|
|
|||||||||
 |
|||||||||
BUDAPEST METRO LINE 4 FEASIBILITY STUDY Oktober 1996 |
 |
|
TRANSPORT PLANNING Assessment |
||||||
Introduction
Chapter 5 and Table 5.1 summarised the long list
of alternatives being considered. Clearly detailed evaluation
could not be undertaken for each possible alternative and we therefore
undertook a long list review which aimed to sift the elements
of each option and to define a short list testing programme.
The purpose of the long list review is to examine
each option according to defined criteria, to conclude as to their
worth and to prepare a testing programme for a short list detailed
assessment. The key transport criteria for sifting through the
various alternatives are outlined below:
With respect to journey time savings at the long
list review level, we have run the forecast model for the base
year only. Growth in travel, changes in economic parameters such
as the value of time and increasing road congestion have not been
taken into account at this stage.
An economic analysis has been undertaken on the basis
of the base year travel estimates and economic parameters. The
estimated benefits will therefore be significantly understated.
However, we consider that the results can be used for comparison
purposes between options. The costs and benefits were annualised
based on a 10% discount rate, a 50 year life and zero residual
value for the capital.
The long list assessment should then be one of judging
which alternatives contribute most to improving transport and
which best complement the existing public transport services.
The aim is to define a realistic surface mode and LRT alternative
for comparison and evaluation against the Metro alternatives.
Hence we have structured the assessment within the principal
mode options and assessed alternatives or sub-alternatives within
these. The alternatives and sub alternatives were tested using the base year transport forecast model described in Chapter 3. For each of the group of tests a number of assumptions were made regarding the rationalisation of existing public transport services. This was in order to understand the relationship between existing and the future services offered by the new facility. As the rationalisation did not remain constant between the groups of alternatives the results of the tests cannot be compared between the groups, i.e. comparisons can only be made between alternatives which are within the same group.
The analysis needed to address a number of issues:
Do Minimum OptionThe options are analysed against a Do Minimum option which is described in greater detail in Chapter 9. It includes the rehabilitation of Szabadság bridge at a cost of 19 Million ECU for the purposes of the economic assessments. Without this rehabilitation, Szabadság bridge could not continue to provide a route for the existing trams and diverting all passengers who currently use the tram services on Szabadság bridge to other adjacent crossings is not considered a realistic long term solution. Surface Option
The surface alternatives included:
Based on the above key transport criteria, our conclusion
was that an alternative should be developed, which is a combination
of the alternatives tested, consisting of the following:
LRT Option
The 6 alternatives developed in Chapter 5 were first
considered. The variants occurred as there were 2 sub-choices;
firstly to either go underground or on the surface at Szabadság
bridge and secondly to cross over the Danube at Erzsébet
or Szabadság bridge. For Szabadság bridge, it was
considered that the underground LRT alternative will return passenger
benefits which are comparable to that of an underground metro
alternative. The construction costs for an underground system
based on a 'Light urban metro' or 'LRT' were expected to be virtually
identical once the construction methods have been optimised for
an underground system which will be the subject of Stage 2 of
this study. At this stage of the study it was therefore not considered
necessary to assess the underground LRT alternative at Szabadság
bridge.
Four LRT alternatives which are fully segregated
and partly running at street level were therefore reviewed. They
are described as follows:
Based on the key transport criteria defined above,
our conclusion was as follows: The preference was for the LRT alternative to cross at Szabadság bridge because of the differences in costs, the effects upon heritage with the Erzsébet alternatives and the greater benefits of the Szabadság alternatives. With regard to alignments, the Fehérvári alternative has some 11% higher benefits but at 13% more cost. The differences are very close and we had therefore included both of the Szabadság alternative alignments in the short list. Metro Option
There were 3 sub-alternatives within the metro family
at this long list review stage.
To review the Pest sub-alternatives developed in
Chapter 5 on a consistent basis, the Buda alignment was kept constant
on the Tétényi út alignment (3.#.3). Reorganisation
of existing services was kept identical for all of these alternatives.
Based on the key transport criteria defined in the
above paragraph our conclusion was that the Keleti via Rákóczi
alternative is preferred (3.3.3). It has 50% better benefits
than the Astoria alternative, provides access to a new catchment
area around Rákóczi
and to Keleti station, whereas the Blaha alternative serves an
area which is already served by Metro line 2. The cost of the
Rákóczi
alternative is some 4% higher than that of the Blaha alternative
and the difference in economic benefits is some 18% in favour
of the Rákóczi
alternative. In terms of overall economic benefits the two alternatives
are similar with the advantage being in the favour of the Rákóczi
alternative.
The Buda alternatives were based on the same Pest
alignment with a termination at Astoria to ensure compatible comparisons
for these alternatives. The alternatives were:
Our conclusion was that all of the alternatives are relatively close and we consider they should all be evaluated in more detail in the short list.
No reorganisation of services was considered for
this alternative as the new extension served an area on the edge
of the study area. To terminate existing tram services in this
situation seemed unrealistic. The extension to Line 2 therefore
provides an alternative route to the central area to those provided
by existing trams.
Our conclusion was that the extension to line 2 is
of limited passenger benefit and should not be taken forward.
In reviewing this extension, we noted that in itself
this alternative is not competing against any other alignment
but is a complementary scheme. Extending the metro line (any
of the alternatives) to beyond the MÁV railway lines at
Kelenföld is one that will be evaluated in Stage 2 of the
Study. We had undertaken a preliminary assessment of this extension
which identified that the impact of this extension on the different
metro alignments east of Kelenföld is effectively identical.
The number of passengers on the extension is unlikely to exceed
60,000 per day (both directions) producing modest benefits compared
with the high costs of crossing the existing railway lines. The
merits of extending the metro east of Kelenföld lie in the
future scale of urban development in the Gazdagrét and
Budaörs areas. |
|||||||||