BUDAPEST METRO LINE 4 FEASIBILITY STUDY

Oktober 1996

SELECTION OF OPTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES

Introduction

This chapter describes the main options identified and the possible alternatives within each. From this is derived a long list of alternatives which are assessed in this section. The purpose of the long list assessment is to produce a short list for more detailed evaluation.

One of the objectives of Stage 1 of the study is to establish ' the appropriate metro strategy to be adopted in the second stage '. Lower cost transport options have been identified in addition to a metro option, based on a significant improvement in the level of service.

Definition and selection of the transport options are based on 3 main families which were developed as follows:

1. Option 1 - 'Surface modes'(bus and tramway)- considers a significant improvement of the current level of service based on the reinforcement/reorganisation of the current service and better segregation from the general traffic.
2. Option 2 - 'Light Rail Transit'- adopts measures to fully segregate the transport system from other traffic in dense urban areas.
3. Option 3 - 'Metro'- also fully segregated is characterised by longer underground sections.

The same concept of physical implementation (full segregation) supports the LRT and Metro options ; the LRT system in principle requires 'lighter' infrastructure, theoretically influencing the capital costs.

Transport alternatives

Every transport option includes several technical alternatives which are likely to have an influence upon the ridership, the environmental impacts and the costs. They concern especially:

1. the alignments
2. the physical implementation (over or under the river and so on).

Transport sub-alternatives

Every alternative includes several sub-alternatives characterised by specific technical parameters. They are related more particularly to the infrastructure (partly or fully underground, depressed, at-grade or elevated), the construction methods, the rolling stock characteristics and other technical criteria. They have been mainly analysed during the engineering assessment described in Chapter 6, in terms of technical and operating feasibility and capital cost impacts.

Main core of route for comparison and possible extensions

In accordance with the Terms of Reference, the comparison of the metro and lower cost options is based on the principle of a new service linking Kelenföld Station to the CBD, constituting the 'main core' of the route. Further extensions are of course envisaged, especially towards Budaörs. They will be examined more in detail during Stage 2. Nevertheless, the Budaörs extension is analysed in broad terms of patronage, technical feasibility and costs.

Transport options and alternatives analysed

For each of the three transport options defined above, a set of alternatives are analysed as follows:

Option 1 : 'Surface' modes - Bus & Tram improvements

This option concerns the existing surface modes, comprising bus and tram services. It assumes a significant improvement of the level of service to make it nearly comparable to other transport options in terms of capacity supplied. In order to meet the demand a number of alternatives are identified which are also complementary and are to be considered jointly, serving the South West area and linking to Pest by crossing several bridges.

The alternatives are identified according to the mode operated; bus or tram, as follows :

• Bus routes (Bus family 7) running over the Erzsébet bridge - alternative 1.1
• Tram alternatives (Tram lines 47 & 49, 4) running over Szabadság bridge and Petöfi bridge - alternative 1.2

Alternatives 1.1 and 1.2 were in fact developed to provide an understanding of the effect of improving individual surface modes to help develop an overall surface mode improvement alternative for inclusion in the short list.

• Joint 1.1 and 1.2 alternatives - alternative 1.3

Alternatives 1.1 and 1.2 are combined to complement each other resulting in alternative 1.3 (see Figure 5.1) for detailed analysis as a part of the short list assessment.

Option 2 : LRT

This option is for a transport system fully segregated from other traffic in the dense urban areas, especially within the City Centre, providing a level of service nearly similar to a metro option. Within the option, six alternatives described below have been analysed.

Two of them utilise Erzsébet bridge :

• from Keleti station alternative alignment running partly over tram 49 line - alternative 2.1.1. : taking Erzsébet bridge-Saint Gellért Quay, following Bartók Béla to Kelenföld station.
• from Keleti station alternative alignment running partly over tram 47 line - alternative 2.1.2. : taking Erzsébet bridge-Saint Gellért Quay to reach Móricz Zsigmond Square towards Fehérvári taking then Etele út to Kelenföld station.

Both of the alternatives extend along Rákóczi Street to Keleti railway station on Pest side, and could be extended beyond Kelenföld station to Budaörs on the Buda side.

The four other alternatives are related to a river crossing over or under the Szabadság bridge:

• from Astoria alternative alignment running partly over tram 49 line - alternative 2.2.1. :

Two sub-alternatives are analysed in terms of technical feasibility and costs estimated:

2.2.1.a. : running over Szabadság bridge following Bartók Béla to Kelenföld station.

2.2.1.b. : running under Szabadság bridge following Bartók Béla to Kelenföld station.

• from Astoria alternative alignment running partly over tram 47 line - alternative 2.2.2. :

Similarly two sub-alternatives are identified:

2.2.2.a. : running over Szabadság bridge and reaching Móricz Zsigmond Square along Fehérvári út taking then Etele út to Kelenföld station.

2.2.2.b. : running under Szabadság bridge and reaching Móricz Zsigmond Square along Fehérvári út taking then Etele út to Kelenföld station.

The alternatives are shown in the above schematic Figure 5.2.

Option 3 : Metro

One main family is identified, comprising several Buda and Pest alternatives that can be combined, with a common underground section crossing the Danube. Combining the routes on both sides of the Danube produces 9 alternatives, described in the schematic Figure 5.3. The alternative alignments are as follows:

• Buda alternatives

1. From Kelenföld station : alternative alignment along Bartók Béla út via Kosztolányi Dezsó Square (3.#.1)
2. From Kelenföld station : alternative alignment following Etele út, Fehérvári út and Bartók Béla út (3.#.2)
3. From Kelenföld station : alternative alignment following Tétényi út and Bartók Béla út (3.#.3)

• Pest alternatives

1. Alternative alignment from Kálvin Square to Astoria (3.1.#)
2. Alternative alignment from Kálvin Square, onto Blaha Lujza Square to Keleti railway station (3.2.#)
3. Alternative alignment from Kálvin Square, onto Rákóczi Square to Keleti railway station (3.3.#)

Every Buda alternative can be extended to Budaörs and every Pest alternative can be extended to the direction of Zugló-Újpalota.

In addition, a possible alternative (3.4) is contemplated based on the extension to the East-West Metro line 2 from the southern railway station of Déli station, on the MÁV track (adjacent to Alsóhegy Street) up to Kelenföld railway station.

Table 5.1 summarises the set of 19 alternatives constituting the 'long list of alternatives'. All of them have been analysed in terms of technical feasibility and cost estimated in working paper EN02.

Option	Alternative	Sub-alternative	Characteristics	Figure ref.
1 - Surface Mode improvements
1.	1.		Bus family "7"
1.	2.		Tram lines 47 & 49 & 4
1.	3.		Joint 1.1 & 1.2.	5.1.
2 - LRT				5.2.
Erzsébet bridge
2.	1.1.		Bartók Béla
2.	1.2		Fehérvári
Szabadság bridge
2.	2.1	a.	Over the bridge/Bartók Béla
		b.	Under the bridge/Bartók Béla
2.	2.2.	a.	Over the bridge/Fehérvári
		b.	Under the bridge/Fehérvári
3 - Metro				5.3.
Astoria
3.	1.1.		Bartók Béla
3.	1.2.		Fehérvári
3.	1.3.		Tétényi
Blaha L./Keleti
3.	2.1.		Bartók Béla
3.	2.2.		Fehérvári
3.	2.3.		Tétényi
Rákóczi/Keleti
3.	3.1		Bartók Béla
3.	3.2.		Fehérvári
3.	3.3.		Tétényi
3.	4.	Extension to the E-W line from Déli station.