| Summary: | This piece of work attempts to analyse two Environmental Performance Measurement Systems (PMS) implemented by two different public transport companies in order to evaluate the aforementioned systems from the perspective of a member of the public, to understand the level of transparency of these performance measurement systems, and to see if
they could support the organisations in the provision of environmentally friendly and cost-effective underground services.
The public organisations are Azienda Trasporti Milanesi (ATM) located in the Italian city of Milan and Transport for London (TfL) in the British capital city of London.
In order to evaluate how environmentally-friendly their respective underground railway networks are, environmental indicators, ATM's and TfL's websites, and other available information publically available are analysed in details.
The analysis is conducted from the point of view of a general member of the public, by studying pieces of information mostly available online, in order to have an external point of view of the level of transparency
regarding the two performance measurement systems analysed.
Abstract 2
Key purposes of this paper are: to potentially provide and understanding of the level of effectiveness of the environmental performance measurement systems used by ATM and TfL by analysing the aforementioned systems; to potentially understand the level of transparency with which the information related to ATM's and TfL's environmental performances are disseminated, by analysing the quality
and quantity of the information publicly available.
Results appear to show that ATM's environmental performance
measurement system is relatively well designed but lacks information in order to properly understand the environmental performances that ATM claim to have implemented in the periods considered, whereas TfL
arguably tends to design a shorter but more effective performance measurement system when it comes to environmental performances.
However, for both organisations it is relatively difficult to establish the level of effectiveness of their performance measurement systems.
Furthermore, there appears to be some differences with their own respective measurement systems: ATM environmental performance measurement system lack substantial amount of information and there are no available indicators to evaluate their PMS, whereas TfL is arguably clearer and provide more details than Milan, and also more transparent
Abstract 3
information in all of their reports. Some other differences will be highlighted for the specific reports analysed.
|
|---|