TOURISM AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT: A WINNING TEAM? HOW FRENCH AND EUROPEAN TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES MANAGE TOURIST FLOWS

Transcription

1 TOURISM AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT: A WINNING TEAM? HOW FRENCH AND EUROPEAN TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES MANAGE TOURIST FLOWS David Dubois, Alicia Aliaga Cerema Territorial Division for the Central-Eastern Regions 1 - INTRODUCTION Cities are major tourist destinations. With large train stations and airports, they naturally act as the international gateways to the regions that surround them and are key destinations for international tourists. Major conurbations are aware of the potential economic benefits that tourists can bring, and therefore seek to develop products and services that target this customer base. Measures include enhancing their heritage assets, developing major facilities, organising sporting, cultural or business events, etc. As demonstrated by several researches (Albalate & Bel, 2009), urban mobility and the accessibility of these products and services to tourists play a major role in the development of a city's influence and reputation. The World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) defines a "visitor" as "a traveller taking a trip to a main destination outside his/her usual environment, for less than a year" (United Nations World Tourism Organization, 2010). The UNWTO only uses the term "tourist" for visitors whose trip "includes an overnight stay", while the term "excursionist" applies to those whose trip "does not include an overnight stay". According to the UNWTO, a person's "usual environment" is defined as "the geographical area within which an individual conducts his/her regular life routines". These routines include the individual's place of residence and work, as well as the places that he/she visits on a regular basis, such as friends' houses, shops and medical facilities. The UNWTO's definition of "usual environment" does not necessary link tourists with specific activities (leisure activities, visiting family or friends, business, etc.). The definition rests simply on the fact that these activities are being performed in an unfamiliar location. In this paper, we will use the term "tourists" to refer to individuals taking a trip outside their usual environment, whether or not this trip includes an overnight stay. Our definition of "tourist" therefore covers the UNWTO's definitions of both "tourist" and "excursionist". 1/17

2 This paper looks at mobility services aimed at individual tourists within urban areas, focusing on public transport provision. We will not cover the issue of "long-distance" accessibility to conurbations, although this is, of course, an important driver of the attractiveness of a given conurbation. This paper does not address "individual" mobility services, such as taxis or chauffeur-driven private cars, nor does it address "bespoke" services for organised groups of tourists. Furthermore, it does not cover special transport services that may be provided during major events (conferences, cultural events, sporting competitions, etc.). In this paper, we will begin with a brief summary of the specific requirements and mobility practices connected with urban tourists. We will then provide a comprehensive overview of tourist mobility practices, seeking in particular to answer the following questions: What mobility services are provided for tourists within large conurbations? Here, we will identify all services that are targeted specifically at tourists. What urban mobility information is provided by transport and tourism institutions? Our study will focus on the quality of information provided, how easy this information is to obtain, and the accessibility of information for tourists who do not speak the local language. What fares are tourists charged for travelling within conurbations? This overview will focus on a panel of 40 conurbations (Illustration 1, Table 1). This panel includes: 26 French conurbations, bringing together all French conurbations with a population exceeding 250,000 1, and several smaller conurbations that are major tourist destinations or whose transport authorities cover an area with a population exceeding 250, conurbations from 12 other European countries, carefully selected to ensure that all conurbations on the panel are generally consistent in size. Since the majority of French conurbations are relatively modest in size (only Paris has a population greater than 1.5 million and only four French conurbations have a population exceeding 750,000), the major European conurbations were not included in the study. 2/17

3 Information was collected through online research and interviews with stakeholders in the tourism and mobility sectors. A systematic analysis of information sources was conducted for each of the French and European conurbations, covering the tourist office websites, public transport network websites, public transport authority websites, multi-modal information system websites and airport websites. The research work also covered the websites of certain tourism and transport operators. Illustration 1: Map showing the European conurbations included in the study (design: Cerema DTerCE) 3/17

4 2 - URBAN TOURIST MOBILITY: SPECIFIC NEEDS AND REQUIREMENTS AND LARGELY UNKNOWN PRACTICES Tourists have highly specific urban mobility practices and requirements. According to the France Tourism Development Agency, these specific features are as follows (Atout France, 2012 [1]): Travel habits that differ from residents travel habits: tourist traffic peaks at the weekends and during school holidays, when demand from local residents is generally lower. During the day, tourists' travel habits are different from those of local residents: few trips in the early morning, but much more demand in the evenings and into the night. Limited geographical coverage: tourists tend to travel only within historic city centres, as well as to certain key sites that may be situated outside the city centre. A desire to make the best use of time: urban tourists often take short trips (normally 1 5 days), and therefore wish to make best use of the time available and spend as little time as possible travelling. A need for markers and orientation: by definition, tourists are located outside their usual environment. They are often first-time visitors, who need to understand how the city is organised and identify key locations such as train stations, airports and major tourist attractions. In terms of mobility services, they need to understand how the local transport system works (e.g. whether they need to validate their tickets upon boarding and alighting the vehicle, whether tickets can be purchased on-board the vehicle, whether connections are allowed with one single ticket, etc.). A need for translated information: cities have international transport links and are therefore major destinations for international tourists. As such, the information provided must be translated into other languages. A desire for fun or informative transport services that are more than just functional facilities: a large proportion of tourist customers are leisure customers, who tend to prefer fun, innovative or unusual modes of transport. There is little data available about urban tourist mobility practices. It is possible, however, to identify a few general trends (Atout France, 2012 [2]; Gronau & Kagermeier, 2007): The car remains the dominant transport mode, since tourists use this mode of transport to access the destination. Public transport use remains low, although it is more common in cities with high numbers of international visitors. Walking is a popular mode of transport, both as a functional way of getting around and as a tourist activity in its own right. 4/17

5 3 - URBAN TOURIST MOBILITY: DIVERSE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE- SECTOR PROVISION Tourists have access to a vast array of mobility services, from open-top tourist buses and bike taxis to traditional public transport services. Many cities also feature dedicated tourist routes, with single pick-up and drop-off point. These are more akin to "tour" services rather than "mobility" services, but they nevertheless provide tourists with a way of getting around the city Tourist mobility via public transport Traditional public transport services, designed primarily for residents, also provide a basic urban mobility service for tourists. Daily metros, trams and buses provide an effective service in city centres, where most of urban tourist attractions are located. Yet public transport networks are not always designed in a way that best suits the tourists needs. Provision is often reduced at weekends and during school holidays, especially in summer the peak periods for tourist traffic. Tourist trips, however, represent a genuine opportunity for public transport operators (Albalate & Bel, 2009; International Association of Public Transport, 2003), as urban tourism is growing during "off-peak" periods. Furthermore, some conurbations seize the opportunity presented by the development of new public transport lines, and tram lines in particular, to optimise their services for tourist customers. Measures include the redevelopment of public spaces, design work and art installations (Bordeaux, Montpellier, Nice, Paris, etc.). Some urban public transport services are tourist attractions in their own right, not because of the transport service they offer, but because of the transport mode itself, their historical or heritage interest, or the views they offer over the city. Some cities with steep terrain (Lyon, Paris, Porto and Zurich) use funicular railways or cable cars to provide transport services to certain areas. Other cities, located on coastal areas or on river banks(11 of the 40 conurbations on the panel, Table 2) have sea or river shuttle services. In Porto, the city's ancient trams form part of the urban transport network yet are tourist attractions in their own right 2. While some cities (Gothenburg, Porto and Zurich) have decided to promote these transport services as "tourist products", this remains a somewhat limited practice. 5/17

6 Furthermore, several urban transport authorities have introduced touristspecific bus lines which, unlike other lines on the urban transport network, are not designed with regular users in mind. However, across all of the conurbations covered in this study, only a handful of lines are clearly identified as dedicated tourist lines and promoted as such by tourism bodies (two lines in Paris and one in Marseille, operated for a period of one year in connection with a cultural event). In many of the conurbations (22 of the 40 on the panel, Table 2), urban transport network timetables are extended beyond midnight (for the largest lines at the very least). This reflects an attempt to accommodate the conurbation's night life, which is particularly popular with tourists. Yet in some conurbations (and in French conurbations in particular), these services remain somewhat limited (in terms of the number of lines and frequency) and are aimed mainly at students rather than tourists. Evidence for this can be found in the nature of the services provided (campus services) and the operating times (services withdrawn during the summer months). Conversely, in other conurbations, night-time transport services are extensive (Nuremberg and Zurich) and, in some cases, these services run every night (Copenhagen, Krakow, Edinburgh, Paris and Porto). Finally, some operators or transport authorities look to promote certain "traditional" transport services by offering guided tours or by mentioning the tourist attractions that these services serve, thereby helping to attract new tourist customers. Several conurbations suggest "tour" routes that cover the city and its key monuments using public transport services (Helsinki, Nantes, Nice, Marseille, Paris, Porto, etc.) How does tourist-specific mobility provision complement traditional public transport? Tourist-specific mobility services can be introduced alongside traditional public transport services. These services are normally provided by private operators, and are directly tailored to the needs of tourist customers (routes that encompass key tourist attractions, commentaries broadcast in multiple languages, etc.). So-called "city tour" services, which cover a conurbation's key tourist attractions in a short space of time, are one of the most visible types of mobility service provided by tourism operators. These services normally use open-top buses and travel along predefined routes, with a number of stops where passengers can board and alight. "City tour" services are generally found in the largest conurbations (19 of the 40 on the panel, Table 2). They range from relatively small in size (a single line and around a dozen stops in Antwerp, Krakow, Lyon, Marseille, Nantes, Nice, etc.), to a fully-fledged 6/17

7 network with multiple lines and several dozen stops (Copenhagen, Edinburgh, Florence, Paris, Porto, etc.). Generally speaking, passengers are able to use their ticket to board these buses as many times as they wish during a 24 or 48-hour period. The fares charged tend to be relatively high (around 15 to 25 for the first 24-hour period, which is substantially more expensive than the "day" tickets available on urban transport networks). A smaller number of conurbations (Edinburgh, Gothenburg, Paris and Oslo) also offer "city tour" services by boat. Due to the service they offer, "city tours" are extremely similar to public transport services. However, there appears to be little focus on coordinating public transports and city tours services, which are managed entirely independently of each other. Generally speaking, urban transport networks do not provide any information about "city tour" buses, and vice versa 3. There are many other examples of tourist-specific mobility services.. One such example is miniature road-based tourist trains, which provide a guided tour of the city along a specific route. These miniature trains can be found in many popular tourist cities (18 of the 40 on the panel, Table 2). These trains are designed more as a tourist attraction than a mobility service, since they tend to travel along a fixed, circular route with no intermediate stops. Some miniature trains, however, do stop at intermediate locations along their route, normally serving tourist attractions (Marseille, Nice, Palma de Mallorca, Paris). As such, they provide similar services to those provided by public transport networks 4. Other than a handful of exceptions, however, these services are generally managed independently 5 with little effort to provide a complementary service. Almost all of the cities on the panel (Table 2) have some form of "tourist route" provision, using varying forms of transport (coach tours, boat cruises, bike taxi rides, etc.). 4 - URBAN MOBILITY INFORMATION: ESSENTIAL FOR TOURISTS, YET NOT ALWAYS ENTIRELY ADEQUATE In order to plan and prepare for their trip, tourists need easy access to highquality information about transport and mobility provision prior to their visit. In this paragraph, we will focus on the mobility information provided by tourism and transport institutions in the 40 European cities on the panel. The internet is the main source of information for tourists, with the tourist office's website normally being the first port of call. Almost all of the tourist office websites for the cities covered in this study provide some form of information (even brief) about getting to and travelling around the city. The focus, however, seems to be on long-distance travel (i.e. how to get to the city), while information about urban mobility services (and urban transport 7/17

8 services in particular) is not always provided. Instead, many tourist offices simply supply links to transport network websites. A few tourist offices (Copenhagen, Gothenburg, Helsinki, Nuremberg, Palma de Mallorca, etc.) are exceptions to this rule, supplying detailed information tailored to the needs of tourists, with some even treating mobility as a dedicated tourist service in its own right. Transport network websites, meanwhile, handle specific tourist needs to varying degrees of detail. Some websites (Gothenburg, Helsinki, Copenhagen, Paris) feature a dedicated section for tourists with tailored information such as network usage rules, special rates, ticket purchasing facilities, etc. Others provide some comprehensive information (Marseille, Nantes, Nuremberg, etc.), such as public transport route maps and details of how to get to certain major tourist attractions. The majority of transport network websites, however, do not directly target tourists, and provide information that is not always suited to their needs or is too complex or difficult to understand. Furthermore, while translations are provided for all tourist office websites, this is not the case for all urban transport network websites, particularly among the smaller conurbations on the panel. The growth of the smartphone market in recent years has provided new opportunities in terms of information provision (real-time information, etc.) and customisation (guiding features, etc.). Generally speaking, urban transport networks and tourist offices have seized these opportunities and developed a number of apps. These apps, which are normally free to download, offer a range of features for users. However, the information provided via these apps is generally limited in nature. Apps developed by urban transport networks, for example, mainly provide information for daily users only and are not designed with tourists in mind. Most of these apps cannot be used "offline", thereby penalising international travellers who have to bear roaming charges. Conversely, tourist offices apps often focus exclusively on tourist information (tourist attractions, accommodation, restaurants, calendar of events, etc.) and contain, at best, limited information about mobility. Out of the 40 conurbations included in this study, only two institutional apps feature a clear link between public transport and tourism 6. Institutions are not the only providers of mobility-related information, however. Many other organisations (tourism sector organisations, travel guide publishers, smartphone app developers, travel blogs, social media, etc.) provide mobility-related information for major tourist destinations. Some travel guides, for example, include information that is much better organised, more accessible, less fragmented and simpler than the information provided by institutions. However, there is a real risk that this information may be unreliable, piecemeal or outdated. 8/17

9 Providing accurate, clear pre-travel information is important, as it helps developing tourist mobility.. Yet equal emphasis must be placed on the information provided during the trip itself, especially given that tourists are travelling in an unfamiliar environment. In order to facilitate tourist mobility, city maps must be clear and understandable, tourist attractions must be clearly marked on transport network maps, and clear signage must be provided. 5 - PUBLIC TRANSPORT SERVICE FARE SYSTEMS: A CONTRASTING SITUATION WHEN IT COMES TO THE NEEDS OF TOURISTS In addition to mobility provision per se (services, frequencies, etc.), tourists' travel practices are largely dependent on the fare systems that apply to these services Urban transport network fare systems: basic consideration of the needs of tourists Some urban transport network fare systems appear to be suited to the needs of tourists, even though they do not target this market specifically. These include products such as "books of tickets" or "multitrips tickets", which allow travellers to make a predefined number of trips at a discount compared with the price of a single ticket. This "book" system is popular across French conurbations, but its use is rather limited in other European conurbations (Table 3). There are also "day tickets" type fares, which entitle the holder to unlimited travel for an entire day or, in more rare cases, for several consecutive days. These "day tickets" are available in almost all of the urban transport networks covered by the study. This type of fare product is generally suited to the needs of tourists, who normally spend a maximum of a few days in any given city. But other than a few exceptions (Palma de Mallorca, Paris, Porto, etc.), these products are not promoted as being specifically suited to tourists' needs. 9/17

10 Most networks also offer other fare systems that may be suitable for tourists, such as family or group tickets (Table 3). Group tickets are available in 27 of the 40 conurbations included in this study, but these often come with restrictive terms and conditions (advance booking required, available at a limited number of outlets, minimum group size of 10 people, etc.). These restrictions can make this type of ticket less attractive for tourists. There are several exceptions to this rule, however, with some conurbations offering specific fares for small groups (Marseille, Metz, Nantes, Nuremberg, Strasbourg, etc.). However, in some cases these tickets are only valid at weekends. Family tickets are much less common (Krakow, Edinburgh, Grenoble, Mulhouse, Nuremberg, etc.). In some conurbations (Lille, Lyon, Paris, etc.), travellers must provide documentary evidence to be eligible for these tickets, thereby excluding tourist customers from purchasing this type of ticket. Finally, some conurbations offer original fare systems directly targeted at tourist customers. These include the "hotel ticket" in Nuremberg (available at certain hotels and valid for one person for two days, at a reduced rate compared with the general "day ticket") or the "Geneva Transport Card" (issued free of charge to all people staying in a hotel, youth hostel or campsite, it entitles the holder to free use of the urban transport network throughout the duration of their stay) The growth of "city cards": complex governance procedures but a welcome integration of transport and tourism Conurbations and tourist offices are looking to develop commercial products that meet the needs of short-stay tourists and excursionists, mindful of the fact that these customers are interested in making the best use of their stay and fitting as many activities as possible into a short space of time. So-called "City cards", "city passes" or "tourist passports" are designed to meet this demand (Robiou du Pont, 2012). These products entitle the holder to free or discounted entry to a selection of tourist attractions and sites (museums, monuments, guided tours, etc.), for a limited time period (normally 1 3 days, sometimes up to a week), and for a fixed price, regardless of the number of places the holder visits. In most cases, this is a financially beneficial option for tourists who wish to visit multiple sites in just a few days. 10/17

11 Urban transport authorities and tourism partners realise the benefits for holders of these "city cards" of including access to the public transport network, thereby giving tourists an "all in one" solution for their stay. "City cards" that include access to the urban transport network are becoming increasingly popular in European cities. This type of pass is available in 25 of the 40 conurbations studied, including smaller conurbations such as Bayonne, La Rochelle and Mulhouse (Table 3). Generally speaking, these "city cards" automatically include unlimited access to the entire urban transport network throughout the entire period for which the pass is valid. As well as acting as incentives (the "apparent cost" of using the transport network is zero), these "city cards" also make it easier for tourists to use the transport network, since they no longer have to purchase individual transport tickets. A few conurbations have opted for different systems. In Rennes, for example, the "city card" only offers a discount on urban transport ticket prices, while in Nice and Porto, tourists have the option to pay a supplement to include "transport" access in their passes. "City cards" may also entitle holders to use other transport or mobility services, such as regional trains (Lille), self-service bicycles (Gothenburg, Lyon, with with additional charge for this option), or even car parking (Gothenburg and Oslo). Through technological advances, these "city cards" can now be incorporated into a single contactless electronic ticketing card that is compatible with both urban transport and tourist service provider systems (Bordeaux, Gothenburg, Lyon, Marseille, etc.). However, some "city cards" are still issued in paper format or as coupons (La Rochelle, Mulhouse, Nuremberg, Paris, Porto, etc.). The cost of a "city card" varies markedly from one conurbation to the next, depending in particular on the number of tourist attractions to which it gives access. In most cases, the price is between 20 and 25 for the first 24 hours (Bordeaux, Florence, Geneva, Lyon, Lille, Marseille, Nantes, Nice, Zurich, etc.). The most expensive "city cards" are found in Copenhagen, Gothenburg, Helsinki and Oslo, with an average cost of 40 for a 24-hour card, i.e. three or four times more expensive than a daily transport ticket. In Bayonne, Krakow, Nancy and Nuremberg, however, the average cost of a "city card" is just 12 to 15 for the same period of time. The governance procedures surrounding "city cards" are extremely complex. They involve a high number of tourism and transport sector organisations, and the proceeds earned from the sale of these cards are normally distributed between different service providers. 11/17

12 There was very little information available about the use of public transport networks by "city card" holders. However, it would seem that this type of use remains somewhat limited. In Paris, for example, the sale of "city cards" accounts for just 0.5% of total transport ticket sales. In the other French cities studied, "city card" sales are currently limited to just a few tens of thousands of passes per year. 6 - CONCLUSIONS The question of urban tourist mobility raises a number of challenges (tourism development, economic development, etc.). However, it is a question that is sometimes not accorded the effort and focus that it deserves. Despite significant changes in recent years, and although more and more conurbations are seeking to increase the numbers of tourists that visit their cities, public policy-makers are still failing to handle tourists' mobility needs with sufficient care and attention, particularly when it comes to public transport. For local authorities and institutions, mobility services and public transport are still largely viewed as functional services, rather than assets that can help to make a location more attractive to tourists. While the potential is there for tourism and public transport to become a "winning team", there remains a marked dividing line between tourism and transport policies, particularly in French conurbations. Our detailed study of 40 cities has revealed a number of innovative practices and has shown how European conurbations continue to narrow the gap between transport and tourism. It is entirely possible to consider the needs of tourists when setting transport policy without a detrimental impact on network operation or funding mechanisms. Various measures still need to be taken to make urban transport networks easier to use for tourists. These include developing appropriate information for people who are unfamiliar with the area, disseminating this information to a wide audience across all transport and tourism outlets, producing foreign-language information and introducing suitable transport fares. In order to achieve these goals, the governance system surrounding tourist mobility will need to be become more integrated, involving urban transport authorities, urban transport operators, tourism institutions and tourism professionals. 12/17

13 APPENDICES City Population (thousands of inhabitants) Paris (FR) 2,243 Strasbourg (FR) 468 Lyon (FR) 1,293 Toulon (FR) 423 Lille (FR) 1,112 Montpellier (FR) 418 Marseille (FR) 1,041 Palma de Mallorca (ES) 408 Helsinki (FI) 1059 Rennes (FR) 398 Porto (PT) 975 Grenoble (FR) 398 Krakow (PL) 758 Saint-Étienne (FR) 374 Bordeaux (FR) 714 Florence (IT) 369 Toulouse (FR) 705 Geneva (CH) 351 Seville (ES) 702 Clermont-Ferrand (FR) 280 Oslo (NO) 613 Tours (FR) 278 Zurich (CH) 599 Orléans (FR) 273 Nantes (FR) 587 Nancy (FR) 257 Copenhagen (DK) 559 Mulhouse (FR) 250 Nice (FR) 522 Lens (FR) 244 Gothenburg (SE) 520 Metz (FR) 219 Nuremberg (DE) 511 Valenciennes (FR) 192 Antwerp (BE) 507 Avignon (FR) 176 Rouen (FR) 486 La Rochelle (FR) 147 Edinburgh (GB) 477 Bayonne (FR) 122 City Table 1: Population of cities on the panel (source: Eurostat Urban Audit 2012 data) Population (thousands of inhabitants) 13/17

14 City Attractive form of public transport Night-time public transport service "City tour" tourist transport service Other tourist transport service Miniature tourist train or other local tour provision Paris (FR) Lyon (FR) x Lille (FR) x Marseille (FR) Helsinki (FI) Porto (PT) Krakow (PL) Bordeaux (FR) x Toulouse (FR) x Seville (ES) Oslo (NO) Zurich (CH) Nantes (FR) x Copenhagen (DK) Nice (FR) x Gothenburg (SE) Nuremberg (DE) x Antwerp (BE) x Rouen (FR) x Edinburgh (GB) Strasbourg (FR) x Toulon (FR) Montpellier (FR) x Palma de Mallorca (ES) x Rennes (FR) x Grenoble (FR) Saint-Étienne (FR) Florence (IT) Geneva (CH) x Clermont-Ferrand (FR) Tours (FR) Orléans (FR) Nancy (FR) Mulhouse (FR) Lens (FR) Metz (FR) Valenciennes (FR) Avignon (FR) La Rochelle (FR) Bayonne (FR) Table 2: Mobility services designed or suitable for tourists in the conurbations included in the study (source: tourist offices, public transport and tourism operators 2013 data) (x: at weekends only) 14/17

15 City Book of tickets or multitrips tickets Day ticket Group tickets Family tickets Other tickets "City card" including public transport use Paris (FR) Lyon (FR) x x Lille (FR) x x Marseille (FR) Helsinki (FI) Porto (PT) Krakow (PL) x Bordeaux (FR) Toulouse (FR) Seville (ES) Oslo (NO) Zurich (CH) x x Nantes (FR) Copenhagen (DK) Nice (FR) Gothenburg (SE) Nuremberg (DE) Antwerp (BE) Rouen (FR) Edinburgh (GB) Strasbourg (FR) Toulon (FR) Montpellier (FR) Palma de Mallorca (ES) Rennes (FR) Grenoble (FR) Saint-Étienne (FR) x Florence (IT) x Geneva (CH) x Clermont-Ferrand (FR) Tours (FR) x Orléans (FR) Nancy (FR) x Mulhouse (FR) Lens (FR) Metz (FR) x Valenciennes (FR) x Avignon (FR) x La Rochelle (FR) Bayonne (FR) Table 3: Public transport pricing designed or suitable for tourists in the conurbations included in the study (source: tourist offices, public transport and tourism operators 2013 data) (x: ticket exists but is difficult to access for tourists) 15/17

16 BIBLIOGRAPHY Albalate, D., Bel, G. (2009) Tourism and urban public transport: Holding demand pressure under supply constraints, Tourism Management, doi: /j.tourman Atout France (2012), Piloter l'attractivité touristique des destinations urbaines, "Marketing touristique" collection Atout France (2012), Faciliter les mobilités pour enrichir l expérience touristique, "Rendez-vous en ville" collection Gronau, W., Kagermeier, A. (2007), Key factors for successful leisure and tourism public transport provision, Journal of Transport Geography, doi: /j.jtrangeo International Association of Public Transport (2003), Leisure and tourism: an opportunity for public transport, Core Brief Robiou du Pont, G. (2012), Les partenariats entre sites touristiques et sociétés de transport : une opportunité marketing pour de nouveaux types de touristes. Conference of Association de Science Régionale de Langue Française United Nations World Tourism Organization (2010), International Recommendations for Tourism Statistics New-York: United Nations World Tourism Organization 16/17

17 NOTES 1 To ensure effective comparability between countries, the population data used are taken from the Eurostat Urban Audit, under the "cities and greater cities" category. The Eurostat boundaries do not necessarily match the "administrative" boundaries of the conurbation, or the boundaries of the area covered by the urban transport authority. 2 Ancient trams also operate in other conurbations, such as Helsinki and Gothenburg. Although these use the same tracks as urban transport network trams, they provide tourist services only with specific fares systems. 3 There are, however, a few notable exceptions such as Paris (where the urban transport network operator is involved in operating a "city tour" bus) and Palma de Mallorca (where the "city tour" bus appears on the urban transport network map). 4 French law dictates that miniature tourist trains cannot be classed as a public transport services, since public transport services fall under the responsibility of the urban transport authority rather than a tourism operator. As such, any intermediate stops that these trains make must serve specific tourist attractions only. 5 In Palma de Mallorca, the miniature train is partially integrated into the public transport network. It has its own fare system but appears on the network map. In Strasbourg, the miniature train is operated by the same company as the urban transport network. 6 In Gothenburg, the "Tram Sightseeing" app (developed by the conurbation's transport network) features a guided tour of the city by tram. In Paris, the "Visiter Paris en Métro" app provides all the key features of a "transport" app (geolocation, route planner, network maps, details of transport tickets suitable for tourists), as well as practical information about the city's key tourist attractions. 17/17