BUDAPEST METRO LINE 4 FEASIBILITY STUDY

Oktober 1996

Engineering assessment

Selection and design of the infrastructure

At-grade, elevated or underground infrastructures can support the implementation of an urban transport system. The preliminary study of any transport infrastructure needs basic input information regarding the topography conditions and the construction methods that will be selected.

Topography

A detailed survey of the whole corridor of the selected route including the existing structures and utilities will be essential to establish a basic knowledge for the future construction works, to estimate the environmental impacts and the associated capital costs.

Based on the local knowledge and on some preliminary investigations previously carried out, the difficulties, especially regarding the public utilities network, have been examined and reported in the Technical Annex.

Geotechnical characteristics

Most of the construction difficulties, which result in additional costs or delay, mainly come from the initial imprecise knowledge of the ground characteristics. Therefore, it is essential to carry out first, an exhaustive and accurate soil investigation with complementary analysis of existing geological maps and related documents.

The objective is to establish the longitudinal soil profile along the selected route, including the geotechnical and hydrological characteristics of the corridor of interest influencing the construction and the future works.

General investigations have been carried out in the past and they support in particular the preliminary selection of underground construction methods of cut & cover or deep tunnelling. They are summarised in the hereafter Section C of the report.

The construction methods

The potential construction methods will depend on:

1. the geotechnical conditions
2. the environmental impact of works during the construction works : (land acquisition, construction methods, traffic management, nuisance reduction e.g. settlements effects on the existing structures and utilities).

Stage 1 Report reviewed in detail the possible techniques that could be applicable for the construction works. After the selection of one of the alignments, they will be refined according to the specific conditions of the corridor.

Rolling Stock characteristics

At this stage of the study, only basic characteristics of rolling stock need to be defined: they concern the size in terms of length and width and the nominal capacity The rolling stock characteristics are summarised in Table 7.1 and are as follows:

1. The metro rolling stock characteristics in size and capacity are similar to the current Budapest metro rolling stock. Metro car unit capital cost is based on European averages.
2. The characteristics of the LRT rolling stock are supported by averages generally encountered in western or north American countries. LRT car unit cost is based on average European costs. It should be noticed that the greater range of unit costs corresponds to different level of 'sophistication' and generally LRT vehicle unit costs are higher than metro ones due to specific technical characteristics (motorisation power supply, adaptability to different platform heights (variable footboard designs)).
3. Characteristics of tramway rolling stock in size and capacity, are based on BKV's existing fleet. Tramway unit cost is based on lower range European standards.

The level of comfort commonly used in Budapest by BKV (4p/m² during rush hours) is taken into account, nevertheless it is considered that this results in an oversizing of the fleet, influencing in particular the capital cost of the rolling stock.

System	Capacity per car	Capacity per train		Unit capital cost (Million ECU)
	5p/m²	5p/m²	4p/m²	per car
Metro
5 cars 20m*2.7m	205	1025	860	1.0-1.4
LRT
3 cars 30m*2.5m	250	750	636	1.5-2.5
Tramway
car of 27m*2.4m	240	240	204	1.0-1.5

The rolling stock characteristics determine the station sizing and the infrastructure sizing: at-grade right-of-way or tunnel. Basic standards have been agreed, mainly supported by Hungarian regulations, as follows :

• Stations

The length of the stations is directly determined by the length of the rolling stock, as follows :

• At-grade right-of-way

The standard width of at-grade LRT right-of-way is directly determined by the width of the rolling stock (2.5m). Considering Hungarian regulations, especially for the train operation, a standard width for the right-of-way implementation of around 10m has been used. Nevertheless, it should be restricted where there is specific implementation difficulty.

• Tunnel and cut and cover tunnels

They are based on the Hungarian metro regulations defining the design criteria.

Engineering analysis

The engineering analysis covered all the alternatives and sub-alternatives previously described in Chapter 5. It ends on the engineering capital cost estimation.

The Technical Annex attached to the report was composed of 3 documents, one for each of the options, based on more detailed technical notes and drawings. The main issues are summarised Table 7.4. It included the following items:

General feature of the alternatives

The main characteristics of the alternatives concern :

1. the length
2. number of stops or stations
3. terminals
4. estimated rolling stock
5. estimated total capital costs (including infrastructure and rolling stock)

Table 7.4 below summarises the general features for the alternatives.

Station functions

A schematic presentation is included within the Technical Annex regarding the functionality of the stops or stations for the alternatives, in terms of services supplied :

1. standard
2. connections to other public or private modes
3. terminal ...

All the alternatives are very similar in terms of station functionality. They all ensure appropriate intermodal connections with the existing MÁV or BKV networks, the bus, tram or trolleybus services and the metro lines M2 or and M3.

Impacts on the surface network

The impacts that should be induced by the implementation of the alternative on the surface network were examined, according to two criteria :

1. the physical implementation if the alternative itself requires some reorganisation and possible share of the roadway.
2. the adjoining measures of reorganisation of the public (or private) networks so as to optimise the operation in terms of competition and operating costs.

Construction characteristics

The Technical Annex summarised the possible implementations of the alternative, regarding the construction methods.

Preliminary investigations concerning the physical implementation and the associated construction methods should be refined within the Second stage of the study. Those presented in the Technical Annex allow a consistent comparative cost estimation. Nevertheless, further investigations should tend to optimise the vertical implementation so as to minimise the costs, both on Pest and Buda side:

1. on Pest side, where the implementation is the most expensive,
2. on Buda side, where the physical implementation should be improved.

Option 1 - Surface modes

No specific comment regarding the surface mode improvements.

Option 2 - LRT

LRT alternatives 2.1.1 & 2.1.2 running over Erzsébet bridge, and 2.2.1.a. & 2.2.2.a. running over Szabadság bridge are partly at-grade, partly underground and based on cut and cover methods.

LRT 2.2.1.b. & 2.2.2.b. crossing under the river are considered fully underground, based mainly on cut and cover methods.

Option 3- Metro

Most of the sections of the metro alternatives are considered deep underground, apart from the alternative 3.4 joining the present terminal Déli station of Metro line 2 to Kelenföld station and partly using the existing right-of-way of the MÁV line.

Impact and difficulties of implementation

Specific difficulties or impacts generated during the works are analysed, according to:

1. the construction methods
2. their impacts on the public utility networks
3. their impacts on the public and private transport networks

Depending of course on the physical implementation and construction methods, the level of difficulty varies enormously from one alternative to another.

Option 1 - Surface modes

No specific difficulty is expected due to the type of works, except minor reorganisation of the public utilities networks and of course temporary disruption of the lines concerned by the works. Some measures of traffic management would be required during the works.

Option 2 - LRT

The LRT alternatives 2.1.1. & 2.1.2., running over Erzsébet bridge are considered to generate the most disturbance during the works, with particularly great impacts on:

1. the roadway,
2. the public utilities,
3. the existing pedestrian passages and finally on the public mode organisation, especially the bus family 7 and also the tram services running over Szabadság.

The LRT alternatives 2.2.1.a. & 2.2.2.a., running over Szabadság require first of all a certain level of rehabilitation/reinforcement of the bridge which is currently difficult to properly estimate. In any case, the implementation of the LRT over the bridge will disrupt the tram services from the very beginning of the works and a traffic management scheme would be required as well.

The LRT alternatives 2.2.1.& 2.2.2.(over or under) induce specific public utilities network reorganisation, either on Bartók Béla street or on Fehérvári street.

Option 3 - Metro

The Metro alternatives generate a 'standard' level of impact regarding the public utilities network depending on the construction methods which are generally less important than the LRT alternatives.

It should be noticed nevertheless, that the metro construction depending on the construction methods generate also some disturbances regarding the areas of works, the shaft locations, the earth-moving process and so on.

The alternative 3.4. entails heavy impact on the metro line 2 operation and on MÁV operation. It implies in particular the relocation of the railway terminal of Déli station to Kelenföld and therefore some associated difficulties of implementation and during the works. In addition, refer to Chapter 6, the benefits are poor compared to the high level of estimated capital costs.

Table 7.4 summarises the appreciation of the difficulty of implementation.

Possible phasing

When the alternative or the construction methods possibly allow a phasing, the section and its characteristics are indicated in the Technical Annex, as follows:

Option 1 - Surface modes

The existing mode improvements are considered very flexible and can be possibly phased according to the lines concerned : Bus family 7, Tram line 47 & 49, tram line 4 extension.

Option 2 - LRT

Alternatives 2.1.1. & 2.1.2. can be possibly phased, a first section being Kelenföld to Astoria.

Alternatives 2.2 are short and not appropriate to phase.

Option 3 - Metro

Similarly, it is considered the phasing of short alternatives ending in Astoria is not appropriate (alternatives 3.1.#).

As far as the other alternatives are concerned (alternatives 3.2.# and 3.3.#), a possible first section from Kelenföld to Kálvin Square is feasible and will be analysed in more details during the Stage 2.

The alternative 3.4 from Déli station to Kelenföld is short and is impossible to phase.

Depot location

Two depot locations are envisaged, as follows:

1. One location, essential to operate the planned first section starting from Kelenföld, could be investigated on MÁV land property, south of the terminal at Kelenföld. The cost estimation is around 40 Million ECU.
2. Another one has been envisaged, at Budaörsi út and preliminary estimated to be some 30 Million ECU.

Extension to Budaörs

The extension beyond Kelenföld to Gazdagrét is being considered in any case. Technically, it can be implemented, either elevated or underground. It represents some 2 km length and additional rolling stock to operate ranging from 30 to 35 vehicles. 56 Million ECU of additional civil works is an approximate estimation for the extension in the case of an underground Kelenföld station solution. Further investigation should be carried out during the Second stage of the study.

Table 7.4 summarises the main issues of the engineering analysis

Capital cost estimation

Costs have been estimated for all the alternatives. Rolling stock and infrastructure costs are presented in Table 7.4. In addition, an average capital cost per km allows direct comparison and highlights the lower costs of partly at-grade alternatives.

Table 7.3 summarises for the LRT and Metro capital costs, the breakdown of the most important elements that contribute to three major costs:

1. the deep underground metro civil works contribute to around 55% of the total costs, compared to the 'lower cost' LRT civil works taking some 35 to 45%, depending on the type of works,
2. on the contrary, the metro rolling stock takes around 20% of the total costs and the LRT rolling stock is closer to a 30%,
3. the metro station civil works contribute to more than 55% of the whole civil works, whilst for the LRT station civil works represent a more limited 40 to 50%, depending on the implementation.

Table 7.3 highlights the impact of decision making regarding especially:

1. the rolling stock, in terms of system (LRT or Metro) and in terms of sizing (width and length). It will highly influence the station sizing and therefore the construction capital costs.
2. the construction methods and the related project implementation (deep underground, cut and cover methods etc.).