|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BUDAPEST METRO LINE 4 FEASIBILITY STUDY Oktober 1996 |
 |
|
Environmental assessment |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The environmental assessment was limited to a preliminary
qualitative assessment. Two main issues are taken into consideration:
Environmental impacts related to noise, AIR Pollution and vibrations
For this comparative stage of the study, it is assumed
that :
Environmental impacts related to the urban fabric.
A preliminary site reconnaissance had been performed,
so as to assess the urban fabric and the impact on the historical
heritage and urban facilities.
The site reconnaissance concerns mainly the following
streets, avenues and squares, namely:
Option 1 - Surface modes
The existing situation should be worsened, due to
higher frequency of buses and tram and the related 'visual' intrusion.
Option 2 - LRT
The LRT Erzsébet alternatives 2.1 generate
the worst impacts: they would interfere with protected areas of
historical heritage, in terms of visual intrusion and poor urban
integration in the city centre. They would partly demolish some
buildings at Kossuth Lajos út especially. Even if some
arcades are provided to improve the implementation, urban severance
would be high.
The LRT over Szabadság alternatives 2.2.1.a
and 2.2.2.a would induce impacts mainly in crossing over the bridge.
They impact could be appreciated as either positive or negative,
depending on the architectural integration and adjoining measures.
Option 3 - Metro This option should not generate any direct impact on the urban fabric. Future demand forecastIntroduction
A description of long list alternatives and the process
of short listing was discussed in Chapter 6. The long list alternatives
were examined according to the transport and economic criteria
defined in Chapter 6, the engineering and preliminary environmental
criteria described in Chapters 7 and 8. From that long list,
the short listed alternatives being evaluated in the course of
the detailed assessment were as follows: Alternative 1.3 Overall improvement of existing surface modes Alternative 2.2.1.a LRT via Bartók to Astoria over Szabadság Alternative 2.2.2.a LRT via Fehérvári to Astoria over Szabadság Alternative 3.3.1 Metro via Bartók/Rákóczi to Keleti Alternative 3.3.2 Metro via Fehérvári/ Rákóczi to Keleti
Alternative 3.3.3 Metro via Tétényi/
Rákóczi to Keleti
Construction and calibration of the base transport
model of Budapest was discussed in Chapter 3 of this report.
The forecasting process builds upon the base transport model.
For the purposes of forecasting, the base network is updated
based on planned improvements and according to the alternative
specified. The base demand matrix is factored based upon assumptions
in the growth of passenger demand within the corridor of interest.
This chapter reports on the work undertaken and the assumptions made to produce the future demand forecasts for this study. Components of the forecasting processThe future level of patronage on a transport facility is related to two principal factors: passenger demand and future transport networks, as follows: Passenger demandUrban planning factors
These factors reflect projections of population,
employment and commercial activity for the medium and long term.
Based on these factors a number of projections of the growth
in passengers have been developed. For the purposes of this study
one central case was taken forward based on an acceptable and
reasonable population and employment forecast and planned development
proposals in the corridor of interest. The projection used detailed
planning within the study area. For other areas, the information
provided is at District level. It is to be noted that the degree of certainty which can be attached to the Budapest Master Plan policies and proposals has proved at this stage to be less robust than was anticipated at the study outset. In addition, it has been confirmed as one of the outcomes from our studies that a far closer integration between land use planning and development and public transport systems proposals will be required within the Southwest Corridor than presently exists if the preferred option for system improvement (whether Metro or an alternative scheme) is to be fully supported, consistent with Master Plan and Transport Development Plan objectives. Population
The initial population forecasts produced anticipated
that population levels would decrease by some 15% between 1994
and 2020. This forecast was based on the assumption that current
high mortality rates would continue, such that average life expectancy
was forecast to rise very slowly, by about 2.9 years over the
30 years from 1990 to 2020.
This assumption has been carefully examined and average
life expectancy data in 10 'Western' European countries since
the 1950's has been reviewed. This shows that those countries
in Northern Europe have typically increased their life expectancies
by 5-7 years and Southern European countries by some 10 years.
Given an expanding economy and subsequent membership of the EU,
it is postulated that life expectancy in Hungary will increase
in a similar fashion.
Furthermore other independent data and analysis obtained
from other sources providing Budapest and Agglomerations population
forecasts to 2020 shows that population levels are forecast to
remain constant over time.
Population forecasting is obviously an area of debate,
but for the purposes of this project, it has been assumed that
population levels in Budapest will remain constant over time.
Population forecasts at a detailed level have therefore been produced
and then controlled to an overall zero growth rate for Budapest,
as follows:
The resultant population forecasts are summarised
in Table 9.1 below. The study area population total is shown
to decline slightly over time, but with District XI increasing
by up to 10% by year 2020.
* South West Rural Areas include
Érd, Budaörs, Budakeszi, Törökbálint
and Diósd. Employment
Central Statistical Office employment data and information
on commuting patterns have been used to derive base year (1994)
employment levels by District. The District XI employment has
been disaggregated to City Planning Unit (CPU) levels (42 CPUs
in total) based upon the residential employment within each CPU.
This assumes that a CPU with a high level of residential employment
will also have a high level of commuting. Future year employment
levels are estimated by applying growth rates to the base year
employment level as follows:
Forecasts which were taken forward to the demand
forecasting stage were produced for 2020 for a central growth
scenario. Resultant employment forecasts are summarised in Table
9.2 below. An overall decline in total employment numbers for
Budapest is anticipated of some 8% by 2020. In District XI however,
employment is forecast to increase by up to 22% by year 2020 based
on the development potential identified, discussed later in this
chapter.
* South West Rural Areas include Erd, Budaörs,
Budakeszi, Törökbálint and Diósd.
Development Potential in the study area
In addition to the likely influences of prospective
EU membership, an expanding economy and gradually increasing life
expectancy as identified above, a number of other key factors
are relevant to any consideration of employment/population forecasts
for the study area and have been taken into account in the preparation
of the future year scenario. Within the South West corridor these
include:
Increased travel activity resulting from economic growth
In addition to the forecast growth in population
and employment based on urban planning and development assessments,
the growth in the economy, its relation to car ownership, overall
increase in trip rates and possible increase in public transport
trips were also considered. The composite growth rate used for
forecasting future Public Transport growth therefore takes into
account both planning and economic growth assumptions.
In order to assist us determine the economic component
of the overall growth rates we have undertaken a review of research
studies into the relationship between the growth in public transport
trips and economic growth, in this case growth in GDP; and the
relationship between growth in public transport trips and car
ownership. Our observations of the research from work in different
countries is that the ranges of elasticity concluded from these
studies are wide and indeed at times conflicting. It is not clear
whether the differences are due to the stages of economic growth
in the specific countries or other local issues. Our conclusion
from this review was that there was no definitive relationship
which could be applied to Budapest with confidence.
We therefore approached the issue based on our knowledge
of overall growth/decline in public transport patronage in major
cities together with the expressed policies of the Budapest municipality
to maintain and further improve the existing modal share in favour
of public transport within the context of increasing car ownership.
Our analysis of the historic trend in public transport
patronage in Budapest showed that following a period of decline,
patronage has stabilised since 1992/93 and has been relatively
constant over the past two years. This is shown in Figures 9.3
and 9.4. Based on our knowledge and experience of other major
cities and discussions with the study's steering committee we
have made the assumption, for assessment purposes, that the component
of the public transport patronage growth, which is attributable
to the increase in travel activity resulting from economic growth,
will result in trip levels remaining stable at study's base year
(1994) level. Hence, the growth in patronage is directly related
to the growth in population and employment levels.
 Summary of overall growth rates
Table 9.3 hereafter shows the resulting overall travel
demand growth rates based on the above assumptions together with
the forecast trip ends for Budapest, at District level. Passenger growth cut offFor the purposes of this study, it is assumed that patronage growth beyond 2020 is negligible and therefore the growth in passenger demand is assumed to cease at 2020. The economic growth however is assumed to continue, the effects of which will be reflected in the economic benefits of the scheme throughout the assessment period. This is explained in more detail in Chapter 10. Conversion of all day to peak hour demand
For system design and operating analysis passenger
flow data, and in particular link loadings, need to be expressed
in peak hour flows per direction. As the modelling work is based
on all day demand matrices, peak hour flows are not the standard
output of the model and the model output needed to be converted
to peak hour per direction. Our analysis of the relationship
between peak direction flows to all day two-way flows established
a general factor for converting two-way daily passenger flows
to peak passenger flows per direction in the corridor.
Based on observed work peak and daily flows, we adopted
conversion factors of 6% for bus and tram modes and 7% for LRT
and metro modes to convert all day two way flows to peak hour
peak direction passenger flows.
Transport networksThe transport demand matrix is assigned to the Do Minimum network and each alternative network and comparison of alternatives is made against the Do Minimum scenario as the benchmark case. The networks were developed as follows: Do Minimum network
For the purposes of this study, the Do Minimum case is defined
as the existing network plus the committed public transport improvements
which are planned during the assessment period. Although a number
of plans for improvements to the city's public transport system
are available, there is no authoritative programme which can be
considered as a reliable programme of improvements or one which
have been endorsed by a city or national constitutional authority.
In the light of the above our assumptions with regard to the Do
Minimum scenario was based on the following three main categories:
These are described below:
The only committed improvement in the corridor which could be
realistically considered and included in the modelling process
was the World Bank funded programme of tram track rehabilitation.
It was not possible to obtain details of exact improvements to
be undertaken over the whole city beyond the end of 1996. We
understand that no fixed plan exists and that plans for improvements
are drawn up on an annual basis for the following year. However
plans for 1996 by fortunate coincidence concentrate on the
south west corridor and these improvements are certain to be implemented
particularly as the work on the majority of these planned improvements
had already started in July 1996. These were the only improvements
which were added as real committed improvements to the base network
to produce the basis of the working assumptions with regard to
the Do Minimum scenario.
These improvements include complete rehabilitation of the tram
track over a 3 km length of Fehérvári út
from Bocskai út/Október 23 út southbound
(which is used by tram routes 18, 41 and 47) and rehabilitation
of tram tracks on Irinyi József, Petöfi bridge, Ferenc
krt and József krt to Blaha Square (which is used by tram
routes 4 and 6). These improvements are assumed to improve tram
speeds by 10% on the rehabilitated sections.
Following discussions with the municipality, BKV and local experts,
it has become clear that Szabadság bridge has significant
structural weaknesses and it is unlikely that the bridge will
be able to accommodate the two tram routes 47 and 49 for any significant
length of time. It is envisaged that strengthening of the bridge
will be implemented by 2005 if there was no prospect of the new
system becoming operational by that year. 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
river crossings is not considered a realistic long term solution.
Following discussions with the study's Steering Committee, it has been assumed that as highway congestion in Budapest increases, in the Do Minimum case, public transport vehicle speeds will decline by up to 20% over the next 25 years. This proportion is comparable with other major cities in particular with public transport vehicle speeds in London, where a similar reduction was observed between the early 1970's and early 1990's. Alternative networks
Modelled networks were set up compatible with outline engineering
plans for alternatives being assessed. Assumptions with regard
to the alternatives tested are listed below:
For this alternative, it is assumed that there will be 'Super-Tram'
type segregation of tram routes 47 and 49 from other highway vehicles
which results in full segregation from the majority of other highway
vehicles but not pedestrians. It is also assumed that on routes
47 and 49, new rolling stock will replace existing stock to improve
speed, capacity and the general image of the tram services.
Tram stops will remain in the same locations but will be reconstructed
to allow more than one tram trainset boarding and alighting at
one time.
For buses, it is assumed that bus lanes (painted lanes and with
physical kerbs where existing highway geometry permits) will be
introduced coupled with junction signal priority.
Overall it is assumed that the combined effect of the above public
transport prioritisation segregation and new tram rolling stock
will be a reversing of the effect of congestion on the public
transport vehicle speeds plus a further improvement of speeds
by 5% - i.e. a total improvement of surface public transport speeds
in the corridor of 25% compared with the speeds in the Do Minimum
scenario in 2020.
Specification of these options and stations are as described in
Chapter 5 of this report. They are assumed to be fully segregated,
fully signalised with average commercial speeds of 28 kph.
For network development of LRT and Metro options, particular attention
was paid to connections with the major existing services in the
corridor. Where existing services could physically be connected
to the new modes (to act as major feeders) these were incorporated
in the model to ensure good network connectivity and interchange
facilities onto the new modes.
The rationalisation of tram services were based on physical possibilities.
For the LRT options running over Szabadság bridge, tram
routes 18 and 19, which serve only Buda, were replaced with a
bus service, providing a similar level of service. The tram services
would not be able to continue as they would have had to share
the track space with the new modes along Bartók Béla
út on the approach to Szabadság bridge. Tram route 49 was terminated completely and route 47 was terminated at Móricz Zsigmond Körtér as they were in direct competition with the new mode and served the same catchment area. It was not necessary to undertake a detailed reorganisation exercise for all the services in the corridor as this would be rather academic at this stage. Furthermore there is no benefit in undertaking such an exercise as the assessment of the operating cost savings for existing bus and tram services are based on passenger kilometres which assumes optimum rationalisation based on utilisation and demand for public transport services. Assessment of operating cost savings is explained in detail in Chapter 10. Generated demand
As public transport travel conditions (reflected
in the generalised cost of travel for each O-D pair) vary in the
different alternatives and for different catchment areas it would
be expected that the number of public transport trips would change
accordingly. This effect has been modelled using an "elasticised
matrix" methodology applying a generalised cost elasticity
of -1.0 to each O-D pair. Thus, for example if an alternative
reduces the generalised cost (relative to the Do Minimum) for
a given O-D movement by 10% the model will show an increase in
the public transport trips for that movement of +10% and vice-versa.
The generalised cost elasticity value of -1.0 is
based on considerable international evidence of how public transport
patronage is affected by changes in the attractiveness (measured
by generalised cost values) of the system. This value encompasses
the full range of responses that affect public transport trip
making, e.g. diversion from car (as driver or passenger) diversion
from walk or cycle and pure generation or induced trips. Table
9.4 shows a summary of estimated generated trips per day in 2020
for each alternative. Obviously those alternatives which have
the largest effect upon the generalised cost has the greatest
amount of generated trips.
Our assumptions with regard to the proportion of the generated
passengers which transfer from private vehicle mode to public
transport is 30% of total trips generated. This proportion assumes
good interchange and Park and Ride facilities and reflects the
expressed policies of Budapest Municipality with regard to restraint
measures in general. Furthermore, it was assumed that the switch from private to public mode will result in corresponding relief on the highway network in the corridor which in addition to providing benefits to private car users will also result in an increase in public transport vehicle speeds. Our analysis has shown that the effect of the above on passenger forecasts for the new mode and sub-modal split is negligible. However, these effects have been incorporated in the study so that the benefits from them could be included in the economic assessments. Private vehicle trips growth forecasts
We estimated the growth in private vehicle trips
in Budapest and in particular for the area approximately within
the second ring road in Pest and its natural continuation in Buda
(i.e. Bocskai út, Október 23 út, Irinyi József
út, Petöfi bridge, Ferenc Krt, József Krt.,
Erzsébet krt., Terez krt, Szt. Istvan krt, Margit krt,
Krisztina krt, Alkotas út and Budaörsi út).
Our underlying assumption with regard to the growth in private
vehicle trips in Budapest is that it is a function of car ownership
growth. A number of methods were tested for forecasting car ownership
including:
1. based on District level data and 2. based on aggregated data for the whole of Budapest
Our analysis led us to work with the results of the
econometric method which were considered as the most realistic
of the methods tested. This results in an average car ownership
growth of 1.5% per annum for the whole of Budapest. In the central
area as outlined above, the growth in private vehicle trips is
assumed to be around 50% of the aggregate car ownership growth
for the whole of Budapest which represents an average composite
growth rate of 0.75% per year. Figure 9.5 summarises the adopted car ownership forecasts.
 Overall passenger forecasts
Tables 9.7 and 9.9 (refer to the end of the paragraph
9.8), present a summary of the 2020 two-way daily forecast passenger
flows on the key sections of the network.
All LRT and metro alternatives provide significant
relief to the existing public transport services within the corridor
in particular on Erzsébet bridge where the relief is estimated
as between 55% to 63% (4,000 to 5,000 passengers) during the peak
hours in the peak direction mainly relieving the family 7 bus
routes which compete with the LRT and metro services for trips
of similar origin and destination. On Petöfi bridge relief
of between 2,000 to 2,800 passengers (28% to 41%) is expected
as a result of competition with tram routes 4 and 6.
The maximum loads of the LRT and metro services are
expected to occur at the Danube crossing where they are expected
to carry some 22,000 passengers during the peak hour in the peak
direction or between 300,000 and 320,000 passengers in both directions
per day. The current (1994) maximum load on the busiest existing
metro line (line 3) is some 14,000 in the peak hour peak direction
and 195,000 both directions per day.
Table 9.5 summarises the total passengers (boardings)
on a new LRT or metro system, they are expected to range between
around 420,000 (LRT via Bartók Béla) to some 515,000
(metro via Fehérvári) per day.
Catchment area analysis
Finally, a pair-wise comparative analysis of the
areas and population and employment served by each metro alignment
was undertaken as a part of the short list assessment (LRT alignments
being considered are identical to two of the metro alignments).
This analysis is summarised in Table 9.8 and. It is evident
that all alternatives serve identical catchment areas up to and
including Móricz Zsigmond Körtér, beyond which
(south and Southwest bound) the alignments take different routes.
* All data is for the part of alignment within Buda only.
Table 9.8. Year 2020 forecast passenger flows on key sections of the network (Peak Hour Peak Direction passenger flows)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||