Do we need a through-running railway station in Budapest?

Transcription

1 Do we need a through-running railway station in Budapest? Csaba OROSZ (PhD) Associate Prof., BME, Tibor PRINCZ-Jakovics (PhD) Senior Lecturer 1, BME Ambrosius BAANDERS, Principal Consultant, ECORYS Netherlands 1 Introduction Probably inspired by the new Main Railway Station of Vienna [ the Hauptbahnhof ] that is under construction, the concept of a similar through-running main station has been discussed in Budapest. A number of organisations and individual experts have done studies concerning the possibilities for such a station. This paper is based on a deep study made by BME in It gives a summary and a critical review concerning the various proposals. What problems could such a station solve and what are the alternative solutions for these problems? The study was ordered by the Hungarian State Railways [MÁV LS] in June Rail issues, railway operation aspects, were analysed till December However, the views of Budapest Municipality and the Government of Hungary could only play a limited role. A fuller analysis would need more time, more efforts and some strategic decisions. This paper summarises the Budapest situation till 2011, analyses international experience and station characteristics. In the final chapters the reasonable options are described and some conclusions are shown. 2 The present situation of passenger transport in Budapest Budapest is the capital and by far the largest city in Hungary. It has 1.7 million inhabitants in The region has about 3 million people. 2 A number of railway lines converge on the city. Figure 1. and Table 1. show certain important characteristics of the alignment and of the stations. As a legacy of the different railway companies in the Austro-Hungarian-Empire, there are five important stations, three of which are terminals. These are West ( Nyugati ) Station, East ( Keleti ) Station and South (Déli) Station. [Column A in Table 1.] The fourth and the fifth are through stations. [Called Kelenföld, and Kőbánya-Kispest]. The through stations are named after the locality in which they are situated. For a first-time observer, the names of the terminals are somewhat surprising, as the West Station is located north of the city centre, the South Station to the west of it, and only the East Station is to the east. But, as in cities like Vienna or Paris, those names do not refer to their location in the city, but to the names and directions of the former railway companies. The West Station was the starting point to the West; to Vienna Paris/London along the left bank of the Danube since As MÁV LS became the dominant Hungarian Railway Company from about 1885, the stations were connected to each other. As illustrated by Figure 1, the lines converging on Budapest are around the city centre, and still inside the area of the municipality. Some suburban services are run on these lines and all stations mentioned are served by such trains. All short distance trains and most long distance trains are operated by the national railways company MÁV, while some western long distance trains are operated by the Austro- Hungarian company GySEV / ROEE. Some RailJets are jointly operated with the Austrian National Railways ÖBB. 1 Both Budapest. Contacts: a.baanders@planet.nl, orosz@uvt.bme.hu, tprincz@kornygazdeu.bme.hu 2 Modal split of motorised trips in 2008: 62% public transport -38% cars; within borders of Budapest. However modal split through the border of Budapest is 35% Public Transport - 65% cars! (Very similar to the Vienna situation.) Since 2008 as a side-effect of the financial crisis, modal split characteristics have slightly improved, but there is no recent survey. Timetables and rolling stock of the rail services are being improved. A wave of urban sprawl was observed between 1982 and 2006, the population in the municipality dropping from 2.08 million to 1.70 million people. Since 2006 the number of inhabitants is stable in Budapest. 1

2 Figure 1.: Railway network in Budapest (2012). Illustration of historical directions West= Nyugati, East= Keleti, South= Déli 2

3 A. B. C. D. E. F. Name of the PT Main directions Built in station connections Remarks Picture 1. West (Nyugati) Railway Station Budapest-Vienna- Frankfurt-London/ München-Paris 1846, 1877 Designed by the Eiffel Company Connection metro line M3, tram line 4-6. Grand Boulevard Integrated with a shopping centre (Westend City Center). 2. East (Keleti) Railway Station Main international and intercity rail terminal. Most international trains start from here. Also trains to Eger, Miskolc, Debrecen, Békéscsaba Connections: metro line M2 (+M4 in 2015) and trunk bus lines. 3. South (Déli) Railway Station Originally Buda-pest Rijeka/Fiume (seaport). Primarily serves West of the Danube: Székesfehérvár, Veszprém, Plattensee /Balaton, Zagreb, Pécs, Barcs (Renewed ) Connections to metro line M2, trams, buses. Politicians would close and sell since ~1975. Budapest Kelenföld could partly substitute. The only Buda rail terminal. 4. Kelenföld Station 5. Kőbánya- Kispest Station Serves most trains to and from Déli and Keleti terminals (including. international trains). A typical suburban station with modest level of service. [Rail lines 100, 140, 142,] 1861 (currently being reconstructed, linked to the construction of metro line M4. ~1849 and has been connected to the metro line 3 in Connections to two tram lines and a number of urban and suburban bus routes. Metro line M3. and some 12 bus lines. A through station with 8100 passengers on working days. A through station with 8700 passengers on working days Table 1.: Main characteristics of the major railway stations in Budapest. [Buda and Pest were united in 1873 into one common city] - - 3

4 Beside the eleven traditional railway lines, Budapest has an extensive and dense local rail network, consisting of three metro lines (~40km), suburban light rail lines (HÉV, ~70km) and tram lines (150km). This is supplemented by bus routes and by some trolleybus lines in the city. Most services are operated by BKV, the public transport company of the city. Services are supervised by the public transport authority BKK since Suburban bus routes are mostly operated by the national VOLÁN coach companies. Since 1982, together with the political changes, car ownership has risen very rapidly, as in most former communist countries. This has stimulated urban sprawl and the increase of congestion on the motorways and major roads leading into the city. This tendency is expected to continue in the long run with all the negative effects that heavy car traffic produces. But some questions arise at the moment: is the effect of the financial crisis, in the form of a slowing down of car ownership, have long-lasting effects? Though local rail services around the city are slowly adapting to this suburbanisation process, yet most commuters from the agglomeration are heavily dependent on the private car. Car ownership is slightly decreasing within the city: 350 cars/1000 inhabitants were reported in 2008, and 330 cars/1000 inhabitants in Car ownership in the Budapest agglomeration is stable, - ~360 cars/1000 inhabitants. International rail travel has a share of 10%. Air traffic faces challenges with the bankruptcy of MALÉV 3 in February Since then hub (through) traffic is diminishing; cheap airlines serve more than 50% of tourists (point-to-point traffic). Long distance (international) accessibility is of course important for the Hungarian and the Budapest economy and its competitive position in the European Union and the world. International business travel relies mostly on access by air, via the Liszt Ferenc international airport in Budapest. Tourist travel is also important, Budapest being one of the most important city tourism destinations in Central Europe. For this travel too, aviation is the dominant mode. A train service that is comparable to long distance trains in Western Europe is the two-hourly (7 trains per day) RailJet service Budapest Vienna Salzburg ( Munich / Zürich). Travel time Budapest Vienna is just under 3 hours, Budapest Munich 7,5 hours. Frequent and good service is also available on the Budapest Bratislava Prague Berlin rail line. Other international trains to neighbouring capitals struggle to keep elementary services. Speed, quality and quantity show worsening trends to Belgrade, Zagreb, Ljubljana, Graz, Warsaw, Cracow, Kiev, Bucharest, Sofia, etc. Services to Greece, to Italy, to Malmö (Sweden) have been gradually terminated. Long distance trains through Budapest are limited to some direct services to Lake Balaton. But this was also subject to frequent push and pull measures since Through trains were introduced then cancelled. Sometimes international trains used the best, the closest and the most time-efficient terminal. Recently international trains have been concentrated in the East Terminal. A short description of the five most important rail stations is as follows: 1) West Station (Nyugati, ) is a terminal station that serves national trains nowadays. Esztergom, Vác Szob, Cegléd Záhony/Szeged (rail lines 2, 70, 100, 140), and international trains historically to the following directions: Vienna Frankfurt London / Munich Paris. The West station was built in 1846 and reconstructed by the Eiffel company from France in Urban rail connections are metro line 3 and Grand Boulevard tram 4-6, and there are also bus routes. It is integrated with a shopping mall (Westland City Centre). 2) East Station (Keleti 1884) is a terminal station and the main station for national and for most international long distance trains. It is the terminus of the RailJet to Vienna Munich. National train services are to Győr, to Sopron/Szombathely, Eger, Miskolc, Szolnok Békéscsaba and Kelebia (rail lines 1, 8, (10, 15) 80, 87, 120, 160, 140). The station was built in Urban rail connections are metro line 2 and (from 2016) line 4. A number of trunk bus routes also serve the station beside trams and trolleybuses. 3) South Station (Déli) is a terminal station served primarily by national trains to destinations west of the Danube river: Komárom, Székesfehérvár, Veszprém, Balatonfüred, Siófok (Lake Balaton), Kaposvár, Pécs, Barcs, Szekszárd, Baja (rail lines 1, 20, 29, 30, 40, 41, 60). and the international destination of Zagreb. The station was built in 1861 and used to give connection 3 MALÉV is the former national airline of Hungary. Heavy financial problems existed since

5 to the Adriatic seaport of Rijeka (Fiume), now in Croatia (Southern Railway). South Station was renovated in and was connected to Metro line 2. It is the only station of the five without any roof shelter on the platforms and it lacks the grandeur of the other two terminals. Urban rail connections are metro line 2, three tram lines, and there are also bus routes. 4) Kelenföld Station is a through station with 8100 passengers on working days. North of the station the line splits to Déli or Keleti Stations, so Kelenföld is served by most trains to and from these two terminals. This includes international trains. The station was built in 1861 and is currently being reconstructed, with more platforms and new passenger accommodation. This is linked to an urban renewal project and the construction of metro line 4 (to be opened in 2016). Two tram lines and a number of urban and suburban bus routes are also serving the station. 5) Kőbánya-Kispest Station is a through station with 8700 passengers on working days. The station was built around 1849 and has been extended and adapted to the terminal of metro line 3 in It is a typical suburban rail station with modest equipment and with modest level of service (rail lines 100, 140, 142). There are also a dozen of smaller stations in the Budapest city area. There is considerable scope for improving the suburban rail services, with faster and more comfortable trains, fixed interval schedules and better equipment and park-and-ride facilities at the suburban stations, which are currently lacking in most stations. In fact, for the city s economic development and to meet its environmental goals, a good suburban train network is vital. Plans have been made for such a network, under the name S-Bahn, but these have not been implemented yet. However, part of the old rolling stock has been replaced by modern EMUs. 3. The concepts for through-running stations in Budapest international trends. Since 1901 at least nine significant plans have been made for a new central station, including plans prepared by Zielinszki (1901), Wittenbart (1930), Pieri (1934), MÁVTI (1970) and Hábel (2009). Error! Reference source not found. illustrates a plan for the development of the railway system of Budapest from Most of the earlier plans would have downscaled or closed the current terminals (or would have operated just one terminal, the Nyugati (West) Station). Some plans intended to connect the stations by underground tunnels. Recent proposals follow the same line of thinking. It is impossible to show the thoughts of 110 years; however most aspects are highlighted in the international comparison (see table 3), and some evergreen issues of better land-use and better cost efficiency are a permanent feature in the period As part of the study, the characteristics of important stations in other cities have been studied in comparison with those in Budapest. Table 3 gives a overview of a selection of the results (as a summary of a larger amount of background data, a table with 32 rows and 16 columns: 512 cells). Main stations have generally been established in Europe in a number of different configurations: a) Several terminal stations in one city, built by different historical railway companies. Examples: Glasgow, London, Paris, Vienna, Budapest, Moscow. b) A single main terminal. Examples: Stuttgart, Munich, Rome. c) A single main through station. Examples: Edinburgh, Copenhagen, Cologne, Bratislava, Zagreb. These were sometimes combined with one or more terminals, like in Prague and Amsterdam. 5

6 Figure 2: Plan for the development of the railway system of Budapest [Zielinszky (1901)] All main stations have been altered in the ~150 years since they were constructed and for some this included a change in the configuration. Some terminals have received additional through connections during the decades, mostly for suburban trains and often with tunnels. Examples: Glasgow Central, Frankfurt/Main, Zürich, Brussels, Warsaw, Paris with the RER network. Interesting examples are Stuttgart and Vienna, which are both in the process of replacing one or two terminal stations by a through station. In Stuttgart this will be a fully underground station. In Vienna two terminals (Süd Bhf. and Ost Bhf.) situated next to each other will be replaced by a through station, above ground between the lines they serve. Some characteristics and comparison of different solutions for railway stations can be seen in table 2. This shows mainly arguments in favour of through stations, as advanced by supporters of such investment projects. A) Terminals B) Through stations Disadvantages: Advantages: 1. Limited city accessibility. [Depends very much on the location in the city. Can be good or bad for a terminal but also for a through station.] 5. Reduced time needed for transit. [But only 1-3% of passengers are in transit. Like Paris, London, Budapest.] 2. Forced transfers. 6. Growing capacity. 3. Dwell (turn around) time at the station. [Loss of 7. Better Urban access. [The crucial questions time for through passengers.] 4. Valuable downtown areas used for railway operation. Table 2: Characteristics of rail terminals and through stations are: Who needs? Who pays?] 8. Better, faster transfers. [Diminishing the number of interchanges] 6

7 In Budapest, as in other cities, terminal stations have been established through historical development. In the short term, it is suggested to maintain all three terminal stations. International examples (Madrid, Paris, London, Vienna) demonstrate that real estate of this kind is valuable if there are passengers who use them. A 20-30% decrease in terminal station passenger numbers in Budapest is possible as a result of organic and voluntary processes. With such a process a terminal rail station may be transformed, developed to a meeting point, shopping and entertainment centre while keeping its original functions. That means: the original functions remain and extra activities are added (shopping, hotel, cinema, restaurants, etc.) 7

8 1 A B C D E F G H I Passenger Population Number of trains traffic Cost of Connection to the airport, City (density of the Name of the station Commercial area Number of tracks train/day pas./working construction connection to CityCentre population) day Budapest, Hungary 1.7 million people 525 km 2 (3278 cap/km 2 ) 2 Budapest " 3 Budapest " 4 Budapest " 5 Wien, Austria 1.5 million people 414 km 2 (3620 cap/km 2 ) Eastern Railway Station Keleti pályaudvar Western Railway Station Nyugati pályaudvar Southern Railway Station Déli pályaudvar Kelenföld Railway Station Kelenföldi pályaudvar Wien Hauptbahnhof (By reconstruction of Süd and Nordbahnhof) 6 Wien " Wien Westbahnhof 7 8 Munich, Germany Brussel, Belgium 9 Copenhagen, Denmark 1.3 million people 310 km 2 (4170 cap/km 2 ) 156 thousand people 33 km 2 (4850 cap/km 2 ) 1.2 million people 455 km 2 (2640 cap/km 2 ) München Hauptbahnhof not typical Westend City Center shopping centre 7 platforms - 13 tracks 22 tracks - 13 tracks inside the hall 332 ~ ~ not typical 12 tracks 290 ~ not typical 3 platforms - 6 tracks 5 platforms shops tracks - 2 tracks on m 2 one level store place under the station 65 shops & restaurants on m 2 providing 2000 workplace under the ground 11 tracks 32 tracks, including S-Bahn 340 ~ ~ ~380 (to be reconstructed) Railway station: 0.89 billion EUR City part: 1.2 billion EUR 130 million EUR 1433 (!) Brussel - Central 5+1 tracks Københavns Hovedbanegård 12 tracks Table 3.: Main characteristics of international example stations No in Possibly in the future. Railway connection with Liszt Ferenc Airport, Terminal 1, (Planned with terminal 2.) Railway connection (Wien Mitte - Airport - Hauptbahnhof) Through station on the underground) Railway connection (Wien Mitte - Airport - Westbahnhof) Through station on the underground) S-Bahn connection between the central station and BRU Zaventern Airport By delta tracks joining the main line, terminal station on the underground Underground stations between Malmo and Copenhagen line 8

9 4. Options for a through-running rail station When developing options for a new station, there are some important considerations/questions: A. Part of a comprehensive urban development or a simple railway investment? Co-operation of the City Hall? Good public transport connections? Good accessibility by car is also important at the station, considering public transport only is not applicable to all passengers (elderly, handicapped, social habits, etc.). B. Considering multiple stations: options for complementary stations. Three existing stations could play the role of one new and expensive station. (Kelenföld, Kőbánya, Zugló for example.) C. Airport connections? D. Will there ever be a High Speed Train connection? It is also in the interest of Liszt Ferenc Airport operators to develop a High Speed Train station. Vienna Vienna-Schwechat Bratislava Budapest Budapest-Liszt Ferenc Airport Timisoara /Belgrade junctions are feasible stops of a potential line. E. Other aspects can be analysed with detail: - Freight transport in and around Budapest. - Station characteristics; bypass options, etc. - Investors/financiers. Financed by MÁV? Co-financed by Budapest? The region? Private businesses? Interested coach companies? - Organisational co-operation among public bodies? - Negative side effects of the financial crisis? - Market introduction, incentives, marketing. Different locations for a single main through station have been examined in the light of their economic and environmental contributions. For suburban travellers (notably commuters) trains serving several stations in the city area are more useful than concentration in a single station. Given the configuration of the present network, with no railway tunnel through the city centre, suburban trains serving several points where there are good metro and tram connections to other parts of the city appear to be the best solution. Such connections exist at all four current important stations and could also be provided at some intermediate points. A single main station does not have added value for these travellers. For long distance travel (and especially the business travel purpose) a good terminal, with good station services and connections to all city destinations is essential. The national long distance trains as well as the international trains currently call at one of the three terminals, and those to Déli (South) and Keleti (East) Stations also call at Kelenföld Station. Each of these stations has a metro and several tram and (trolley-) bus connections. If a single main station would have added value for such travellers depends on its location. It is important to distinguish between trough travellers and those whose trip starts or ends in Budapest. For the through travellers who have to change between long distance trains in Budapest, a single main station offers a short and comfortable interchange, without the need to travel from one terminal to another. For the through travellers on a through train, the main interest is to have a short station dwell time. For the travellers who start or end their trip in Budapest, a central location with good metro, tram and other connections is most important. The international train most used for business travel, the Vienna Budapest RailJet, currently calls at Kelenföld and Keleti (East) Stations. The most important mode for international business travellers and tourists, apart from the car, is the airplane. These travellers would be best served by a rail connection from the airport to the city. Like in the case of commuters, these travellers would benefit most from trains that serve several points in the city. Possible development options have been ranked based on investment volume. At first, a long list of options was studied and this was followed by a shortlist of three options, each with a number of 9

10 variants. The three options are designated with letters, while numbers indicate the variants of each option, that serve roughly the same purpose and require similar investment. Option A: limited or no investment: o A1) Do nothing : no intervention, conserving 2011 baseline. o A2) Do minimum : minimum intervention. Improving the quality and quantity of track maintenance operations. Decreasing turnaround times: the 15 minutes in 2011 at East (Keleti) Station, can be decreased to 8-10 minutes, depending on the rolling stock used (multiple units, loco-hauled trains in push-pull configuration). o A3) Do something : intervention based on the current situation, but with other turnaround procedures and more small developments. Option B: intermediate solutions: not a new through station, but a substitution between existing stations. o B4) Kelenföld station could become an intermodal station when metro line 4 is opened in 2015 and with other investments. o B5) Kelenföld, Zugló, and Kőbánya-Kispest stations could act together as a substitute for a main station. This would be possible if the planned extension of metro line 4 would be built to Zugló and the station services and accessibility are improved. Option C: a single through main station could be developed at one of three different locations: o C6) Kelenföld Station, by further developing the station that is currently being developed. o C7) Danubius Station. This new main through station would be constructed at the Pest side of Lágymányosi (now Rákosi) Bridge where the southern railway crosses the Danube river. o C8) Ferencváros Station. This new main through station would be constructed in the Ferencváros district, some 1.5 km to the east from the river. Figure 3 shows the proposed station locations. 10

11 Figure 3.: Potential and proposed through station locations Elaboration of an option: Ferencváros as an example As an example, the option of Ferencváros (C8) is elaborated here. The present station was built in 1877 on the southern railway line, to the south of the city centre. It has three main parts: a passenger station on the north side of the line, a shunting yard to the east and a shunting yard to the west. There is currently no significant passenger traffic, but it has high volumes of freight transit traffic. Enlargement of Ferencváros station could be done by construction of three new platforms and six tracks for passenger trains. Figure 4 shows how a new through station in Ferencváros could be situated. Figure 4.: Plan of the new through station in Ferencváros [Source: Budai, Z. (2012), BSc Thesis] The following passenger groups have been identified based on suburban/long distance/international transfer connections/obligations: 1) Passengers with destinations within the city, changing from one railway line to another after arriving (their final destination is within the city), or 2) Suburban / long distance / international passengers changing in Budapest, whose final destination is outside the capital. We used the above mentioned passenger traffic segments to assess the possibility of transfers at the new through station. Passenger traffic matrices were created to identify the size of the different target groups. A preliminary analysis of traffic and return on investment for the Ferencváros location shows that the construction of a through station at this location can decrease travel times by minutes. The number of through passengers can be estimated at passengers/day. Preliminary assessment of environmental impacts shows that after some car users would shift to rail, better air quality and lower noise levels can be achieved. This means that positive environmental impacts of this rail investment can be estimated. One of the general objectives of the concept is to choose the most cost-efficient and environmentally friendly development alternative using available (limited) resources both from the point of view of the medium term and long-term development plans. Upgrading of rail services will facilitate urban development and integrated rail investments are steps toward higher level of sustainability. Budapest needs such rail developments. For the cost-benefit analysis, investment costs for option C8 were estimated at HUF 9.7 billion (EUR 32.6 million). Operating and maintenance costs without investment: EUR / year, with investment: EUR / year. We had possibilities to do a preliminary CBA for Version C8 (mostly assessing the possible time savings). Economic indicators were as follows: Net Present Value (NPV) 5.80 million EUR 11

12 Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR = PVB / PVC) 1.25 Internal rate of return (E IRR) 7.3% These indicators were calculated under optimal conditions, but these values could change considerably based on the implementation and other related investments and risks. Therefore, further detailed analyses would be necessary in the following phase of the project preparation. At this stage it is realistic to expect the BCR to be at 0.9. Detailed sensitivity analysis could have shown crucial risk factors. A discussion of the options: Option C, a single through main station, is a heavy investment in all variants studied (C6, C7, C8). The analysis of these has shown that the BCR is insufficient. This is to be expected, as concentrating most train services in a single station which is not located in the city centre, only gives benefits to through passengers, i.e. those staying on the trains that pass through Budapest and those that have to make an interchange between trains in Budapest. Commuters and long distance travellers to and from Budapest would be better served by trains that serve multiple stations in the city. Option B, substitution between stations, could have some merit in variant B4, the intermodal station at Kelenföld. In fact, with the improvement of the station facilities and the construction of metro line 4 (to be opened in 2015), this is already being shaped. All trains to and from Déli (South) Station and a number of those to and from Keleti (East) Station also call at this station. The interchange possibilities between a number of trains are already there and can be improved by timetable improvements. The opening of metro line 4 and the planned park-and-ride lots will make the station more attractive for travellers to and from other parts of the city and its surroundings. Option A, the do minimum policy, contains a number of measures that should be taken anyway, notably variant A2. 5 The potential of rail transport for the needs of Budapest There are several major rail investment projects in Budapest: Budapest metro line 4, running across the city from Kelenföld Station in the southwest to Keleti Station to the east of the city centre, will be opened 2016, over fifteen years after it was first planned. This ambitious project has had cost and time overruns and there are financial difficulties. There is a proposal to build a new tunnel north south across the city connecting the northern HÉV suburban light rail line (H5, to Szentendre) to the two southern lines (H6 to Csepel and H7 to Ráckeve), all lines operated by the urban transport operator BKV. Concerning the MÁV train services, there is the S-Bahn proposal, which would turn the current short distance train services around Budapest into an efficient and attractive mode for commuters and other travellers from the surrounding towns. The proposal is for a network of high frequency fixed interval train services, for the creation of park-and-ride facilities at the suburban stations served, and the improvement of station facilities, which is highly urgent for many stations. This should make the train more attractive compared to the car, which is important as car ownership is relatively high in the suburbs. Trains would use different parts of the semi-circle around the city, serving the stations on these lines and one of the three terminals. A number would also call at Kelenföld Station. Some investment would be needed on the southern part of the semi-circle, where the many freight trains to and from the Ferencváros yards limit the availability of tracks for passenger trains, notably on the southern railway bridge. For the long run the S-Bahn scheme proposes a full circle. This would involve tunnelling through the Buda hills on the west side of the city. Proposals have also been made for a rail connection between the city and the main terminal at the Liszt Ferenc airport, Terminal 2. From Terminal 1, there is a walkway which connects with a nearby train station. But Terminal 1 is a small terminal, serving domestic flights only, and the 12

13 walkway is not very attractive. The link to Terminal 2 would be constructed from either of two railway lines which run north and south past the airport, so a relatively short stretch of new line would be needed. Given the current situation of the four main stations, Keleti (East) Station (served by metro lines 2 and in a few years 4) would be the most logical choice. But an intermediate stop might be possible at Kőbánya-Kispest, where an interchange to metro line 3 is possible. While the first project mentioned above is being built, the other three have not been decided yet. In the present economic situation of Hungary and Budapest it is unlikely that they will be realised soon. In the opinion of the authors, preference should be given to using existing infrastructure as much as possible in smaller and less risky investments. Notably the suburban heavy rail network has a lot of potential for improvement and the S-Bahn could be started with modest funds. Of the international long distance trains, the RailJet connection with Vienna and beyond is the only train service that is able to compete with air transport and the private car for business travel. This twohourly train service (7 trains per day) calls at two stations in Budapest, i.e. Keleti and Kelenföld, and this situation does not have to change. It may be possible to develop comparable services to cities in other neighbouring countries, but the relevant cities, such as Bratislava or Zagreb are much smaller than Vienna and will thus generate less traffic. This situation also makes the advent of high speed rail in Hungary not likely in the near future. 6 Conclusions It might be concluded that the proposal for a single through-running main station is a solution for a problem which is not very important, namely the time loss of train passenger travelling through Budapest, in through trains or interchanging between trains. In the opinion of the authors, the most important needs for Budapest as far as railway investments are concerned, are in the commuter train services. The urban sprawl around the city, although it is not continuing in the present economic climate, have led to increased flows of cars into the city and resulted in increased congestion. But in the future this trend might pick up again. The proposed S-Bahn scheme, which is able to use the existing infrastructure with some adaptations, would be much more effective in addressing this need than a single through main station. The same is true for international travel, for business and for tourism, markets in which trains play a modest role and which are primarily served by air transport. For these travellers, an airport rail link could increase the attractiveness of Budapest as a business and tourism destination. Proposals for an airport link to the main air terminal have been made. Both these schemes, the S-Bahn and the airport link, would merit further analysis and planning. Literature BFVT (2011) Transport Infrastructure of Budapest Budapest Közlekedési Infrastruktúrája, 35 p. E4 Ltd (2007): Co-ordination of the public and rail transport of the terminal stations in Budapest Budapest vasúti fejpályaudvari és közforgalmi közlekedésének összehangolása. Study, 53 p. Felczán Gittinger Raics Vigh Vincze (1999): Role and development of the Budapest terminal stations A Budapesti fejpályaudvarok szerepe és fejlesztése Study for descision-makers, 35 p. + Annexes FŐMTERV et al [FKT. Urb. Consortium] (2008): Development Plan of the Transport System in Budapest Budapest Közlekedési Rendszerének Fejlesztési Terve (BKRFT) 316 p. FŐMTERV KÖZLEKEDÉS Consortium (2008): Implementation of the S-Bahn system and the development of the suburban rail network of Budapest S-Bahn rendszerű gyorsvasúti közlekedés kialakítása és a budapesti elővárosi vasúthálózat fejlesztése, Feasibility study, 558 p. GEOVASÚT Ltd (2007): New underground railway line between West and South stations in Budapest Draft plan 13

14 Hábel, Gy (2009): Proposal for the reorganization of the passenger traffic of the Hungarian State Railways on the rail network of Budapest Javaslat A MÁV budapesti pályahálózatának és személyvonati forgalmának átszervezésére 60 p.+14 drawings Orosz, C et al (2011): The Potential for a Central Railway Station in Budapest, Research Study for the Hungarian State Railways, A Budapesti főpályaudvar kialakítási lehetőségeinek innovatív vizsgálata 100 p.+annexes (ÖBB1): Development plan of the rail network in Vienna BSc Diploma Project: Budai, Z (2011): Design of a through station in Budapest. and further diploma projects of BME students: Czegle, Igazvölgyi, Kalmár, Kolbl, Pálfy. 14