LRT and tram and light rail development in Eastern European cities: dreams and reality

Tram and Light Rail Developments in Eastern European Cities Orosz - Princz-Jakovics - Bocz

European Transport Conference 2011 - Glasgow SessionTitle:

Local Public Transport - ROBERT THOMSON, SCOTTISHVISIONARY - LRT and/or BRT, Monday 10th October 2011

Tram and Light Rail Developments in Eastern European

Cities:

Dreams and Reality

Authors: Csaba OROSZ (PhD) Associate Professor, BME MSc in

Civil Engineering,

Tibor PRINCZ-Jakovics (PhD) Senior Lecturer, BME MSc in Civil

Engineering

Péter BOCZ (PhD) Senior Lecturer, BME MSc in Civil Engineering

European Transport Conference 2011, October 10-12 – Glasgow, Scotland

1


Table of contents1 INTRODUCTION. EXAMPLES FOR THE SKOPJE TRAM. 42 TRAM DEVELOPMENTS 52.1 Tram and LRT development projects 52.2 Comparison of the main characteristics of Public Transport systems insome Eastern European cities 5

3 CASE STUDY: SKOPJE TRAM 103.1 General objectives 103.2 Public transport and road traffic 103.2.1 Public transport network and services in 2011 103.2.2 Road traffic situation 11

3.3 Design Principles of the Tram Lines and the Infrastructure 113.3.1 Tram network options 113.3.2 Reorganization of the existing bus network 12

3.4 Conditions for Concessions 163.5 Main conclusions, recommendations 16

4 Conclusions 17

List of Tables:Table 1.: Comparison of tram/LRT investments.................5Table 2. Characteristics of Some Tram Investments in Europe. Technical parameters and costs. [2007-2011]..................6Table 3. Comparison of Characteristics of Public Transport Systems in some Hungarian, Polish and Macedonian cities......7Table 4.: Comparison of the ticket prices (EUR) of PT systems in some Hungarian, Polish and Macedonian cities..............8Table 5.. The Reasonable Five Versions and their Main Characteristicsfor the Tram Network in Skopje...............13

List of Figures:Figure 1.: Proposed tram network [Source: Feasibility Study, 2007.]......................................................12European Transport Conference 2011, October 10-12 – Glasgow, Scotland

2


Figure 2. Estimated passenger traffic, peak hour, busier direction [Feasibility Study, 2011].........................14


3


1 Introduction. Examples for the Skopje

Tram.

Thanks to financial support by the European Union, a number of

tram and LRT development projects are initiated in Eastern

Europe. Some of them are well based; others seem to be "white

elephant" projects. This paper summarizes experience in "new EU

accession" countries together with the desired "SKOPJE LRT"

scheme.

Cities like Bratislava, Prague, Cracow, Miskolc, Debrecen and

Szeged have nice projects to develop their existing tram

systems. There are other plans under preparation for new

systems in smaller towns. The City of Skopje has about

600thousand inhabitants. The population shows a solid growth.

Historically public transport is solved by bus lines and by

(cheap) taxi services. During the last 45 years there is a

continuous desire to implement a ~12km long tram system. A

present project analyses the potential solutions. Preliminary

evaluation shows that 3 solutions are realistic:

a) Upgrading the present system.b) Bus priority system.c) Shorter or longer tram system.

Willingness to pay for Public Transport fare seems to be good.

(According to local reports nearly no fare evasion, nearly no

free riders in 2010.) However, the Municipality is afraid to

provide long term subsidy. The publicly and privately operated


4


bus systems are financed without substantial yearly support1.

(1995-2010.) Payment Parking is used just in the very centre of

Skopje. Train connections, P+R services are poor. Rural and

long distance coach connections are reasonably developed and

market-oriented. The financial crisis has side-effects as well.

PPP solutions (cross-financing) or EU support give even more

alternatives.

These mixed circumstances provide a nice challenge to prepare

well based plans and decisions.

1 To make a balance: ~ 200 new Chinese and Ukrainian busses were purchased for the public JSP company in 2011. European Transport Conference 2011, October 10-12 – Glasgow, Scotland

5


2 Tram developments2.1 Tram and LRT development projectsNumbers of tram and LRT development projects are initiated in

Eastern Europe. Some of them are well based; others seem to be

"white elephant" projects in "new EU accession" countries

together with the desired "SKOPJE LRT" scheme. Advantages of

new tram services:

a) Innovativeb) Comfortablec) Reliabled) Frequente) Contributes to the development of the City.

Cities like Bratislava (Sk), Prague (Cz), Cracow (Pl), Miskolc

(HU), Debrecen (HU), Szeged (HU) have good projects to develop

their existing tram systems. Some projects are also in

preparation in Hungary. (Szombathely, Győr, Kecskemét, Pécs

with populations of 100-180 thousand citizens.)

The main characteristics of some Eastern European tram projects

are shown in Table 1. These projects were financially supported

by the European Union. According to Table 2, the investment

cost of new trams is approximately 1.9-2.4 million EUR per

vehicle. [Based on European examples; capacity is ~200

passengers/tram.] The collection of data covered large and

small series of tram vehicles.


6


2.2 Comparison of the main characteristics of

Public Transport systems in some Eastern

European cities

The various public transport networks of Eastern European

cities have different passenger flows. Table 3 shows that the

number of passengers varies according to the available public

transport branches. (Trams, trolleybuses and buses.) After the

comparison of passenger flows it can be stated that the highest

share of trams (in the total public transport performance) was

observed in Miskolc (HU). In Skopje public transport is served

by buses (and taxis). After the realization of the tram

project, trams will operate with an estimated share of 12-13%.


7

A B C D E

Szeged (HU) Debrecen(HU)

Miskolc(HU)

Wroclaw(PL)

Skopje(MCD)

1 Type of investment(tram/LRT) tram tram tram tram tram

2 Length of upgradedtram line(s) [km] 8.5 – 9.6 – -

3 Length of new tram line(s) [km] 1.9 3.9 1.4 – 12.1

4 Investment costs[million EUR] 106.5 64.0 137.1 84.0 ~140

5 Date of completion 2011* 2013* 2013* n.a. ~2015

6 Remarks With 6.9 km trolley-bus line, 10 newtrolley-bus coaches and 9 new trams

With 18 newtrams

With 31new trams

39 newtrams

*estimation

Table 1.: Comparison of tram/LRT investments


8

Capacity (seats)

Contract worth

Vehicle num ber

Cost per

vehicle No. Year City M anu-facturer Type

[pass.] [m EUR] [pcs] [m EUR] A B C D E F G H I 1 2010 Szeged (HU) PESA (PL) Swing 210 (42) 16 9 1.80

2 2009 W arsaw (PL) PESA (PL) Swing 201 (40) 338 186 1.82

3 2010 M iskolc (HU)

AnsaldoBreda (IT) 200 67.9 31 2.19

4 2011 Besancon (F) CAF (ES) 35 15 2.33

5 2010 Valenciennes (F) Alstom (F) Citadis 17 7 2.43

6 2010 Krakow (PL) Bombardier Flexity 229 59 24 2.46

7 2007 Tunis, Tunesia

Alstom (F) Citadis 80 30 2.67

8 2011 Stockholm (S) CAF (ES) 121 340 2.81

9 2010 Helsinki (FI) Transtech Oy three

section 113 40 2.83

10 2007 Le M ans (F) Alstom (F) Citadis 55 23 2.39

11 2007 M ontpellier (F)

Alstom (F) Citadis 58 24 2.42


9

Table 2. Characteristics of Some Tram Investments in Europe. Technical parameters and costs.

[2007-2011]


10

Szeged(HU)

Debrecen(HU)

Miskolc(HU)

Wroclaw(PL)

Skopje (MCD)

Withouttram

Withtram

1 passenger flows of trams[million passenger-kilometre

/ year, 2009]31.1 40.1 92.1 n. a. - ~18.3

2 passenger flows of trolleybusses

[million passenger-kilometre/ year, 2009]

16.2 12.2 - n. a. - -

3 passenger flows of busses[million passenger-kilometre

/ year, 2009]134.5 68.0 87.2 n. a. 150.0 ~134.4

4 Remarks Planned

Table 3. Comparison of Characteristics of Public Transport Systems in some Hungarian, Polish and

Macedonian cities.


11

Szeged(HU)

Debrecen(HU)

Miskolc(HU)

Wroclaw(PL)

Skopje (MCD)

Withouttram With tram

1 Single ticket 1.02 0.98 0.91 0.54 0.51.0

(at the end of a 10 year longoperational period

2 Discount coupon book(10 pcs) 9.64 9.82

(11 pcs) 8.00 n.a. 4.5 9.0

3 24 hour travel card 3.13 4.00 4.00 1.80 - -

4 Seven-day travel card 11.35 10.91 11.64 5.86 - -

5 Monthly pass 22.55 22.18 22.18 18.02 23.5 47.0

6Monthly pass (for

student, forpensioners)

10.36 12.00 11.64 9.01 15.3 30.55

7 Remarks Planned


12

Table 4.: Comparison of the ticket prices (EUR) of PT systems in some Hungarian, Polish and

Macedonian cities


13

3 Case study: Skopje tram

3.1 General objectives

Skopje is the capital and the largest city in Macedonia, which

also represents a political-administrative, economic,

cultural, educational and research centre. It is located in

the central part of the Balkan Peninsula, spread on the banks

of the River Vardar.

The reason for proposing the introduction of the Tram is the

assessment that the city of Skopje is in need of establishing

a new concept for organizing the public transport of

passengers that will upgrade the current concept that shows

certain shortcomings. Public transportation in the city of

Skopje is particularly affected due to the long period of

neglecting and ignoring the problems in this field, and

consequently there has been a large decline in the number of

transported passengers, a particularly old bus park (though

crucial renewal in spring 2011), huge maintenance costs,

unreliable transportation etc.

The general objective is the promotion of the economic and

social development of the city of Skopje as well as improving

the investment climate in the transport sector through the

approximation of the institutional setup to the EU standards.

The special goal is to support the City of Skopje in order to

increase efficiency in the transport sector through the

preparation of technical, financial and legal documentation

European Transport Conference 2011, October 10-12 – Glasgow, Scotland 14

for the granting of a concession for the light rail transit

system for passenger transport.

The tram project is in coherence with strategic documents: the

Macedonian transport policy paper and the urban development

plan of Skopje.

3.2 Public transport and road traffic

3.2.1 Public transport network and services in 2011

Public transport in Skopje is solved by buses only, with 3

public transport operators. One of them is the property of the

City of Skopje, called J.S.P. Vehicles running in the city

mostly belong to this company. There are two other (private)

bus companies, operating a minor (approximately 25%) part of

public transport. In some cases there are parallel services

with J.S.P. bus routes.


3.2.2 Road traffic situation

According to statistical data, around 140 000 vehicles were

recorded in Skopje in 2007. The degree of motorization is

increasing steadily and is about 250 vehicles per 1000

inhabitants. Owning a car is considered a form of individual

freedom. In the City of Skopje, car traffic is increasing

according to the degree of motorization. In the city centre,

there is increasing and remarkable congestion, sometimes also

in off-peak hours.

Thanks to the wide roads, car density in residential areas is

not too high. Most car destinations are in the busy city

centre, and parking spaces are in short supply.

3.3 Design Principles of the Tram Lines and the

Infrastructure

3.3.1 Tram network options

The tram network proposal was outlined in a Feasibility Study

in 2007. The basic directions of the tramlines were

established by that document. Four tramlines were planned for

the future as shown in Figure 2.

Line 1 shall connect the east and the west part of thecity of Skopje, from Novo Lisice to Gorce Petrov,crossing the centre. [Red colour in Fig. 1. with somealignment alternatives - total length about 24-30 km intwo directions. EAST – WEST AXIS.]

Line 2 shall connect the south part of town –municipality of Kisela Voda to the north part –


municipalities of Chair and Butel 2. This line shall beconnected with the main line 1 (Blue colour, total lengthabout 20 km in two directions).

Line 3 shall connect Avtokomanda with Bit Pazarrespectively, i.e. connected with line number 2 at thejunction in front of Hotel Continental. The entire routegoes along Blvd. "Alexander the Great" (Green colour, thetotal length is 9 km in two directions).

Line 4 (Black colour, City Railway - a circular southernline) would start from the Central train Station(Transport Centre) and it would arrive to Gorce Petrovrailway station.

A poor railway track already exists at some parts, but no

electricity is installed. Tram route 1, Line 1 is a better

competitor for these services. The realization of line 4

requires deep co-operation with Macedonian Railways and it

also depends on the construction of the Macedonia Blvd. This

form of “Line 4” does not seem to be realistic till 2030. The

proposed tram lines connect all important zones of the City.

Tram Line 1 and the Northern part of Line 3 serve highly

populated residential zones. Continuous travel demand occurs

from these types of areas. Tram Line 3 and the Southern part

of Tram Line 2 serve industrial zones too. The advantage of

serving industrial zones is the high passenger flow but the

disadvantage is the lack of continuous passenger flow. (There

is high flow at the beginning and at the end of working hours,

working shifts.)

Line 1 is the most important. Line 1 can be terminated at the

Gjorce Petrov depot, - also designed for the terminal station


of Line 1. In the future (next phases) Line 1 can be completed

to the original length to the West. The main goal of this

branch could be the P+R system to cars arriving from the area

west of Skopje (e.g. Tetovo, Gostivar). Lines 2 and 3

represent good directions but smaller passenger flows can be

expected. (Less parallel bus lines, less “competing” car

flows.) Based on the preliminary assessment we have chosen 3

alternatives for further analysis:

Version 2, Version 3 and Version 4 (Table 3 and Figure 2). The

best project option is: Construction of Line 1 with 2 times

12.1 km length (Table 1. and Error: Reference source not

found.)

The estimated total project costs of Version 2. [Tram Line 1.

24.2 km, in two directions.] is about 140.8 million EUR.

3.3.2 Reorganization of the existing bus network

In an attractive public transport system the transfers

included in the trips have to be minimized. The best solution

for various routes and connecting various places is the bus as

we can see in Skopje in 2011. A number of routes can reach the

same stop, so passengers can choose transfer-free services.

Upgrading bus-transport to tram-transport enables higher

service speed, better reliability and better comfort. However,

this upgrade may increase the number of necessary transfers.

The tram clearly works on highly occupied, dense sections of

the public transport system but too many parallel bus lines


can decrease the passenger flow of the tram. Many options,

sub-options can be analysed later. Rigid solutions and

flexible one’s with good financial incentives can work as

well.


Figure 1.: Proposed tram network [Source: Feasibility Study, 2007.]


20

Version Service Bulit Service Journey approx Vehicle Line Line approx Vehiclenam e nam e track length time peak off-peak evening service capacity peak capac. daily capac. vehicle run number

length one dir. 6-8;14-18 5-6;8-14;18-20 20-23 per day 5 pass/m2 5 pass/m2 5 pass/m2 per day W est/South East/North W est/South East/North W est/South East/North[km ] [m in] [m in] [m in] [m in] [pcs] [pass.] [pass/hr/dir] [pass/hr/dir] [km ] [pcs] [pcs/hr] [pcs/hr] [pcs/hr] [pcs/hr] [pass/hr] [pass/hr]

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U

Version 1 Tram Line 1 Novo Lisice - Centar 5,7 5,7 16 5 10 10 144 170 2040 293 760 1641,6 8 - 15 - 1301 - 1350

Version 2 Tram Line 1 Gjorche Petrov - Novo Lisice 12,1 12,1 33 3 6 10 228 170 3400 775 200 5517,6 25 44 15 1139 1301 3158 1350

Version 3 Tram Line 1 Gjorche Petrov - Novo Lisice 12,1 12,1 33 5 10 15 138 170 2040 281 520 3339,6 15 15 1139 1301 3158 1350Tram Line 2 [G jorche Petrov] - Sever 5,6 12,8 32 5 10 15 138 170 2040 281 520 3532,8 15 19 2896 2085

17,7 6872 30

Version 4 Tram Line 1 Gjorche Petrov - Novo Lisice 12,1 12,1 33 3 6 10 228 170 3400 775 200 5517,6 25 44 15 1139 1301 3158 1350Tram Line 2 Sztaklarnica - Sever 9,3 10,2 33 5 10 15 138 170 2040 281 520 2815,2 15 12 19 1186 2896 1124 2085

21,4 8333 40

Version 5 Tram Line 1 Gjorche Petrov - Novo Lisice 12,1 12,1 32 5 10 15 138 170 2040 281 520 3339,6 15 15 1139 1301 3158 1350Tram Line 3 [Gjorche Petrov] - Agroszerviz 4,4 12,7 32 5 10 15 138 170 2040 281 520 3505,2 15 18 895 1421Tram Line 2 Sztaklarnica - Sever 9,3 10,2 25 5 10 15 138 170 2040 281 520 2815,2 11 12 19 1186 2896 1124 2085

25,8 6845 41

Present passenger flow Estim atedTram lines Services TechnicalCapacityFollow-up time Peak hr. present bus

number

44

44

Peak hr. estimatedpass. number

Peak hr. present carnumber

Table 5.. The Reasonable Five Versions and their Main Characteristicsfor the Tram Network in Skopje

Remark 1: Due to merging, Built Track Length and Service length (network length) may differ in Columns “D” and “E”.

Remark 2: Estimated Passenger Flows in Columns “T” and “U” are careful, conservative forecasts.


21


22

Figure 2. Estimated passenger traffic, peak hour, busier direction [Feasibility Study, 2011]


23

3.4 Conditions for Concessions

A DBFO or DBOT approach includes the following activities:

Design, Build, Finance, Operate (maintain) and Transfer. This

type of alliance between the authorities and a private

consortium could bring several benefits.

The duration of such a PPP is typically around 35 years. At the

end of that period there are usually negotiations to decide the

future of the service. Naturally, PPP contracts may cause

dangers for an inexperienced public body as well.

We calculated financial indicators for 8 sub-versions. Version

2a/4 (with public subsidy) reaches a reasonable level of

“Interest rate on Equity” to be attractive for the potential

investors.

3.5 Main conclusions, recommendations

Our main conclusions for the Skopje tram project are the

following:

1) Based on the results of the detailed traffic-technical

analyses of different versions, construction of version

“2a” (Tram Line 1) is proposed in a concessional PPP form.

2) Based on the results of the detailed financial analyses of

different public financing options, building Tram Line 1

in version 2a/4 can be proposed. This version is

financially viable; it provides reasonable (optimum) level

of “Interest rate on Equity”.


3) Beside the construction of tram line(s), the other

elements of the transport system in Skopje should be

reorganized and upgraded. [Bus fleets, the tariff system,

parking policy, multimodal interchanges with and without

railways, reasonable restrictions on car access to city

centre destinations, upgraded coordinated traffic lights

with Public Transport and/or cycling priority.]


4 ConclusionsAfter reviewing of the main characteristics of Eastern European

tram projects, we have compared the main passenger flow values

and ticket prices of the existing and planned public transport

modes/networks in some cities.

The case study of Skopje tram shows the need for establishing a

new concept for organizing the public transport of passengers

that will upgrade the current system. New trams can attract

passengers and provide high quality urban transport services.

Main conclusions for Eastern European tram projects:

1. Tram systems in HU/PL/MCD are viable.

2. A profit making tram network on its own is probably

impossible.

3. Financing, cross-financing is necessary.

4. Other elements of urban transport policy should be

restructured:

a. Parking policy

b. Tariff system/policy

c. Environmental policy

The comparison of PT systems and the evaluation of the Skopje

tram project can help us to identify main factors for the

preparation of well based plans and decisions.

Literature


1) Csaba Orosz at al (2011): Study for Concession for Light

Rail Transit System for the Transport of Passengers in the

City of Skopje. Pp. 1-155. Manuscript for the Municipality

of Skopje.

2) MÁVTI-Budapest (1994) Construction of urban electric tram

system in the city of Skopje (Pre-feasibility Study).

Prepared by MÁVTI - the Design Institute of the Hungarian

State Railways - MÁV. Budapest. Pp 1-119.

1) IDOM (2010): Basic project for the construction of rail

and tram system in the city of Skopje (Phase 1 for line 1)

developed in 2008.

3) Tram line Skopje (section in the municipality of Gorce

Petrov to New Lisice) (Cross sections of the roads) Beton.

06.12.1994.

4) Feasibility study for the introduction of rail system for

public transport of passengers on the territory of the

City of Skopje from 2007, with emphasis on the line number

Phase.1;

5) Flyvbjerg, B; Holm, M S; Buhl, S (2002). "Underestimating

Costs in Public Works Projects: Error or lie?". Journal of

the American Planning Association 68 (3): pp. 279–295.

Available from:

<http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/JAPAASPUBLISHED.pdf>

[Accessed 20 April 2011]

6) Municipality of Skopje (2008): General Urban Plan of

Skopje. Pp. 1-145.


7) Prof. Nikola Krstanovski, (Ph.D) (2008): Strategy for the

Development of Urban Public Transport in Skopje 2008-2018.

pp 1-295.


LRT and tram and light rail development in Eastern European cities: dreams and reality

Documents

Transcript of LRT and tram and light rail development in Eastern European cities: dreams and reality