08 |
|
Gdynia |
181,62 |
257,23 |
347,35 |
368,41 |
372,01 |
381,95 |
364,90 |
349,07 |
350,89 |
363,80 |
380,67 |
|
Poznań |
238,68 |
292,48 |
395,76 |
378,06 |
394,68 |
385,53 |
395,57 |
417,94 |
455,88 |
453,42 |
552,35 |
|
Kraków |
94,02 |
146,07 |
138,82 |
196,11 |
0,00 |
272,73 |
372,47 |
329,30 |
321,02 |
296,30 |
252,22 |
|
Łódź |
183,88 |
248,46 |
291,45 |
291,46 |
308,50 |
315,20 |
336,69 |
264,14 |
301,58 |
338,54 |
336,67 |
|
Sopot |
31,16 |
42,13 |
40,94 |
112,90 |
41,56 |
48,83 |
53,14 |
59,89 |
60,08 |
61,40 |
59,63 |
|
Szczecin |
0,00 |
0,00 |
0,00 |
0,00 |
17,72 |
269,09 |
274,70 |
293,55 |
325,62 |
330,64 |
357,01 |
|
Toruń |
0,00 |
0,00 |
0,00 |
0,00 |
0,00 |
92,94 |
99,55 |
131,44 |
144,09 |
152,85 |
157,44 |
|
Warszawa |
449,59 |
501,17 |
626,46 |
739,62 |
835,36 |
969,14 |
902,71 |
1 187,52 |
1 026,08 |
1 177,51 |
1 181,99 |
|
Wrocław |
271,04 |
311,36 |
332,79 |
325,20 |
290,84 |
275,98 |
261,26 |
286,70 |
284,37 |
310,51 |
317,91 |
Source: own elaboration based on BIP
Tab.
5
Co-financing
of local public transport in the analysed cities of Poland in the years 2007 -
2017 [PLN]
|
|
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
|
Bydgoszcz |
61 647 299,23 |
76 890 365,64 |
84 329 712,55 |
88 930 522,80 |
95 863 015,88 |
101 428 773,74 |
1 681 112
452,73 |
133 133 369,28 |
132 884 000,52 |
99 619 169,03 |
102 222 173,00 |
|
Gdańsk |
133 563 148,00 |
73 980 110,00 |
107 284 202,00 |
117 784 524,00 |
122 157 039,00 |
187 486 854,00 |
171 122 061,00 |
191 002 075,00 |
142 972 097,00 |
190 777 731,00 |
188 322 010,00 |
|
Gdynia |
45 449 564,00 |
64 115 890,00 |
86 093 144,00 |
91 905 052,00 |
92 608 892,00 |
95 000 489,00 |
90 511 056,00 |
86 507 383,00 |
86 837 088,00 |
89 855 843,00 |
94 023 165,00 |
|
Poznań |
133 883 649,00 |
162 990 995,08 |
219 339 284,78 |
210 054 144,71 |
218 479 876,15 |
212 329 972,64 |
216 781 577,80 |
228 062 673,36 |
247 244 717,59 |
245 012 899,57 |
298 471 774,00 |
|
Kraków |
71 136 351,00 |
110 226 160,00 |
104 812 300,00 |
148 598 660,00 |
0,00 |
206 820 166,00 |
282 699 621,00 |
250 888 003,00 |
244 318 674,00 |
226 766 889,00 |
193 029 550,00 |
|
Łódź |
138 499 683,71 |
185 634 703,40 |
216 366 275,59 |
212 952 179,33 |
223 682 074,00 |
226 617 082,00 |
239 497 417,65 |
186 484 774,64 |
211 400 916,63 |
235 795 854,71 |
234 492 818,00 |
|
Sopot |
1 219 852,53 |
1 635 383,60 |
1 574 621,91 |
4 387 103,40 |
1 603 518,64 |
1 865 947,95 |
2 014 330,64 |
2 255 007,75 |
2 237 005,11 |
2 262 529,45 |
2 197 250,00 |
|
Szczecin |
0,00 |
0,00 |
0,00 |
0,00 |
7
257 908,00 |
110
034 733,00 |
112
126 585,00 |
119
528 814,00 |
132
090 150,00 |
133
868 169,00 |
144
544 957,00 |
|
Toruń |
0,00 |
0,00 |
0,00 |
0,00 |
0,00 |
18 987 699,00 |
20 253 172,00 |
26 703 412,00 |
29 206 467,00 |
30 954 343,00 |
31 885 000,00 |
|
Warszawa |
767 287 378,00 |
856 889 516,76 |
1 074 034
175,54 |
1 257 442
303,30 |
1 427 212
014,28 |
1 662 582
972,48 |
1 556 644
190,00 |
2 060 880
447,00 |
1 789 846
312,00 |
2 065 324
318,00 |
2 073 182
959,00 |
|
Wrocław |
171 552 405,59 |
196 828 631,32 |
210 374 460,88 |
205 103 166,06 |
183 591 036,84 |
174 198 145,19 |
165 136 111,54 |
181 909 628,53 |
180 789 650,38 |
198 008 353,99 |
202 727 850,00 |
Source:
Own elaboration based on BIP
In
the period of 2007 - 2017, Warsaw (PLN 872), Bydgoszcz (PLN 673), Poznań
(PLN 396), Gdynia (PLN 338), Gdańsk (PLN 320), Wrocław (PLN 297),
Lodz (PLN 292) paid the most for public transport. Kraków (PLN 219), Szczecin
(PLN 169), Toruń (PLN 70) and Sopot (PLN 55). The
volume of financing of public transport in total in individual cities is
presented in Table 5.
An
analysis of city budgets in terms of spending on public transport financing in
2007 - 2017 showed that these expenditures represent a significant burden on
city budgets, and the revenues from public transport tickets do not ensure
their full financing (on average they cover 40% of the demand for funding).
Both on the side of current expenditure (the cost of providing services) and
property expenses (including investment costs) allocated for financing urban
transport, an upward trend is visible. This is determined by various factors,
including the need to provide transport services for residents of developing
and growing cities, the increasing rate of individual motorisation, the degree
of amortisation of fixed assets, changed consumption patterns, growing customer
requirements, and undertaken investments. It should be expected that this trend
will continue in the coming years, which will force changes in the method of
calculating tariffs, as well as the model of providing public transport
services by municipalities.
3. CONCLUSION
Shaping
the attractiveness and competitiveness of public transport in relation to
individual motorisation is not only dictated by environmental protection
issues, that is, reduction of the negative impact of individual motorisation,
but is part of widely defined goals of sustainable development and a modern image
of the city. Already today, some cities offer free public transport, however, a
number of cities try to finance the costs of collective transport in a certain
part from ticket revenues, treating the tariff as a marketing tool and
achieving other goals included in the city/metropolis strategy. An illustration
of such goals is, for example, senior policy (for example, free communication
for seniors), pro-family policy (for example, monthly tickets for 1 PLN for
children from the so-called large family). Thus, the shaping of the tariff
system is the result of a bundle of goals from which the income function does
not have to be the most important. This is reflected in the course of
increasing the share of public finances (budget) in financing public transport.
The introduction of free communication is a significant limitation and
deprivation of the city/metropolitan authorities of the possibility of
affecting selected areas of social policy by means of a transport tariff. In
the case of free public transport, costs are borne by the city/and the
beneficiaries are not always residents of the commune. Very often, the
beneficiaries may become residents of neighbouring communes, which
municipalities are leading an aggressive policy towards the municipality-centre
by charging both residents and other sources of communal income (for example,
investors, etc.). Each of the analysed tariffs has specific features that
clearly indicate its applicability. Transport operators, choosing individual
ones, should be aware of the wide spectrum of individual solutions, as well as
the local specificity of the transport system. A tariff that works efficiently
in another area does not always have a chance of full implementation in the
home area. It is also important that in planning the implementation of new
tariff solutions, it is worth keeping in mind any changes which are planned in
the forthcoming years in the public transport system of the area, for example,
the introduction of new branches of transport (subway, city rail, etc.). Additionally,
it should be emphasised that the tariff system of public mass communication
also becomes a tool for implementing city/agglomeration policies and shows
certain modernity of solutions adopted and openness to the needs of residents
who increasingly contribute to the costs of maintaining this system. That is
why, progressively, public budgets of cities are sources of financing the
functioning of collective public transport, in other words, their total costs
are on the rise.
References
1. Giordano
R. 2018. “The national logistics plan and co-modal transport”. European Transport \ Trasporti Europei
69(5).
2.
Grzywacz W. 1985. Taryfy transportowe.
[In Polish: Transport tariffs].
WKiŁ: Warsaw.
3.
Jackiewicz J., P. Czech, J. Barcik. 2010. „System taryfowo-biletowy
stosowany w komunikacji miejskiej – część 1”. [In
Polish: „Tariff-ticket system applied in municipal transport – Part
2”]. Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej, s.
Transport 67: 83-90.
4. Jacyna
M. 1998. “Some aspects of multicriteria evaluation of traffic flow
distribution in a multimodal transport corridor”. Archives of Transport 10(1-2): 37-52.
5. Konečný
V., Š. Semanová, J. Gnap, O. Stopka. 2018. “Taxes and charges
in road freight transport – a comparative study of the level of taxes and
charges in the Slovak Republic and the selected EU countries”. Nase More 65(4): 208-212.
6. Koźlak A. 2007. Ekonomika transportu Teoria i praktyka
gospodarcza. [In Polish: Economics
of transport Theory and economic practice]. WUG: Gdańsk.
7.
Obwieszczenie Marszałka Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z dnia 17
marca 2016 r. w sprawie ogłoszenia jednolitego tekstu ustawy o
samorządzie gminnym (Dz. U. 2016, poz. 0, nr 446) 74 Dz.U. 2011, nr 5 poz.
13 z późn. zm. [In Polish: Announcement of the
Speaker of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland dated 17 March 2016 regarding the
publication of a uniform text of the Act on municipal self-government (Journal
of Laws of 2016, item 0, No. 446). 2011, No. 5 item 13].
8. Obwieszczenie Marszałka
Sejmu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z dnia 28 kwietnia 2010 r. w sprawie
ogłoszenia jednolitego tekstu ustawy o dochodach jednostek samorządu
terytorialnego (Dz. U. 2010, nr 80, poz. 526 z późn. zm.). [In
Polish: Announcement of the Speaker of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland of
April 28, 2010 regarding the publication of a uniform text of the act on
revenues of local government units (Journal of Laws of 2010, No. 80, item 526,
as amended)].
9. Okyere
S., J. Yang, M. Aminatou, G. Tuo, B. Zhan. 2018. “Multimodal transport
system effect on logistics responsive performance: application of ordinal
logistic regression”. European
Transport\Trasporti Europei 68(4).
10.
Pietrzak O. (Ed.). 2017. Ekspertyza
uwzględniająca propozycje zmian zarówno w samej taryfie, jaki
poborze opłat w SPP oraz rowerze miejskim tak, aby szacowane wpływy
ze sprzedaży biletów komunikacji miejskiej pozostały na
podobnym poziomie, przy zwiększeniu ilości pasażerów
korzystających z komunikacji miejskiej. [In
Polish: Expert opinion including changes
proposed both in the tariff itself and in the collection of SPP and city bike
fees, so that the estimated proceeds from the sale of public transport tickets
remain at a similar level, with the increase in the number of passengers using
public transport]. Association of Engineers and Technicians of Communication
of the Republic of Poland Branch in Szczecin. Szczecin October 2017.
11. Schmidt
M., Voss S. 2017. „Advanced systems in public transport”. Public Transport 9(1-2) Special Issue:
3-6.
Received 11.11.2018; accepted in revised form 19.01.2019
Scientific
Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License