Master of Philosophy: Transport Studies

Transport Demand Analysis

Project Assessment (END5047Z)

Course Convenor:
Student Name:
Student Number:
Due Date: 17 AUGUST 2009

Major Assignment (END5047Z) )

 CONTENTS

Chapter Description Page

1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................1

2 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY.....................................................2

3 ALTERNATIVE MODE OF TRANSPORT FOR THE GAUTRAIN

CORRIDOR....................................................................4

4 EVALUATIONS METHODS............................................................5

5 PROPOSED EVALUATION METHODOLOGY....................................7

7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION....................................11

8. REFERENCES.........................................................................12

Major Assignment (END5047Z) )

1 INTRODUCTION

In fulfilment of the requirements for the major assignment, it is required that a paper is
written on the following topic:

The question is, is the Gautrain proposal the best way to provide dignified
public Transport or would you recommend a different proposal?

Provide at least two new public transport proposals for the Gautrain corridor.
We were required to discount all the costs taking the lifespan of the
investment into account. Using the CBA or MCA techniques you now should
be able to:
• Choose one of the evaluation techniques and argue why you are
proposing to use this one;
• Compare the current proposal with two (or more) new proposals;
• Select at least five criteria to asses the suggested
solution(alternatives);
• Indicate reasons for the choice of evaluation criteria;
• Use the chosen technique and calculate or justify by reference the
evaluation chosen solution;
• A conclusion and recommendation on the method and the alternatives
must be written

Before the questions can be answered, it is important to understand the background

of the Gautrain. The Alternative modes are then referred too and discussed. This
paper continues studying the different evaluation methods primarily used in assessing
Public Transport projects. The definitions of Cost benefit analysis and Multi Criteria
Analysis was then discusses and there differences.

It then goes on to discuss the proposed evaluation methodology but first the CBA and
MCA calculations were done to determine which evaluation method was appropriate
for the project. Conclusion and Recommendations were then drawn from the findings.

1 )
2 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

“The Gautrain Rapid Rail link is a rapid rail network planned in Gauteng. The rail
connection comprises of two links, namely a link between Tshwane (Pretoria) and
Johannesburg and a link between OR Tambo International Airport and Sandton. (See
Figure 1). A part from the three anchor stations on these two links, seven other
stations will be linked by approximately 80 kilometres of rail along the high level of
safety, reliability, predictability and comfort. Travelling at maximum speeds of 160 to
180kilometers per hour it will reach Tshwane from Johannesburg in less than 40
minutes. This Public Transport service will include dedicated exclusive bus services
to passengers to and from stations. The current estimated cost for this system is 20
billion” (Notes, 2009)

Figure 1 Gautrain route

Source: Department of Transport Gauteng

2 )
Combating the loss of mobility and growing economic costs of increasing road
congestion is a major challenge for the City of Johannesburg. The major
drivers of congestion are considered to be:
• Car ownership in the CoJ.is growing and is projected to increase by
35% to 1, 2 million by 2010.
• Capacity bottlenecks generally occur at intersections and interchanges
(as opposed to mid link sections of freeways and arterials) due to
inadequate geometry or malfunctioning/mistimed traffic signals.
• Lack of public transport culture among car users
• Lack of attractive alternatives to driving – including walking, biking, and
public transport

From this perspective, the Gautrain project seems to be a required alternative to

private transport. This viewpoint is held even in international automobile based
communities of the USA where it was found that it is impossible to solve the mobility
requirements of growing communities by only adding road space. But the realisation
was that congestion can be used as a tool to promote high occupancy alternatives
(Vanderschuren et al, 2008).

Therefore besides the Gautrain projects other mode alternatives for the corridor were
also evaluated.

3 )
3 ALTERNATIVE MODE OF TRANSPORT FOR THE GAUTRAIN CORRIDOR

The aim of this section is to examine alternative public transport modes for the
Gautrain route. For this project the bus and Light rail alternatives were considered

3.1 BUS

For the purpose of this project a standard bus transport was considered. Del Mistro
(1995) describes this mode of transport as being common in developing countries,
due to level of technology’s compatible with local experience and facilities.

The current bus service run on a schedule on specified routes and fares are fixed for
the routes. The standard bus capacity is100 and the route capacity is 15
000p/hr/lane. The journey speed ranges from 10 to 12km in mix traffic and low
density areas 25km/hr.

3.2 Light Rail

The LRT is assumed to be operating in a totally dedicated right of way. The bus is
assumed to match the high speed train in quality.

Distinguish features as per information Armstrong-Wright (1986):

• Passengers normally board from the street surface or a low platform
• Vehicles either operate as single vehicles of or short trains
• They generally operated on B or C right of way

Train has a Capacity for 700 to 900passengers. With segregated right of way this
vehicle could carry a capacity of 36 000 p/hr/direction at a journey speed of 25km/hr.

To compare the Gautrain with the bus and light rail alternatives a project evaluation
needed to be done to determine if the Gautrain is the appropriate public transport
mode for the corridor.

4 )
4 EVALUATIONS METHODS

The purpose of project evaluation is to calculate the net benefits of a project in such a
way as to form a basis for informing policy-makers as to whether the project should
be undertaken.

The two primarilry used evaluation methods for road and public transport project are
namely;
• cost benefit analysis and
• multicriteria analysis.

Table 1 gives comparison off the evaluation techniques describing the advantages
and disadvange.

Table 1: Comparison between Evaluation Techniques

Advantages Disadvantages
• Well structured
• Problem with non-monetary
Cost • One dimension
criteria
Benefit • Gives economical result
Analysis • Many calculations to change
• Possibility to calculate everything into currency
sensitivity
• More dimensions
Multi • Problem to calculate sensitivity
• Weighting criteria
Criteria • Different methods gives
Analysis • Possible to handle a lot of
different results
information
Source: Ministrie van Financiën, ‘s Gravenhage (1986)

4.1 Cost Benefit Analysis

The Wikipedia definition off Cost Benefit Analysis is as follow:

“Cost-benefit analysis is a term that refers to:

• to help appraise, or assess, the case for a project or proposal, which itself is a
process known as project appraisal; and

• an informal approach to making decisions of any kind.

5 )
 Under both definitions the process involves, whether explicitly or implicitly, weighing
the total expected costs against the total expected benefits of one or more actions in
order to choose the best or most profitable option”

According to Njikamp and Blaas (1994), cost benefit analysis my be interpreted as an

evaluation method, which provides a quantified survey of all monetary advantages
and disadvantages of alternative choice options by means of a systematic cost
benefit balance.

Cost Benefit analysis can be divided into two parts:

• Cost includes, construction cost maintenance cost and exploitation cost
• Benefit includes, time gain, safety increase.

Cost and benefit can be determined through two qualitative methods, Net profit value
and benefit cost ratio. The benefit cost factor are used in conjunction with NPV,
through determining if individual projects has a BCR >1 to be acceptable (Littman T,
2002).

4.2 Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA)

MCA can be seen as a tool used to make a comparative assessment of alternative

projects. With this technique, several criteria can be taken into account
simultaneously in complex situations.

MCA estimates environmental impacts in economic terms and incorporates both

quantitative and qualitative criteria’s. Qualitative criteria’s require greater value
judgment on the part of the analysis whereby quantitative criteria involves simpler and
tangible parts. (Forum for economic and Environment-South Africa, 2002:334)

6 )
5 PROPOSED EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Impacts such as the social and environmental impacts could not be easily quantified
in monetary terms and not enough information was available to determine values for
environmental (pollution), safety and congestion criteria’s. Therefore when attempt
was made to calculate above criteria information for CBA calculations was based on
Todd Littman’s information and assumptions. Below is the Cost Benefit Analysis
calculation and more detail information is provided in Appendix A.

Table 2: Collected Information

Relevant Information Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Gautrain Bus LTR
Vehicle Cost(mil) 90 1.2 60
Operating Cost (per km) 21 4 122
Life Span 40 20 30
Discount Factor 1

Reduction of car-km per year

Additional PT km per year
Reduction of travel time(min) 10 16,068 21,0
Number of PT trips

Car pollution (per km)

PT Pollution (per km) 0.1 0.510 0.209
Pollution cost (R/t)

Safety Risk (per km2) 9 1.267 1,267 1,267

Safety Cost (R/person) 10 42500 42 500 42 500
Travel time reduction (R/h) 11 0.11 0.2678 0.35

Congestion 0.25 0,336 0,336

Level of Service (LOS) 12
Speed Range (km/h) 13
Flow Range (veh / hour / lane)
14

* Notes 1 – 14 are provided in Appendix A

This information was then used to conduct a Cost Benefit Analysis, and the results
are shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Cost Benefit Analysis

7 )
 1. COSTS Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Gautrain Bus Tram Train
Life Span 40 20 30
Discount Factor:
1
6.83 8.76 6.83
R
R 1,706,657 R 1,752,343 R 2,047,989
Ex Exploitation Cost 21 4 122
TOTAL COST R 1,731,657 R 1,765,676 R 2,077,989

ALTERNATIVES
2. BENEFITS Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Gautrain Bus LTR Gautrain
a) Pollution
( A) Pollution for public Transport
= 1 Pollution (per km) x
Ad Additional PT-km/yr 10 153 12.54
(B) Reduction of car pollution
Po 2 Pollution (per km) x
153*8.78(bus)
Re Reduction of car-km/yr 762 1343 158
Tot al 3 Pollution = ( B - A ) 1190 145
752
P 4 POLLUTION COSTS =
Tota l Pollution ÷ 1,000,000g
1190/1000000*
xP Pollution Cost (R/t)ass 5000(assumed
5.95 0.273
3.8 )

b) Travel Time Benefits

Reduction of travel time (min) 38 38 38
( A) Number of public trips 20 300 60 assume
(B) Travel time
58 58 58 calculated
reduction(R/hour)
( C) Convert reduction of travel
time from minutes to hours 0.63 0.63 0.63
(÷ 60 min)
TRAVEL TIME BENEFITS (R)
= A xBxC 730 10962 2192.4

c) Safety
(A) Safety increases due to
1.267
reduction of car-km/yr
20
car*0.264
= Reduction of car-km 8.78(10.2-
168car*0.2 200
5 44 1.4aver
64
safety risk/km occupancy car)
762car*0.2
64

8 )
 (B) Safety decreases due to
added PT-km/yr
= additional PT-km/yr x extra
todd
safety risk/km veh*1,267 25 380 76
To tal Reduction =A - B
175 -375 -32
SAFETY BENEFITS
= Safety Costs x Total
42500*175
R reduction R7 437 500 -R 16,022,500 -R1 3600 00

TOTAL BENEFITS
= POLLUTION + 3.8 5.95 0.73
TR TAVEL TIME BENEFITS + 730 10 962 2192.4
SA FETY R7 437 500 -R15 937 500 -R 1 360 000
TOTAL BENEFITS
R11 238 230 -R 9 976 538 -R 627 808

Some of the criteria chosen for the alternatives cannot be monetized therefore MCA
was used to deal with these aspects. MCA is also a tool which could be used in the
decision making process for planning uncertainty and for ranking choice alternatives
that have to be judged on a base of a broader set of decisions or choice criteria
(P Nijkamp, E Blaas, 1994:172)

6. MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS CALCULATION

6.1 ASSIGNED WEIGHTS

Weights were also determined for each criteria based on the objectives and priorities
of the projects. As cited by Manneveld notes 2005, weighting was discussed as being
a complex since not only must the experts know exactly what the value placed by
society on the different impacts of the project is, but they should also be able to
translate them into weights.

Criteria Weight Reason

C1: cost 0.3 Most important, as without
money, no improvements can be

9 )
 made to Public Transport
C2: pollution 0.15 Air pollution impacts are
assessed in terms of changes in
the emissions produced by the
traffic therefore receives a
medium-low ranking
C3: Travel Time 0.1 Travel time refers to the value of
time spent in travel Least
important in relation to the other
criteria
C4: Safety 0.2 Accidents arising from transport
impose costs on society and the
individual, therefore this criteria
receives a medium-high ranking
C5: Congestion 0.25 Traffic congestion consists of
incremental delay, driver stress,
vehicle costs, crash risk and
pollution, therefore it receives a
high ranking

6.2 MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS: EVAMIX METHOD

The Evamix- Multi criteria analysis method was decided on to calculate the chosen
solution. For the Qualitative criteria the ranking were done according to three
performance indices:

xxx very favourable impact

xx fairly favourable impact
x small favourable impact

The following tables show the evaluation of the alternatives using the Evamix method.

Table 4.1 : General Information

Alternatives
Criteria
A1: Gautrain A2: Bus A3: LTR
C1: Cost (x R1000) 90 1.2 60
C2: Pollution xxx x Xx
C3: Travel Time(km) 10 16 21
C4: Safety xxx x xx
C5: Congestion xxx x xx

Table 4.2: Qualitative Criteria

Alternatives
Criteria
A1: Gautrain A2: Bus A3: LTR Weight

10 )
 C2: Pollution xxx x xx 0.15
C3: Congestion xxx x xx 0.10
C4: Safety xxx x xx 0.20

Table 4.3: Quantitative Criteria

Alternatives
Criteria
A1: Gautrain A2: Bus A3: LTR Weight
C1: Cost 0 1.9 1 0.30
C5: Travel
1 0.55 0 0.25
Time

Table 4.4: Qualitative Dominance Matrix

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Alternative 1 0.45 0.45
Alternative 2 -0.45 -0.45
Alternative 3 -0.45 0.45

Table 4.5: Quantitative Dominance Matrix

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Alternative 1 -0.46 -0.05
Alternative 2 0.68 0.41
Alternative 3 0.05 -0.41

Table 4.6: Results

Alternative 1 0.45 + 0.45 -0.46 – 0.05 0.39
Alternative 2 -0.45-0.45+0.68+0.41 0.19
Alternative 3 -0.45+0.45+0.05-0.41 -0.36

Therefore, according to the Evamix method, Alternative 1, which is Guatrain mode, is

the best option. The second best option is Alternative 2, which is the bus mode

7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The results of the Multi Criteria Analysis concurred that Gautrain is the best mode
option for the route between Johannesburg and Pretoria.

11 )
 While this may be largely due to the long term cost planning savings and travel time,
it must also be reiterated that when doing a multi criteria analysis the impacts should
be described qualitatively, and quantified as much as possible. It is important to avoid
skewing analysis results by focusing too much on some impacts just because they
are most easily quantified.

“Cost Benefit Analysis is a tool that could be used to appraising policies and projects
but are narrow in scope of issues regarding vehicle conditions and silent on values of
developing Countries” (Kane 2006).

The lack of reliable cost data for the different Public transport modes were considered
to be a significant flaw. Therefore I agree with earlier investigations by Kane (2006)
that cost benefit analysis is in appropriate for assessing transport projects particularly
in the South African case and that a new approach to assess are needed.

8. REFERENCES

1. Njikamp P and Blaas E, 1994: Impact Assessment and Evaluation in

Transportation Planning

12 )
2. Lisa Kane, 2006: Instilling pro-poor values into transport assessment.

Gender, transport and development conference. Port Elizabeth

3. Littman T, 2009: Transport Cost Analysis – Techniques, Estimates and

Implications, Second Edition

4. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 1999: Traffic Calming, Benefit, Cost and
Equity Impacts, by Todd Littman. http://www.vtpi.org/tdm

5. Department of Transport, 2004 : ITP 2003/2008, updated summary

6. Venter, John, 2001: Gautrain Rapid Rail Link integrated Technical

Planning, feasibility and Bussines Case

7. Vanderschuren M, Frieslaar A, Lane T, 2001: Assesment of the improvement

strategies for the N1 corridor between Bellville and Cape Town

8. Armstrong-Wright A, 1986: Urban Transit Systems, guidelines for examining

options. The world Bank

9. Forum for Economic and Enviroment – South African, Training Manual Draft
1, 2002

13 )
 APPENDIX A

COLLECTED INFORMATION

APPENDIX A: COLLECTED/INFORMATION

14 )
1. Discount Factor
Assume a discount rate of 8%, r = 0.08

To calculate the real discount rate: [(1-1)/(1+r)n]/r

Where: n = nominal (inflated discount rate)

r = real discount rate
f = average annual percentage rate of inflation

∴ n = 15…assumed average nominal interest rate

f = 13…inflation = 13% in South Africa

2. Reduction of car-km per year

Passenger capacity was assumed

Currently there are:

Car occupancy =1.42

LTR = 0.209 reduction off car km = 14 -1.42 = 12.54
Which means if assumed LTR passenger capacity = 40 000 then
For the 60 LTR vehicles required it will take 666 passengers and if we assume
passengers per car is 4. we can make the following conclusion:
∴ 666/4 = 167 less car are required.

∴ Bus = 153
Which means if assumed Bus passenger capacity = 24 000 then
For the 300 Bus required it will take 80 passengers and if we assume
passengers per car is 4. we can make the following conclusion:
∴ 80/4 = 20 less car are required.

∴ Gautrain was assumed = 10

Which means if assumed LTR passenger capacity = 40 000 then
For the 60 LTR vehicles required it will take 666 passengers and if we assume
passengers per car is 4. we can make the following conclusion:
∴ 666/4 = 167 less car are required.

3. Additional public transport km per year

 There are currently no Gautrain assume to have additional 20

15 )
  There are currently no LTV assume to have additional 60
 There are currently bus assume to have 300 in total

4. Reduction of travel time (min)

 Assumed

5. Number of public transport trips

Alternative 1: Gautrain - 20 new couches

Alternative 2: New Bus - 300 new busses
Alternative 3: LTR – 60 new

6. Public Transport Pollution (per km)

Gautrain was assumed

Todd Littman’s Transportation Cost Analysis (2009), specifies Greenhouse Gas

Emissions by Mode (CO2 Equivalents) … pg 5.10-8, Table 5.10-10

7. Car Pollution (per km)

Todd Littman’s Transportation Cost Analysis (2009), specifies Greenhouse Gas

Emissions by Mode (CO2 Equivalents) … pg 5.10-8, Table 5.10-10
8. Pollution Cost (R/t)

 Assume R5 000 / ton

Devide by 1000 000 because tonne

9. Safety Risk (per km2)

Todd Littman’s Transportation Cost Analysis (2002), specifies the cost of

Externalities, which include the external crash risk per vehicle kilometre.
The value specified for a car is 0.264 per vehicle km
Public Transport 1.267

10. Safety Cost (R/person)

Information from the Feasibility study done by Department of Transport in Gauteng

Assume 4200passenger one way @ 42 500saving on safety cost

11. Travel time reduction (R/h)

 Assume R20 / hour

16 )
17 )