Light rail transit systems 61 lessons in sustainable urban development

Transcription

1 Light rail transit systems 61 lessons in sustainable urban development dr. ir. N. van Oort Assistant professor public transport Co-director Smart Public Transport Lab Spårvågsforum

2 Transport and Planning Smart Mobility Transportation Resilience Lab Traffic and Transportation Safety Smart Public Transport Lab Traffic Flow Theory and Management Automated Transport Active Mode Lab Rail Traffic Lab Freight and Logistics Lab DiTTLab UMO Urban Mobility Lab AMS Living Lab 2

3 3

4 4

5 Optimal mix of modes 5

6 Light rail ervaring 6

7 Cases worldwide 7

8 Europe 8

9 Lessons learned: 61 cases Light rail has been successfully implemented in many urban regions worldwide. Several light rail projects were not that successful or even failed. There is much debate on the (societal) cost-benefit ratio of these systems. 9

10 General findings: succes Project conception Focus on why the project (short term and long term); Politics The timeframe of contracts for the project must be consistent with political timeframes; Communication Residents and citizens must be involved in the project; 10

11 General findings: failure Project conception Too few project variants or alternatives. Solutions for a good project are often found in the combination of different alternatives. Politics Changing political climate; Communication A technocratic attitude jeopardizes the project; 11

12 Justification of public transport Framework of 5 E s - Effective mobility - Efficient city - Environment - Economy - Equity Van Oort et al

13 13

14 Efficient cities - All kinds of (indirect) effects: - Urban planning & design - (Restructuring) the city - Quality of the city - Livability - Image & perception of the city 14

15 15

16 Environment+Health - More efficient regarding: - Energy consumption - (Direct) emissions - Land use - Bicycle+transit 16

17 Impact of PT quality on catchment areas Brand, J., et al. (2017) 17

18 Economy - Land value - Real estate value - Retail turnover & quality - Employment - Property development Increase due to high quality public transport accessibility Land value + 5% + 10% House value + 2% + 5% 18

19 Equity - Social access & connection: - Contra-segregation - Social mobility 19

20 Passengers in the Netherlands 6% of Dutch population: Have difficulties walking larger distances 2.5 million people: Have difficulties reading, writing and/or lack digital skills KiM (2016) 20

21 Effective mobility - Quality of service - Travel speed - Transfers - Service reliability - Robustness - Comfort - 21

22 A B C Light rail Bus Streetcar 19 minutes 15 minutes 16 minutes 22

23 Rail bonus Research TU Delft (Bunschoten et al. 2013) Additional attractiveness of a rail system compared to a bus system with similar characteristics Source Scherer (2011) Scherer (2009) Cain (2009) Bovy en Hoogendoorn- Lanser (2005) Currie (2004) Ben Akiva (2002) Result Slight pref. rail Slight pref. rail Slight pref. rail Preference rail Slight pref. rail No difference Welschen (2002) 0-10% Kasch en Vogts (2002) Preference rail Megel (2001) Axhausen (2001) Slight pref. rail Slight pref. rail Berschin (1998) +30% Arnold en Lohrmann (1997) +15% Hüsler (1996) +54% 23

24 Rail Bonus: approx. 5-15% 24

25 The value of Light rail 25

26 A B C 26

27 D 27

28 TRAIN LIGHT RAIL TRAM METRO Light rail is a rail-bound mode of public transport, which is used on the spatial scale of urban regions and cities. Contrary to train and metro, light rail is by definition able, up to a certain level, to integrate in the public space and mix with regular road traffic. Van der Bijl et al

29 Pros light rail Compared to bus /BRT 29

30 CONS Light rail 31

31 Light rail system types Lightrail Non- lightrail 1 (Regional) tram 6 Train 2 TramTrain 7 Metro 3 TrainTram 8 MetroTrain 4 TramMetro 9 TrainMetro 5 MetroTram 36

32 37

33 38

34 39

35 40

36 41

37 Tram- train types Willer, S. (2018) 42

38 Tram-Train examples Willer, S. (2018) 43

39 Light rail = hybrid 45

40 Light rail infrastructure Traditional street-based; Shared-space; Traffic lane; Separate tramway; Metro style tramway; Railway for tram-train. 46

41 Street-based (Almaty, Kazachstan) 47

42 Shared space (Reims, France) 48

43 PT Lane (Edinburgh, Scotland) 49

44 Separated tramway (Berlin, Germany) 50

45 Metro track (Rotterdam, Netherlands) 51

46 Train track (Gouda, Netherlands) 52

47 2 light rail cases 57

48 Case 1: Utrecht Uithoflijn 58

49 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 Calculated 0% Expert judgment 13% Not 60% Qualitatively 27% 59

50 Case: Uithoflijn (line 12) Central Station City of Utrecht De Uithof - University - Hospital Utrecht - Centrally located in the Netherlands 4 th largest city inhabitants 60

51 Problem analysis Busiest bus line in the Netherlands: 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: students, employees Total: students, employees and visitors (hospital) No additional parking space Demand forecast: passenger per day Solution Introduction of a light rail line: 16-20x/hour 61

52 Poor reliability Scheduled headway Frequentie Headway Intervallen [s] [s] Dwell time [s] Avg. =2,5 min; σ= 1,3 min 62

53 New tram line Connected CAF vehicles (2x37,5 m) 7,5 km Operations are planned to start in 2018; delayed to

54 Ministry requires CBA - Regional parties agreed with plans and finances million of Minister of Transport available (about 1/3 of total costs) CBA > 1,0 YES NO + 64

55 Our approach Calculations of: Future demand, including tram bonus impacts Costs (infrastructure and operations) Benefits Travel time gains Reliability gains Van Oort,

56 Three step approach AVL data APC data VOT / VOR Service dynamics Passenger impacts Monetary impacts Schedule adherence Additional travel time and variance EU Van Oort,

57 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 67

58 Case 2 : controlling RandstadRail 68

59 RandstadRail travelers per day Two lines; 33 and 27 km 41 and 31 stops 5 min headway per line per direction 50 Low floor vehicles 69

60 Why controlling? 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 70

61 Without controlling? Bunching Overcrowding Uncertainty -> Increase in average waiting time -> Probability of having a seat decreases -> Less satisfied travellers 71

62 How to deal with deviations? Disturbances Preventing Coping Adjusting 72

63 Main elements Preventing unplanned stopping Punctuality Dwelling Timetable Dispatching room 73

64 Actual effects Continuous monitoring operational quality To optimize timetable To find and remove bottlenecks Improvements Variation of driving time Punctuality Customers satisfaction Operations Reliability Planning 74

65 Variation of driving times Average Gem. delay [s] vertraging Unplanned stopping Average delay 90 s 20 s Standard deviation - 50% 35 Avg. delay[s Tram 6/2 RR UH BL BL DR DW ZP ZL CP MP TL Stop DL MS ZS MC BG GM SP 75

66 Variation of driving times (2) Dwelling St. dcv. Dwell time [s] Frequency Average dwell time 28 s 24 s Standard deviation - 70% 40% 25 35% 20 30% RR Tram 6 RR 4 Frequentie 25% 20% 15% Lijn % 0 5% BL BL DR DW ZP ZL CP MP TL DL MS ZS MC BG GM SP 0% Stop Dwell Halteertijd time [s] [s] 76

67 Punctuality Departure punctuality: 70% 93% <-1,+1> Driving ahead of schedule: 50% 7% <,0> 15% less waiting time for passengers 77

68 Customers satisfaction Waardering reizigers stiptheid Lijn Line 33 Lijn Line 44 78

69 Summary Light rail is a valuable addition to the PT planning tool box Light rail is flexible and hybrid Lessons from light rail projects: justification and broader scope than transport Framework of 5 E s Efficiency Effectiveness Economy Environment Equity Cases Light rail enables increase in service realibility Little attention to service reliability in cost-benefit analyses Service reliability benefits made the difference in Utrecht 79

70 References: Brand, J., N. Van Oort, S.P. Hoogendoorn, B. Schalkwijk (2017), Modelling Multimodal Transit Networks, Integration of bus networks with walking and cycling, Proceedings of IEEE MT-ITS conference, Napoli. Bunschoten, T., E. Molin, R. van Nes (2013). Tram or bus; does the tram bonus exist? European Transport Conference. Van der Bijl, R., N. van Oort, B. Bukman (2018), Light rail transit systems, 61 lessons in sustainable development. Elsevier Van Oort, N., R.A.J. vd Bijl, F.C.A. Verhoof (2017), The wider benefits of high quality public transport for cities, European Transport Conference, Barcelona. Van Oort, N. (2016). Incorporating enhanced service reliability of public transport in cost-benefit analyses. Public Transport, Volume 8 (1), pp Van Oort, N. and R. van Nes (2009), Control of public transport operations to improve reliability: theory and practice, Transportation research record, No. 2112, pp

71 Available via Van der Bijl, Van Oort, Bukman 2018 Elsevier 81

72 Questions / contact dr. ir. Niels van Oort N.vanOort@TUDelft.nl Amsterdam May