transport thursday niel van oort
TRANSCRIPT
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
9Challenge the future
Justification of light rail
Framework of 5 E’s
- Efficiency- Effectiveness- Environment- Economy- Equity
SMART CITIES
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?
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?
12Challenge the future
Environment
- More efficient regarding:- Energy consumption- (Direct) emissions- Land use
Why light rail? Why public transport?
13Challenge the future
Economy
- Land value- Real estate value- Retail turnover & quality- Employment- Property development
Why light rail? Why public transport?
14Challenge the future
Equity
- Social access & connection:- Contra-segregation- Social mobility
Why light rail? Why public transport?
15Challenge the future
Example RandstadRail
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
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
18Challenge the future
Main elements
• Preventing unplanned stopping• Punctuality• Dwelling (vehicles and stops)• Timetable• Dispatching room
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%
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
21Challenge the future
Example efficiency
Actual case
Uithoflijn Utrecht
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
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
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
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
26Challenge the future
-12 connected CAF vehicles (2x37,5 m)
7,5 kmOperations are planned to start in 2018
New tram line
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
+
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
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
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
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
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?