PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE HUNGARIAN SECTION OF THE 5 TH PAN- EUROPEAN CORRIDOR. Csaba Kelen, Gergely Fehér

Transcription

1 PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE HUNGARIAN SECTION OF THE 5 TH PAN- EUROPEAN CORRIDOR Csaba Kelen, Gergely Fehér Közlekedés Consulting and Planning Engineers Ltd. 1. INTRODUCTION The enlargement of the European Union from 15 states to 27 states between 2004 and 2007 put transportation corridors in the forefront of European transport policy. Several transport networks were codified to provide necessary links to the new and expected future member states, such as the Pan-European 1 (Helsinki) corridors, Eastern European extension of TEN-T corridors (specific TEN-T priority axes), TINA corridors and TIRS corridors. The Pan-European corridors define 10 major routes, out of which corridors 3, 4, 5 and 10 provide surface transportation connection between Western and Eastern Europe. This study details the designation of the alignment of the Hungarian section of the Pan-European Corridor V/b., based on the preliminary study prepared by local consultancies. 2. PROJECT SETTING The Hungarian National Land Use regulation of 2003 (XXVI.) was revised in 2008 (I.), stating that the alignments of national infrastructure need to be designated in accordance with effective land use plans. Appendix 1.4 of the new regulation specifies two main High Speed Railway corridors, specifically the IV. and V. Pan-European corridors. The following corridors had designated infrastructure alignments in the preceding land use regulations: Corridor 4: Hegyeshalom (Austian border) Budapest Röszke (Serbian border ) / Kübekháza (Romanian border) Corridor V: Budapest Záhony (Ukrainian border) Corridor 10: Budapest Kelebia (Serbian border, based on 2003 law (XXVI.)) From the corridors mentioned by 2008 law, section Gyékényes-Budapest of Corridor V/b. had no designated alignment. In order to complete the corridor designation process, Közlekedés Ltd. was retained to prepare a corridor study with a travel demand model and forecasts. This study was part of a feasibility study of the Hungarian portion of Corridor V/b, prepared by the National

2 Institute for Transport Sciences Non-profit Ltd. and the Hungarian Railway Design Institute Ltd. The client of the project was the Hungarian Scientific Association for Transport. V. Pan-European corridor traverses between Venice (Italy), Ljubljana (Slovenia), Budapest (Hungary) and Lvov (Ukraine), and is one of ten Pan- European corridors of Central and Eastern Europe. The portion of the corridor between Venice and the Hungarian/Ukrainian border is also known as TEN-T priority axis No There are three branches to the corridor, of which branch V/b serves Zagreb and Rijeka (Croatia) and branch V/c serves Sarajevo (Bosnia-Herzegovina) and Ploce (Croatia), both departing from Corridor V. in Budapest. An overview of the Pan-European corridors may be seen in Figure1. Figure 1. Pan-European (Helsinki) transport corridors, with Corridor V. 3

3 This traffic study concerns the railway alignment of corridor V. between Budapest and Venice. The alignment specification task included the section between Gyékényes (Hungarian/Croatian border) and Budapest along Corridor V/b. The study did not specifically address the alignment of Corridor V. in most of Hungary, Slovenia and Italy, the alignment of Corridor V/b in Croatia, or the alignment of corridor V/c in Croatia and Bosnia. In addition, we assumed, that by the time the High Speed Railway (HSR) line along Corridor V/b becomes operational, a HSR line along Corridor X. will be exist between Zagreb (Croatia) and Ljubljana (Slovenia) as well. Thus, the resulting HSR corridor provides connectivity along the Budapest- Zagreb-Ljubljana-Trieste-Venice route. Since currently no HSR line is planned along most of the Hungarian section of Corridor V (planning speeds of this corridor is at 160 km/h), the aforementioned corridor will provide the fastest journey times between Budapest and the international destinations along the route. In addition, Corridor V/c will also be served in part by this line, as the two corridors have a common section between Budapest and the vicinity of Dombóvár. Hungarian sections of the TEN-T corridors are shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. TEN-T corridors in Hungary, including Axis 6 (Helsinki Corridor V) 4 From the figure, the following segments of Corridor V. may be identified: 1. Corridor V: Záhony-Budapest-Székesfehérvár-Boba-Zalaegerszeg- Őriszentpéter

4 2. Corridor V/b: Budapest-Dombóvár-Kaposvár-Gyékényes 3. Corridor V/c: Budapest-Dombóvár-Pécs-Magyarbóly Three alternative of HSR alignments were analysed along Corridor V/b. Alignments specifications were provided by the Hungarian Railway Design Institute Ltd., and were designated on financial, land use, environmental considerations. The alternatives alignments can be seen in Figure 3. Figure 3. Alignment scenarios of the Hungarian section of rail Corridor V/b 5 The alignment consists of three main sections. Section between Budapest and Székesfehérvár provides a common alignment for Corridors 5, 5/b and 5/c. Section between Székesfehérvár and the vicinity of Dombóvár provides a common section for Corridors 5/b and 5/c. Section between Dombóvár and the Gyékényes serves Corridor 5/b. All three scenarios follow identical alignment between the vicinity of Budapest and Tamási. Between the vicinity of Tamási and Kaposvár, the alternatives differ in the degree they provide direct access to Dombóvár. The further south the detour along the line is, the longer the common section of Corridor V/b and V/c becomes. Along Corridor V/b, Scenario 1 provides the most direct connection, followed by Scenario 2 and Scenario 3. Along Corridor V/c, Scenario 3 provides the most direct connection, followed by Scenario 2 and Scenario 1.

5 Railway route journey times, service frequency and ticket pricing data were provided by Hungarian Railway Design Institute Ltd. Design speed along the corridor was at 250 km/h, resulting in significant reduction in travel time. Service data is summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Service data between Budapest and other destinations along Corridor V. Average trip time (minutes) Service (trains/day) Ticket price (HUF) (2) Between Current Planned Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Current Planned Current Planned Budapest - Dombóvár Budapest - Pécs Budapest - Kaposvár Budapest - Zagreb Budapest - Ljubljana Budapest - Triest (1) Budapest - Venice Budapest - Milan (1) (1) Between Budapest and Triest, and Budapest and Milano a transfer is required (2) Exchange rate is assumed at 1 Euro = 280 HUF Current trip times between Budapest and Zagreb would be reduced from about 6 hours to below 2 hours, while trip time between Budapest and Ljubljana would be reduced from about 10 hours to below 3 hours. Venice would be reached in less than 5 hours instead of the current, approximately 15 hours. Service frequency would increase from one service per day to hourly services for most of daytime, with a total of 16 trains per day. In current prices, ticket costs are expected to increase by about 30% domestically. However, due to policy considerations, international ticket costs are expected to remain constant. 3. MODELLING METHODOLOGY The feasibility study was supported by traffic modelling and analyses to provide data for economic and financial appraisal. A multi-modal corridor model was developed by using CUBE Voyager software, developed by Citilabs. 3.1 Transportation networks The scope of the model includes the South-Transdanubia region in Hungary, and the major destinations along the corridor outside of Hungary, such as Zagreb, Ljubljana, Rijeka, Trieste, Venice and Milan. The model was divided into 67 traffic analyses zones. The roadway network of the model included the following functional classes:

6 Motorways, Semi-motorways, Major highways. The public transport network included the following services: MÁV long distance services, MÁV intercity services, MÁV high speed rail services, Volánbusz coach services, Airlines services between Budapest and other destinations along Corridor V. Services data coding was based on published timetables of MÁV, Volánbusz and airline statistics collected at Ferihegy International Airport. Roadway network was assumed to develop according to the National Highway Plan. No major service development was assumed for air and coach services. For railway, no major developments were assumed outside of Corridor V. 3.2 Trip matrix calibration The model included four travel modes: road, rail, coach and air. However, trip matrices were only available for road, and air transport, the latter being assembled from airport statistics. Railway and couch passenger matrices were calibrated by using cross section counts collected on respective networks. Passenger counts were obtained from MÁV Co. and Volánbusz Co. Calibration was done by using Cube Analyst software, developed by Citilabs. 3.3 Incremental mode choice model A multinomial logit choice model was developed to estimate the effect of changes in trips costs on the trip matrices. The model uses the existing proportions of mode choice between available choices, which were defined as follows: Private road transportation (car) Public surface based transportation (rail/coach) Public air based transportation (air)

7 This decision structure was assumed for two reasons. Firstly, since the corridor would primarily serve long distance business and leisure trips, it was assumed that choices between car, rail/coach and air are made at the same level. It was also expected that between these choices, users behave such that they meet the IIA 6 criteria. Secondly, due to the fact, that along the corridor rail and coach transport do not compete with each other but rather play complementary roles, these modes were treated as a single choice. Mode choice decision between rail and coach was relegated to the transit assignment step. The formula of the incremental multinomial logit model is as follows: Where: P' i k i1 Pe Ui i ( Pe Ui i ) Pi Pi ΔUi k probability of choice i in base conditions, probability of choice i in forecast conditions, change in the value of the utility function between base and forecast conditions for choice i, number of choices in the choice set. National data for the calibration of the mode choice model was not available at the time of the study. However, regional household survey data, collected for the Budapest Transport Alliance in 2007 provided data for the model calibration. The utility function included two independent variables: total travel time and total travel cost. Data for the model was stored in a MySQL relational database, while parameter estimation was done by using Biogeme 1.7 software. Utility function coefficients were at for time and for cost. 3.4 Socioeconomic and facility-induced trip forecasts Trip matrices were forecast for the horizon year based on growth factor method, applying the Furness/Fratar model. Trip matrices for road transport were available from previous studies. Forecasts for rail and air transport were developed based on the following traffic growth assumptions: Growth of existing traffic 7 :

8 Domestic railway traffic: 1%/year International railway traffic: 3%/year International air traffic: 5%/year Newly generated traffic due to the entry of High Speed Rail (HSR) 8 : Domestic railway traffic: 20% additional trips (1 year after opening) International railway traffic: 30% additional trips (1 year after opening)

9 3.5 Traffic assignment Private road traffic was assigned to the highway network using equilibrium assignment. Transit trips were assigned on the transit network using multiple route choice algorithm and capacity constrained methodology. 4. RESULTS Current passenger volumes along corridor V/b, serving both Kaposvár and Pécs, are 7,8 thousand passengers per day (ppd). Without the project, these volumes are expected to increase to 12,4 thousand ppd by 2034 due to the background traffic growth. The introduction of High Speed Rail service is expected to bring and additional growth, resulting in a combined volume of 17,4 thousand ppd on the new and the old lines along Corridor V/b. With the new HSR line carrying 65% of passenger volumes, the number of trips along the old line is expected to be halved. Volumes on other railway lines depend largely on their connectivity to the HSR line, some sections experiencing decreasing, and others, increasing traffic. Airline traffic is expected to decrease when compared to the scenario without HSR. Detailed figures may be found in Table 2. Results of the traffic forecast are shown on the following tables and figures. Table 2. Passenger traffic forecasts by major corridors Passenger volumes (person/day) Corridors (corridor ID) Alignment Current (2008) 2034: W/O project 2034: Scenario : Scenario : Scenario 3 Budapest-Székesfehérvár (30) Regular line Budapest-Dombóvár(40) Regular line HSV line Dombóvár-Kaposvár (41) Regular line HSV line Kaposvár-Gyékényes (41) Regular line HSV line Dombóvár-Pécs (40) Regular line HSV line Airlines (4 destinations)(1) Airlines (1) Sum of airline volumes between Budapest-Zagreb, Budapest-Ljubljana, Budapest-Venice, Budapest-Milan

10 Figure 4. Year 2008 public transport assignment with calibration sections

11 Figure 5. Year 2034 public transport assignment without the HSR line

12 Figure 6. Year 2034: differential assignment for Scenario 1.

13 Figure 7. Year 2034: differential assignment for Scenario 2.

14 Figure 8. Year 2034: differential assignment for Scenario 3.

15 Aggregated passenger volumes statistics are shown in Table 3. Table 3. Passenger traffic forecast by mode of travel Scenario Travel mode Passenger volumes Hours travelled Distance travelled (person/day) (pass.hours/day) (pass.distance/day) Current (2008) Regular Rail High Speed Rail Volán Coach Lines Airlines : W/O Project Regular Rail High Speed Rail Volán Coach Lines Airlines : Scenario 1 Regular Rail High Speed Rail Volán Coach Lines Airlines : Scenario 2 Regular Rail High Speed Rail Volán Coach Lines Airlines : Scenario 3 Regular Rail High Speed Rail Volán Coach Lines Airlines Without the HSR line, rail-based traffic is expected to increase by about 50% in the South-Transdanubia region of Hungary in next 25 years. In this scenario it is assumed that rail services will be upgraded in terms of rolling stock, but not in terms of frequency or speed. With the HSR line, rail-based traffic is expected to grow by about 75% in each scenario. There is little difference in passenger volumes or passenger hours travelled between scenarios 1-3. This may be explained by the fact that the alternatives have identical station allocations and service frequency along the NSV line, while route times differ by no more than 5 minutes. All scenarios contain services to two major cities in Hungary (Kaposvár, Pécs), as well as the international destinations along the corridor, with almost identical parameters. 6. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS Detailed cost benefit analysis was not available at the time this paper was prepared. However, a summary of the results, provided by MÁV Planning Institute Ltd., concluded that Scenario 1 was the most effective alternative, followed by Scenario 2 and 3. From an economic point of view, Scenario 1 was preferred due to its lowest construction cost resulting from the direct alignment of the scenario. Due to the detours in the HSR alignment in

16 Scenario 2 and 3, their costs were significantly higher, which was not compensated by their marginally higher passenger volumes. 7. CONCLUSIONS Hungarian national land use zoning regulations (OTrT) were revised in One element of the revisions was to allow for new high speed railway alignment along the Hungarian section of the 5 th Pan-European corridor. Közlekedés Ltd. was retained to prepare a corridor study covering the territory from Venice to Budapest, including a travel demand model and forecasts. Three alignment scenarios were considered for corridor 5/b, taking into account spatial constrains of built-in land and natural preserves in Hungary. One branch, serving Corridor 5/c toward Southern Hungary was also assumed in each scenario. The corridor between Hungary and Italy followed a single alignment. Decreased corridor travel time from 14 to less than 5 hours, improved service frequency, and high quality rolling stock were envisioned. Current travel along the corridor is dominated by private vehicle due to the recent opening of motorway sections in Hungary, Croatia and Slovenia. A multi modal travel demand model was built to estimate future trips along the high speed rail corridor. Travel demand model included three components: current trip table calibration and validation, mode choice module and assignment module. Forecast methodology considered base travel demand growth, and mode shift from air and road transport newly generated trips due to high speed rail service. Forecast results showed significant future increase in rail travel between Italy and Hungary, as well as domestic travel within Hungary, creating new trips as well as significant shift from air and road trips. Railway volumes are expecting to double due to background growth as well as the new HSR corridor. Because traffic volumes, and thus, benefits for the scenarios were almost identical, the lowest construction cost scenario (scenario 1) would be built on financial considerations. Decision on the actual alignment, nevertheless, is likely to be determined on political and environmental grounds. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alignment specification study of Corridor V. high speed railway line, Traffic study, (2009), Közlekedés Kft., available in Hungarian Development of the technical specification of the Hungarian high speed railway network based on the survey of the trends of the European high speed railways, and the alignment alternatives and feasibility study of the Venice-

17 Trieste-Budapest high speed railway line (2009), Hungarian Scientific Association for Transport, MÁV Planning Institute Ltd., available in Hungarian European High Speed Rail An Easy way To Connect (2009), European Commission, DG TREN Fleischer, T (2006), Trans European corridors the extension of existing axes, or the development of the European network?, Working Paper, available in Hungarian Streeter, W.C. (1992), The French Train Grande Vitesse: Focusing on the TGV-Atlantique, Working Paper, No. 100, The University of California, Transportation Center

18 1 Pan European Corridors: Transportation corridors in Central and Eastern Europe that required major investment over the next ten to fifteen years. They were defined in the Pan-European transport conferences of Prague (1991), Crete (1994) and Helsinki (1997). They are distinct from, although sometimes overlapping with, the TEN-T corridors. 2 Trans-European Transport Network, TEN-T priority axes and projects 2005, European Commission, based on decision No 884/2004/EC, adopted by the European Parliament and Council In April Source: 4 Source: Coordination Center for Transport Development, Hungary 5 Source: Hungarian Railway Design Institute Ltd.) 6 IIA Independence of irrelevant alternatives, a statistical assumption that needs to be met in the logit mode choice model framework 7 Based on domestic and international growth statistics on passenger rail and air transport 8 Based on European High Speed Rail An Easy way To Connect (2009), European Commission, DG TREN