Gilles Gardiol [email protected] UNECE – 19 November 2009

Cost and benefits of minimum mandatory railway accessibility criteria

for Persons with Reduced Mobility

Gilles Gardiol [email protected] – 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


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


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


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)


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%


PRM with high disabilities in railway traffic:

few examples at national level


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


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


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


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


PRM

PRM

Population trends (based on EU15)

Evolution of EU15+Norway population – Eurostat basic scenario


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.


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:


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


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


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


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€


Impact on rolling stock:Assumptions for PRM configuration in RST


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


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


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


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


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


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 €


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)


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”


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.


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


Benefits when looking at the age of the traveller


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 • ...


Conclusion


Thank you for your attention!


Gilles Gardiol [email protected] UNECE – 19 November 2009

Documents

Transcript of Gilles Gardiol [email protected] UNECE – 19 November 2009