An Instrument to Compare Urban Public Transport Systems Using Transportational, Environmental and Social Criteria

Home , Public transport, RandstadRail, Transport

What is the best public transport system? An instrument to compare urban public transport systems using transportational, environmental and social criteria

J.T.A. van der Loop^ & G.C. de Jong^ 1: Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Transport Research Centre (AW), The Netherlands, P.O. Box

2: Hague Consulting Group, The Netherlands.

Abstract

Plans to improve urban public transport systems are currently developed in many urban areas in the Netherlands by local authorities. Until now these projects are financed largely by the national government. Several public transport systems (eg. busway, light rail) can possibly contribute to the solution of existing problems. These systems may have very different costs and benefits, and every local situation can have different characteristics. To facilitate and improve the proces of decisionmaking, an instrument has been developed which makes it possible to compare alternative solutions for specific projects. Results of studies applying this instrument are presented.

1 Introduction

Because of an increasing demand for transport and a decline of the accessibility of urban areas by car, plans are developed in several urban areas in the Netherlands for the improvement of public transport to be an alternative for car use. To improve public transport, several systems are possible, eg. tram, light-rail, Guided Light Transit (GLT), electronically guided bus, (mechani- cally) guided bus or buses on free infrastructure (busway). These systems can have different consequences on travel conditions for passengers, on the costs for central and local authorities and for public transport companies, on environmental and safety aspects, on the spatial and economic development of urban areas, etc.. To facilitate comparison of these different systems on those criteria for a specific project, an instrument has been developed. We start with a description of the formal decisionmaking process with respect to infrastructure plans. Next, a description will be given of the

206 Urban Transport and the Environment for the 21st Century

instrument as developed. Furthermore, results will be presented from three studies carried out recently to improve public transport: a network of public transport in Eindhoven, a corridor south of Amsterdam and the corridor between The Hague to Rotterdam. Finally, the work we are carrying out at the moment will be described. The focus of this will be on the inclusion not only of more conventional systems such as regional train, metro and shared taxi in the instrument, but also of a set of automated people movers.

2 The process of decisionmaking

The formal process of decisionmaking about transport infrastructure including public transport infrastructure has been laid down in the Long-term

Programma of Infrastructure and Transport (MIT) and is structured in three phases: exploration of the problem, study and development of a plan and realisation. In the Netherlands, local and regional authorities are in the position to develop plans and submit them to this process of decisionmaking.

Decisions about substantial financial contributions to the larger projects of public transport infrastructure are taken at a central level. The instrument for comparing public transport systems is developed for use as a tool in this process of decisionmaking. In this process not only authorities at different levels, but also public transport companies, experts and others play a role. During the first phase (exploration of the problem) a decision is made to study the problem, the causes and possible solutions. The study area or corridor of interest is defined.

During the second phase a detailed study takes place and plans are developed, comprising the following steps. After making a list of the possible measures to solve the problem, fore- casts are made of the effects of these measures. This requires network design, simulations with a transport model to assess the likely substitution from car to public transport and an estimation of the operating and investment costs. To realise substitution, in general an integrated package of measures is necessary, including not only measures to improve public transport, but also measures such as town planning, parking policy, traffic pricing, etc.. Secondly, public transport systems can be compared with each other as alternative solutions to the problem. For this purpose the instrument as developed can be used. Application of this instrument requires data which are described in the preceding step. The policy of the central government is to move responsibilities for this step in the future from central to regional and local authorities. Thirdly, a comparison can be made between different projects of infrastructure at a central level. For this purpose another instrument has been developed some years ago (PIOV, a model to compare investments in public transport). Many data gathered in the two preceding steps can also be used to apply PIOV to compare the results of different projects with each other.

Urban Transport and the Environment for the 21st Century 207

After these steps, in the second phase of development of a plan the project can be studied in further detail. Next, a decision can be taken about the implementation and realisation of the project.

3 The instrument to compare public transport systems

The instrument is available in the form of a user-friendly PC program, that national, regional and local authorities can use*. In the instrument several public transport systems (up to 8-10 in a single evaluation) can be compared in a systematic way. The final main outcome of the instrument is a ranking of public transport systems: which is the best one for a particular area/corridor from a societal point of view, which one comes second, etc.? For every system there is also a quantitative outcome: the success probability

(the chance of being better than another system), which is in the range [0,1].

Table 1. Criteria used in for comparing public transport systems

impacts on costs and rev- regional environmental administrative travellers enues impacts impacts impacts

-travel times -investment -space con- -emissions -technical -travel cost cost sumption -noise complexity -probability of -operating cost -barrier effect -visual effect -flexible having a seat -revenues -impact on -traffic safety expansion of distribution of -punctuality capacity -comfort employment -construction -safety in pub- and population in phases lic transport -disruption -response to -image during con- emergencies struction -exclusion of future options

The main part of the instrument is a multicriteria analysis; a partial cost- benefit analysis serves as an input to the multicriteria analysis. The criteria used in both analyses are listed in Table 1. The selection of which criteria to include was based on the objectives completeness and avoidance of double-counting, and on the constraints imposed by the available data. The criterium scores for each public transport system in a particular case can be inserted on the basis of local knowledge, but for most criteria default scores can also be used. Some of the criteria are expressed in monetary terms (changes in travel cost for travellers, revenues for public transport companies, operating cost, investment cost). For other criteria (travel time changes) generally accepted monetary conversion factors exist\ Both groups of criteria are included in a cost-benefit analysis. The outcome of this, using a 30 year planning horizon, is one of the criteria in the multicriteria analysis.

Most other criteria are expressed in the form of rankings: on criterium X,

208 Urban Transport and the Environment for the 21st Century

tram scores better than GLT, which scores better than busway, etc.. The method used in the multicriteria analysis is the 'regime-method', which can take into account both quantitative and qualitative criteria, and which can handle either quantitative or ordinal criterium weights^. A default set of weights for the criteria has been defined, based on interviews with policymakers and experts. The interviews showed a remark- able degree of agreement on the relative importance of the various factors that play a role in decisionmaking on public transport systems. The Ministry of Transport is considering to use a fixed standard set of weights for its own evaluation of investment projects. In this set of weights, operating and investment costs will be relatively important. Local or regional authorities using the program can also define their own (quantitative or qualitative) weights, if they think this can be justified in their specific situation.

4 Case-study: improving public transport in Eindhoven

In the Eindhoven region in the south of the Netherlands, local public transport is carried out by (diesel)buses, using busways with exclusive rights- of-way in some smaller parts of the network and having priority at most traffic lights. The long term plans envisage a high-quality public transport network with mostly segregated infrastructure and modern equipment on eight main axes. The case study concerns a comparison of the following alternatives to the present dieselbus system: dieselbus with 50% of the distance travelled on busways, dieselbus with 85% on busways, GLT with guidance for 85% of the distance travelled, light rail and electronically guided buses with guidance on 85% of the distance travelled. We assumed that busways and guideways would first be constructed in those parts of the networks where they are most effective. The application of the above- described instrument is primarily based on data supplied locally. Table 2 provides a summary of the main inputs and outputs.

Continuing the present system (dieselbuses, few busways) appears to be worse for society than introducing high quality public transport with separated infrastructure in most parts. A 50% busway system is an even worse choice: it requires substantial investments, but attracts not many new travellers. The ratio of revenues to operating and investment costs is unfavourable, even for the alternatives with 85% or more separate infrastructure. Large efforts are needed to decrease the number of car travellers in the study area by 5% (from 903,000 to 859,000 per day). Public transport usage increases by 88% (from 50,000 to 94,000 travellers per day) because of substitution. The benefits and disbenefits of introducing high quality public transport are unequally distributed: the extra costs are largely borne by central government and to a lesser degree by public transport companies; most of the benefits are for households and firms, not for government or public transport companies.

Urban Transport and the Environment for the 21st Century 209

Table 2. Comparison of systems on 9 out of 26 criteria (Eindhoven)

alternatives bus bus GLT light rail present bus 85% 85% 85% 100% dieselbus 50% bus- electr. guided separate system bus- criteria way guided track way

costs 0 -investment (mln of 63 70 82 88 45 guilders per year) -operation (mln of 105 107 112 120 69 123 guilders per year)

impact on travellers -travel time (mean 29 29 29 29 36 34 journey time) -punctual (ranking)* 2 2 2 1 4 3 -comfort (ranking) 3 2 2 1 5 4 -image (ranking) 4 3 2 1 6 5

environment -emissions (ranking) 3 1 2 1 5 4 -noise (ranking) 2 2 2 1 4 3

impact on employment and population no no no no no no distribution

total (ranking based 1 2 3 4 5 6 on all criteria)

intermediate outcomes:

-car travellers -5% -5% -5% -5% 0% -3%

-public transport +88% +88% +88% +88% 0% +56% patronage

-ratio of revenues to operating cost 36% 35% 34% 31% 31% 26% -ratio of revevues to operating and invest- 22% 21% 16% 18% (31%) 19%

ment costs All rankings: 1 represents the best score tor society, L is me second-best, etc.

The best alternative in this case-study is 85% busway. Electronically guided bus is second-best. It has better scores for emissions and image than the 85% busway, but this is not sufficient to compensate the extra investment costs. Separate infrastructure turns out to be an essential characteristic of high-quality public transport in the Eindhoven region. A similar result was obtained in the case-study for a corridor to the south of Amsterdam (from

210 Urban Transport and the Environment for the 21st Century

Haarlem via Schiphol/Amsterdam Airport to Weesp). Here too, alternatives which have a largely separated infrastructure (busway, guided bus, light rail) clearly dominated, with busway again as the best alternative from a societal viewpoint. The insights gained from such application are not only relevant for the choice between the alternatives studied, but also for adjusting existing plans. The applications mentioned for instance suggest that 'heavier' public transport systems can be justified more easily if more car restraint policies are executed. They also suggest that it may be worthwhile to search for cost reductions in the construction and operation of these heavier systems.

5 A case of urban regional transport: RandstadRail

RandstadRail is a plan to link public transport in Rotterdam (besides buses: tram and metro) and The Hague (besides buses: tram) and the regional train system. Several alternatives, all referring to the year 2010, have been studied: a reference scenario, optimal use of the existing networks (higher frequencies, integration of time tables) and the physical linking of systems (a RandstadRail vehicle which runs on different types of infrastructure, which reduces the number of interchanges considerably). The study focussed on comparing several variants of physical linking, eg. tram in The Hague and Rotterdam or metro in both, against each other and against the other two scenarios. The investment costs are in the range 2-7 billion guilders. The evaluation instrument as described in section 3 and applied in section

4 was changed somewhat, so that it could be used to deal with available data for this study. A cost-benefit analysis as described in section 3 was not carried out; all criteria (20 in this application, including one monetary criterium for operating and investment cost minus revenues and 19 non- monetary criteria) were inserted directly into the multicriteria analysis. The interested parties (Rotterdam, The Hague, regional government, national govermment) all defined 1-4 sets of weights, which were used in a sensitiv- ity analysis. Also several variants were used for the matrix of criterium scores (the inputs). An example of an input matrix with provisional criterium scores is given in Table 3. Apart from a multicriteria analysis, a cost-effectiveness analysis was carried out. In this exercise, first the success probabilities of the alternatives on the basis of multicriteria analyses using all 19 non-monetary criteria were established. These were divided by the net annual costs (investment cost plus operating costs minus the revenues). The outcome is in terms of effect per guilder. The outcomes showed that sets of weights in which costs are relatively important are favourable for the scenarios without physical linking. An example of such an outcome is given in Table 3 (bottom rows). Sets of weights in which quality aspects (eg. accessibility, safety, comfort) are relatively important will sooner lead to a choice for the more expensive

Urban Transport and the Environment for the 21st Century 211

Table 3. Example of comparison of alternatives on 20 criteria (RandstadRail; based on provisional data)

alternatives refer- optimal physical physical physical ence use of linking: linking: linking: existing tram tram + new criterium networks metro metro

accessibility (persons that can 0 36,222 133,722 156,911 178,474 be reached within 60 minutes from various locations)* punctuality* 0 0 _ _ + __ regularity* 0 0 _ +

image* 0 — 0 ++ + safety in public transport* 0 0 _ + ++ _ public safety at stations* 0 + 0 0

impact on employment and 0 + ++ +++ +++ population distribution* noise* 0 0 + + ++

energy use (reference=100)^ 100 100 130 140 140 disruption during construction* 0 0 _ __

space consumption* 0 0 __ _ 0

investment costs + operating 0 81.8 181.0 172.5 349.7 costs - revenues (mln guilders per year)^ comfort (in vehicle)* 0 0 — _ +

comfort (boarding)* 0 0 + 0 + visual effect* 0 - — _ 0 impact on other traffic 0 - - + ++ (including safety)* technical complexity* __ _ 0 0 — exclusion of other options* 0 0 + ++ +++ _ flexible expansion of capacity* 0 0 + ++ realisation time* 0 - — — —

outcome: ranking using extre- 1 2 4 3 5 mely high weights for costs (costs-revenues at 50%)^

outcome: ranking using extre- 2 4 5 3 1 mely high weights for quality (costs-revenues at 18%) nigner means better lor society 2: higher means worse for society

212 Urban Transport and the Environment for the 21st Century

physical linking alternatives. Table 3 also contains an example of such an outcome. In other words: the discussion moved from often vague preferences for one system over another, to questions on prioritising political objectives. Also in a number of cases the ranking turned out to be insensitive to a change in weights and especially a change in criterium scores. Many possibly very time-consuming discussions could therefore be avoided, because they would not affect the final outcome (the choice of alternative).

6. Inclusion of automated people movers in the instrument

The supply of automated people mover systems is very heterogeneous (it includes for example automated metro, cable shuttles and personal rapid transit) and evolving very quickly. Local and regional authorities in the Netherlands have difficulty in getting an idea of the potential usefulness of people movers and in how to include automated people movers in their decisionmaking process and in applications for funding from central government. At the moment Hague Consulting Group together with RIGO is carrying out a project for the Dutch Ministry of Transport to include automated people movers in the instrument for comparing public transport systems. It was decided to offer two ways in which regional, local and national authorities might use the new instrument. The first way of using it is mainly relevant in the exploration phase of the decisionmaking process (see section 2). In this stage local information is not abundant, and default values will be provided for the criteria in the cost-benefit and multicriteria analyses. The only information needed is modal split in the reference case, network length and the likely travel time change which is due to the introduction of a new public transport system. For this type of application the user can choose to include standard systems in the evaluation from a list with 9 conventional systems (ranging from shared taxi to regional train) and 3 classes of automated people movers (automated bus/tram/metro, cable shuttle and personal rapid transit). The outcomes should be regarded as indications, which can be used in the decision which alternatives to include in a more detailed study, as part of the second phase of the decisionmaking process. The other way of using the new instrument will be more relevant in this second phase. Here a user can define his/her own public transport systems, and fill in the matrix of criterium scores based on locally available information (offers from suppliers, runs with a local or regional transport model, etc.). The new instrument can be used for the choice between public transport systems operating as the main mode of a journey (eg. bus, light rail, automated bus/tram/metro) as well as for systems operating as access/egress modes (eg. bus, shared taxi, cable shuttle, personal rapid transit). In the latter case input is needed about the impact of introducing a new access- egress system on the choice of main mode (eg. public transport versus car).

Urban Transport and the Environment for the 21st Century 213

7 Conclusions

The main objective of the instrument for comparison of public transport systems is to provide a clear and systematic overview of the pros and cons of various alternatives to the parties which are involved in decisionmaking. This can simplify the decisionmaking process, but also lead to a better final result. The design of the instrument is such that every organisation that plays a role in the planning of investment projects can make use of it, either at an earlier or later stage in the decisonmaking process. Application studies carried out so far have revealed that the instrument can help to narrow down the range of alternatives that are worth considering and to change the focus of the discussion towards defining political priorities. These applications also make clear what the weaknesses of the various transport systems are, and where improvements can be most effective. The transport systems that provide the highest quality transport (eg. light rail) can only become the best system if many travellers choose public transport, which can be stimulated by policy mesasures aiming at car users.

Acknowledgements

The instrument to compare urban public transport systems was developed for the Transport Research Centre of the Dutch Ministry of Transport by Hague Consulting Group, assisted by RIGO, Eurotransport Consult and other experts. Development of this instrument took place at the request of the Directoraat-Generaal voor het Vervoer (DGV) and the Regionale Directies of the Dutch Ministry of Transport.

References

1. Hague Consulting Group Openbaar vervoertechnieken voor middel- grote stedelijke agglomeraties: Inventarisatie en toetsingskader, HCG The Hague, 1995.

2. Hague Consulting Group The Netherlands "Value of Time" Study: Final Report, HCG, The Hague, 1990.

3. Hinloopen, E. & Nijkamp, P. Qualitative multiple criteria choice

analysis: The Dominant Regime method, Quality & Quantity 1990 37-56.