I know exactly what you mean Tony but it's impossible to get passenger km
for all systems everywhere. Large numbers of operators/agencies (in fact
the majority) simply don't publish this figure (critically not the total
distance figure and often not even the accurate patronage) and if you can't
get the figure for everyone then you can't do the universal comparison. I
know, I've tried it, even spoken with academics who've been trying it
themselves. UITP has tried it and has to come up with an alternative.

Tony P

On Wednesday, 15 August 2018 05:01:42 UTC+10, Tony Bailey wrote:
>

>

> Not passengers per km. p/km

>

> BUT Passenger km, pkm

>

> Tony Bailey

>

>

>

> On 14 Aug 2018, at 5:52 pm, Prescott lenkap...@... <javascript:>>

> wrote:

>

> It's very very difficult to get that across all systems. In fact UITP has

> found it so difficult, they've chosen instead to measure passengers per

> route km as the standard.

>

> On that basis, on last available figures, Prague is about 2.535 million

> passengers per route km, Budapest about 2.530, Vienna about 1.367 and

> Melbourne about 815,000. On Sydney trams' typical figures of 300 million

> per annum I would estimate it at about 1.1 million in 1939 (including

> Manly) when system length was about 250+ km. For Sydney's trains (if the

> new patronage figure is true) I would estimate about 500,000 passengers per

> route km (800 km system).

>

> Tony P

>

> On Tuesday, 14 August 2018 16:20:59 UTC+10, Tony Bailey wrote:

>>

>>

>> If you completely ignore the passenger km figure, which I’m sure you know

>> is the real measure.

>>

>> Tony Bailey

>>

>>

>>

>> > On 14 Aug 2018, at 4:14 pm, Prescott lenkap...@...> wrote:

>> >

>> > And heavy rail is supposed to be the heavy lifting mode!

>> >

>> > Tony P

>> >

>>

>>

>

>