Quality of Dutch municipal public-transport companies is at an almost similarly high level
Summary
- Electric buses make the municipal public-transport company in The Hague the most sustainable public-transport company.
- High levels of on-time performance in the execution of the schedules.
- ACM has published its 2025 Monitor regarding the comparative performance evaluation of Dutch public transport companies.
The three municipal public-transport companies GVB (in Amsterdam), RET (in Rotterdam), and HTM (in The Hague) have taken a major step toward making their operations more sustainable.
This has been revealed by the 2025 Monitor regarding the comparative performance evaluation of Dutch public transport companies (external website) (in Dutch: Monitor Prestatievergelijking OV 2025), in which the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) compares the performances of GVB, RET, and HTM with each other. These public-transport companies do not need to compete with other companies for concessions, as these concessions have been directly awarded. In order to stimulate municipal public-transport companies to improve the quality of their services, the law stipulates that ACM periodically carries out a performance evaluation.
“It’s good to see that the three municipal public-transport companies continue to focus on their sustainability transitions”, says Manon Leijten, Member of the Board of ACM. “The consistently high level of on-time performance is also positive.”
Electric buses make the difference
In Amsterdam, the average CO2 emissions per passenger-kilometer fell to just over eleven grams. The Rotterdam public-transport company has made significant strides in sustainability, too. An RET rider emits 11.6 grams per passenger-kilometer.
HTM has made the most progress in terms of sustainability: a rider in The Hague emits on average only 2.4 grams of CO2 per kilometer. This improvement is driven by the introduction of electric city buses, among other factors. At this point, HTM has fully transitioned to electric buses. In Rotterdam and Amsterdam, buses still run on diesel too.
Quality
The three public-transport companies perform at a similarly high level when it comes to customer satisfaction. HTM performs slightly better than the other two public-transport companies. GVB, RET, and HTM also manage to execute their schedules with high on-time performance levels. At 2.8 percent, GVB has slightly more service cancellations for buses and trams. However, this is partly related to a strict definition of service cancellations applied by the Amsterdam public-transport company.
Cost effectiveness
The differences between the three companies are larger when looking at cost effectiveness. RET and GVB have relatively high indirect costs at 38.2 percent and 35.7 percent respectively. At 29.7 percent, HTM has a smaller share of indirect costs. A larger share of the costs is therefore spent on actually running services. This difference can be explained by the presence of metro systems in Rotterdam and Amsterdam, among other factors. These systems come with more indirect costs as opposed to direct costs.
ACM’s Monitor regarding the comparative performance evaluation also provides insight into the costs in the three cities. Transportation in Rotterdam costs the least at 0.31 euros per passenger per kilometer, followed by Amsterdam at 0.37 euros per passenger-kilometer. In The Hague, the average cost is 0.48 euros per passenger per kilometer. Here too, the availability of metro systems in Rotterdam and Amsterdam plays a role, as the costs per passenger-kilometer are lowest for these metro systems.
Why does ACM perform this comparison?
GVB, RET, and HTM operate on the basis of concessions that have been directly awarded (concessions are permits granted by the municipalities for the operation of public transportation in their respective cities). They do not need to compete with other companies for these concessions. In the Dutch Passenger Transport Act 2000, it has been laid down that ACM carries out a comparative performance evaluation in order to stimulate municipal public-transport companies to improve the quality of their services within the frameworks provided by the contracting authorities.