|
|
The short list evaluation is concerned with assessing
each alternative against a range of planning, design, transport
and environmental factors. This chapter is also concerned with
comparing the performance of alternatives and choosing between
them.
Chapter 7 outlined the design issues and costs of
each alternative and Chapters 9 and 10 described their transport
and economic benefits. This chapter brings together the economics
with the planning, environmental and relevant design factors to
assess the differences between the alternatives. The purpose
of the evaluation process is to assist the decision making process
- not to make the decision.
We had hoped to undertake a full quantification method
applying weights to quantified impacts. At this stage such full
quantification has not taken place and the environmental, planning
and design factors, as described in the previous chapters, are
evaluated in a subjective way. We have allocated points from
1-5 depending on how each alternative addresses the particular
factor or objective. This is in order to assist us in comparing
the alternatives. We do not consider it practical to add the
points between factors due to the subjective nature of the analysis.
Also this would imply that each factor was of equal importance.
There are also not the same number of factors within each subject
group and the analysis could therefore be biased.
Details of the point allocation are included within
Stage 1 Report. The factors developed for the evaluation are as
follows:
Economic Indicators
- Total Costs
- User Benefits
- Road User Benefits
- Accident Savings
- Internal Rate of Return
The point system for the indicators expressed in
monetary terms has been based on equal increments between the
lowest and highest value ascribed to each factor. In each case
the lowest and the highest value is assumed to be in the mid range
of the point for that value.
Environment Impacts
- Noise
- Pollution
- Vibration
- Indirect impact
Planning Impacts
The following are the brief descriptions of the policies
referred to in Chapter 4.
- To support the overall development of Budapest
as a world city and enhance city image.
- To foster and support sustainable development
whilst ensuring that an equal and positive range of opportunities
is available to all.
- To conserve and enhance the historical
and cultural heritage and the natural environment within the City.
- To implement overall land use / transportation
strategies, maintaining the relative
advantage of the city centre whilst supporting the provision of
a more balanced pattern of land use and development within both
the city and adjoining agglomerations.
- To reduce current development pressures
upon the established inner city areas
by the selected focusing of growth and urban development upon
the transition zone and main transport routes, more specifically
by means of the establishment of new District and suburban centres.
- To encourage economic development and regeneration,
attracting new investment to the city, stimulating growth in leisure
and tourism and restructuring and diversifying the present economic
base, in particular within the transition zone.
- To improve public transport systems, retain
competitiveness and achieve appropriate modal splits
within the various principal areas of the city.
- To give priority to public transport within
the inner city area, improve services
in the suburban zone and support functional changes within the
transition zone by developing transport services and contributing
to an integrated transport system through the provision of interchange
and park and ride facilities.
- To support commercial and business activity
and enhance access to leisure and cultural facilities
by means of improved communications, providing an alternative
to road usage, reducing road traffic congestion and improving
the environment.
In terms of point allocations the majority of the
impacts upon policies are in the range of neutral to positive.
There are not likely to be significant negative impacts since
all alternatives result in some level of investment and thereby
improvement in the overall transport in the study area.
Design Impacts and Operation Impacts
- Construction risks
- Project risks
- Impact of the construction works
Duration of works
- Possibility of phasing of the line
- Flexibility of the system
: related to the adaptability of the system
Our evaluation of Table 11.1 is described below for
each alternative. The short list alternatives evaluated are as
described in Chapter 9.
In overall terms we consider the surface alternative
to be of limited value.
In overall terms alternatives 2.2.2.a. (via Fehérvári)
is the preferred LRT alternative.
- Comparison of LRT and Metro
The LRT alternative has significantly lower costs
and in the next stage of the study we will examine aspects of
the LRT system and in particular construction methods, rolling
stock and operational characteristics as part of the cost optimisation
process.
Our general conclusions based on urban planning issues
may therefore be summarised as follows:
- Alternative 3.3.2 would provide an equivalent
or better service to the main population catchment areas as compared
to the Tétényi út or Bartók Béla
alignments;
- the nature and extent of the likely development
potential associated with and/or related to this alternative 3.3.2.
is likely to exceed that of either of the two alternative alignments;
and
- this alternative would be consistent with the
overall aims and objectives of the emerging Budapest Master Plan
and the strategy for the South West Corridor.
Our conclusions from Stage 1 of the study are presented
below:
From the background studies:
- The study Area has an existing and frequent public transport system comprising
of buses and trams. The buses provide both local City services as well as
longer distance services some of which terminate within the study Area. Some
of the existing rolling stock is old and average operating speeds are relatively
low.
- Such low speeds are partly a function of traffic congestion which is particularly
heavy in the main tram corridors. This heavy flow of traffic contributes to
traffic pollution in the study Area.
- The planning studies produced a set of objectives for assessing the transportation
alternatives. These included impacts upon the transition zone, contribution
towards economic development and assistance towards environmental goals by,
in part, attracting traffic from roads.
Option Development
- A number of alternatives were developed to address these issues including
an improvement to existing surface modes, Light Rail schemes and Metros. We
undertook a preliminary long list evaluation which concluded that:
- on the Pest side the termination point for the Metro should be Keleti
station. This was on the grounds that it opened up a further catchment
area to the south of Rákóczi út and that the increase
in benefits (in percentage terms) was greater than the higher costs compared
to other alternatives.
- the extension to Metro Line 2 from Déli station had poor benefits
and contributed little to the south west corridor.
- the extension of tram line 1, on the orbital route across Lágymányos
bridge, could not be justified, attracting relatively low patronage levels.
- the LRT over Erzsébet bridge was potentially damaging to the
world heritage site, difficult in traffic terms and in economic terms,
did not perform as well as the alternative crossing at Szabadság
bridge.
- we could not distinguish between the alternative alignments for either
the Metro or LRT alternatives on the Buda side and further analysis was
undertaken in the short list evaluation.
Detailed Assessment
- The more detailed assessment of key planning issues produced a number of
conclusions as follows:
- that whatever public transport improvement proposals are taken forward
in the South West Corridor, they must form an integral element of an overall
land use/transportation strategy.
- that any investment in Public Transport is generally positive in planning
terms.
- that alternatives with full segregation are likely to be more successful
in achieving goals in modal split and transport integration.
- routes using Fehérvári út are likely to have advantages
in terms of closeness to the transition zone.
- the traffic evaluation work demonstrated that the surface alternatives
would do little to improving the already congested conditions on the streets.
The Metro alternative had higher patronage attractions than the LRT and
more extensively relieve existing services. This would provide more opportunity
to consider surface level environmental improvements and development proposals.
The Metro alignments attracted similar levels of patronage.
- From the economic evaluation we concluded that:
- the surface mode alternative returned the lowest Benefit to Cost Ratio
(BCR) ratio and Internal Rate of Return (IRR).
- on the optimistic scenario for the LRT and Metro alternatives the BCR
varied between 1.8 and 2.6 and the IRR between 8.3% and 10.3%.
- on the pessimistic scenario for the LRT and Metro alternatives the BCR
varied between 0.9 and 1.2 and the IRR between 6.5% and 8.3%.
- the LRT alternatives had the highest economic returns with their lower
benefits being offset by much lower levels of cost.
- the Metro alternatives were very close in economic terms.
- In order to examine the alternatives we undertook a framework assessment
bringing together all the relevant factors for comparison purposes. From this
evaluation our conclusions are as follows :
- the surface alternative is consistently ranked low
- the preferred LRT alternative runs along Fehérvári út
and compares favourably with some of the Metros.
- the comparison of Metro alternatives shows only small economic differences,
no differences in environmental terms and very similar performances in
terms of design issues.
- the choice between the Metro alternatives is determined principally
upon the planning issues, but even here the differences are fine. However,
in terms of providing both for a higher level service to an existing high
density population and serving future potential developments, including
the Transition zone on the west side of the Danube, then the alternative
via Fehérvári has a number of advantages.
Achieving Stage 1, in accordance with the Steering
Committee representatives, the metro alternative Tétényi
(3.3.3) was preferred by the Municipality of Budapest to be refined
in the course of Stage 2.
|
