Posts tagged cost benefit analysis
10 years of integrated Bicycle+Transit research
One sustainable mode gaining more attraction recently is the bicycle-transit combination: with a bicycle ride before and/or after the public transport journey. Integrating these modes, both short and long distances from door-to-door can be covered fast and comfortable (thanks to transit) and flexible (due to the bike). This makes the bicycle-transit combination a potential competitor for the car. In addition, the effectiveness of public transport will substantially increase due to increased catchment areas and enhanced first and mile options. However, integrating both modes is not easy and knowlegde about planning, behaviour and implementation are limited. We started our research in this domain back in 2015 and then provided many insights since then, provided in classic journal papers, but we also put much effort in other formats, suiting better to all needs. Learn more about planning, modelling and operating an integrated bicycle+transit system via the contributions below:
Societal value
What is the value of integrating bike sharing systems and public transport?, Research
Podcasts
The bicycle and transit combination, Dutch Cycling Embassy
Designing optimal Public Transport and shared modes, Mobility Innovators
Video
Integrating cycling and transit, EIT Urban Mobility
Infographics
Micromobility and public transport
Blog
The Bicycle-Train Combination: A Ticket to Success, Dutch Cycling Embassy
Journal papers
Spierenburg, L., H. van Lint, N. van Oort (2024), Synergizing cycling and transit: Strategic placement of cycling infrastructure to enhance job accessibility, Journal of Transport Geography, Volume 116.
Xanthopoulos, S., M. van der Tuin, S. Sharif Azadeh, G. Correia, N. van Oort, M. Snelder (2024), Optimization of the location and capacity of shared multimodal mobility hubs to maximize travel utility in urban areas, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Volume 179.
Van Kuijk, R.J., G. Homem de Almeida Correia, N. van Oort, B. van Arem (2023), Preferences for first and last mile shared mobility between stops and activity locations: A case study of local public transport users in Utrecht, the Netherlands, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Volume 166.
Montes, A., N. Geržinic, W.V. Veeneman, N. van Oort, S.P. Hoogendoorn (2023), Shared micromobility and public transport integration – A mode choice study using stated preference data, Research in Transportation Economics, Vol. 99, 101302.
Torabi, F., Y. Araghi, N. van Oort, S.P. Hoogendoorn (2022), Passengers preferences for using emerging modes as first/last mile transport to and from a multimodal hub case study Delft Campus railway station, Case Studies on Transport Policy, Vol.10, Issue 1, pp.300-314.
Liouta, G., Saibene, G., van Oort, N., Cats, O., & Schulte, F. (2022). Can Shared Mobility Compensate for Public Transport Disruptions? The Case of Milan’s Bike Sharing System During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Transportation Research Record.
Van Marsbergen, A., D. Ton, S. Nijënstein, J.A. Annema, N. van Oort (2022), Exploring the role of bicycle sharing programs in relation to urban transit, Case Studies on Transport Policy, Volume 10, Issue 1.
Stam, B., van Oort, N., van Strijp-Harms, H.J., Van der Spek, S., Hoogendoorn, S.P. (2021). Travellers’ preferences towards existing and emerging means of first/last mile transport: a case study for the Almere centrum railway station in the Netherlands. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 13, 56. .
Bronsvoort K, Alonso-González M, Van Oort N, Molin E, Hoogendoorn S. (2021). Preferences toward Bus Alternatives in Rural Areas of the Netherlands: A Stated Choice Experiment. Transportation Research Record. 2675(12):524-533.
Ton, D., Shelat, S., Nijënstein, S., Rijsman, L., van Oort, N., Hoogendoorn, S. (2020) Understanding the Role of Cycling to Urban Transit Stations through a Simultaneous Access Mode and Station Choice Model, Transportation Research Record, 2674 (8), pp. 823-835.
Ma, X., Ji, Y., Yuan, Y., Van Oort, N., Jin, Y., Hoogendoorn, S.(2020), A comparison in travel patterns and determinants of user demand between docked and dockless bike-sharing systems using multi-sourced data, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 139, pp. 148-173.
Ma, X., Yuan, Y., Van Oort, N., Hoogendoorn, S., (2020). Bike-sharing Systems: Impact on Modal Shift: A Case Study in Delft, the Netherlands. J. Clean. Prod. 120846.
Van Mil, J.F.P., Leferink, T.S., Annema, J.A. et al. Insights into factors affecting the combined bicycle-transit mode. Public Transport (2020).
Rijsman, L., N. van Oort, D. Ton, S. Hoogendoorn , E. Molin, T. Teijl (2019), Walking and bicycle catchment areas of tram stops: factors and insights, Proceedings of IEEE MT-ITS conference, Krakow.
Shelat, S., R. Huisman, N. van Oort (2018). Analysis of the trip and user characteristics of the combined bicycle and transit mode. Research in Transportation Economics.
Brand, J., N. van Oort, B. Schalkwijk, S. Hoogendoorn (2017), Modelling Multimodal Transit Networks; Integration of bus networks with walking and cycling, MT-ITS Conference Napoli.
What is the value of integrating bike sharing systems and public transport?
From abroad, people often look enviously at the success of the Dutch integration of cycling and public transport, where the best of both worlds come together. Not only for the first miles to the station, but also for the final part of the journey, thanks to the availability of shared bikes. Watetu Mbugua, who came from Kenya to study in Delft, was surprised at how relatively little people knew about this success. That’s why she conducted research in the Smart Public Transport Lab into the societal costs and benefits of this combination, using the “OV-fiets” (public transport bike operated by the Dutch Railways (NS)) as a case study.
By: Niels van Oort (Article translated from Dutch, see OV Magazine)
“The research started with an extensive search in international literature on all the aspects that contribute to the (societal) costs and benefits,” says the Kenyan. “Based on the 14 most important factors, I then looked for data to quantify the effects of OV-fiets for the past 20 years and monetize them. It was a painstaking task, but I’m proud that I succeeded.”
Mirjam Borsboom from the cycling policy team of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management confirms the international interest. “On average, the Netherlands receives more than four (!) requests per day from around the world, asking about cycling. Especially about cycling infrastructure, culture, and incentive projects. In large cities, the bike+public transport combination is particularly popular, leading to many questions, for example, about bike parking at public transport stations.”
Mbugua found that the benefits regarding accessibility were especially large, followed by congestion reduction and health benefits. On average, the benefits were 50% higher than the costs, such as investment and operational expenses. To avoid overly optimistic results, she worked with ranges and sensitivity analyses. “In every scenario, we actually see that the benefits outweigh the costs, even when very conservative assumptions are applied, such as the shift from car to bike+public transport.” In some cases, the benefits were as much as 2.5 times higher than the costs, making it a clearly socially responsible investment. “In the Netherlands, cycling is already very common, so the potential in other countries could be even greater,” Mbugua expects.
That is also where Borsboom sees the main value of this study: “Not only to further apply and improve the Dutch bike+public transport system but also to assist other countries in setting up similar systems.” As far as Mbugua is concerned, the Netherlands should be more proud of its existing bicycle+public transport system. She sees room for improvement particularly in high-quality bus and light rail connections, where shared bikes play only a minor role. “The potential to apply this success abroad is huge, but attention to road safety is crucial. Unfortunately, in many parts of the world, cycling often comes with high risks due to a lack of safe infrastructure,” she concludes.
The full research can be read at https://repository.tudelft.nl/record/uuid:70ca79cc-d6de-47c3-a707-88068d233008
Sustainable urban development with LRT: Lessons from Netherlands and Japan
Possibilities for the application of Light Rail Transit (LRT – light rail, tramway) as high-quality public transport in cities, urban regions are countless. Our article opens with the question about the specific characteristics of LRT. Then the question is asked which comprehensive argumentation LRT projects can justify. Finally, we examine the question of how these types of projects can be realized. Each of these three questions – What? Why? How? – is addressed on the basis of a set with two LRT main cases, respectively from the Netherlands and Japan.
Read the full article by Rob vd Bijl, Kiyohito Utsunomiya and Niels van Oort HERE
Impacts of replacing a fixed transit line by a Demand Responsive Transit system
The diffusion of the smartphone and the urban sprawl is pushing both private and public actors to revisit the concept of the demand-responsive transit (DRT). Mokumflex is a DRT pilot program that replaced the regular bus service in low-density areas of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, for 12 months. The close collaboration with the private enterprise that conducted the system but also with the local bus operator allowed the authors to have access to precise databases, giving this article empirical information for both the situation before and after the implementation. These insights help to understand DRT systems and support (future) design of DRT and transit systems. A few indicators were chosen for the comparison: distances, ridership, costs, Greenhouse Gases (GHG), emissions and population’s perception. The ridership dropped, however, for being “demand-tailored”, the mileage per passenger reduced, improving the costs and GHG emissions. In regards to population’s perception, the system enjoyed a good evaluation.
Find the Thredbo presentation of Felipe Coutinho HERE and the paper HERE
Impacts of charging methods and mechanisms of zero emission buses on costs and level of service
To limit global warming and strive for more liveable and sustainable cities, innovative zero-emission (ZE) buses are on the rise all around the world. Different alternative vehicle propulsion methods have been introduced during the last decades. However, for now, only trolley, battery and fuel-cell electric vehicles can be classified as (on the pipe) ZE-buses.
This research focuses on battery electric buses, since they are most cost-efficient and – therefore – the most promising option for the (near) future. An important limitation of battery electric buses is however the limited range of operations due to capacity restrictions of batteries. Batteries should be (re)charged before, during and/or after daily operations.
Different charging methods, including different charging power systems are available to charge battery electric vehicles. As far as known to the authors, scientific literature focusing on the operations and charging scheduling of electric buses is scarce. In this study, a comparison of different applied charging methods for electric buses is obtained.
A ZE-bus station simulation method is developed to assess charging methods and charging regulations with regards to their impacts on a variety of costs and level of service indicators. This simulation-based method is multi applicable, since it is particularly based on general automated vehicle location (AVL) data. To demonstrate our model, a case study at Schiphol (Amsterdam Airport) is performed.
This research concludes that the shift to ZE-bus transit is involved with higher costs and passenger disturbances. Investment costs of ZE-buses increase substantially: Most electric vehicles are around 60 to 80 percent more expensive than conventional diesel engine vehicles and additional charging infrastructure investments are required. Benefits of electric operations, including vehicle propulsion cost savings up to 70 percent, are not able to compensate these high investments.
The charging method choice contain trade-offs between level of service and (vehicle and charging infrastructure) investment costs. (Slow) depot charging offers opportunities for operations on short distance lines. However, additional vehicles are required in order to replace a vehicle which should be recharged. In this respect, conventional timetables could be complied and the level of service remains unchanged.
To prevent fleet overcapacity, vehicles should be recharged fast (with high charging power) along the line. Slight charging related delays could occur, especially when the number of charging systems is not sufficient, and/or the charging times are relatively long. Bus end stations and terminals are suitable as fast charging locations, since charging time could be combined with buffer time there.
Finally, dynamic/in-motion charging offers opportunities to prevent charging related delays completely due to combined charging and operation time. This charging method is still in its infancy stage yet, so focus is more on (innovative) static charging methods now.
Find the MT-ITS presentation wih Max Wiercx and Raymond Huisman: HERE
Light rail lessons learnt worldwide
Light rail has several potential benefits, both from a mobility and urban quality perspective. However, not all light rail systems are a success and there is much debate about the costs. Niels van Oort, co-director of the Smart Public Transport Lab at TU Delft, investigated 61 cases worldwide and will share his findings on the wider benefits of light rail.
Find the presentation of the Spårvägsforum 2019 in Uppsala HERE
Operations of zero-emission buses: impacts of charging methods and mechanisms on costs and the level of service
To limit global warming and strive for more liveable and sustainable cities, innovative zero-emission buses are on the rise all around the world. For now, only trolley, battery and fuel-cell electric vehicles can be classified as (on the pipe) zero-emission vehicles. Different charging methods, including different charging systems and power, are available to charge battery electric vehicles. However, scientific literature focused on the operation and charging scheduling of electric vehicles is scarce.
In this study, a comparison of different applied charging methods for electric buses is obtained. A new ZE-bus station simulation method is developed to assess charging methods and charging regulations with regard to their impacts on costs and level of service.
The shift to zero emission bus transport is meant for achieving more sustainable and liveable cities. However, this research concludes that this is involved with higher costs and passenger disturbances. The investment costs increase substantially. Benefits of electric operations, including vehicle propulsion cost savings up to 70 percent, are not able to compensate these high investments. (Slow) depot charging offers opportunities for operations on short distance lines. The depot location should be close to a bus station and additional fleet is required. In order to prevent fleet overcapacity, vehicles should be recharged with high charging power along the line, preferably at combined bus stations and terminals in order to prevent charging related delays. Dynamic/In-motion charging – still in its infancy stage yet – offers opportunities to prevent these delays due to combined charging and operation time.
E-bussen laden zorgt voor nieuw spanningsveld op busstations
Om de bijdrage van transport aan de opwarming van de aarde te minimaliseren en de leefbaarheid in onze woonomgeving te verbeteren groeit de wereldwijde vloot zero-emissiebussen snel. Zero emissiebussen dragen bij aan een duurzame en leefbare woonomgeving. Uit dit onderzoek blijkt echter dat inzet van zero emissiebussen ook gepaard gaat met hogere kosten en meer onbetrouwbaarheid van de dienstregeling voor de reiziger. De investeringskosten zijn hoger dan bij ‘oude vertrouwde dieselbussen’. Exploitatie met elektrische bussen is tot 70% goedkoper dan dieselbussen, maar deze winst is niet genoeg om de toename in investeringskosten te neutraliseren. Tot op heden is de capaciteit van batterijen onvoldoende om bussen van begin tot einde dienst zonder tussentijds laden in te zetten. Tussentijds laden in de garage kost echter tijd en extra voertuigbewegingen en is daarom onwenselijk. Om die reden is het aan te raden batterijen te laden op busstations.
Lees meer in het CVS paper met Max Wiercx en Raymond Huisman: Paper en Presentatie
Improving railway passengers experience: two perspectives
This paper describes two perspectives to improve the passenger experience. The passenger satisfaction pyramid is introduced, consisting of the base of the pyramid (dissatisfiers) focusing on time well saved and the top of the pyramid (satisfiers) aiming at time well spent. The challenge in planning and design of public transport services is to find the most efficient (set of) design choices. Depending on the context this might either mean focusing on the top or on the bottom of the pyramid. We found that influencing and enhancing the qualities of the satisfiers is far more important than traditional studies showed us. For stations, regression analyses show that dissatisfiers are responsible for explaining almost half of the total score of the station and satisfiers are responsible for the other half of the scores passengers give for the station. We still have to put a lot of energy in getting the basics right, starting in the planning phase, but then we are not allowed to lean back. We have to keep investing in qualities like ambience, comfort and experience which makes the customers truly happy at the end of the day.
Van B naar Anders
Op woensdag 30 mei organiseerde de Rli naar aanleiding van zijn advies een symposium. Tijdens dit symposium is het advies toegelicht en met betrokkenen uit de mobiliteitswereld besproken. Daarbij wordt stilgestaan bij de toekomst van mobiliteit en infrastructuur, de bestuurlijke praktijk en bij innovatie en verduurzaming van ons mobiliteitssysteem.
Vind alle bijdragen en verslag HIER
De presentatie over de toekomst van mobiliteit van Niels van Oort vind je HIER