Appropriate Conditions for Adopting New Public Transit Systems: a Comparative Analysis of Guided Surface Systems

Retour au sommaire

Back to menu

Appropriate conditions for adopting new public transit systems: a comparative analysis of guided surface systems

Jeong-hwa AN ([email protected] / [email protected]) Research Unit : LTN (New Technology Lab.)

lundi 25 octobre 2010

1 Retour au sommaire

Back to menu Outline

• Context • Methodology: ELECTRE III • 6 transit systems • Data collection • Results and Conclusion • Results and Conclusion of Ph.D. dissertation

lundi 25 octobre 2010

2 Retour au sommaire

Back to menu Context

• Choosing and adopting 'a' transportation system among different transit systems is a complex and uneasy work, especially for guided surface transit systems because : • Relatively new transportation mode, • Nearly equivalent services are offered for users, • 'Correct' information is not usually communicated. • Even more crucial considering today’s financial, economical and environmental concerns being repeatedly mentioned. • So, a reasonable and consensual comparison of public transit systems is absolutely necessary and highly desired to find well-adapted ones. • Our research: the attempt to find more comprehensive understanding of surface guided public transit systems from bus-based to rail-based ones.

lundi 25 octobre 2010

3 Retour au sommaire

Back to menu Methodology: ELECTRE III • Transport project: multi-objective task in nature and it doesn’t exist unique solution but several compromises • ELECTRE III: • Multi-Criteria Analysis Method • Outranking method with ‘ﬂou’ concept: • Accept : hesitation, insufﬁcient information, human errors • Strong/weak preference and indifference, incomparability m ⋅ Concordance/Discordance ∑Pj cj (ai ,ak ) − + • j =1 g j (ak ) g j (ai ) p j Cik = m d j (ai ,ak ) = vj − p j Credibility index: ∑Pj • j =1 • Outranking relationship established between two potential actions could be unclear as there are couples seem to be unarguable and very ⎧ ≤ ⎪ C if d j (ai ,ak ) Cik ⎪ ik δik = ⎨ 1− d j (ai ,ak ) ⎪ Cik ∏ if not 4 ∈ 1− C ⎩⎪ j F ik lundi 25 octobre 2010

4 Retour au sommaire

Back to menu 6 Surface Transit Systems

• Guided surface transit systems in French context • Tramway: ex) Citadis • Tramway on tire: Translohr • BHLS or Guided bus : TVR, Civis • 'Trolleybus and Bus'

lundi 25 octobre 2010

5 Retour au sommaire

Back to menu

Tramway: Tramway Transit system Unit Citadis on tire: TVR CIVIS Trolleybus Bus 302 Translohr 750 D/C Power 750 D/C 750 D/C ICE 750 D/C ICE & ICE Height m 3.20 2.89 3.22 3.22 2.90 2.90

Width m 2.40 2.20 2.50 2.55 2.50 2.50

Floor level mm 320 250 290 320 320 340

Min. radius m 25 11.80 12 12.50 12.50 12.50

Max. Gradient % 10 13 13 13 13 13

DKE m 5.85 5.46 6.14 6.80 6.80 6.80

Overall length m 32-33 32 24.50 18 18 18

Unit capacity 4 p/m2 200 170 130 105 105 105

lundi 25 octobre 2010

6 Retour au sommaire

Back to menu Data collection

• Average values if the data come from several cities, if not, ‘representative’ values

Transit systems Cities Tramway Grenoble, Le Mans, Lyon Tramway on tire Clermont-Ferrand (Translohr) TVR Nancy (not 100% seperated lane) CIVIS Rouen Trolleybus Lyon, Limoges Clermont-Ferrand, Grenoble, Bus Lyon

lundi 25 octobre 2010

7 Retour au sommaire

Back to menu Performance matrix

Hourly Urban Local Comfort Capital Operating 2008 Capacity DKE (m) Radius (m) R/W impact pollution (0-10) costs costs (p/h/d) (0-10) (0-10) Tramway 3000 5.85 25.00 9 10 23.80 7.15 9 9 Translohr 2550 5.46 11.80 8 10 21.90 6.90 9 9 TVR 2600 6.14 12.00 5 7 17.10 6.20 6 8 CIVIS 2100 6.80 12.50 4 7 7.20 5.70 5 6 Trolleybus 2100 6.80 12.50 6 5 8.70 5.70 4 9 Bus 2100 6.80 12.50 4 4 6.00 5.53 2 6 Weight 20 5 5 5 15 20 20 5 5 Indifference threshold 5 % 0.50 5.00 1 1 20 % 10 % 2 5 Preference threshold 30 % 1.00 10.00 3 4 40 % 20 % 4 3 Veto threshold 50 % 90 % 50 %

lundi 25 octobre 2010

8 Retour au sommaire

Back to menu Results

Capacity +, Reference Cost +, Ranking Insertion -, Final Ranking Ranking Environment + Comfort + Tramway 1 1 1 1 Translohr 2 2 2 2 TVR 6 3 6 5 CIVIS 4 6 5 5 Trolleybus 5 5 4 4 Bus 3 4 3 3

lundi 25 octobre 2010

9 Retour au sommaire

Back to menu Results

Tramway 6 5 4 Bus 3 Translohr 2 Reference Ranking 1 Cost +, Environment + 0 Capacity +, Insertion -, Comfort + Final Ranking

Trolleybus TVR

CIVIS

lundi 25 octobre 2010

10 Retour au sommaire

Back to menu Results

6,00

4,50

3,00 Reference Ranking Cost +, Environment + 1,50 Capacity +, Insertion -, Comfort + Final Ranking

0 Tramway Translohr TVR CIVIS Trolleybus Bus

lundi 25 octobre 2010

11 Retour au sommaire

Back to menu Conclusion

• When there is an urban transit project to offer a capacity between 2000 and 3000 passenger per hour per direction: • Tramway and Translohr would be the best solution to study first. • Bus is the second and then Bus, Trolleybus, Civis, finally TVR. • In any case, it is reasonable to consider firstly Tramway and Translohr as an appropriate transit system and it is not logical to assume TVR (not 100% seperated) as a suitable transit system. We could also find that the Bus or Trolleybus which are not a kind of BHLS could be a better solution at some context because it improves considerably cost and pollution factors respectively. • The study recently finished shows a little bit different results: • Tramway keeps the first place in general. • Translohr, Civis, TVR, Trolleybus and Bus can have their proper places in some contexts: ex) operating cost priority, frequency priority etc.

lundi 25 octobre 2010

12 Retour au sommaire

Back to menu Ponctuality Operating Insertion capacity Frequency Commercial Largeur Capital costs GEG (gCO2/ 2010 (% de site Reliability Accessibility costs image (p/h/d) (minutes) speed (km/h) (DKE) (m) (M€/km) car·km) propre) (€/km) (0-10)

Tramway 32m 3 000 4 19,5 90 5,85 9 1 27,41 7,24 0 9

Translohr 2 550 4 18 90 5,46 8 1 24,27 7,3 0 9

TVR 2 600 3 16,5 90 6,14 7 1 16,51 6,34 48 7

CIVIS 2 100 3 17,3 80 6,8 8 1 7,42 6,05 480 6

Trolleybus 2 100 3 16,5 70 6,8 9 0 10,1 6,05 0 6

Articulated bus 2 100 3 16 70 6,8 9 0 5,93 5,94 480 5

Weights 50 20 30 20 10 10 10 50 50 25 25

Indifference threshold 10 % 1 10 % 10 % 10 % 1 0 10 % 10 % 15 % 1

Preference threshold 20 % 2 20 % 20 % 20 % 2 1 30 % 20 % 30 % 3

Veto threshold 50 % 50 % 50 % 30 % 50 % 4

lundi 25 octobre 2010

13 Retour au sommaire

Back to menu

2010 Reference Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Number 1 - 4 5 - 8 9 - 12 13 - 16 17 - 20

Capacity (M 2100-3000 5 - 10 10 13 - 25 5 passengers/y) phd Frequency Variable Variable 3 - 4 5 2 (minutes) (3 - 4) (5 - 10) Commercial 16 - 19,5 20 18 25 18 speed (km/h) Distance between 500 500 333 500 333 stops (m) Operating 5,94 - 7,3 6 - 9 9 - 10 11 - 15 6 cost (M€/y)

lundi 25 octobre 2010

14 Retour au sommaire

Back to menu

Reference Criterias Weight 1 Weight 2 Weight 3 weight capacity (p/h/d) 50 50 40 40 Frequency (minutes) 20 20 10 10 Commercial speed (km/h) 30 20 10 10 Performance Ponctuality (% de site 20 30 20 20 Largeurpropre) (DKE) (m) 10 30 20 10 Reliability 10 10 10 10 Accessibility 10 20 10 10 Capital costs 50 40 70 40 Costs Operating(M€/km) costs 50 40 70 40 (€/km) Environnemen GEG (gCO2/car·km) 25 20 20 50 t Insertion image(0-10) 25 20 20 60 Total 300 300 300 300

lundi 25 octobre 2010

15 Retour au sommaire

Back to menu

Autobus

Trolleybus

CIVIS 5 4 TVR 3 2 Translohr 1

Tramway

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Numbers of rank

lundi 25 octobre 2010

16 Retour au sommaire

Back to menu

1! 20! 5! 2! 19! 3! 4! 18! 3! 4! Tramway! 2! 17! 5! Translohr! 1! TVR! 16! 0! 6! CIVIS!

15! 7! Trolleybus! Autobus! 14! 8!

13! 9! 12! 10! 11!

lundi 25 octobre 2010

17 Retour au sommaire

Back to menu Conclusion

• The superiority of the tramway in almost all cases. • TVR and Translohr have the same rank in almost a third of results, so, can be considered as same system. • On contrary, CIVIS is not always so homogeneous in terms of rank that a great caution should be paied by dicision makers when they want to implement it in city's transportation network as one of the solution of transit systems.

lundi 25 octobre 2010

18 Retour au sommaire

Back to menu Conclusion

• In this comparative analysis of guided transportation systems done by using different scenarios and assigning different weights, we found that 'intermediate systems', between tramway and bus, have their own roles to play in the ﬁeld of urban transport which can help TA choose proper systems to meet the need of transportation in their city networks. • Although the traditional tramway occupies a privileged place in most scenarios even assigning different weights, CIVIS, Translohr, TVR and even trolley buses have their place in a particular context based on network conﬁguration, according to the demand level, investment/operating costs level and urban insertion. • These results encouraged us, every time when a surface guided system is desired on a transpottion network, to review whole range of transit systems and to do an analysis applying different constraints such as perfomances things, costs and environmental aspects in order to make the best choice for all city residents as long-term solution.

lundi 25 octobre 2010