Post on 26-Jan-2016
description
Cost and benefits of minimum mandatory railway accessibility criteria
for Persons with Reduced Mobility
Gilles Gardiol gilles.gardiol@era.europa.euUNECE – 19 November 2009
Foreword
• The presentation is based on the cost/benefit analysis performed by AEIF, under a mandate by the European Commission, in 2004-5
• The Agency « inherited » all AEIF work
• Future Agency work on PRM may re-use, alter or complement any of the presented elements
06/10/2009 Interoperability Committee workshop 2
Table of contents
1. Introduction on EU railway legislation & PRM TSI2. Few words on the Impact Assessment (IA) performed by AEIF3. Methodology for IA (reference vs project, station category)4. Main parameters for the railway accessibility of PRM5. Year 2005: Situation in EU27 + Norway + Switzerland
PRM in railway traffic, PRM Stations and RST6. Population trends and PRM7. Stations: cost impacts, threshold for distance between 2 “PRM”
stations, implementation trends over 40 years8. Rolling stock: cost impacts, implementation trends over 40 years9. Benefits10. Conclusions
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 3
Interoperability EU railway regulations
e.g. An emergency lighting system of
sufficient intensity and duration is compulsory
on trains
PRM TSI section 4.2.2.5: Vehicle access
steps shall be illuminated to a
minimum of 75 Lux, measured across 80 %
of the width of thestep by a light placed within or immediately
adjacent to it.
Impact assessment
PRM TSI case
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 4
IA methodology
Slide 5UNECE - Workshop on passenger accessibility of heavy rail systems- 19 Nov. 2009
Passenger vehiclesStations
Basic Parameters per subsystem and potential cost drivers
— Parking facilities for PRM
— Doors and single level entrances
— Passenger routes, main walking routes (obstacle-free route)
— Floor surfaces
— Tactile information
— Guiding paths
— Glass door and wall markings
— Toilets
— Furniture
— Ticketing counter or vending machines/Information counters
— Ticket control machines
— Seats
— Wheelchair spaces (+ 2-way communication PRM-Driver/staff)
— Doors
— Lighting
— Toilet
— Clearways
— Customer information
— Height changes
— Handrails
— Wheelchair accessible sleeping accommodation
— Step position for vehicle access and egress
— Lighting
— Visual information: signposting, pictograms, dynamic information
— Spoken information
— Emergency exits, alarms
— Geometry of footbridges and subways
— Stairs
— Handrails
— Ramps, escalators, lifts, travelators
— Platform heights and offsets
— Platform widths and edges of platforms
— Ends of platforms
— Boarding aids
— Level track crossings
Slide 6UNECE - Workshop on passenger accessibility of heavy rail systems- 19 Nov. 2009
PRM population for the railway traffic:an attempt for EU estimates (year 2005)
29% of PRM in the EU population accordingto physical attributes(Year 2005)
Inhabitants per type of limitation in physical attributes Millions of inhabitants Relative share
(EU25+Norway) (Year 2005) %
Total population 492.2 100.0%
Not PRM 347.8 70.7%
PRM categories Total 144.4 29%
Mobility impaired - total 29.5 6.0%Wheelchair users 4.9 1.0%
Other mobility impaired 24.6 5.0%
Visual impaired - total 5.9 1.2%Visually impaired 4.9 1.0%
Blind persons 1.0 0.2%
Hearing impaired - total 25.6 5.2%Hearing impaired persons 24.6 5.0%
Deaf persons 1.0 0.2%
Communication impaired 24.6 5.0%
Persons of small stature - adults 0.5 0.1%
Persons of small stature - children 53.1 10.8%
Pregnant women 5.3 1.1%
EU25+Norway : People due to limitations in physical attributes in 200 2005*
Not PRM
70.5%
Visually impai-red
1.0%
Blind Persons
0.2%
Hearing impaired
Persons
5.0%
Deaf Persons
0.2%
Communication
impaired
5.0%
Persons of small
stature - adults
0.1%
Persons of small
stature - children
11.0%Pregnant women
1.1%
Other mobility
impaired
5.0%Wheelchair users
1%
* estimates being checked, reference years : f rom 1985 to 2004, depending category of PRM
Source : AEIF CBA for the PRM TSI
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 7
Various sources were used: Eurostat, national sources, ...
Year 2005: Situation in EU27 + NorwayPRM according to age category
Combining PRM age categories (<14 and > 55 years old) and PRM due to physical attributes, more than 50% of the EU population could be considered as PRM.
PRM per age category in the total population - Portugal (2001)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0-4 5-9 10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85-89
> 90
in %
of
tota
l p
op
ula
tio
n p
er
ag
e c
ate
go
ry
Source : Portugal - AEIF ad hoc questionnaire for PRM TSI CBA
PRM per type of aids and per age category in the population - Netherlands (2003)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Auditive aids Visual aids Aids to enhance mobility Anatomic aids
Type of aids
% o
f P
RM
in
to
tal
po
pu
lati
on
0-11 12-54 > 55
© Statistics Netherlands, Voorburg/Heerlen 3/9/2005
15-196%
20-247%
25-297%
30-348%
35-398%
40-447%
45-497%
50-547% 75-79
3%80-more
3%0-45%
5-96%
10-146%
60-645%
65-695%
70-744%
Others43%
55-595%
Source : Eurostat
structure of the whole population – EU25+Norway (year 2005)
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 8
Year 2005: Situation in EU27 + Norway PRM due to specific situations during a journey
People with heavy luggage and/or with children
Travellers in an EU country with a different languagee.g. London
(railway traffic)
Business, school, work
Holiday, Tourism
Family, Shopping
Unknown
Italy 46% 23% 31%
Poland 47% 53%
UK 75% 20% 5%
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 9
PRM with high disabilities in railway traffic:
few examples at national level
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 10
year 2004
PRM in railway traffic: example with a city: London
Source: London Transport Report 2004No wheel chair user on national railVery few using the underground/DLRSimilar statement for other PRM persons
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 11
Year 2005: Situation in EU27 + Norway + Switzerland
PRM stations with obstacle-free route:
21% on the whole network
43% on the TSI scope (TEN network)
very high differences across countries
Stations with obstacle-free routes for the whole network
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
ÖBB
SNCB/NMBS
SZDC/CD
DB AG
BS
EVR
RENFE
RHK
RFF/SNCF
NetworkRail
CH
MÁV Rt.
CIE
FS SpA
LG
CFL
LDZ
P roRail
J BV
P KP
REFER
BV
SZ
ZSR
EU25+Norway
Stations w ithobstacle-freeroute
Stations w ithoutobstacle-freeroute
Stations with obstacle-free routes for stations under TSI scope
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
ÖBB
SNCB/NMBS
SZDC/CD
DB AG
BS
EVR
RENFE
RHK
RFF/SNCF
NetworkRail
CH
MÁV Rt.
CIE
FS SpA
LG
CFL
LDZ
P roRail
J BV
P KP
REFER
BV
SZ
ZSR
EU25+Norway
Stationsw ithobstacle-free route
Stationsunder TSIscopew ithoutobstacle-free route
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 12
Year 2005: Situation in EU27 + Norway + Switzerland
PRM features in RST:Less information
than for stationsPRM feature =
WCU boarding device and/or a WCU toilet
CR Coaches
0% 50% 100%
VR
TOCs
Trenitalia
CIE
NS
PKP
TOCs
ZSSK
TOCs
Total
Fin
land
Gre
atB
ritai
nIta
lyIr
elan
dN
ethe
rland
sP
olan
dP
ortu
gal
Slo
vaki
aS
wed
en
PRM coaches Total coaches
CR DMU trainsets
0% 50% 100%
VR
TOCs
Trenitalia
CIE
NS
PKP
TOCs
ZSSK
TOCs
Total
Fin
land
Gre
atB
ritai
nIta
lyIr
elan
dN
ethe
rland
sP
olan
dP
ortu
gal
Slo
vaki
aS
wed
en
PRM trainsets Total trainsets
CR EMU trainsets
0% 50% 100%
VR
TOCs
Trenitalia
CIE
NS
PKP
TOCs
ZSSK
TOCs
Total
Fin
land
Gre
atB
ritai
nIta
lyIr
elan
dN
ethe
rland
sP
olan
dP
ortu
gal
Slo
vaki
aS
wed
en
PRM trainsets Total trainsets
no CR DMUs
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 13
Average number of railway trips per inhabitant
Lower number of railway trips for PRM age categories Railway trips are performed mainly with non PRM users, an age category intended to decrease from 56% to 45% of the total population between 2000 and 2050
Age category UK Germany Italy Denmark Poland NetherlandsGrouping average
EU25 + Norway average
Year of data 2004 2004 2003 2004 2004 2000/20030-4 years 4.2 3.6 1.8 3.6 1.2 2.5 3.0 2.65-9 years 2.1 11.6 3.4 12.5 3.3 8.6 5.9 5.1
10-14 years 8.4 22.1 5.0 30.8 6.1 6.5 11.8 10.215-19 years 22.0 24.6 8.5 57.3 10.2 47.9 19.8 17.220-24 years 49.7 23.4 36.1 82.5 10.7 64.8 33.2 28.725-29 years 47.6 23.8 14.7 55.2 13.2 35.6 26.9 23.330-34 years 36.4 20.7 12.0 38.6 15.2 19.4 22.0 19.135-39 years 26.5 21.7 9.0 27.3 10.5 19.4 18.6 16.140-44 years 24.1 22.8 9.3 27.8 8.7 16.2 17.6 15.345-49 years 22.2 23.1 6.6 25.2 6.4 16.2 16.1 13.950-54 years 19.6 28.9 6.1 22.4 7.9 13.0 17.0 14.755-59 years 18.1 20.0 3.6 22.5 8.2 13.0 14.1 12.360-64 years 10.8 26.0 2.7 18.4 3.8 13.0 14.2 12.365-69 years 6.8 27.4 3.0 11.8 2.4 9.7 12.4 10.770-74 years 8.3 19.2 1.7 8.8 1.0 9.7 9.4 8.175-79 years 5.1 14.1 1.1 6.1 0.8 3.2 6.5 5.6
80+ years 2.7 7.5 0.2 2.6 0.7 3.2 3.5 3.0All ages 19.0 20.8 8.2 28.8 7.6 19.2 16.0 13.9
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 14
PRM
PRM
Population trends (based on EU15)
Evolution of EU15+Norway population – Eurostat basic scenario
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 15
Age 2000 20400-14 63 (17%) 51 (14%)
15-54 210 (56%) 165 (45%)
>55 102 (27%) 148 (41%)
Total 376 364
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
EU15 population trends (Eurostat basic scenario)
>55
15-55
0-14
Source : Eurostat
Impact on stations:1 stepstation size breakdown
large : the 5% of stations carrying 50% of the passenger trafficmedium : the next 25% of stations in a country carrying 35% of the trafficsmall : the remaining 70% of the stations carrying 15% of the traffic.
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 16
Relative share of stations in railway passenger traffic(base on estimated values provided by AEIF members)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% stations
% p
as
se
ng
ers
SNCF (Ile de France) ATOC SNCB/NMBS DB Ag
Source : AEIF
Country-RUs/IMs
Stations with less than 1000 passengers per day
(all entries/exits)Number of
stationsRelative
shareDK – DSB 143 68%DE - DB Ag 3475 69%GB – ATOC 1838 73%IT – RFI 1780 77%BE - SNCB / NMBS
430 80%
PL - PKP 1205 86%
Impact on stations:2nd step PRM station configuration
e.g. for a middle size station:
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 17
Tra
ck
P
latf
orm
Tra
ck
Building
P
latf
orm
15m
10m
5 m
400m
6m3m
Tra
ck
P
latf
orm
Tra
ck
bridge/tunnel
10m
10m
ramp lif t
ramp lif t
ramp lif t
3m
Impact on stations:Unit cost per equipment type
BPs UnitINVESTMENT COSTS LIFETIME Comments
NEW STATION EXISTING STATION NEW EXISTING
Investment unit cost Cost for new station multiplied
by
Investment unit cost
annual % of investment unit
cost
Unit cost Unit cost Years
Obstacle-free route
- lift Euro/unit 200 000 2 400 000 15% 30 000 30 000 25
- ramp Euro/unit 150 000 3 450 000 5% 7 500 7 500 50
Lighting Euro/m² 60 2 120 50% 30 30 10
Toilet
- non self cleaning Euro/m² 10 000 2 20 000 90% 9 000 9 000 10 25 Euro/day
- self cleaning Euro 120 000 1 120 000 25% 30 000 30 000 10
Passenger Information System
- visual
large station Euro/m² 20 2 40 15% 3 3 10 cabling
medium station Euro/m² 12 2 24 15% 2 2 10 is the
small station Euro/m² 15 2 30 15% 2 2 10 major cost
- audio
large station Euro/m² 2 0 10
medium station Euro/m² 2 0 10
small station Euro/m² 2 0 10
Tactile pathways Euro/m² 60 2 120 0 0 0 15
GAP* :
- manual ramp Euro/unit 500 1 500 15% 75 75 10
- manual ramp - high Euro/unit 4 000 15% 600 600 10
- platform lift Euro/unit 10 000 1 10000 15% 1 500 1 500 10
PH = 550 or 760 mm Euro/m² not relevant 200 0% 0% 0 50
ANNUAL MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONAL COSTS
PH= platform height Several solutions for the same purpose grouping of alternatives
Impact on stations:Average investment cost per station size
Basic Parameters NEW STATION : investment in Euro Existing station : investment in Euro
Large Medium Smal Large Medium Small
Obstacle route free (options)
- lift 1 000 000 600 000 400 000 2 000 000 1 200 000 800 000
- ramp 750 000 450 000 300 000 2 250 000 1 350 000 900 000
Lighting 8 160 2 400 1 440 16 320 2 400 1 440
Toilet (options)
- non self cleaning 20 000 10 000 10 000 40 000 20 000 10 000
- self cleaning 240 000 120 000 120 000 240 000 120 000 120 000
Passenger Information System
- visual 303 000 59 400 23 250 606 000 118 800 46 500
- audio
Tactile pathways 76 860 37 200 15 750 153 720 74 400 31 500
GAP (options)
- manual ramp 3 229 1 938 1 292 3 229 1 938 1 292
- platform lift 50 000 30 000 20 000 50 000 30 000 20 000
PH = 550 or 760 mm * * * 2 700 000 960 000 300 000
Total - PIS+Tactile pathways+options with low level of cost
1 161 249 560 938 351 732 5 519 269 2 377 538 1 190 732
Total - PIS+Tactile pathways+options with high level of cost
1 678 020 849 000 580 440 6 016 040 2 655 600 1 419 440
* it is not an additional cost when building a new station
Alter-natives
Impact on new small stations: Threshold issue for accessibility
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 20
For new stations: TSI section 4.2.3.1.New stations with a throughput of less than 1 000 passengers per day (combined total
of passengers embarking and disembarking) are not required to have lifts or ramps where these would otherwise be necessary to achieve full compliance with this clause if another station within 30 km on the same route provides a fully compliant obstacle-free route.
In such circumstances the design of new stations shall incorporate provision for the future installation of a lift and/or ramps to make the station accessible to all categories of PRM.
For existing stations: TSI section 7.3.1When renewed or upgraded, existing stations that have a daily passenger flow of 1
000 passengers or less, combined embarking and disembarking, averaged over a 12 month period are not required to have lifts or ramps where these would otherwise be necessary to achieve full compliance with this clause if another station within 50 km on the same route provides a fully compliant obstacle-free route. In such circum-stances the design of stations shall incorporate provision for the future installation of a lift and/or ramps to make the station accessible to all categories of PRM.
Impact on stations: Rates of new and upgrade stations
Annual rates for EU25+NorwayNew stations: 22Upgraded existing stations: 200Project scenario: 50% of these stations will be under the
TSI scope
Note:From 1960 to 2000, the number of stations decreased with an
annual average of 1.3% (1.1% for 1990-2000)Rate of closure of stations for the project scenario: 1% per year
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 21
Stations implementation according to assumptions on stations renewal
PRM features implementation on railway stations
0
5 000
10 000
15 000
20 000
25 000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Years
Nu
mb
er o
f st
atio
ns
TSI compliant stations in 2003 New stationsUpgraded stations Non TSI compliant stations under TSI scopeNon TSI compliant stations not under TSI scope
non compliant
upgraded if scope
expanded
new stations
(PRM TSI)
already compliant in 2005
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 22
Impact on stations:Global costs impacts, EU25+NO
Annual average CAPEX and OPEX (average over 40 years)New stations
not discounted Total: 6 to 24 M€, per station: 0.4 to 1.7 M€
discount rate 8%Total: 2 to 10 M€, per station: 0.2 to 0.7 M€
Upgrading of existing stationsnot discounted
Total: 70 to 163M€, per station: to 0.3 to 0.7M€discount rate 8%
Total: 28 to 70 M€, per station: 0.1 to 0.3 M€
06/10/2009 Interoperability Committee workshop 23
Impact on rolling stock:Assumptions for PRM configuration in RST
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 24
Wheelchair area impactThe wheelchair area has an impact on seat capacity. It was assumed that, in
EMUs/DMUs, the 2 WCU per 4-car train are at the same location in order to allow 2 WCU to travel together and to install in this case only 1 universal toilet per train (less cost impact in this case). There are the same assumption for a loco hauled train, except that a 8-car train will carry 2 WCU.
9Toi-let
10
1 53
2 64
door
interchangedoor
standard seatimpacted bywheelchair space
WCUtoilet
Tip-up / fold-up seat
WCU
12
7
8
11
WCU
Car without WCU area Car with WCU area
Impact on rolling stock:Assumptions for PRM configuration in RST
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 25
PRM equipment for communication : - PIS (Passenger Information System) - Emergency communication between WCU and onboard staff
CAB
WCU
CAB
Internal 35mm 16 dotdisplay2 per car
PIS controller : 1 per car Passenger Information System :- PIS system controller- MMI for driver interface- Additional memory module to allow multi-language
Emergency communication between wheelchair user andstaff :- interface device
-> 1 per car
Emergency communication- 3 buttons- Talkback system- Controller
Rolling stock impacts:Average cost impact per vehicle
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 26
Gap issue
Manual ramp=500€ (1 per train), OPEX=15% p.a, lifetime=10 years
Bridging plate=5000€ (2 per train), OPEX=20% p.a, lifetime=15 yearsOnboard lift = 30 000€ (2 per train), OPEX = 20% p.a, lifetime = 15 years
Passenger Information SystemTotal=7200€ per carvisual=5700€ per caraudio=1500€ per car
Emergency communication with WCU7500 € per WCU area
WCU toiletno significant change in investment, but decrease seat capacity
Rolling stock impact:seat capacity
06/10/2009 Interoperability Committee workshop 27
FOR NEW ROLLING STOCKImpact on train revenues of 1 additional wheelchair user area
because of seat capacity lossin term of cars per train and trains per day
-5%
-4%
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
1 2 4 6 8 10 12Number of vehicles per train
100 trains/day 60 trains/day 20 trains/day
Note : the increase of revenues w ith additional passengers is not evaluated here (w heelchair user and non PRM w ho might be occupied standing places at peak hours if no WCU)
Rolling stock impacts:Rates of new and upgraded vehicles
Total passenger cars in EU25+Norway about 100 000 vehicles in 2004
50 000 coaches50 000 vehicles in trainsets
Annual rate of new vehicles : 2% of existing fleet for coaches, 3% for EMU/DMU cars-> about 2 500 new vehicles per year
Annual rate of renewal/upgrading RST : coaches : 3 % EMU/DMU : 4 % (AEIF questionnaire)-> about 3 000 renewed/upgraded vehicles per year
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 28
Rolling stock implementation according assumption rates for fleet renewal
PRM TSI implementation on rolling stock according PRM TSI Chapter 7
0
10 000
20 000
30 000
40 000
50 000
60 000
70 000
80 000
90 000
100 000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
Non PRM TSIfleet
Renewed /upgraded fleetif scopeexpanded
TSI New fleet
TSI compliantfleet in 2003
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 29
Impact on rolling stock:Global costs impacts, EU25+NO
Annual average CAPEX and OPEX (average over 40 years)New passenger rolling stock
not discounted Total: 2 to 27 M€, per car: 1 to 11 thousand €if onboard lift in all trains: 180M€, per car: 73 thousand€
discount rate 8%Total: 0.7 to 8 M€, per car : 0.2 to 0.7 M€
Upgrading of existing rolling stocknot discounted
Total: 20 to 68M€, per car : to 7 to 23 thousands €discount rate 8%
Total: 10 to 38 M€, per car : 3 to 12 thousands €
06/10/2009 Interoperability Committee workshop 30
Annual global impact on stations and rolling stock (EU25+NO)
1) Annual average capital and operational expenditures (over 40 years)2) During a period of approximately 20 years (assumption: vehicles retrofit if they have not reached the middle of their lifetime)
Slide 31UNECE - Workshop on passenger accessibility of heavy rail systems- 19 Nov. 2009
Benefits ? Yes, but how to quantify them ?
Very few studies focused on the quantification of new PRM travel
When such studies exist, they have general assumptions not proven, e.g.:
“We were not able to find any information regarding the previous situation of new (PRM) passengers. However it is possible to assume that 50% was made by taxi and 50% was not made at all. This change will most likely lead to a significant change in the environmental impacts of road transport.
Source: ECORYS desk research study for AEIF”
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 32
Benefits linked with the value of time
Other studies tried to quantify the impact on journey time due to increase or decrease in station accessibility and interchange time between platforms/main hall of a stationPassenger Demand Forecasting Handbook (ATOC)
“PDFH shows that stations (access, egress, interchange) are a weak spot of railway transportation, with walk and wait times valued twice a high as in-vehicle time, not to mention extra penalties due to stairs”QUITS report (ISIS for European Commission, 1997)
“values of time for wait and walk should slightly increase (by about 30%) compared to in-vehicle time”
Their conclusions are not consistent, they were not used by AEIF.
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 33
Benefits …
Note: from this source, PRM are related to physical disabilities
67.7% of the population (non PRM) do not travel by train
87.5% in case of PRM
Assumption: improvement in the railway system could equalise the behaviour of PRM and non PRM
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 34
Benefits when looking at the age of the traveller
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 35
Potential PRM rail traffic (based on mobility of age category for rail and road in UK)
-78%
-89%
-56%
16%
162%
151%
92%
40%
27%
17%
4%
-4%
-43%
-64%
-56%
-73%
-86%
-8%
-15%
-35%
-38%
-20%
-4%
21%
33%
36%
30%
24%
17%
12%
-2%
-16%
-32%
-57%
-100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180%
01) 0-4 years
02) 5-9 years
03) 10-14 years
04) 15-19 years
05) 20-24 years
06) 25-29 years
07) 30-34 years
08) 35-39 years
09) 40-44 years
10) 45-49 years
11) 50-54 years
12) 55-59 years
13) 60-64 years
14) 65-69 years
15) 70-74 years
16) 75-79 years
17) 80+ years
Car/vandriver+passengers
Rail
Source : National statistics, National Travel Survey, DfT
Year : 2004
What is the potential traffic for railway if the behaviour of the PRM
age categories in railway traffic becomes closer to
the ones in road transport ?
Potential increase in trips/inhabitant for "PRM" age category(based on UK example)
0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 35,0 40,0 45,0 50,0
00) All ages (average trip)
01) 0-4 years
02) 5-9 years
03) 10-14 years
04) 15-19 years
05) 20-24 years
06) 25-29 years
07) 30-34 years
08) 35-39 years
09) 40-44 years
10) 45-49 years
11) 50-54 years
12) 55-59 years
13) 60-64 years
14) 65-69 years
15) 70-74 years
16) 75-79 years
17) 80+ yearsA
ge
ca
teg
ory
Annual trips per inhabitant
2004
2045
Children
Elderly population
Source : AEIF analysis based on primary data from UK (DftT)
Benefits
Very few studies quantify PRM benefits
A model to analyse the benefits should include:• The transport previously used by the “new railway-using PRM”• The impact on value of time in stations (access, egress,
interchange) for all users• The demographic trends • The trends in travel propensity according to age• The trends in disability according to age• The change in PRM behaviour with an improved accessibility • ...
Slide 36UNECE - Workshop on passenger accessibility of heavy rail systems- 19 Nov. 2009
Conclusion
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 37
Thank you for your attention!
UNECE Workshop on transport accessibility - 19 Nov. 2009Slide 38