transport thursday niel van oort

32
1 Challenge the future Investing in the city Lessons from 47 light-rail projects Niels van Oort Assistant professor public transport Transport and Planning Public Transport Consultant Goudappel Coffeng Rob v/d Bijl Independent urban planner RVDB Urban Planning/Lightrail.nl Bert Bukman Publicist

Upload: tu-delft-transport-institute

Post on 18-Jul-2015

96 views

Category:

Technology


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

1Challenge the future

Investing in the cityLessons from 47 light-rail projects

Niels van Oort

Assistant professor public transportTransport and Planning

Public Transport ConsultantGoudappel Coffeng

Rob v/d BijlIndependent urban planner

RVDB Urban Planning/Lightrail.nl

Bert BukmanPublicist

Page 2: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

2Challenge the future

Research Motivation

• Light rail has been successfully implemented in many urban regions worldwide.

• There is much debate on the (societal) cost-benefit ratio of these systems.

• Several light rail projects were not that successful or even failed.

• In recent years, many light rail plans have been cancelled • after many years of planning• after the start of the tendering process• during trial operation.

The Netherlands• 1997: the Dutch government noted about 30 light rail initiatives. • 2014: only one of them is actually in operation, being the

RandstadRail line in The Hague and Rotterdam.

Page 3: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

3Challenge the future

TRAIN

LIGHT RAIL

TRAM METRO

TRB 1978:

“Light rail transit is a metropolitan electric railway system characterized by its ability to operate single cars or short trains along exclusive rights-of-way at ground level, on aerial structures, in subways or, occasionally, in streets, and to board and discharge passengers at track or car-floor level.”

Light rail

Page 4: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

4Challenge the future

General findings: succes (1/3)

Project conception• Define the basic project as small as possible• Conceive project’s long term and context as comprehensively

as possible, hence, elaborate its economic, social and environmental value;

• Focus on ‘why’ the project (short term and long term);• Elaborate and manage project ‘rind’ (context, future).

Project organization• A strong independent project organization;• Different organizations for different stages of the projects;• One part of the organization is continuously focusing on

safeguarding the project as such.

Page 5: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

5Challenge the future

General findings succes (2/3)

Politics• Enhance and safeguard political decision making by

chopping the project into smaller pieces;• Accept and apply incremental planning;• Transparency during all decision making processes; • All decisions made should be supported by a major political

support;• The timeframe of contracts for the project must be consistent

with political timeframes;• Aim at creating “faits accomplis”. Do not allow (new

generation) politics to question again the value and progress of the project at stake.

 

Page 6: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

6Challenge the future

General findings succes (3/3)

Communication• Residents and citizens must be involved in the project;• Every available form of communication must be used;• Stakeholders must be personally involved.

Page 7: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

7Challenge the future

General findings: failure (1/2)

Project conception• Changing the scope and thus the targets;• Interfaces with related projects or between components of

the project itself;• Too few project variants or alternatives. Solutions for a good

project are often found in the combination of different alternatives.

Project organization• Innovative public tendering (e.g. DBFMO and alike) comes

with risks; • Focus on costs is important, but costs are not the most

important part of the project.

Page 8: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

8Challenge the future

General findings failure (2/2)

Politics• Uncertainty in relations between different governmental layers;• Changing political climate;• Approaching the project as a development on its own;• Only focusing on the most desired alternative leads to the

displacements of other feasible alternatives;

Communication• A technocratic attitude jeopardizes the project; • Neglecting citizens’ involvement is dangerous.

Page 9: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

9Challenge the future

Justification of light rail

Framework of 5 E’s

- Efficiency- Effectiveness- Environment- Economy- Equity

SMART CITIES

Page 10: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

10Challenge the future

Efficiency (network and operations)

- Meeting demand- Optimizing operational costs- Use of (public) space- Quality of service- Railbonus (Bunschoten et. al)

Why light rail? Why public transport?

Page 11: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

11Challenge the future

Effectiveness (urban design)

- All kinds of (indirect) effects:- Urban planning & design- (Restructuring) the city- Quality of the city- Livability- Safety - Image & perception of the city

Why light rail? Why public transport?

Page 12: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

12Challenge the future

Environment

- More efficient regarding:- Energy consumption- (Direct) emissions- Land use

Why light rail? Why public transport?

Page 13: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

13Challenge the future

Economy

- Land value- Real estate value- Retail turnover & quality- Employment- Property development

Why light rail? Why public transport?

Page 14: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

14Challenge the future

Equity

- Social access & connection:- Contra-segregation- Social mobility

Why light rail? Why public transport?

Page 15: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

15Challenge the future

Example RandstadRail

Page 16: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

16Challenge the future

RandstadRail: The Hague

About 95.000 passengers per day

Two lines; 33 and 27 km | 41 and 31 stops

5 min headway per line per direction

Page 17: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

17Challenge the future

• High level of quality and reliability• In urban area

• Poor punctuality• Poor regularity

• High number of vehicles per hour per direction (>24)• Signalling applied: limited capacity• Shared tracks with tram and metro • Operational targets of

transit authority

Focus on service reliability

Page 19: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

19Challenge the future

Actual effects

• Average dwell time 28 s 24 s• Standard deviation - 70%

• Average delay 90 s 20 s

• Departure punctuality: 70% 93% <-1,+1>• Driving ahead of schedule: 50%7% <,0>

• Customer satisfaction: 6.7->7.4

• Ridership growth: ~30%

Page 20: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

20Challenge the future

• RandstadRail: High frequent light rail in an urban area• High reliability because of controlling operations• Ridership growth due to substantial quality leap

• How to incorporate quality improvements in decision making and planning?

Conclusions

Page 21: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

21Challenge the future

Example efficiency

Actual case

Uithoflijn Utrecht

Page 22: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

22Challenge the future

Decision making in public transport

• Most PT projects aim at enhanced reliability• Service reliability is often missing in CBA and transport models• We developed:

• Methodology to incorporate passenger impacts of service reliability:• Transport models (reliable forecasts)

• Cost benefit analyses

• Applied in Utrecht

Page 23: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

23Challenge the future

Case: Uithoflijn (line 12)

Central Station

City of Utrecht “De Uithof”

- University- Hospital

Utrecht

- Centrally located in the Netherlands

- 4th largest city

- 300.000 inhabitants

Page 24: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

24Challenge the future

Problem analysis Busiest bus line in the Netherlands: 27.000 passengers per day Frequency of 23x/hour/direction using double-articulated buses:

30x/hour/direction necessary Poor reliability and lack of capacity

Mobility is still growing +25% planned property in the Uithof: +8.000 students, +10.000 employees Total: 53.000 students, 30.000 employees and 3.500 visitors (hospital) No additional parking space Demand forecast: 46.000 passenger per day

Solution- Introduction of a l ight rail l ine: 16-20x/hour

Page 25: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

25Challenge the future

0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600

Intervallen [s]

Fre

qu

en

tie

-Scheduled headway

-Headway [s]

-Avg. =2,5 min; σ= 1,3 min-Dwell time [s]

Poor reliability

Page 26: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

26Challenge the future

-12 connected CAF vehicles (2x37,5 m)

7,5 kmOperations are planned to start in 2018

New tram line

Page 27: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

27Challenge the future

Ministry requires CBA

- Regional parties agreed with plans and finances- €110 million of Minister of Transport available (about 1/3 of total costs)

CBA > 1,0YES NO

+

Page 28: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

28Challenge the future

Our approach

• Calculat ions of:• Future demand, including tram bonus impacts• Costs (infrastructure and operations)• Benefits

• Travel time gains• Reliabil i ty gains

Page 29: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

29Challenge the future

Results CBA

Additional waiting time due to unreliability

Distribution of travel time due to unreliability

Service reliability effects are over >60% of all benefits!

This method was approved by the Dutch Ministry and the Minister provided the €110 million

Page 30: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

30Challenge the future

Conclusions

• Little attention to service reliability in cost-benefit analyses • Translation of vehicle to passenger effects• Research and case proves:

• It is possible to quantify service rel iabil i ty and calculate the monetary value

• Service reliabil i ty benefits made the difference• This method was approved by the Dutch Ministry and the

Minister provided the €110 million

Page 31: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

31Challenge the future

Summary

General•Lessons from light rail projects: justification and broader scope than transport•Framework of 5 E’s

• Efficiency• Effectiveness• Economy• Environment• Equity

•Smart City

Cases•Light rail enables increase in service reliability•Little attention to service reliability in cost-benefit analyses •Service reliability benefits made the difference in Utrecht

Page 32: Transport Thursday Niel van Oort

32Challenge the future

Niels van [email protected]

Research papers:http://nielsvanoort.weblog.tudelft .nl/

EMTA report: Light rail explainedwww.emta.com -> Publications -> Surveys

Our bookhttp://www.l ightrail .nl/47xl ightrail /

Questions?MSc-project or internship?