sign in sign up
<<
Home , A (S-train), Boulevard Line, E (S-train), Forum Station, Frederiksberg Station, Frederikssundbanen

Analysis of central S- network extension in the Greater Area s134810 Frederik Wrona Holgersen Agenda

1. Introduction

2. Problem statement and learning objectives

3. The S-train network and CBTC

4. The need for a new tunnel

5. Method in RailSys

6. Transport modelling and assignment calculations

7. Results

8. CBA and sensitiviy analyses

9. Recommendations and further investigations

10. Closing and final comments

2 Technical University of 28/1/2020 Introduction Why is an extension of the S-train network investigated?

• The existing central part of the network from Svanemøllen to Dybbølsbro is a bottleneck

• To create shorter travel times between the radial lines in the S-train network

• To attract more passengers to the public transport

• Serve new areas in Copenhagen with S-

3 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Problem statement

•It will be investigated if the implementation of an Express Tunnel will result in a passenger increase and a reduction in travel time for the existing passengers in the public transport network in the Greater Copenhagen Area, and if the tunnel is profitable in a socio-economic analysis.

4 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Learning objectives

• Describe the design of the current public transport network and present upcoming infrastructure extensions in Copenhagen and in the capital region • Analyse the current train service and capacity consumption in the S-train network and evaluate the need for an extension of the infrastructure • Formulate scenarios for the S-train network with the new Express Tunnel • Apply RailSys to model the Express Tunnel and to determine running times with the scenarios and classify advantages and disadvantages with these • Explain the structure in a transport model and apply the Express Tunnel and the scenarios and results from RailSys to it • Analyse and evaluate the results from a transport model and apply them to a socio-economic analysis • Evaluate the profitability of the project together with sensitivity analyses and formulate a conclusion on the project as a basis for decision making

5 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 The S-train network

Favrholm St.

Vinge St.

6 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Fixed blocks vs CBTC

Most critical block determines minimum headway between the trains

Theoretical headway Train occupies is decreased one block

The block ”moves” = moving block

7 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Benefits from CBTC

• Headway between S-trains can be reduced (to approx. 90 seconds)

• The capacity consumption today between Copenhagen Central Station and Svanemøllen exceeds recommended level according to UIC

• With CBTC it is possible to operate more trains via Nørreport – From 30 S-trains per direction per hour to 33-36

8 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Is an extension necessary?

From 2013-2018 38.5% on average of all delayed arrivals were caused by an incident in the central part of the network.

The socio-economic loss from S-train delays is 701 M DKK every year (COWI, 2017).

9 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 The Express Tunnel

10 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Scenario 0 • Timetable S20 with lines and stops

• CBTC in the entire network

• Vinge and Favrholm are added

• Basis year 2030

• Trafikplan 2032 (only minor changes of the S-train network)

• New projects:

o Sydhavnsmetroen

o Ring Syd

o Ring 3

o New regional- and long- distance service

11 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Scenario 1

• Express Tunnel with Vibenshus Runddel and Forum

• Line remains unchanged

• Fast lines via the Express Tunnel

• Stopping lines via the Boulevard Tunnel (Nørreport)

• Bx is changed to K

• Line and K every 10 min

• Line L Åmarken-

• 31 s dwell time at new stations

12 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Scenario 2

• Rigshospitalet is added

• Line network remains unchanged from Scenario 1

• Timetable is adapted to the additional stop

• 31 s dwell time at Rigshospitalet

13 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Timetabling and modelling in RailSys

• New infrastructure with 120 km/h (60 km/h in points)

• Moving block configuration on new infrastructure

• Only turnouts at junctions – no crossovers on the new line!

• Line F keeps the same timetable from S20

• New fast lines (, H and K) are adapted to line F

• New stopping lines are adapted to the fast lines

• New stations are modelled with stop markers and boundaries

• 4th generation S-trains

14 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Public timetable

15 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Graphical timetable Distance Time

Køge Copenhagen Central Station

16 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Remaining bottlenecks

17 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Transport modelling in LTM

• Assumption: The Express Tunnel is opened in 2030

• Data from 2010 is extrapolated to 2030

• Car assignment follows stochastic user equilibrium

• Public transport assignment follows the schedule

• Inheritance-structure of lines and schedules

• Trafikplan 2032 is implemented in LTM

• Inheritance-structure of scenarios

• Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 inherit Trafikplan 2032, but the S-train schedule is changed

• Public transport is divided in different modes (bus, coach, S-trains, metro, RE-trains, IC-trains, local trains and ferries)

18 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Public travel time

Furthermore, if passengers are delayed in public transport, the delay will be a socio-economic loss and apply to the total travel time.

However, no delays occur for public transport in LTM and there is always enough space for everyone in the transport modes!

19 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Public transport interface Data about inhabitants, jobs, - with a small example… car ownership, income etc.

Data about inhabitants, jobs, car ownership, income etc. Centroid/zone 1 (Origin) Rigshospitalet Connector Centroid/zone 2 (Egress time) (Destination) (Hidden waiting time 1) (Hidden waiting time 2) Connector (Access time) Vehicle time 2

Forum (M) Vehicle time 1

Frederiksberg (Waiting time 1) Public change (Changing time) Forum (S) (Waiting time 2)

20 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Results: Capacity consumption

• Neither the Express Tunnel nor the Boulevard Tunnel has a high capacity consumption with the new timetable

• Hellerup-Holte and Dybbølsbro- Hundige exceed UIC max

• Værløse-Farum is still a bottleneck due to the single-track

• The utilisation of and Hellerup is high – it is difficult to schedule new possible train paths

21 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Travel time savings between radials

22 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Stop loads for the new tunnel 8,369 Ydre Ydre Rigs- Indre 836 Østerbro V Nørrebro N hospitalet Østerbro N 3,953 4,030 3,392 12,129 10,954 8,568 3,077 3,389 10,995 Vibenshus 10,022 7,340 0 2,209 Runddel Sc1: 50,512 Sc2: 33,954 Rigs- Indre Changing hospitalet Nørrebro S Accessing and 2,929 egressing passengers passengers 17,360 Rigshospitalet 39,368 Sc2: 60,891

2,144 Indre Ydre Frederiks- Frederiks- 2,044 Nørrebro S Nørrebro V berg Øst N berg Øst Ø 3,297 2,636 2,848 3,108 28,710 10,596 4,744 11,081 3,430 31,803 Forum 0 3,998 10,232 Sc1: 62,793 Sc2: 53,331

23 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Passenger flows in Copenhagen

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

24 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Differential maps for public transport

Nærum Farum Nærum Farum

Hillerødbanen Hillerødbanen

Klampenborg + + Kystbanen Frederikssundbanen

Cityringen M3 Ring 3 light rail Cityringen M3 Ring 3 light rail

Ringbanen Metro + Metro M1+M2

Ring Syd Høje Taastrup Ring Syd + CPH Airport Høje Taastrup CPH Airport to Køgebugtbanen + Vestbanen to Roskilde Køgebugtbanen Vestamager

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Blue links are passenger decreases, red links are passenger increases

25 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Results: Travel time savings

Benefits from public travel time savings Scenario 1 Scenario 2 (2019-level, M DKK, present values)

Total 2,401 3,624

Vehicle time - Existing passengers 3,091 2,365 - New passengers 772 966

Waiting time - Existing passengers 746 447 - New passengers -28 -124 Access and egress time - Existing passengers -1,297 576 - New passengers -329 70 Changing time - Existing passengers -295 -552 - New passengers 128 222 Hidden waiting time - Existing passengers 8 19 - New passengers -1 1 Number of changes (penalty) - Existing passengers -560 -655 - New passengers 164 289

26 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Results: CBA

Results from CBA (2019-level, M DKK, Scenario 1 Scenario 2 present values) Construction costs (incl. 50% reserve) -15,132 -16,313 Scrap value 2,344 2,527

Operation and maintenance costs 633 2,571 Ticket revenue, public transport 627 2,568 Road pricing 6 3

User impacts 2,999 3,483 Travel time savings, road traffic 569 -115 Travel time savings, public transport 2,401 3,483 Driving costs, road traffic 33 -23 Road pricing -5 -4 External impacts 35 33 Accidents 21 20 Noise 5 5 Local air pollution 6 5 Regional air pollution (climate) 3 3 Other impacts -1,641 -2,050 - Taxation consequences -199 -635 - Labour market distortion -1,505 -1,489 - Labour market benefit 63 74 Net present value (NPV) -10,885 -9,870 Internal rate of return (IRR) 0.9% 1.4% Ratio between NPV and the present value from Negative Negative public expenditures

27 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Sensitivity analyses

Sensitivity analyses (2019-level, Scenario 1 Scenario 2 M DKK) IRR IRR Values for travel time savings - High values, +25% 1.1% 1.6% - Low values, -25% 0.7% 1.1% Omission of new passengers 1.0% 1.0% Optimism bias, low and high - Optimism bias 50% 1.0% 1.5% - Optimism bias 80% 0.8% 1.3%

• Optimism bias refers to the uncertainty about the construction costs

• Example: An optimism bias by 80% is applied if the overrun of the costs should be less than 20% (Leleur et al, 2015)

• In this case, a correctional reserve by 57% should be added to the budget estimate if the project is a railway project

• With the bias 50%, only 40% should be added

• Rail projects have an average of 45% overrun (Flyvbjerg et al, 2003)

28 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Conclusion

• CBTC does not solve all problems on the central part of the S-train network or decrease the capacity consumption significantly with skip-stop service • A new tunnel reduces the travel time between north and south significantly and creates an alternative to the existing tunnel • Other bottlenecks will remain in the network • None of the investigated scenarios are socio-economically profitable • Scenario 2 is, however, more profitable than Scenario 1 • The Express Tunnel changes the passenger flows in the public transport network in Copenhagen • The traffic flow on roads is not significantly changed

29 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Recommendations

• More S-trains in the Express Tunnel and via Nørreport – More direct connections = fewer changes – More trains on the different lines = less hidden waiting time • Scenario 2 is preferred

– IRRSc2 > IRRSc1 – Shorter travel time in Scenario 1 is compensated for an additional station and a passenger increase in Scenario 2 • Simulation of timetables in RailSys – Feasible train routes and timetables are not necessarily robust • Investigate other costs and benefits in detail – This project does not concern e.g. nuisances during construction • Broad analysis about the entire S-train network

30 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Further investigations

• S-trains to Helsingør and Roskilde • Other kinds of S-train operation • New line Farum-Allerød (incl. double-track in Farum) • New extensions of the metro and light rail network • Conversion of line F (Ringbanen) to a new central line • Implementation of Nyt Bynet (bus network) in LTM • Modification of local railway network (Hillerød) • Missing stops in railway network: – Regional train stop in Glostrup – Local train stop in Favrholm – Other adjustments

• Most importantly: Automation of S-train and new rolling stock

31 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Closing

• Original idea: o Investigation of four alternatives/scenarios for the Express Tunnel o Other future extensions of the metro network should also be implemented in the analysis o Proposal for Station instead of o More different S-train timetables (skip-stop vs. metro-style) o (Simulation of timetables in RailSys) o Junction at

• Current project: o Investigation of two alternatives/scenarios for the Express Tunnel o Skip-stop service in the S-train network is kept o Future projects are based on Trafikplan 2032 o Junction at Sjælør Station o Broader focus on public transport than car transport o Fewer assignment calculations in LTM as expected due to duration of one assignment run and licence issues o More details about construction costs and uncertainties

32 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Final comments

• Improvements: o Investigation of a different S-train operation with other timetables

o Adaptation of line F to other S-train lines

o More stop nodes to identify changes between S-train lines

o More turnouts and crossovers in the new infrastructure

o Detailed discussion about the timetable in RailSys

o Discussion of benefits from driverless S-train operation

o Improved comparison of S-train profile and metro profile

o Reconstruction of

o Adaptation of other networks to new S-train timetable

o Financing of the Express Tunnel

33 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020 Thank you for your attention!

34 Technical University of Denmark 28/1/2020