Suburban light rail transit (LRT) and regional rail systems face similar challenges when it comes to upgrade perspectives. A particular planning process is required for upgrade measures apart from conventional alignment modifications. This study investigated the similarities between LRT and regional rail characteristics and developed a robust decision framework that linked demand modeling, timetable construction, and infrastructure design in an integrated approach. The study applied a three-stage planning process for a regional railway system in a midsized Austrian city. A multimodal travel demand model that included demographic changes over the next 2 decades was used. Travel demand was calculated with the current timetable and forecasted changes in regional planning. Within a sensitivity analysis, the impact of alternative timetables on modal shift was checked. A detailed analysis of these results was undertaken to optimize the best-ranked timetable model. Different infrastructure measures such as electrification, double-track sections, road grade crossings, station layout, and alignment changes were identified to match the optimal target timetable with fixed hub-to-hub travel times. Various stakeholders were involved in deciding the political objectives of modal shares, transit headways, and regional rail infrastructure. A well-defined planning process with fixed milestones led to a common agreement on a stepwise upgrade plan for the next 25 years. The proposed method can be applied to regional rail as well as LRT.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MackieP., and PrestonJ.Twenty-One Sources of Error and Bias in Transport Project Appraisal. Transport Policy, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1998, pp. 1–7.
2.
MackettR.L., and EdwardsM.The Impact of New Urban Public Transport Systems: Will the Expectations Be Met?Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 32, No. 4, 1998, pp. 231–245.
3.
EdwardsM., and MackettR.L.Developing New Urban Public Transport Systems: An Irrational Decision-Making Process. Transport Policy, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1996, pp. 225–239.
4.
De BruijnH., and VeenemanW.Decision-Making for Light Rail. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2009, pp. 349–359.
5.
EliassonJ., and BörjessonM.On Timetable Assumptions in Railway Investment Appraisal. Presented at 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2012.
6.
BeukersE., BertoliniL., and Te BrömmelstroetM.Why Cost Benefit Analysis Is Perceived as a Problematic Tool for Assessment of Transport Plans: A Process Perspective. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 46, No. 1, 2012, pp. 68–78.
7.
RubinT.A., MooreJ. E.II, and LeeS.Ten Myths About US Urban Rail Systems. Transport Policy, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1999, pp. 57–73.
8.
StangerR.Ten Myths About US Urban Rail Systems by Thomas Rubin, James Moore, and Shin Lee: A Rejoinder. Transport Policy, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2000, pp. 303–305.
9.
MackettR., and EdwardsM.An Expert System to Advise on Urban Public Transport Technologies. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems, Vol. 20, No. 4–5, 1996, pp. 261–273.
10.
MátraiT.Cost Benefit Analysis and Ex-Post Evaluation for Railway Upgrade Projects. Periodica Polytechnica Transport Engineering, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2013, pp. 33–38.
11.
CurrieG., and DelboscA.Exploring Comparative Ridership Drivers of Bus Rapid Transit and Light Rail Transit Routes. Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2013, pp. 47–65.
12.
ThomsonG.L., and BrownJ.R.Making a Successful LRT-Based Regional Transit System: Lessons from Five New Start Cities. Presented at 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2009.
13.
European Commission and European Investment Bank (eds.). RAILPAG. Railway Project Appraisal Guidelines.European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 2006.
14.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ed.). Cost Benefit Analysis of Transport Infrastructure Projects.United Nations, New York and Geneva, 2003.
15.
DabinettG., GoreT., HaywoodR., and LawlessP.Transport Investment and Regeneration. Sheffield: 1992–1997. Transport Policy, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1999, pp. 123–134.
16.
HillR.The Toulouse Metro and the South Yorkshire Supertram: A Cross Cultural Comparison of Light Rapid Transit Developments in France and England. Transport Policy, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1995, pp. 203–216.
17.
AllenJ. G.From Commuter Rail to Regional Rail: Operating Practices for the 21st Century. In Transportation Research Record 1623, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 127–134.
18.
KaiY.-C., and HuangP.-W.High Speed Route Improvement Optimizer. Presented at 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2011.
19.
KangM.-W., JhaM. K., and BuddharajuR.A Rail Transit Route Optimization Model for Rail Infrastructure Planning and Design: Case Study of Saint Andrews, Scotland. Presented at 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2012.
20.
BrezinaT., and KnoflacherH.Railway Trip Speeds and Areal Coverage. The Emperor's New Clothes of Effectivity?Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 39, July 2014, pp. 121–130.
21.
BronsM., GivoniM., and RietveldP.Access to Railway Stations and Its Potential in Increasing Rail Use. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 43, No. 2, 2009, pp. 136–149.
22.
GivoniM., and BanisterD.Speed: The Less Important Element of the High-Speed Train. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 22, May 2012, pp. 306–307.
23.
JainJ., and LyonsG.The Gift of Travel Time. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2008, pp. 81–89.
24.
WalterS.Integrated Periodic Timetable Scheduling—Towards an Integrated Timetable Across Central Europe. In Road and Rail Infrastructure II (LakušicS., ed.), University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia, 2012, pp. 855–861.
25.
TCRP Report 155: Track Design Handbook for Light Rail Transit.Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012.
26.
AllenJ.G., and LevinsonH.S.Regional Rapid Transit: Past, Present, and Future. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2219, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 69–77.
27.
FazioA.E., TroupA. R., HodgesonB., and KanarekJ.Safe Transit in Shared Use. FTA, Philadelphia, Pa., 2011.
European Rail Research Advisory Council (ed.). Metro, Light Rail and Tram Systems in Europe. European Rail Research Advisory Council, Brussels, Belgium, 2006.
31.
Glossary of Transit Terminology.APTA, Washington, D.C., 1994.
32.
Transportation Research Circular E-C033: This Is Light Rail.TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001.
33.
Suburban and Regional Railways Landscape in Europe.European Rail Research Advisory Council, Brussels, Belgium, 2006.
SchumannJ. W.Status of North American Light Rail Transit Systems: Year 2006 Update. In Transportation Research Circular E-C112: Joint International Light Rail Conference. A World of Applications and Opportunities, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 3–18.
37.
VuchicV. R.Urban Transit Systems and Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, N.J., 2007.
38.
Supplementing and Updating TCRP Report 52: Joint Operation of Light Rail Transit or Diesel Multiple Unit Vehicles with Railroads. Research Results Digest, Vol. 43, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001.
ArmsJ.-C., SawickiM., and SchroederM.Technical Specifications of Interoperability. European Railway Agency, Brussels, Belgium, 2008.
41.
NovalesM., OrroA., and BugarínM. R.Track Geometry for Light Rail Systems. Presented at Joint International Light Rail Conference: Growth and Renewal. Los Angeles, Calif., 2010.
42.
VeitP., WalterS., and FellendorfM.GKB Weissbuch 2025+. Strategic Plan for GKB Regional Railway in Styria. Final report (in German). Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria, 2014.
43.
UttenthalerH.Grundlagen eines auf einem integrierten Taktfahrplan basierenden Eisenbahninfrastrukturausbaues am Beispiel Zentraleuropa. MS thesis. Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria, 2010.
44.
Commuter Rail Capacity. In TCRP Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd ed. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, p. 5–86.
45.
CleverR.Integrated Timed Transfer: A European Perspective. In Transportation Research Record 1571, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 109–115.
46.
BorzaV., and FöldiakJ.Integrated Periodic Timetable in Hungary: Experiences, Help for Vision. In Road and Rail Infrastructure II (LakušicS., ed.), University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia, 2012, pp. 831–840.
47.
WalterS.Regional Railways: Timetable-Based Long-Term Infrastructure Development. Presented at 3rd International Conference on Road and Rail Infrastructure, Split, Croatia, 2014.
48.
SonntagH.Linienplanung im öffentlichen Personennahverkehr. PhD dissertation. Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, 1977.
49.
FellendorfM., HauptT., HeidlU., and ScherrW.PTV Vision: Activity Based Demand Forecasting in Daily Practice. In Activity-Based Approaches to Travel Analysis (EttemaD. F. and TimmermansH. J. P., eds.), Elsevier Science, New York, 1997, pp. 55–72.
50.
FriedrichM., HofsaessI., and WekeckS.Timetable-Based Transit Assignment Using Branch and Bound Techniques. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1752, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 100–107.
