Appropriate conditions for adopting new public transit systems: a comparative analysis of guided surface systems

Transcription

1 Appropriate conditions for adopting new public transit systems: a comparative analysis of guided surface systems Jeong-hwa AN (jeonghwa@inrets.fr / gravitass@hotmail.com) Research Unit : LTN (New Technology Lab.) 1

2 Outline Context Methodology: ELECTRE III 6 transit systems Data collection Results and Conclusion Results and Conclusion of Ph.D. dissertation 2 2

3 Context Choosing and adopting 'a' transportation system among different transit systems is a complex and uneasy work, especially for guided surface transit systems because : Relatively new transportation mode, Nearly equivalent services are offered for users, 'Correct' information is not usually communicated. Even more crucial considering today s financial, economical and environmental concerns being repeatedly mentioned. So, a reasonable and consensual comparison of public transit systems is absolutely necessary and highly desired to find well-adapted ones. Our research: the attempt to find more comprehensive understanding of surface guided public transit systems from bus-based to rail-based ones. 3 3

4 Methodology: ELECTRE III Transport project: multi-objective task in nature and it doesn t exist unique solution but several compromises ELECTRE III: Multi-Criteria Analysis Method Outranking method with flou concept: Accept : hesitation, insufficient information, human errors Strong/weak preference and indifference, incomparability Concordance/Discordance Credibility index: C ik = j =1 Outranking relationship established between two potential actions could be unclear as there are couples seem to be unarguable and very 4 m j =1 4 P j c j (a i,a k ) m P j d j (a i,a k ) = g j (a k ) g j (a i ) + p j v j p j C if d j (a i,a k ) C ik ik δ ik = 1 d j (a i,a k ) C ik if not j F 1 C ik

5 6 Surface Transit Systems Guided surface transit systems in French context Tramway: ex) Citadis Tramway on tire: Translohr BHLS or Guided bus : TVR, Civis 'Trolleybus and Bus' 5

6 Transit system Power Height Width Floor level Min. radius Max. Gradient DKE Overall length Unit capacity Unit Tramway: Citadis 302 Tramway on tire: Translohr 750 D/C 750 D/C TVR CIVIS Trolleybus Bus 750 D/C & ICE ICE 750 D/C ICE m m mm m % m m p/m

7 Data collection Average values if the data come from several cities, if not, representative values Transit systems Tramway Tramway on tire (Translohr) TVR CIVIS Trolleybus Bus Cities Grenoble, Le Mans, Lyon Clermont-Ferrand Nancy (not 100% seperated lane) Rouen Lyon, Limoges Clermont-Ferrand, Grenoble, Lyon 7 7

8 Performance matrix 2008 Tramway Translohr TVR CIVIS Trolleybus Bus Weight Indifference threshold Preference threshold Veto threshold Hourly Capacity (p/h/d) DKE (m) Radius (m) Comfort (0-10) R/W Capital costs Operating costs Urban impact (0-10) Local pollution (0-10) % % 10 % % % 20 % % 90 % 50 % 8 8

9 Results Ranking Reference Ranking Cost +, Environment + Capacity +, Insertion -, Comfort + Final Ranking Tramway Translohr TVR CIVIS Trolleybus Bus

10 Results Bus Tramway Translohr Reference Ranking Cost +, Environment + Capacity +, Insertion -, Comfort + Final Ranking Trolleybus TVR CIVIS 10 10

11 Results 6,00 4,50 3,00 1,50 Reference Ranking Cost +, Environment + Capacity +, Insertion -, Comfort + Final Ranking 0 Tramway Translohr TVR CIVIS Trolleybus Bus 11 11

12 Conclusion When there is an urban transit project to offer a capacity between 2000 and 3000 passenger per hour per direction: Tramway and Translohr would be the best solution to study first. Bus is the second and then Bus, Trolleybus, Civis, finally TVR. In any case, it is reasonable to consider firstly Tramway and Translohr as an appropriate transit system and it is not logical to assume TVR (not 100% seperated) as a suitable transit system. We could also find that the Bus or Trolleybus which are not a kind of BHLS could be a better solution at some context because it improves considerably cost and pollution factors respectively. The study recently finished shows a little bit different results: Tramway keeps the first place in general. Translohr, Civis, TVR, Trolleybus and Bus can have their proper places in some contexts: ex) operating cost priority, frequency priority etc

13 2010 capacity (p/h/d) Frequency (minutes) Commercial speed (km/h) Ponctuality (% de site propre) Largeur (DKE) (m) Reliability Accessibility Capital costs (M /km) Operating costs ( /km) GEG (gco2/ car km) Insertion image (0-10) Tramway 32m Translohr TVR CIVIS Trolleybus Articulated bus Weights Indifference threshold Preference threshold Veto threshold ,5 90 5, ,41 7, , ,27 7, ,5 90 6, ,51 6, ,3 80 6, ,42 6, ,5 70 6, ,1 6, , ,93 5, % 1 10 % 10 % 10 % % 10 % 15 % 1 20 % 2 20 % 20 % 20 % % 20 % 30 % 3 50 % 50 % 50 % 30 % 50 %

14 2010 Reference Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Number Capacity (M passengers/y) Frequency (minutes) Commercial speed (km/h) Distance between stops (m) Operating cost (M /y) phd Variable (3-4) 2 Variable (5-10) 16-19, ,94-7,

15 Performance Costs Environnemen t Criterias Reference weight Weight 1 Weight 2 Weight 3 capacity (p/h/d) Frequency (minutes) Commercial speed (km/h) Ponctuality (% de site Largeur propre) (DKE) (m) Reliability Accessibility Capital costs Operating (M /km) costs GEG (gco2/car km) ( /km) Insertion image(0-10) Total

16 Autobus Trolleybus CIVIS TVR Translohr Tramway Numbers of rank 16 16

17 19! 20! 5! 4! 1! 2! 3! 18! 17! 16! 3! 2! 1! 0! 4! 5! 6! Tramway! Translohr! TVR! CIVIS! 15! 7! Trolleybus! 14! 8! Autobus! 13! 12! 11! 10! 9! 17 17

18 Conclusion The superiority of the tramway in almost all cases. TVR and Translohr have the same rank in almost a third of results, so, can be considered as same system. On contrary, CIVIS is not always so homogeneous in terms of rank that a great caution should be paied by dicision makers when they want to implement it in city's transportation network as one of the solution of transit systems

19 Conclusion In this comparative analysis of guided transportation systems done by using different scenarios and assigning different weights, we found that 'intermediate systems', between tramway and bus, have their own roles to play in the field of urban transport which can help TA choose proper systems to meet the need of transportation in their city networks. Although the traditional tramway occupies a privileged place in most scenarios even assigning different weights, CIVIS, Translohr, TVR and even trolley buses have their place in a particular context based on network configuration, according to the demand level, investment/operating costs level and urban insertion. These results encouraged us, every time when a surface guided system is desired on a transpottion network, to review whole range of transit systems and to do an analysis applying different constraints such as perfomances things, costs and environmental aspects in order to make the best choice for all city residents as long-term solution