the comprehensive urban transport study

Transcription

THE COMPREHENSIVE URBAN
TRANSPORT STUDY
OF
BUCHAREST CITY AND
ITS METROPOLITAN AREA
IN THE REPUBLIC OF ROMANIA
FINAL REPORT
MAIN VOLUME
CENTRAL CONSULTANT INC.
PADECO CO., LTD.
Exchange Rate : US$1.00=15,695 Lei
(June, 1999)
Table of Contents for Main Report
Part
Introduction
1.
Introduction................................ ................................ ................... 1-1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
Study Development ................................ ................................ .......................... 1-1
Objectives of the Study................................ ................................ ..................... 1-1
Study Area................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 1-1
Structure of the Study ................................ ................................ ....................... 1-3
Study Organization ................................ ................................ ........................... 1-4
Technology Transfer ................................ ................................ ......................... 1-6
Part
Existing Conditions
2.
Socio-Economic Conditions ................................ .......................... 2-1
2.1
2.2
2.3
Present Situation of National Economy................................ ............................. 2-1
Socio-economic Situation in the Study Are ................................ ..................... 2-6
Physical Condition................................ ................................ .......................... 2-12
3.
Existing Land Use and Environmental Condition ....................... 3-1
3.1
3.2
3.3
Present Institutional System for Urban Planning and Land Use Regulations...... 3-1
Existing Land Use and Urban Development Characteristics of Bucharest ......... 3-3
Environmental Conditions in Bucharest ................................ .......................... 3-12
4.
Person Trip Characteristic ................................ .......................... 4-1
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
Person Trip Surve ................................ ................................ ........................... 4-1
Personal Attribute by Person Trip Survey Results ................................ ............. 4-3
Trip Production................................ ................................ ................................ . 4-5
Trip Generation and Trip Attraction by Zon ................................ ..................... 4-8
Trip Distribution................................ ................................ ............................... 4-9
Modal Split................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 4-12
Freight Movement ................................ ................................ .......................... 4-17
5.
Road Facilities and Road Traffi ................................ .................. 5-1
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
Inter-regional Road Network ................................ ................................ ............ 5-1
Outline of the Road Conditions in the Study Area................................ ............. 5-6
Road Network Characteristics in the Study Area ................................ ............... 5-9
Existing Road Traffi ................................ ................................ ...................... 5-16
Parking Conditions ................................ ................................ ......................... 5-23
Traffic Management System ................................ ................................ ........... 5-27
Existing Problem ................................ ................................ ........................... 5-31
6.
Public Transport................................ ................................ ............ 6-1
6.1
6.2
Outline of Public Transport System................................ ................................ ... 6-1
Metro................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 6-5
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.10
6.11
6.12
Tram................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 6-17
Trolley Bus................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 6-30
Bus ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 6-39
Maxi taxi ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 6-56
Taxi ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 6-58
Railway ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 6-60
Airport................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 6-65
Intermodal Facilities ................................ ................................ ....................... 6-66
Institutions and Administration ................................ ................................ ....... 6-71
Problems in Public Transport ................................ ................................ .......... 6-87
7.
Problems and Issues ................................ ................................ ...... 7-1
7.1
7.2
Background of Causing Transport Problem ................................ ..................... 7-1
Overall Issues on Urban Transport................................ ................................ .... 7-4
Part
8.
Socio-Economic Development Scenarios................................ ...... 8-1
8.1
8.2
8.3
Growth of the National Economy................................ ................................ ...... 8-1
Future Framework of Population in the Study Area................................ ........... 8-4
Projection of Working Population................................ ................................ ..... 8-6
9.
Urban Development Patte
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
General................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 9-1
Basic Policy and Objectives for Urban Development ................................ ........ 9-2
Selection of Urban Development Pattern ................................ .......................... 9-2
Location Plan of Center ................................ ................................ ................... 9-6
Distribution Plan of Population and Employment ................................ ............. 9-7
Future Transport Demand
................................ ......................... 9-1
10. Future Transport Demand ................................ .......................... 10-1
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
Method ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 10-1
Projection of Future Trip Production................................ ............................... 10-2
Trip Generation and Trip Attraction ................................ ................................ 10-3
Trip Distribution................................ ................................ ............................. 10-5
Modal Split................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 10-8
Part
Transport Master Plan
11. Transport Master Plan Formulation ................................ .......... 11-1
11.1 Planning Policy................................ ................................ ............................... 11-1
11.2 Master Plan Network Alternatives................................ ................................ ... 11-2
11.3 Transport Master Plan................................ ................................ ................... 11-29
12. Road Sector Plan ................................ ................................ ......... 12-1
12.1 Road Transport Policy ................................ ................................ .................... 12-1
12.2 Road Development Plan ................................ ................................ ................. 12-2
12.3 Traffic Management Plan................................ ................................ .............. 12-10
12.4 Other Road Related Facilities ................................ ................................ ....... 12-21
12.5 Road Project List ................................ ................................ .......................... 12-25
13. Public Transport Plan ................................ ................................ . 13-1
13.1
13.2
13.3
13.4
13.5
13.6
Measures for Formulating Public Transport Plan................................ ............. 13-1
Metro Development Plan ................................ ................................ ................ 13-5
Tram Development Plan ................................ ................................ ................. 13-9
Other Surface Public Transport Plan ................................ ............................. 13-20
Development Plan of Intermodal Facilities ................................ ................... 13-22
Operating Project ................................ ................................ ........................ 13-30
14. Evaluation of Transport Master Plan................................ ......... 14-1
14.1 Economic Evaluation................................ ................................ ...................... 14-1
14.2 Financial Analysis ................................ ................................ .......................... 14-4
14.3 Environmental Evaluation................................ ................................ ............. 14-11
15. Action Plan................................ ................................ ................... 15-1
15.1
15.2
15.3
15.4
15.5
Investment Schedule................................ ................................ ....................... 15-1
Priority Project Selection ................................ ................................ ................ 15-3
Financial Resource Plan................................ ................................ .................. 15-6
Operation and Management Plan ................................ ................................ .. 15-15
Institutional Reform Plan ................................ ................................ .............. 15-19
Part
Priority Project Study
16. Inner Ring Completion with Basarab Overpass ........................ 16-1
16.1
16.2
16.3
16.4
16.5
Project Description ................................ ................................ ......................... 16-1
Basic Plan................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 16-1
Preliminary Cost Estimation ................................ ................................ ......... 16-26
Implementation Plan................................ ................................ ..................... 16-26
Project Evaluation ................................ ................................ ........................ 16-27
17. Bottleneck Piata Improvement ................................ ................... 17-1
17.1
17.2
17.3
17.4
17.5
Basic Plan................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 17-2
Project Cost Estimation ................................ ................................ ................ 17-42
18. Parking System Development in the Central Area .................... 18-1
18.1
18.2
18.3
18.4
18.5
Basic Plan................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 18-1
Construction Cost ................................ ................................ ......................... 18-11
Implementation Program ................................ ................................ .............. 18-12
19. New Public Transit Corridor Development ............................... 19-1
19.1
19.2
19.3
19.4
19.5
Basic Plan................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 19-1
20. Fare System Improvement ................................ .......................... 20-1
20.1
20.2
20.3
20.4
20.5
Basic Plan................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 20-1
List of Table
Table 2.1.1 Gross Domestic Product ........................................................................................ 2-1
Table 2.1.2 Gross Domestic Product by Categories ................................................................. 2-2
Table 2.1.3 Indices of GDP by Categories ............................................................................... 2-3
Table 2.1.4 Structure of GDP by Categories ............................................................................ 2-4
Table 2.1.5 Share of Private Sector in Economic Activity........................................................ 2-4
Table 2.1.6 Foreign Trade......................................................................................................... 2-5
Table 2.1.7 Foreign Trade by Commodity Type ....................................................................... 2-5
Table 2.1.8 Foreign Trade by Groups of Region and Countries ............................................... 2-6
Table 2.1.9 Comparison of Economic Situation with Major European Transition................... 2-6
Table 2.2.1 Population and Density in the Study Area ............................................................. 2-7
Table 2.2.2 Population and Households in the 1992 Census.................................................... 2-8
Table 2.2.3 Past Trend of Population by Sector........................................................................ 2-8
Table 2.2.4 Active and Inactive Population .............................................................................. 2-9
Table 2.2.5 Number of Working Population in Residence Place.............................................. 2-9
Table 2.2.6 Number of working Population in Residence Place and Work Place .................... 2-10
Table 2.2.7 Number of Vehicles Registered in Bucharest and the Whole Ilfov........................ 2-11
Table 2.2.8 Income and Expense of Bucharest Municipality ................................................... 2-11
Table 2.2.9 Road & Street Related Budget............................................................................... 2-12
Table 3.2.1 Population and Population Density by Zone, 1998 ............................................... 3-7
Table 3.2.2 Number of Employed Persons on Workplace Basis, 1998 .................................... 3-10
Table 3.3.1 Environmental Impact by Surface Transport Sector in General ............................ 3-13
Table 3.3.2 Total Amount of NOx Emission from Road Transport by Type in EU................... 3-14
Table 3.3.3 Projection of CO2 Emission in Europe, 1990 ........................................................ 3-14
Table 3.3.4 Table Energy Consumption by Transport Sector in Europe, 1970-1990 ............... 3-16
Table 3.3.5 Energy Consumption and Emission by Different Passenger Transport in UK ...... 3-16
Table 3.3.6 Measures to Control the Environmental Impact in EU.......................................... 3-17
Table 3.3.7 Summary Urban Environmental Issues.................................................................. 3-19
Table 3.3.8 NO2 and PM Concentrations in Bucharest ............................................................ 3-20
Table 3.3.9 SO2 Concentration in Bucharest ............................................................................ 3-20
Table 3.3.10 Lead Concentration in Bucharest......................................................................... 3-20
Table 3.3.11 Air Quality Monitoring in Bucharest, 1995-1996................................................ 3-21
Table 3.3.12 Location of Supplemental Air Monitoring........................................................... 3-23
Table 3.3.13 Emission Amount in CEE Countries ................................................................... 3-28
Table 3.3.14 Waste Generation and Disposal Capacity in Bucharest ....................................... 3-29
Table 3.3.15 Roadside Noise Level in Bucharest ..................................................................... 3-30
Table 3.3.16 Green Area Distribution by Sector....................................................................... 3-30
Table 3.3.17 EIA Requirement for Transportation Projects ..................................................... 3-32
Table 3.3.18 Matrix of Environmental Regulations by Transport Mode in Romania .............. 3-34
Table 3.3.19 Area Charge System for Heavy Vehicle ............................................................... 3-35
Table 3.3.20 Summary of Air Monitoring System in Bucharest .............................................. 3-35
Table 3.3.21 Subject Substances for Air Quality Monitoring................................................... 3-35
Table 3.3.22 Frequency of Air Quality Monitoring .................................................................. 3-36
Table 3.3.23 Example of Vehicle Taxes on New Local and Imported Car ............................... 3-37
Table 3.3.24 Vehicle Inspection Period..................................................................................... 3-37
Table 3.3.25 Measures to Control the Environmental Impact
in Transport Sector, EU and Romania................................................................. 3-38
Table 4.1.1 Number of Samples and Sample Rate ................................................................... 4-1
Table 4.1.2 Outline of Sampled Households ............................................................................ 4-2
Table 4.1.3 Expansion Rate by Sex and by Age in Bucharest Municipality ............................ 4-3
Table 4.2.1 Households and Car Ownership by Income Level, 1998....................................... 4-5
Table 4.3.1 Average Trip Production Rate ................................................................................ 4-5
Table 4.3.2 Number of Trips by Purpose.................................................................................. 4-6
Table 4.5.1 Present OD Table (Integrated 13 Zones)................................................................ 4-9
Table 4.5.2 Peak Hour OD Table .............................................................................................. 4-10
Table 4.6.1 Daily Linked Person Trips by Mode and Purpose ................................................. 4-12
Table 4.6.2 Share of Transfer between Public Transport Modes .............................................. 4-16
Table 4.6.3 Transfer Pattern between Public Transport Mode.................................................. 4-16
Table 4.7.1 Domestic Goods Transport by Mode ..................................................................... 4-17
Table 4.7.2 Number of Trucks Registered in the Municipality of Bucharest ........................... 4-17
Table 4.7.3 Number of Trucks Counted at Cordon Line .......................................................... 4-18
Table 4.7.4 Business Activity of the Companies ...................................................................... 4-21
Table 4.7.5 Number of Trucks Owned by Surveyed Companies.............................................. 4-22
Table 4.7.6 Operational Efficiency of Trucks by Sector........................................................... 4-25
Table 4.7.7 Operational Efficiency of Trucks by Vehicle Type ................................................ 4-26
Table 5.1.1 Major Interregional Roads ..................................................................................... 5-2
Table 5.1.2 Progress of Autostrada Projects ............................................................................. 5-3
Table 5.1.3 Commodity Types of Interregional Freight Traffic ................................................ 5-6
Table 5.2.1 Organizations Responsible for Roads.................................................................... 5-8
Table 5.2.2 Design Standard by Road Classification ............................................................... 5-8
Table 5.3.1 Road Length and Area in Bucharest ...................................................................... 5-9
Table 5.3.2 Comparison of Road Density, 1997....................................................................... 5-10
Table 5.3.3 Road Density by Sector of Bucharest .................................................................... 5-10
Table 5.4.1 Comparison of Traffic Inflows to the City Center ................................................. 5-18
Table 5.4.2 Peak Hour Traffic................................................................................................... 5-19
Table 5.5.1 Parking Survey Results .......................................................................................... 5-24
Table 5.5.2 Parking Spaces Managed by Two Main Companies.............................................. 5-26
Table 5.5.3 Off-Street Parking Facilities .................................................................................. 5-26
Table 5.6.1 Trolley Bus and Bus Lanes .................................................................................... 5-29
Table 5.6.2 Speed Limits in Bucharest ..................................................................................... 5-30
Table 6.1.1 Passengers of Public Transport .............................................................................. 6-2
Table 6.1.2 Table Route Patterns of Public Transport............................................................... 6-3
Table 6.2.1 Specifications of Metro Rolling Stock................................................................... 6-7
Table 6.2.2 Metro Passengers ................................................................................................... 6-9
Table 6.2.3 Metro Passengers by Station.................................................................................. 6-11
Table 6.2.4 Energy Consumption by Metrorex......................................................................... 6-12
Table 6.2.5 Fares of Metrorex Transportation, 1998 ................................................................ 6-12
Table 6.2.6 Accumulated Mileage, Cost and Income per Car-Unit km.................................... 6-13
Table 6.2.7 Revenue and Expenditure of Metrorex .................................................................. 6-13
Table 6.3.1 Tram Routes, October 1998 ................................................................................... 6-21
Table 6.3.2 Tram Fleet Characteristic, November 1998 ........................................................... 6-24
Table 6.3.3 RATB Ticket Types and Fares Applicable for Trams............................................. 6-25
Table 6.3.4 Summary of Operating Costs of Trams, 1998 ....................................................... 6-26
Table 6.3.5 Costs per Depot and Costs per Tram Kilometer, First Half 1998 .......................... 6-26
Table 6.3.6 Operating Costs of Trams at Colentina Depot, October 1998 ............................... 6-27
Table 6.4.1 Trolley Bus Routes, June 1998 .............................................................................. 6-32
Table 6.4.2 Trolley Bus Routes, October 1998......................................................................... 6-32
Table 6.4.3 Trolley Bus Fleet Characteristics, November 1998 ............................................... 6-34
Table 6.4.4 Summary of Operating Costs of Trolley Buses, 1998 ........................................... 6-35
Table 6.4.5 Costs per Depot and Costs per Trolley Bus Kilometer, First Half 1998................ 6-35
Table 6.4.6 Operating Costs of Trolley Buses at V. Luminoasa Depot, October 1998............. 6-36
Table 6.5.1 Bus Routes and Number of Operated Buses in 1998............................................. 6-40
Table 6.5.2 Vehicle Fleet Characteristics of RATB Buses ........................................................ 6-44
Table 6.5.3 Number of Buses by Depot, 1998.......................................................................... 6-45
Table 6.5.4 Passengers of Public Surface Transport ................................................................. 6-48
Table 6.5.5 Fares of RATB Transportation ............................................................................... 6-49
Table 6.5.6 Tax and Penalty of Free Ridership of RATB Transportation ................................. 6-49
Table 6.5.7 Accumulated Mileage, Cost and Income per Veh.-km........................................... 6-50
Table 6.5.8 Revenues and Expenditures of RATB.................................................................... 6-50
Table 6.5.9 RATB Investment Achievement............................................................................. 6-51
Table 6.5.10 Long Distance Bus Operation in Gara de Nord Area .......................................... 6-54
Table 6.7.1 Main Taxi Service Companies in Bucharest, 1998 ................................................ 6-59
Table 6.8.1 Railway Fares for Passengers, 1998 ...................................................................... 6-60
Table 6.8.2 Average Daily Railway Passengers by Station
in the Bucharest Metropolitan Area ....................................................................... 6-62
Table 6.8.3 Railway Passengers at Cordon Line ...................................................................... 6-63
Table 6.11.1 Revenues and Expenditures of Public Transport ................................................. 6-72
Table 6.11.2 Operational Personnel of Metrorex...................................................................... 6-73
Table 6.11.3 Metrorex’s Operating Incomes/Cost for 1997 and 1998...................................... 6-75
Table 6.11.4 Comparison of Public Transport Operation, 1995 (Metro).................................. 6-76
Table 6.11.5 Operational Personnel of the Department of Electric Cars
Operation/Bus Operation, RATB ........................................................................ 6-77
Table 6.11.6 RATB’s Assets Balance Sheet for 1997 and 1998 ............................................... 6-81
Table 6.11.7 RATB’s Liabilities and Equities Balance Sheet for 1997 and 1998 .................... 6-81
Table 6.11.8 RATB’s Operating Incomes/Costs for 1997 and 1998 ....................................... 6-81
Table 6.11.9 Comparison of Public Transport Operation, 1995 (Tram/LRT)........................... 6-82
Table 6.11.10Urban Public Transport Statistics, 1995 (Trolley) .............................................. 6-83
Table 6.11.11Urban Public Transport Statistics, 1995 (Bus).................................................... 6-84
Table 8.1.1 GDP Projection in Target Year ............................................................................... 8-3
Table 8.2.1 Projection of Future Population by Scenario......................................................... 8-4
Table 8.2.2 Population in Major Eastern European Countries and their Capital Cities ........... 8-4
Table 8.2.3 Growth Rates of Economy and Population in Eastern European Cities ................ 8-5
Table 8.2.4 Future Population................................................................................................... 8-5
Table 8.3.1 Future Number of Working Population in Residential Place................................. 8-6
Table 8.3.2 Future Number of Working Populations in Work Place......................................... 8-6
Table 9.3.1 Problems of Uncontrolled Development and Corresponding
Planning Objectives of Two Types of Controlled Development Patterns .............. 9-5
Table 9.5.1 Planned Population by Integrated Zone................................................................. 9-9
Table 9.5.2 Planned Employment by Economic Sector by Integrated Zone ............................ 9-10
Table 10.2.1 Estimated Parameters........................................................................................... 10-2
Table 10.2.2 Future Number of Passenger Cars ....................................................................... 10-2
Table 10.2.3 Future Trip Production......................................................................................... 10-3
Table 10.3.1 Parameters of Trip Generation and Attraction Model.......................................... 10-4
Table 10.4.1 Parameters of Gravity Model............................................................................... 10-6
Table 10.4.2 Future OD Table of All Trips (13 Integrated Zones)............................................ 10-7
Table 10.5.1 Parameters for Modal Split Model for “Walk” trips ............................................ 10-8
Table 10.5.2 Estimated Parameters for Modal Split Model
between Private Car and Public Transport Mode................................................ 10-9
Table 10.5.3 Future Demand for Public Transport and Private Car.......................................... 10-9
Table 11.2.1 Comparison of Future Traffic Volume and Capacity ........................................... 11-5
Table 11.2.2 Future Public Transport Demand and Capacity ................................................... 11-8
Table 11.2.3 Investment by RATB............................................................................................ 11-9
Table 11.2.4 Alternative Road Network Cases ......................................................................... 11-11
Table 11.2.5 Explanation of Four Alternatives ......................................................................... 11-22
Table 11.2.6 Future Transport Demand by Alternative............................................................. 11-22
Table 11.2.7 VOC Saving and Time Saving ............................................................................. 11-23
Table 11.2.8 Economic Costs of Alternatives........................................................................... 11-26
Table 11.2.9 Benefit from Each Alternative ............................................................................. 11-27
Table 11.2.10 Environmental Evaluation of Master Plan Alternative ...................................... 11-28
Table 11.2.11 Summary of Economic Evaluation .................................................................... 11-28
Table 11.3.1 Summary of Future Traffic Demand Crossing Ring and Radial Roads............... 11-33
Table 12.2.1 Implementation Schedule of Autostrada Projects ................................................ 12-3
Table 12.2.2 Proposed Road Projects ....................................................................................... 12-9
Table 12.5.1 Project List for Roads and Related Facilities....................................................... 12-25
Table 13.5.1 Characteristics of Major Multi-modal Facility .................................................... 13-25
Table 13.5.2 Improvement Scheme of Plaza (Metro Station)................................................... 13-28
Table 13.6.1 Project List (Public Transport)............................................................................. 13-32
Table 14.1.1 Project Cost of Master Plan ................................................................................. 14-1
Table 14.1.2 Project Benefits by Alternatives........................................................................... 14-2
Table 14.1.3 Summary of Economic Evaluation ...................................................................... 14-2
Table 14.1.4 Economic Cost and IRR of Major Project Groups .............................................. 14-2
Table 14.1.5 Sensitivity Analysis.............................................................................................. 14-3
Table 14.1.6 Saving of Fuel Consumption for Vehicles ........................................................... 14-4
Table 14.2.1 Fund Procurement Candidate .............................................................................. 14-5
Table 14.2.2 Candidate Projects for Foreign Loan ................................................................... 14-6
Table 14.2.3 Share of Transport Related Borrowings to Total Borrowings.............................. 14-6
Table 14.2.4 Estimated Necessary Transport Related Borrowings........................................... 14-7
Table 14.2.5 Candidate Projects for Private Companies........................................................... 14-7
Table 14.2.6 Revenue Increment through Passenger Increment and Fare Evasion decrease.... 14-8
Table 14.2.7 Revenue from Fuel Surcharge Tax....................................................................... 14-8
Table 14.2.8 Assignment by the Bucharest Municipality ......................................................... 14-9
Table 14.2.9 Fund Allocation from RATB................................................................................ 14-9
Table 14.2.10 Revenue from City Planning Tax....................................................................... 14-10
Table 14.2.11 Fund Procurement by Sources ........................................................................... 14-11
Table 14.3.1 Composition of Speed Related Emission Factors................................................ 14-12
Table 14.3.2 Emission Factors in Different Speed by Engine Type ......................................... 14-12
Table 14.3.3 Improvement Ratio .............................................................................................. 14-14
Table 14.3.4 Environmental Improvement Ratio...................................................................... 14-14
Table 14.3.5 Currency Units of Environmental External Cost ................................................. 14-15
Table 14.3.6 External Cost of CO2 and NOx ............................................................................ 14-15
Table 14.3.7 Project Categories by Feature .............................................................................. 14-16
Table 14.3.8 Screening of Master Plan..................................................................................... 14-18
Table 14.3.9 Scoping of Master Plan........................................................................................ 14-19
Table 14.3.10 Matrix for Scoping Classified by Project .......................................................... 14-20
Table 14.3.11 Summary of Scoping for Proposed Projects ...................................................... 14-21
Table 15.1.1 Evaluation for Priority Project ............................................................................. 15-2
Table 15.2.1 Evaluation of the Projects for the Further Study ................................................. 15-5
Table 15.3.1 Financial Implementation Plan ............................................................................ 15-8
Table 15.3.2 Financial Resources for Urban Mass Transit Railway......................................... 15-9
Table 15.3.3 Factor Value by Public Transport Mode............................................................... 15-12
Table 15.3.4 Analysis of Financial Position ............................................................................. 15-12
Table 15.3.5 Financial Position of RATB and METROREX ................................................... 15-13
Table 15.3.6 Capacity and Construction Cost of Parking Facilities ......................................... 15-14
Table 15.3.7 Result of Parking Development Project............................................................... 15-15
Table 15.4.1 Comparison of Cost Recovery Ratio
among Transport Operating Companies in European Cities............................... 15-16
Table 15.4.2 Operation and Management Plan......................................................................... 15-19
Table 15.5.1 Institutional Reform Plan..................................................................................... 15-21
Table 16.2.1 Related Road Condition....................................................................................... 16-2
Table 16.2.2 Number of Lanes at the Entrance Part of Intersection......................................... 16-2
Table 16.2.3 Traffic Demand on Basarab Overpass.................................................................. 16-8
Table 16.2.4 Road Classification .............................................................................................. 16-9
Table 16.2.5 Geometric Design Parameters.............................................................................. 16-9
Table 16.2.6 Geometrical Elements of Tram ............................................................................ 16-10
Table 16.2.7 Alternative Plans for Basarab Overpass............................................................... 16-12
Table 16.2.8 Main Span Length and Bridge Type .................................................................... 16-14
Table 16.2.9 Distance between Nose and Intersection ............................................................. 16-14
Table 16.2.10 Improvement Cost for Basarab Overpass .......................................................... 16-20
Table 16.2.11 Comparative Analysis for Basarab Overpass..................................................... 16-23
Table 16.3.1 Improvement Cost for Basarab Overpass ............................................................ 16-26
Table 16.4.1 Implementation Schedule for Basarab Overpass ................................................. 16-27
Table 16.5.1 Economic Comparison of Basarab Overpass Alternatives................................... 16-27
Table 16.5.2 Sensitivity Analysis for Alternative 4 .................................................................. 16-28
Table 16.5.3 Economic Analysis of Inner Ring Road Completion Project .............................. 16-28
Table 16.5.4 Sensitivity Analysis for Inner Ring Road Completion Project ............................ 16-28
Table 16.5.5 Environmental Benefit –Piata Basarab ................................................................ 16-30
Table 16.5.6 Matrix Table of Environmental Impacts by Project Stage-Basarab Overpass ..... 16-31
Table 17.2.1 Necessary Number of Bus Berths – Gara de Nord .............................................. 17-5
Table 17.2.2 Future Railway Passengers at Gara de Nord........................................................ 17-5
Table 17.2.3 Number of Vehicles Parked in Gara de Nord Area .............................................. 17-7
Table 17.2.4 Long Distance Buses ........................................................................................... 17-7
Table 17.2.5 Necessary Number of Berths - Obor.................................................................... 17-15
Table 17.2.6 Number of Vehicles Parked in Obor Area ............................................................ 17-15
Table 17.2.7 Necessary Number of Berths - Sudului ............................................................... 17-21
Table 17.2.8 Number of Vehicles Parked in Sudului Area........................................................ 17-21
Table 17.2.9 Related Road Conditions ..................................................................................... 17-25
Table 17.2.10 (1) Traffic Volume Capacity Analysis at Pta.Sudului......................................... 17-32
Table 17.2.10 (2) Traffic Volume Capacity Analysis at Pta.Sudului......................................... 17-33
Table17.2.11 Comparative Analysis for Sudului Intersection .................................................. 17-41
Table 17.3.1 Piata Improvement Cost Estimation .................................................................... 17-42
Table 17.3.2 Intersection Improvement Cost............................................................................ 17-43
Table 17.4.1 Improvement Schedule of Piatas ......................................................................... 17-44
Table 17.5.1 Economic Analysis of Piata Improvement........................................................... 17-45
Table 17.5.2 Sensitivity Analysis for Piata Improvement Project ............................................ 17-46
Table 17.5.3 Capacity and Construction Cost of Parking Facilities ......................................... 17-46
Table 17.5.4 Result of Parking Development Project at Three Piatas ...................................... 17-46
Table 17.5.5 Environmental External Cost of Gara de Nord.................................................... 17-49
Table 17.5.6 Environmental External Cost of Piata Obor ........................................................ 17-49
Table 17.5.7 Environmental External Cost of Piata Sudului .................................................... 17-49
Table 17.5.8 Matrix Table of Environmental Impacts by Project Pahse -Gara de Nord........... 17-50
Table 17.5.9 Matrix Table of Environmental Impacts by Project Phase- Obor ........................ 17-51
Table 17.5.10 Matrix Table of Environmental Impacts by Project Phase- Sudului .................. 17-52
Table 18.2.1 Vehicle Count Parking Survey, On-Street
and Off-Street Parking in the Central Area of Bucharest.................................... 18-2
Table 18.2.2 Parking Demand for Off-Street Facilities ............................................................ 18-6
Table 18.2.3 Off-Street Parking Facilities Plan ........................................................................ 18-7
Table 18.2.4 Parking Spaces to be Arranged On-Street............................................................ 18-8
Table 18.3.1 Construction Cost ................................................................................................ 18-12
Table 18.4.1 Parking Facilities Development Plan in the First Stage....................................... 18-12
Table 18.4.2 Parking Facilities Development Plan in the Second Stage .................................. 18-13
Table 18.5.1 Economic Evaluation of Parking System Development ...................................... 18-15
Table 18.5.2 Sensitive Analysis for Parking System Development .......................................... 18-15
Table 18.5.3 Financial Analysis of Prioritized Three
Parking Facilities in the Central Area ................................................................. 18-16
Table 18.5.4 Environmental External Costs –Parking System ................................................. 18-17
Table 18.5.5 Matrix Table of Environmental Impacts by Project Phase- Parking System ....... 18-18
Table 19.2.1 Candidate Routes for Public Transport Corridor ................................................. 19-2
Table 19.2.2 Assumed Specification of New Type Tram.......................................................... 19-3
Table 19.2.3 Directions of the Development of New Type Tram ............................................. 19-3
Table 19.2.4 Comparison of Tram Route Alternatives at Piata Unirii ...................................... 19-5
Table 19.2.5 Comparison of Tram Route Alternatives for the Section
between Piata Unirii and Piata Latina ................................................................ 19-7
Table 19.2.6 Characteristics of Track Location ........................................................................ 19-9
Table 19.2.7 Standard Cross Section Plan ................................................................................ 19-11
Table 19.2.8 Route Data Relevant to the New Type Tram Route ............................................. 19-13
Table 19.2.9 Intersections on the Route ................................................................................... 19-14
Table 19.2.10 Types of Public Transport Control System ........................................................ 19-15
Table 19.2.11 Existing Power Substantions Related to the Route
between Colentina and Alexandria ................................................................... 19-15
Table 19.2.12 Estimated Charge Level of Power Supply for the New Type Tram
on the Route between Colentina and Alexandria ............................................. 19-16
Table 19.2.13 Operation Plan of New Type Tram .................................................................... 19-17
Table 19.3.1 Project Costs Estimation...................................................................................... 19-19
Table 19.4.1 Implementation Schedule .................................................................................... 19-20
Table 19.5.1 Economic Evaluation of New Type Tram Project................................................ 19-21
Table 19.5.2 Sensitivity Analysis for New Type Tram Project ................................................. 19-21
Table 19.5.3 Outline of New Type Tram .................................................................................. 19-22
Table 19.5.4 Environmental External Costs –New Tram.......................................................... 19-23
Table 19.5.5 Matrix Table of Environmental Impacts by Project Phase- New Tram................ 19-23
Table 20.2.1 Types of Fare System........................................................................................... 20-4
Table 20.2.2 Combination Types of Fare Collection and Ticket Checking .............................. 20-5
Table 20.2.3 Ticket Types ......................................................................................................... 20-6
Table 20.2.4 Representative Liquidation Method and Cost Sharing Method........................... 20-8
Table 20.2.5 Comparison of Fare and Ticketing System.......................................................... 20-9
Table 20.2.6 Cost for the Increase of Inspectors and Decrease of Revenue Loss .................... 20-11
Table 20.2.7 Benefit of the Inspector and Decrease of Revenue Loss...................................... 20-11
Table 20.2.8 Costs for Statistical Processing............................................................................ 20-12
Table 20.2.9 Estimated Public Transport Passenger Increase
by Alteration of Fare and Ticketing System........................................................ 20-12
Table 20.2.10 Estimated Public Transport Passenger Increase by Improvement of Transfer... 20-13
by Improvement of Transferring for RATB ........................................................ 20-13
by Improvement of Transferring ......................................................................... 20-13
Table 20.2.13 Comparison of Fare and Ticketing System........................................................ 20-14
Table 20.3.1 Project Costs ........................................................................................................ 20-14
Table 20.4.1 Implementation Schedule .................................................................................... 20-14
Table 20.5.1 Economic Evaluation of Introduction of Common Ticketing System................. 20-16
Table 20.5.2 Sensitivity Analysis for Introducing the Common Ticketing System.................. 20-16
Table 20.5.3 Revenue Increase by Introducing the Common Ticketing System ...................... 20-17
Table 20.5.4 Transferring Times from Transit Assignment Result ........................................... 20-17
Table 20.5.5 Transferring Transport Number from Opinion Poll Survey................................. 20-18
Table 20.5.6 Transferring Times from Transit Assignment Result ........................................... 20-18
Table 20.5.7 Transferring Transport Number from Opinion Poll Survey................................. 20-18
List of Figures
Figure 1.3.1 Study Area............................................................................................................ 1-2
Figure 1.4.1 Study Structure..................................................................................................... 1-3
Figure 1.4.2 Study Schedule..................................................................................................... 1-3
Figure 1.5.1 Study Organization............................................................................................... 1-4
Figure 2.1.1 Past Trend of GDP ............................................................................................... 2-2
Figure 2.1.2 GDP by Category in 1997 .................................................................................... 2-3
Figure 2.2.1 Population by Sector ............................................................................................ 2-7
Figure 3.2.1 Existing Land Use of Study Area......................................................................... 3-4
Figure 3.2.2 Map for Traffic Zones and Sectors....................................................................... 3-5
Figure 3.3.1 Current Environmental Issues in Bucharest ......................................................... 3-15
Figure 3.3.2 Current Environmental Issues in Bucharest ......................................................... 3-19
Figure 3.3.3 NO2 and PM Concentration in Bucharest ............................................................ 3-22
Figure 3.3.4 Results of Supplementary Air Monitoring Study................................................. 3-23
Figure 3.3.5 Location of Supplemental Air Quality Sampling, NOx, NO2 and SO2 ................ 3-24
Figure 3.3.6 Vehicle Condition in Romania ............................................................................. 3-25
Figure 3.3.7 Fuel Sales Share in Bucharest, 1998 .................................................................... 3-25
Figure 3.3.8 Registered Vehicle Growth by Type ..................................................................... 3-26
Figure 3.3.9 Registered Vehicle Share in Bucharest, 1998....................................................... 3-26
Figure 3.3.10 CO2 Emission Source by Sector -EU12 and Romania....................................... 3-27
Figure 3.3.11 NOx Emission Sources by Sector -EU12 and Romania ..................................... 3-27
Figure 3.3.12 Emission Share by Sector in Bucharest ............................................................. 3-28
Figure 3.3.13 Comparison of CO2 and NO2 Emission per Capita............................................ 3-29
Figure 3.3.14 Comparison of Green Area Per Habitant in Major Cities .................................. 3-30
Figure 3.3.15 Road Area Ratio Comparison in Major Cities ................................................... 3-31
Figure 3.3.16 Environmental Assessment Procedure in Romania............................................ 3-33
Figure 3.3.17 Taxation Ratio on Fuel ....................................................................................... 3-36
Figure 4.2.1 Working Status by Working Category.................................................................. 4-3
Figure 4.2.2 Working Population in Residence Place .............................................................. 4-4
Figure 4.3.1 Result of Person Trips .......................................................................................... 4-5
Figure 4.3.2 Share of Trip Purpose........................................................................................... 4-6
Figure 4.3.3 Average Trip Distance by Mode........................................................................... 4-7
Figure 4.3.4 Starting Time of Trips .......................................................................................... 4-7
Figure 4.3.5 Parking Situation in the Study Area ..................................................................... 4-8
Figure 4.4.1 Trip Generation and Attraction by Zone and by Purpose..................................... 4-8
Figure 4.5.1 Trip Distribution of All Trips ............................................................................... 4-9
Figure 4.5.2 Peak Hour OD Distribution.................................................................................. 4-10
Figure 4.5.3 Integrated 13 Zones Map ..................................................................................... 4-11
Figure 4.6.1 Trip Share by Mode.............................................................................................. 4-12
Figure 4.6.2 Trip Distribution by Metro ................................................................................... 4-13
Figure 4.6.3 Trip Distribution by Tam...................................................................................... 4-13
Figure 4.6.4 Trip Distribution by Trolley Bus .......................................................................... 4-14
Figure 4.6.5 Trip Distribution by Bus....................................................................................... 4-14
Figure 4.6.6 Trips Towards City Center by Mode .................................................................... 4-15
Figure 4.7.1 Number of Vehicles Counted at Cordon Line Freight Survey.............................. 4-18
Figure 4.7.2 Concept of Typical Commodity Flow .................................................................. 4-22
Figure 4.7.3 Flow Pattern of an Industrial Company ............................................................... 4-23
Figure 4.7.4 Flow Pattern of a Construction Company ............................................................ 4-24
Figure 4.7.5 Flow Pattern of a Wholesale and Retail Company............................................... 4-24
Figure 4.7.6 Flow Pattern of a Transport Company ................................................................. 4-25
Figure 5.1.1 Nationwide Road Network................................................................................... 5-1
Figure 5.1.2 Interregional Road Network................................................................................. 5-2
Figure 5.1.3 Autostrada Projects in the Vicinity of Bucharest.................................................. 5-4
Figure 5.1.4 Interregional Traffic Related to Bucharest (Truck OD) ....................................... 5-5
Figure 5.1.5 Interregional Traffic Related to Bucharest (Passenger Car OD) .......................... 5-5
Figure 5.2.1 Existing Road Network in the Study Area ........................................................... 5-7
Figure 5.2.2 Typical Cross Section........................................................................................... 5-9
Figure 5.3.1 Number of Traffic Lanes (Bucharest) .................................................................. 5-13
Figure 5.3.2 Congested Intersections ....................................................................................... 5-15
Figure 5.4.1 Traffic Inflow to the City Center .......................................................................... 5-17
Figure 5.4.2 Traffic Volume Counted at the Crossing Point over the Dambovita .................... 5-20
Figure 5.4.3 Location of the Traffic Volume Counted at the Crossing Point
over the Dambovita ............................................................................................. 5-20
Figure 5.4.4 Comparison of Vehicle Composition ................................................................... 5-21
Figure 5.4.5 Travel Speed by Section....................................................................................... 5-22
Figure 5.4.6 Delay Duration by Reason ................................................................................... 5-23
Figure 5.5.1 Car Parking Survey Area...................................................................................... 5-24
Figure 5.5.2 Number of On-Street Parked Cars ....................................................................... 5-25
Figure 5.6.1 Signalized Intersections ....................................................................................... 5-28
Figure 5.6.2 One-Way System.................................................................................................. 5-29
Figure 5.6.3 Restriction Areas for Heavy Vehicles................................................................... 5-30
Figure 6.1.1 RATB Route Patterns ........................................................................................... 6-3
Figure 6.2.1 Existing Metro Network....................................................................................... 6-6
Figure 6.2.2 Metro Passengers by Section in 1998 .................................................................. 6-10
Figure 6.2.3 Metro Passengers by Station in 1997 ................................................................... 6-10
Figure 6.2.4 The Overground Rail and Underground Network in Bucharest
Existing Lines and Pre-1989 Expansion Plans ........... 6-15
Figure 6.2.5 Planned Metro Network ....................................................................................... 6-16
Figure 6.3.1 Schematic Representation of the Tram Network in 1970 and in 1998................. 6-17
Figure 6.3.2 Schematic Representation of the Tram Network.................................................. 6-19
Figure 6.3.3 Tram Route Network............................................................................................ 6-20
Figure 6.3.4 Trams per Hour, October 1998 Peak Hour........................................................... 6-22
Figure 6.3.5 Location of Tram Depots ..................................................................................... 6-23
Figure 6.3.6 Segregated Rights of Way for Trams.................................................................... 6-23
Figure 6.3.7 RATB Tram Passengers by Route in 1998 ........................................................... 6-29
Figure 6.4.1 Trolley Bus Route Network and Depots .............................................................. 6-31
Figure 6.4.2 Trolley Bus Passengers by Route ......................................................................... 6-38
Figure 6.5.1 Existing RATB Bus Network ............................................................................... 6-42
Figure 6.5.2 Existing RATB Express Bus Network ................................................................. 6-43
Figure 6.5.3 RATB Bus Passengers by Route in 1998 ............................................................. 6-47
Figure 6.5.4 Regional Bus Network ......................................................................................... 6-53
Figure 6.6.1 Existing Maxi Taxi Network ................................................................................ 6-57
Figure 6.8.1 Existing Railway Network ................................................................................... 6-61
Figure 6.8.2 Proposed Railway Improvement Project by ISPCF ............................................. 6-64
Figure 6.9.1 Average Number Daily of Passengers Using Otopeni Airport ............................. 6-65
Figure 6.10.1 Number of Tram, Trolley, Bus and Bus Stops (RATB, 1998)............................ 6-66
Figure 6.10.2 Standard of Location of Tram/Bus Stop of RATB ............................................. 6-67
Figure 6.10.3 Old and New Sign .............................................................................................. 6-68
Figure 6.10.4 Old and New Shelter .......................................................................................... 6-68
Figure 6.11.1 Financial Flow for RATB and Metrorex ............................................................ 6-72
Figure 6.11.2 Organization Chart of Metrorex (as of August 1999) ........................................ 6-74
Figure 6.11.3 Organization Chart of RATB (as of November 1999)........................................ 6-79
Figure 8.1.1 Future Economic Growth Scenarios .................................................................... 8-3
Figure 9.1.1 Working Process for Proposed Urban Development Pattern................................ 9-1
Figure 9.3.1 Uncontrolled Development Pattern ...................................................................... 9-3
Figure 9.3.2 Intensive Multi-centered Development Pattern.................................................... 9-3
Figure 9.3.3 Dispersed Multi-centered Development Pattern .................................................. 9-3
Figure 9.4.1 Location of Planned Centers ................................................................................ 9-7
Figure 9.5.1 Division of 8 Integrated Zones............................................................................. 9-10
Figure 10.1.1 Procedures of Future Traffic Demand ................................................................ 10-1
Figure 10.3.1 Future Trip Generation and Trip Attraction by Zone ......................................... 10-5
Figure 10.4.1 Future OD Distribution ...................................................................................... 10-7
Figure 10.5.1 Road Congestion on Existing and Do Nothing Case Road Network................. 10-10
Figure 11.2.1 Screen for Corridor Analysis.............................................................................. 11-6
Figure 11.2.2 Future Traffic Demand (Desire Line)................................................................. 11-7
Figure 11.2.3 Radial and Ring Road Formation Pattern .......................................................... 11-12
Figure 11.2.4 Ring Road Reinforcement Pattern ..................................................................... 11-12
Figure 11.2.5 Rapid Transit Axis Pattern ................................................................................. 11-16
Figure 11.2.6 Rapid Transit Axis Pattern (Tram) ..................................................................... 11-17
Figure 11.2.7 Rapid Transit Axis Pattern (Trolley Bus) ........................................................... 11-18
Figure 11.2.8 Rapid Transit Axis Pattern (Metro) .................................................................... 11-19
Figure 11.2.9 Multi Modal Axis Pattern (Tram)....................................................................... 11-20
Figure 11.2.10 Multi Modal Axis Pattern (Trolley Bus) .......................................................... 11-21
Figure 11.2.11 Objective Plans for Evaluation......................................................................... 11-22
Figure 11.2.12 (1) Road Traffic Volume in Alternative 1 ......................................................... 11-24
Figure 11.3.1 Transport Road Plan Network (Road)................................................................ 11-30
Figure 11.3.2 Transport Master Plan Network (Public Transport) ........................................... 11-31
Figure 11.3.3 Master Plan Projects Map .................................................................................. 11-32
Figure 11.3.4 Future Traffic Assignment on Master Road Network ........................................ 11-34
Figure 11.3.5 Passenger Assignment on the Master Plan Public Transport Network............... 11-35
Figure 12.2.1 Autostrada Development Plan ............................................................................ 12-3
Figure 12.2.2 Road Master Plan ............................................................................................... 12-4
Figure 12.2.3 Proposed Road Projects ..................................................................................... 12-10
Figure 12.3.1 Proposed Parking Restriction Area .................................................................... 12-12
Figure 12.3.2 Conceptual Parking Development Policy........................................................... 12-13
Figure 12.3.3 Intersection Improvement Plan .......................................................................... 12-16
Figure 12.3.4 Proposed Intersections for Synchronization....................................................... 12-18
Figure 12.3.5 Public Transport Supporting System by ITS...................................................... 12-20
Figure 12.4.1 Street Environment Improvement ...................................................................... 12-22
Figure 12.4.2 Pedestrian Priority Street Plan ........................................................................... 12-23
Figure 12.4.3 Flow of Commodities - Location of Truck Terminal: Present and Plan............. 12-24
Figure 12.4.4 Concept of Truck Terminal ................................................................................ 12-24
Figure 13.2.1 Metro Construction Projects .............................................................................. 13-7
Figure 13.3.1 Construction of Cross Center Linkage............................................................... 13-11
Figure 13.3.2 Example of Cross Center Linkage (Piata Unirii) ............................................... 13-12
Figure 13.3.3 Construction of Tram Routes ............................................................................. 13-14
Figure 13.3.4 Candidate Routes for Introduction of New Category Tram ............................... 13-15
Figure 13.3.5 Rehabilitation of Tram Infrastructure................................................................. 13-18
Figure 13.4.1 Establishment of Public Transport Routes in the Central Area.......................... 13-21
Figure 13.5.1 Concept of Multi-modal Transfer....................................................................... 13-23
Figure 13.5.2 Concept of Multi-model and Inter-modal Facilities........................................... 13-23
Figure 13.5.3 Distribution of Multi–modal Facilities............................................................... 13-24
Figure 13.5.4 Improvement of Metro Concourse and Pedestrian Network.............................. 13-26
Figure 13.5.5 Typical Section of Tram Island .......................................................................... 13-29
Figure 14.3.1 Speed Related Emission Factors for Different Engine Types (EU) ................... 14-13
Figure 14.3.2 Emission Amount of Master Plan Option-1 ....................................................... 14-13
Figure 14.3.3 Emission Amount of Master Plan Option-2 ....................................................... 14-14
Figure 14.3.4 Impact Identification Flow by Phases ................................................................ 14-17
Figure 15.1.1 General Flow for the Determination of Implementation Schedule .................... 15-1
Figure 15.1.2 Implementation Schedule................................................................................... 15-3
Figure 15.2.1 Relation between Basic Strategies and Selected Projects
to be Further Studied. ......................................................................................... 15-4
Figure 15.4.1 Key Issues Regarding Customer Satisfaction..................................................... 15-15
Figure 15.4.2 Key Issues Regarding Productivity and Cost Recovery Ratio ........................... 15-17
Figure 16.1.1 Location of Basarab Overpass ........................................................................... 16-1
Figure 16.2.1 Typical Cross Section......................................................................................... 16-3
Figure 16.2.2 Location of Transport Facilities at Basarab ....................................................... 16-4
Figure 16.2.3 Pedestrian Underpass Plan ................................................................................. 16-5
Figure 16.2.4 Traffic Volume at Intersection N. Titulescu / Calea Grivitei .............................. 16-6
Figure 16.2.5 Traffic Volume at Intersection Orhideelor / Plevnei ........................................... 16-7
Figure 16.2.6 Typical Cross Section......................................................................................... 16-10
Figure 16.2.7 Construction Gauge of Tram.............................................................................. 16-11
Figure 16.2.8 Construction Gauge of Railway ......................................................................... 16-11
Figure 16.2.9 Alternative Routes .............................................................................................. 16-13
Figure 16.2.10 Basarab Overpass Plan for Alternative 1.......................................................... 16-15
Figure 16.2.11 Cross Section of Basarab Overpass Plan for Alternative 1 .............................. 16-15
Figure 16.2.20 Traffic Volume Capacity Analysis at Basarab Overpass / Plevnei.................... 16-24
Figure 16.5.1 Emission Amount Comparison (CO2 and NOx) –Basrab Overpass ................... 16-29
Figure 17.1.1 Locations of Piata............................................................................................... 17-1
Figure 17.2.1 Design Criteria for Berths and Parking .............................................................. 17-2
Figure 17.2.2 Design Vehicle Size............................................................................................ 17-2
Figure 17.2.3 Standard Car (Standard for Designing Public Buildings for Parking NP24-97) 17-2
Figure 17.2.4 Standard for Underground Public Buildings...................................................... 17-3
Figure 17.2.5 Public Transport Routes at Gara de Nord .......................................................... 17-6
Figure 17.2.6 Bus Routes at Gara de Nord............................................................................... 17-6
Figure 17.2.7 Proposed Future Public Transport Network at Gara de Nord ............................ 17-9
Figure 17.2.8 Alternative Plan of the Tram Routes to/from the East........................................ 17-10
Figure 17.2.9 Proposed Traffic Flow Pattern at Gara de Nord ................................................. 17-10
Figure 17.2.10 Improvement Plan of Gara de Nord Area......................................................... 17-11
Figure 17.2.11 Improvement Plan of Gara de Nord Area (Detail) ........................................... 17-11
Figure 17.2.12 Underground Parking Facility Plan at Gara de Nord ....................................... 17-12
Figure 17.2.13 Parking Profile at Gara de Nord ....................................................................... 17-12
Figure 17.2.14 Present Tram Routes at Obor ........................................................................... 17-13
Figure 17.2.15 Present Bus Routes at Obor ............................................................................. 17-14
Figure 17.2.16 Proposed Traffic Flow Pattern at Obor............................................................. 17-17
Figure 17.2.17 Improvement Plan at Piata Obor Area.............................................................. 17-18
Figure 17.2.18 Underground Parking Area Plan at Obor ......................................................... 17-19
Figure 17.2.19 Passenger Crossing Alternatives at Obor ......................................................... 17-19
Figure 17.2.20 Present Tram Routes at Piata Sudului .............................................................. 17-22
Figure 17.2.21 Present Bus Routes at Piata Sudului ................................................................ 17-22
Figure 17.2.22 Proposed Traffic Flow Pattern at Piata Sudului................................................ 17-23
Figure 17.2.23 Piata Sudului Improvement Plan at Piata Sudului Area ................................... 17-24
Figure 17.2.24 Location of the Related Roads ......................................................................... 17-26
Figure 17.2.25 Typical Cross Section....................................................................................... 17-26
Figure 17.2.26 Location of Transport Facilities at Sudului ...................................................... 17-27
Figure 17.2.27 Traffic Survey Result at the Pta.Sudului .......................................................... 17-29
Figure 17.2.28 Results of Traffic Assignment at Pta.Sudului................................................... 17-30
Figure 17.2.29 Improvement Plan for Piata Sudului Intersection - First Stage........................ 17-36
Figure 17.2.30 Improvement Plan for Piata Sudului Intersection – Alternative 1.................... 17-37
Figure 17.2.31 Cross Section Plan for Alternative 1 ................................................................ 17-37
Figure 17.2.32 Improvement Plan for Piata Sudului Intersection – Alternative 2.................... 17-38
Figure 17.2.33 Cross Section Plan for Alternative 2 ................................................................ 17-38
Figure 17.5.1 Comparison of Emission Amount (CO2 and NOx)- Gara de Nord..................... 17-47
Figure 17.5.2 Comparison of Emission Amount (CO2 and NOx)- Piata Obor ......................... 17-48
Figure 17.5.3 Comparison of Emission Amount (CO2 and NOx)- Piata Sudlui ....................... 17-48
Figure 18.2.1 Parking Zones in the Central Area of Bucharest ................................................ 18-2
Figure 18.2.2 Road Classification in Terms of Road Use ........................................................ 18-5
Figure 18.2.3 Location of the Parking Development Sites....................................................... 18-7
Figure 18.2.4 Layout Plan of Parking Academiei / Doamnei................................................... 18-8
Figure 18.2.5 Layout Plan of Piata Decebal Parking ............................................................... 18-9
Figure 18.2.6 Layout Plan of Parking Balcescu ....................................................................... 18-10
Figure 18.2.7 Parking Information System .............................................................................. 18-11
Figure 18.4.1 First Stage Parking Restriction Area .................................................................. 18-13
Figure 18.5.1 Comparison of Emission Amount (CO2 and NOx) –
Parking Facility Development .................................... 18-17
Figure 19.2.1 Candidate Routes for Public Transport Corridor ............................................... 19-2
Figure 19.2.2 Improvement of Running Conditions................................................................. 19-4
Figure 19.2.3 Alternatives for Piata Unirii Area....................................................................... 19-6
Figure 19.2.4 Proposed Route at Piata Unirii........................................................................... 19-7
Figure 19.2.5 Alternatives for the Section between Piata Unirii and Piata Latina ................... 19-8
Figure 19.2.6 Proposed Locations of Tram Track .................................................................... 19-10
Figure 19.2.7 Routes Relevant to the New Tram Route ........................................................... 19-12
Figure 19.2.8 Number of Existing Tram Operation at Peak Period.......................................... 19-12
Figure 19.2.9 Improvement of Tram Control System............................................................... 19-14
Figure 19.2.10 Power Supply System for New Type Tram ...................................................... 19-16
Figure 19.2.11 Transferring between Tram and Bus ................................................................ 19-18
Figure 19.2.12 The Level of New Type Tram........................................................................... 19-18
Figure 19.2.13 Improvement Plan of Platform (1) ................................................................... 19-18
Figure 19.2.14 Improvement Plan of Platform (2) ................................................................... 19-19
Figure 19.5.1 Estimation of Emission Amount (CO2 and NOx) – New Tram........................... 19-22
Figure 20.2.1 Types of Fare Collection and Ticketing Checking ............................................. 20-7
List of Terms and Abbreviations – English and Romanian
Abbreviation
PAT
PATZ
PUG
PUZ
PUD
MLPAT
MoT
RATB
SNCFR
PMB
CLMB
GCBM
EU PHARE
CNP
BAS
DN
Dc
Dj
B-dul
Str.
P-ta
CPU
DUAT
(
English
Territory Arrangement Plan
Zonal Territory Arrangement Plan
General Urban Plan
Zonal Urban Plan
Detailed Urban Plan
Urban Planning Certificate
Construction Authorization
Regulations for Urban Planning
General Regulations for Urban Planning
Local Regulations for Urban Planning
Prefect
General Committee
County
Communal
Town
Village
Ministry of Public Works and Territory
Arrangement
Related Bodies of Central Administration
Related Bodies in the Territory
Ministry of Transport
Bucharest City Transport
National Society of Romanian Railways
Municipality of Bucharest
Local Council of Bucharest Municipal
General Council of Bucharest
Municipality
Romanian
Plan de Amenajare a Teritoriului
Plan de Amenajare a Teritoriului Zonal
Plan Urbanistic General
Plan Urbanistic Zonal
Plan Urbanistic de Detaliu
Certificatul de Urbanism
Autorizatia de Construire
Regulamente de Urbanism
Regulamente General de Urbanism
Regulamente Local de Urbanism
Ministrul Lucrarilor Publice si Amenajarii
Teritoriului
Organisme Centrale Interesate
Organisme Teritoriale Interesate
Ministerul Transportului
Regia Autonoma de Transport Bucuresti
Societatea Nationala de Cai Ferate
Romane
Primaria Municipiului Bucuresti
Consiliul Local al Municipiului Bucuresti
Consiliul General al Municipiului
Bucuresti
National Programming Committee
Bucharest Annual Statistics
National Road
Commisia Nationale de Prognoza
Bucuresti Auar Statistic
Boulevard
Road
Street
Motorway
Plaza
Urban Planning Center
Department of Urban Planning
Burvardul
Calea
Autostrada
Piata
Department Urbanism si Amenaharea
Territorilui
) should not be used in the report but is described for reference.
1.
Introduction
1. Introduction
The background, objectives, Study area, etc. are described in this Chapter.
1.1 Study Development
In response to the request of the Government of Romania, the Government of Japan decided
to conduct the Comprehensive Urban Transport Study of Bucharest City and Its Metropolitan
Area in Romania (hereinafter referred as “the Study”).
Accordingly, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (hereinafter referred as “JICA”),
the official agency responsible for the implementation of the technical cooperation program
on behalf of the Government of Japan undertook to conduct the Study.
The preparatory study team headed by Dr. Hitoshi Ieda, was dispatched by JICA to Romania
and the Scope of Work for the Study was agreed in February of 1998. The full-scale site study
in Romania began in July 1998 and the Inception Report of the Study was submitted in
September 1998.
1.2 Objectives of the Study
The objectives of the Study are as follows:
(1) To formulate a Comprehensive Urban Transport Master Plan of Bucharest City and its
Metropolitan Area for the period up to the year 2015;
(2) To conduct a further study on priority projects and programs which should be
implemented within 2 or 3 years after the completion of the Study; and
(3) To carry out technology transfer through the implementation of the Study.
1.3 Study Area
The Study area is the “Bucharest metropolitan area” including the city of Bucharest (with an
area of 228 km2) and the nearby commuting area (365 km2). The population of the Study Area
is 2.149 million persons (1998) which accounts for about 10% of the whole country. The
Study area is indicated in Figure 1.3.1.
1-1
1.4 Structure of the Study
The structure of this Study is composed of three parts, that is, data collection and analysis of
the existing situation, formulation of the Master Plan, and the Study of priority projects.
In the first part, various traffic surveys, including the person trip survey, were conducted and
the existing traffic situation was analyzed based on the survey results, collected data, and
other information. In the second part the Master Plan was formulated to integrate the future
urban structure, road plan and public transport plan. In the last part, five projects selected
among the ones recommended in the Master Plan were studied in more detail.
Figure 1.4.1 and Figure 1.4.2 show the study sturucture and study schedule.
PART 1
PART 3
PART 2
Transport
Master Plan
Future Transport
Demand
Existing Conditions
Priority Project
Study
2 Socio-Economic
Conditions
11 Transport
Master plan
Formulation
16 Inner Ring
Completion
with BBasarab
Overpass
8 Socioeconomic
development
Scenarios
12 Road Sector
Plan
17 Bottleneck
Piata
Improvement
9 Urban
Development
Pattern
13 Public
Transport Plan
10 Future
Transport
demand
14 Evaluation
of Transport
Master Plan
19 New Public
Transit
Corridor
Development
15 Action Plan
20 Fare
System
Improvement
3 Existing Land
Use and
Environmental
Condition
4 Person Trip
Charasteristics
5 Road
Facilities and
Road Traffic
6 Public
Transport
18 Parking
System
Development in the
Central Area
7 Problems and
Issues
Figure 1.4.1 Study Structure
,WN #WI 5GR 1EV 0QX &GE ,CP (GD /CT #RT /C[ ,WP ,WN #WI 5GR 1EV 0QX &GE ,CP (GD /CT
2TGRCTCVKQP
9QTM
6TCHHKE5WTXG[
'ZKUVKPI
%QPFKVKQP
#PCN[UKU
+PEGRVKQP
4GRQTV
&GOCPF
(QTGECUV
6TCPURQTV
2QNKE[
(QTOWNCVKQP
QH7TDCP
6TCPURQTV
/CUVGT2NCP
'XCNWCVKQPQH
/CUVGT2NCP
2TKQTKV[
2TQLGEV
5GNGEVKQP
2TGNKOKPCT[
'PIKPGGTKPI
QP2TKQTKV[
2TQLGEVU
'XCNWCVKQP
QH2TKQTKV[
2TQLGEVU
2TGRCTCVKQP
QH&TCHV
(KPCNTGRQTV
%QOOGPV
QP
&TCHV
(KPCN
4GRQTV
2TQITGUU
4GRQTV
+PVGTKO
4GRQTV
&TCHV
(KPCN
4GRQTV
9QTMUJQR
9QTMUJQR
5GOKPCT
Figure 1.4.2 Study Schedule
1-3
2TGRCTCVKQP
QH
(KPCN
4GRQTV
(KPCN
4GRQTV
The following reports were prepared and submitted to the Romanian side.
1) Inception Report
Thirty copies (30) in English at the beginning of September 1998 after the discussion on
the contents of the Inception Report prepared in Japan
2) Progress Report
Thirty (30) copies in English in the middle of February 1999 after the preliminary
formulation of the Master Plan
3) Interim Report
Thirty (30) copies in English at the beginnig of May 1999 after the selection of the
priority projects
4) Draft Final Report
Thirty (30) copies of main report in English and thirty (30) copies of summary report in
English at the end of December 1999 after finishing the Study
5) Final Report
Thirty (30) copies of main report in English and thirty (30) copies of summary report in
English at the end of March 2000 after modifying the report based on the comments from
the Romanian side
1.5 Study Organization
To conduct the Study, JICA has organized the Study Team, headed by Mr. Takeshi Yoshida
and the Advisory Committee, chaired by Dr. Hitoshi Ieda, to give advice for the Study. The
Government of Romania has formed the Counterpart Team, headed by Mr. Nicolae Cehan
under the Municipality of Bucharest. The Municipality has organized the Steering Committee,
chaired by Mr. Paul Radu Popovat, to facilitate the progress of the Study. The Study
organization is shown in Figure 1.5.1.
Advisory
Committee
Bucharest
Municipality
JICA
JICA Study Team
Steering
Committee
Counterpart Team
Figure 1.5.1 Study Organization
The members of the Study Team, JICA Advisory Committee, Romanian Counterpart Team,
Romanian Steering Committee, and related governmental officials are listed in the following
page.
1-4
1.6 Technology Transfer
During the Study period the members of the Study Team transferred various technologies
such as how to conduct the person trip survey, how to forecast the future traffic demand, how
to use the JICA STRADA, how to formulate the Master Plan, etc. These technologies were
deepened through the counterpart meetings, workshops, a seminar, and counterpart training in
Japan.
(1) Counterpart Meeting
The counterpart meetings were held almost once a week with the attendance of the members
of the Study Team and counterparts. The main topics were selected from the work items
studied during the last week. Especially the following topics were discussed in detail.
nHow to conduct the person trip survey
nResult of the person trip survey
nFuture socio-economic situation
nFuture traffic demand
nVehicle assignment on the road network
nFormulation of the Master Plan
nSelection of the priority projects
(2) Workshop and Seminar
Two workshops and one seminar were held during the Study period. At workshops the Study
Team members reported the progress of the Study, while representatives of the Advisory
Committee members including one lecturer from Japan gave lecture mainly on the Japanese
experience for the transport planning. The representative of the Romania side also gave
lecture on the Bucharest transport situation. The lectures on the Japanese experience to
establish the Master Plan contributed to transfer the important technology to the participants
from the counterpart team, public organization, and academic/research institutions at these
seminars.
In December 1999, during the last study period in Romania, a seminar was held with about
100 participants who were not only from the counterpart team and steering Committee, but
also from various organizations. The main topics were reports of the final results of the Study,
however, at the last session of the seminar the panel discussion was made under the
representatives from the Study Team, Advisory Committee, Steering Committee on the stage.
The heated discussion was made on the topics of the project fund procurement,
implementation measures of the priority projects, etc.
(3) Counterpart Training in Japan
Three persons of the Counterpart Team visited Japan to understand the Japanese planning
system and actual transport situation in urban area in large or medium-sized city in Japan.
They acquainted technological skill to formulate the Master Plan by visiting the related
organizations such as Ministry of Construction, Ministry of Transport, and several local
Municipalities. Also they made an on-site inspection for urban transport facilities to
understand the project realization.
1-6
2.
Socio-Economic Conditions
2. Socio-Economic Conditions
The GDP has been growing the revolution until 1996, however, the growth rate of the
GDP has been deteriorating since then. The population has been decreasing constantly at a
rate of –0.35% during the past 7 years. The population as of 1998 was 2,149 thousand
persons. The number of vehicles registered increased rapidly to 571 thousand vehicles, of
which passenger cars accounted for 75.2 % in 1998.
2.1 Present Situation of National Economy
2.1.1
GDP
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) measured in current prices, increased from 6,029 billion Lei
in 1992 to 249,750 billion Lei in 1997, as shown in Table 2.1.1. This rapid increase in GDP
does not indicate the actual economic growth but rather the country’s high inflation rate.
Looking at the past economic trend at constant 1990 price, after declining by almost 20% in
real terms in the initial two transition years -the so called transition shock period -, the Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) registered a positive rate of 1.3% in 1993 for the first time since
1990 and reached a peak growth rate of 7.1 % in 1995. This short-term recovery proved
unstable because it was largely driven by a credit-financed expansion of output from
traditional industries. From 1996, GDP started to decline again, because of a domestic
liquidity crisis, a devaluation of the Lei, and the stagnation of the worldwide economy (See
Figure 2.1.1). In addition, in February 1997 the government adopted tighter policies, called
the “shock therapy” program of reforms, in order to achieve the liberalization of prices for
energy, agricultural products and public services; reduce tariffs; remove subsidies; and phase
out direct credit to the agricultural sector. Since most enterprises were not able to rapidly
adjust to subsidy cuts, fiscal and monetary tightening and a sharp devaluation followed. As a
result, the growth rate of GDP deteriorated to – 6.6% in 1997. The growth rate in 1998 is
estimated to be – 5.5% by the Comisia Nationala de Prognoza.
Table 2.1.1 Gross Domestic Product
Item
1992
1993
1994
1995
At current prices
6,029.2
20,035.8
49,773.3
72,559.7
At constant 1990 prices
681.1
690.2
714.4
765.1
Real change (%)
-8.8
1.3
3.5
7.1
Source : OECD, Short-Term Economic Indicators for the Transition Economies
1996
108,391.0
788.3
3.0
(Unit : Lei bn)
1997
249,750.0
736.3
-6.6
Comparing the GDP in Romania with that in the east European transition economies as shown
in Table 2.1.9, the scale of GDP is not so small; however, the per capita GDP—a more
appropriate measure of economic development—is substantially lower in Romania than all
other countries except Bulgaria.
2-1
* ' 3 F R Q V WD Q WS ULF H V
GDP
800
780
760
740
720
700
680
660
640
620
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Figure 2.1.1 Past Trend of GDP
Table 2.1.2 shows GDP by category in 1996 and 1997 in current prices. Figure 2.1.2.shows
the GDP by category in 1997. Comparing each category of GDP in 1997 with that in 1996 in
constant prices, only the two categories of “Agriculture” and “Communications” barely
maintain the same production levels of the previous year. The production levels of other
categories were lower than those in the previous year, especially, “construction” which
showed a large decrease of 22% in 1997. Industrial activities also decreased, in spite of a
sector representing the major and the most important economic activities. It is expected that
the Romanian Government will take some measures to revitalize industrial activities.
Table 2.1.2 Gross Domestic Product by Categories
(Unit:Billion lei)
Category
Agriculture
20,662
Share
(%)
19.1
Industry
37,054
34.2
88,945
35.6
253
35,187
95
78
Construction
1996
1997
47,055
Share
Growth
(%)
1997
Index
(%)
(1997/1996)
(1996 price) (1996=100)
18.8
225
20,958
101
7,469
6.9
13,461
5.4
230
5,842
10,908
10.1
23,782
9.5
251
9,476
87
Transport
7,121
6.6
17,539
7.0
282
6,220
87
Communications
2,253
2.1
7,804
3.1
347
2,252
100
Financial & banking activities
4,456
4.1
6,496
2.6
171
3,792
85
Real estate & other services
5,930
5.5
14,712
5.9
270
5,445
92
Public administration
7,625
7.0
14,356
5.7
211
6,822
90
-2,991
-2.8
-4,415
-1.8
170
-2,597
87
100,487
92.7
229,735
92.0
246
93,397
93
7,900
7.3
18,856
7.6
101,232
93
Trade, hotel & restaurant
Adjustment for imputed output
of banking services
Total economy
Tax on product
Custom duties
Subsidies on product
Gross domestic product
1,853
1.7
3,625
1.5
-1,849
-1.7
-2,466
-1.0
108,391
100.0
249,750
100.0
Source : Comisia Nationala Prognoza
2-2
*'3E\&DWHJRULHV
6%
3%
6%
3%
20%
7%
10%
39%
6%
Agriculture
Industry
Construction
Trade, hotel & restaurant
Transport
Communications
Financial & banking activities
Real estate & other services
Public administration
Figure 2.1.2 GDP by Category in 1997
According to the past trend of GDP by category from 1992 to 1996 (Table 2.1.3), the
production levels of the primary (“Agriculture”) and secondary (“Industry”) sectors remained
below those of 1990. On the other hand, for “Construction” and “Services” the production
levels in 1994 and 1995 respectively exceeded those in 1990. Only “Construction” barely
maintained its 1990 production level in 1997. GDP has also never exceeded the level of 1990.
Even in 1997, GDP was only 87.1% of that in 1990.
Table 2.1.3 Indices of GDP by Categories
Item
1992
Agriculture*
76.3
Industry
75.2
Construction
76.1
Services
93.8
Adjustment**
142.1
79.4
Source : Romanian Statistical Yearbook
Note:(1990=100)
1993
86.7
76.0
94.9
91.7
142.9
80.6
1994
89.3
78.6
120.8
93.8
145.4
83.8
1995
93.4
83.0
128.9
101.4
141.1
89.8
1996
90.4
88.7
133.8
106.2
146.8
93.3
1997
91.7
84.3
104.6
94.3
127.4
87.1
Looking at the composition of GDP in Table 2.1.4, the share of GDP represented by
“Agriculture” decreased steadily from 1993 to 1997. Other activities have fluctuated; however,
during 1995 to 1997 the GDP share for “Industry” increased and that for “Services” decreased.
As a result, the GDP shares in 1997 were 35.6% for “Industry”, followed by “Services” at
33.9% and “Agriculture” at 18.8%.
Generally, with economic development, the share of service activities is expected to increase;
however, the Romanian service activities remained stagnated. This situation demonstrates that
the present Romanian economic structure has not changed much from the centrally planned
economy.
2-3
Table 2.1.4 Structure of GDP by Categories
Items
1992
Agriculture*
19.1
Industry
38.3
Construction
4.8
Services
40.6
Adjustment**
-4.7
Gross value added
98.1
Taxes on product
8.1
Customs duties
1.4
Subsidies on product
-7.6
100.0
Source : Romanian Statistical Yearbook 1997
Note: (Unit : %)
1993
21.0
33.8
5.2
36.9
-4.2
92.7
9.3
1.5
-3.5
100.0
1994
19.9
36.2
6.5
33.7
-4.0
92.3
7.7
1.3
-1.3
100.0
1995
19.8
32.9
6.6
36.0
-3.0
92.3
7.7
1.7
-1.7
100.0
1996
19.1
34.2
6.9
35.3
-2.8
92.7
7.3
1.7
-1.7
100.0
1997
18.8
35.6
5.4
33.9
-1.7
92.0
7.6
1.4
-1.0
100.0
At this moment privatization in the industry sector is one of the most critical issues for the
Romanian economy; however, it is proceeding very slowly. By 1996 the economic activity of
the private sector accounted for only 52% of GDP, despite the fact that the agriculture and
service sectors had already privatized to levels of 91% and 70%, respectively, as shown in
Table 2.1.5. Also share of private sector in export and import production levels accounted for
only 51.4% and 48.3%, respectively. Nevertheless, by proceeding with further privatization,
the present low share will increase.
The current restructuring plan for “Régies Autonomes” (state owned enterprises) by the
national government is expected to accelerate privatization of these major loss-making
government corporations. At present the government desire to join EU depends on the
process of a rapid privatization, abolition of various regulations and decrease of foreign debt.
Table 2.1.5 Share of Private Sector in Economic Activity
Item
1990
16.4
1991
23.6
1992
26.4
1993
34.8
1994
38.9
1995
45.0
1996
52.0
Industry
Agriculture
Construction
Services including trade
5.7
61.3
1.9
2.0
9.2
73.9
16.1
16.8
11.8
81.7
21.0
18.8
17.4
83.5
26.8
29.3
23.3
89.3
51.6
39.1
29.0
89.0
60.0
60.0
35.0
91.0
65.0
70.0
Export (FOB)
0.2
15.9
Import (FOB)
0.4
16.1
Investment
4.3
8.1
Source : National Commission for Statistics
Note: (Unit : %)
27.5
32.8
15.6
27.9
27.2
26.0
40.3
39.2
36.8
41.2
45.4
39.3
51.4
48.3
41.6
2.1.2
Export and Import
In the latter period of the Ceausescu regime, export and import activities were minimal due to
a policy to generate a trade surplus by minimizing imports to repay foreign debt. After
diverting food exports to the domestic market and drastically reducing unprofitable oil
product exports in 1990, both exports and imports increased as shown in Table 2.1.6. In 1997
exports and imports were nearly double their 1991 levels. The trade deficit decreased to
US$ 411 million in 1994, after which it increased and reached 1,980 million in 1997.
2-4
Table 2.1.6 Foreign Trade
Item
1991
1992
Export (FOB)
4,266
4,363
(of which private sector)
679
1,201
(Share %)
16
28
Import (FOB)
5,372
5,784
864
1,898
(Share %)
16
33
Total
-1,106
-1,421
-185
-697
(Share %)
17
49
Import (CIF)
5,793
6,260
Export (1990=100)
73.9
75.6
Import (1990=100)
58.4
62.9
Source:1991-1996 data Romanian Statistical Yearbook
Note: (Million US$)
1993
4,892
1,364
28
6,020
1,636
27
-1,128
-272
24
6,522
84.7
65.5
1994
6,151
2,481
40
6,562
2,573
39
-411
-92
22
7,109
106.5
71.4
1995
7,910
3,259
41
9,487
4,306
45
-1,577
-1,047
66
10,278
137.0
103.2
1996
8,084
4,156
51
10,555
5,096
48
-2,471
-940
38
11,435
140.0
114.9
1997
8,431
10,411
-1,980
11,280
146.0
113.3
The main export trade items are “Miscellaneous manufactured articles” and “Manufactured
goods”, which in 1997 accounted for 34.9 % and 25.6 %, respectively, followed by
“Machinery & transport equipment” at 14%. On the other hand, main import items are
“Machinery & transport equipment” and “Manufactured goods”, which in 1997 accounted for
26.5 % and 23.1 %, respectively, followed by “Mineral fuel & related materials” at 18.9 %.
The recent trend of exports and imports is shown in Table 2.1.7.
Table 2.1.8 shows major trading partners in 1997, and indicates that the EU is the largest
partner for exports and imports representing 71.3 % and 75.6%, respectively, of the total.
Among EU countries, Germany and Italy are currently Romania’s main trading partners. In
the past, the former Soviet Union was a main partner for gas, crude oil and raw material
imports; however, Russia’s importance as a trade market has decreased significantly in the
past several years.
Table 2.1.7 Foreign Trade by Commodity Type
Items
Food & live animals
Beverages & tobacco
Crude material (Except fuels)
Mineral fuel & related materials
Animal, vegetable oil, fats & waxes
Chemical & related products
Manufactured goods
Machinery & transport equipment
Miscellaneous manufactured articles
Commodities & transactions not classified
Total
Source :Romanian Statistical Yearbook in 1998
Note: (Million US$)
Export (FOB)
1995
1996
400
559
31
55
298
312
628
596
82
71
850
795
2,047
1,841
1,038
1,101
2,511
2,737
25
17
7,910
8,084
2-5
1997
385
57
394
518
129
656
2,155
1,180
2,943
14
8,431
Import (CIF)
1995
1996
746
658
95
115
541
610
2,195
2,390
18
18
1,085
1,145
2,038
2,440
2,545
2,927
919
999
95
133
10,278
11,435
1997
531
99
528
2,131
31
1,091
2,604
2,993
1,125
147
11,280
Table 2.1.8 Foreign Trade by Groups of Region and Countries
Countries
Total
Europe
(EU)
(Germany)
(Italy)
(France)
(Bulgaria)
(Poland)
(Russia)
Asia
(Turkey)
(India)
(Israel)
(Japan)
Africa
America
(U.S.A)
Oceania
Source : Foreign Trade Statistics
2.1.3
Export (FOB)
Value
(Million
Share (%)
UD$)
8,431
100.0
6,010
71.3
4,768
56.6
1,419
16.8
1,643
19.5
465
5.5
57
0.7
102
1.2
250
3.0
1,466
17.4
354
4.2
64
0.8
123
1.5
37
0.4
457
5.4
485
5.8
320
3.8
13
0.2
Import (CIF)
Value (Million
Share (%)
US$)
11,280
100.0
8,530
75.6
5,922
52.5
1,851
16.4
1,784
15.8
648
5.7
56
0.5
90
0.8
1,356
12.0
1,584
14.0
213
1.9
28
0.2
137
1.2
131
1.2
189
1.7
853
7.6
462
4.1
124
1.1
Comparison of Economy with East European Countries 1996
Among the European transition economies Romania has the second largest population after
Poland, but it ranks only fourth in terms of dollar GDP. With respect to GDP per capita,
Romania is second from the last (Bulgaria). The reason the Romanian economy is behind the
other transition economies is that Romania was a relatively closed economy in the later stages
of the Ceausescu regime. The “shock therapy” policy put in place by the government in
February 1997 should encourage the Romanian economy to increase at least to the level of
that in present Hungary or Poland.
Table 2.1.9 Comparison of Economic Situation with Major European Transition
Item
Romania
GDP($ bn)
GDP per head ($)
Consumer price inflation (%)
Current- account balance($ bn)
% of GDP
Export of Good ($ bn)
Imports of good ($ bn)
External debts ($ bn)
Debt-service ratio, paid(%)
35.5
1,569
38.8
-2.6
-7.2
8.1
-10.6
8.5
12.1
Bulgaria
Hungary
9.3
1,118
123.0
-0.2
-0.2
4.7
-4.6
10.2
18.8
43.9
4,308
23.6
-1.7
-3.8
14.18
-16.84
27.6
35.5
Poland
136.1
3,523
21.0
-4.1
-3.0
23.5
-26.7
42.8
10.6
Czech
Republic
52.8
5,119
8.9
-4.3
-8.1
21.5
-25.2
19.6
9.8
Slovakia
19.7
3,662
5.8
-1.9
-9.9
8.6
-8.8
8.3
13.0
Slovenia
18.5
9,307
9.7
0.0
-0.2
8.3
-9.3
4.5
6.8
Source : Country Profile Romania 1997-1998, The Economic Intelligence Unit
2.2 Socio-economic Situation in the Study Area
2.2.1
Population
The total population in the Study Area was 2,149,436 persons in 1998, of which the
population in Bucharest city occupied 93.8% (2,016,131 persons). Among six sectors of this
city, Sector 3 had the largest population with 407,060 persons (18.9), followed by Sector 2
with 382,187 persons (17.8%). The population of the portion of Ilfov in the Study Area was
2-6
only 6.2% (133,305 persons) of the total. The total area of the Study Area is 61,681 ha, of
which 36,500 ha (61.6%) belongs to Ilfov. The population density of the Study Area in 1998
was 34.8 persons/ha; however, excluding the area of Ilfov, the population density reaches
80.1 persons/ha. Among sectors, Sector 2 had the highest density at 112.6 persons/ha,
followed by Sector 3 with 106.1 persons/ha. Population and population densities in 1998 are
summarized in Table 2.2.1. The map of six Sectors is shown in Figure 3.2.2.
Table 2.2.1 Population and Density in the Study Area
(1998)
Sector*
Population
Sector 1
238,217
Sector 2
382,187
Sector 3
407,060
Sector 4
319,344
Sector 5
269,746
Sector 6
399,577
Bucharest
2,016,131
Ilfov**
133,305
Total
2,149,436
* shown in Figure 3.2.2
** Only Ilfov within the Study Área
Source : BUCURESTI ANUAR STATISTIC
Share(%)
Area(Ha)
Density (Person/Ha)
11.1
17.8
18.9
14.9
12.5
18.6
93.8
6.2
100.0
7,478
3,394
3,837
3,405
3,225
3,842
25,181
36,500
61,681
31.9
112.6
106.1
93.8
83.6
104.0
80.1
3.7
34.8
P o p u la t io n b y S e c t o r
6%
S e c to r 1
11%
S e c to r 2
19%
18%
S e c to r 3
S e c to r 4
S e c to r 5
S e c to r 6
13%
18%
15%
I lf o v *
Figure 2.2.1 Population by Sector
Since the total population in Romania is about 22.7 million, the concentration of the
population in the Study area is about 10-11%. Comparing this ratio with that of capital cities
of the major European transition countries, Budapest (Hungary) is 20%, Warsaw (Poland) is
6%, and Sofia (Bulgaria) is 14%.
The population density in the Study area is almost the same as that in Vienna, Austria (38.6
persons/ha). In Vienna metro, tram, trolley bus and bus are used by the citizens as the public
transportation as in Bucharest, therefore, it is useful to observe the transport system of Vienna,
in order to improve the Bucharest transportation system for the tram track layout, ticketing
system, etc.
The average number of members per household was 2.8 persons in 1992 as shown in Table
2.2.2. The composition of working population, student and others in Bucharest was 45.9%,
18.4% and 35.7%, respectively. These composition rates did not differ significantly among
sectors.
2-7
Table 2.2.2 Population and Households in the 1992 Census
Sector
Population
Household
Population Working population
per
Persons
%
household
Sector 1
259,902
101,517
2.6
105,722
Sector 2
394,208
144,889
2.7
180,472
Sector 3
407,793
148,601
2.7
192,966
Sector 4
320,325
112,571
2.8
153,897
Sector 5
269,272
92,828
2.9
124,149
Sector 6
416,045
142,222
2.9
191,080
Bucharest
2,067,545
742,628
2.8
948,286
Ilfov*
127,776
Total
2,195,321
Source: Directia Generala De Statistica, Municipiului Bucuresti
40.7
45.8
47.3
48.0
46.1
45.9
45.9
Student
Others
Persons
%
persons
%
41,106
70,380
71,901
57,409
48,434
92,110
381,340
15.8
17.9
17.6
17.9
18.0
22.1
18.4
113,074
143,356
142,926
109,019
96,689
132,855
737,919
43.5
36.4
35.0
34.0
35.9
31.9
35.7
Looking at the past trend of population, the total population of the Study Area has steadily
decreased from 2,195,321 persons in 1992 to 2,149,436 persons in 1998, by 45,885 persons as
shown in Table 2.2.3. The average annual population growth rate from 1992 to 1998 was –
0.35%. Within the Study Area, only Ilfov has experienced a relatively steady increase in
population with an average annual growth rate of 0.71%. These findings suggest that
population is dispersing from the central area of Bucharest to the suburban area. This can be
also understood from the fact that new shops, restaurants, entertainment centers, etc. are
locating in the city center and new houses have recently been constructed in the outskirts of
the city.
Table 2.2.3 Past Trend of Population by Sector
Sector
Sector 1
Share(%)
Sector 2
Share(%)
1992
259,902
11.0
394,208
16.7
1993
259,801
11.1
394,052
16.8
1994
247,460
10.6
391,478
16.7
1995
248,745
10.7
391,581
16.8
1996
245,151
10.6
388,001
16.8
1997
241,792
10.5
385,392
16.7
Sector 3
407,793
407,630
408,437
407,869
407,441
407,684
Share(%)
17.3
17.4
17.5
17.5
17.6
17.7
Sector 4
320,325
320,197
324,362
323,061
321,448
320,601
Share(%)
13.6
13.7
13.9
13.8
13.9
13.9
Sector 5
269,272
269,164
268,612
270,561
270,094
270,473
Share(%)
11.4
11.5
11.5
11.6
11.7
11.7
Sector 6
416,045
415,879
420,202
412,262
405,143
401,570
Share(%)
17.7
17.7
18.0
17.7
17.5
17.4
Bucharest
2,067,545 2,066,723 2,060,551 2,054,079 2,037,278 2,027,512
Share(%)
87.8
88.2
88.1
88.1
88.0
88.0
Ilfov*
127,776
131,627
132,479
133,135
133,234
133,333
Share(%)
12.2
11.8
11.9
11.9
12.0
12.0
Total
2,195,321 2,198,350 2,193,030 2,187,214 2,170,512 2,160,845
*Only for the portion of Ilfov within the Study Área
1998/1992 : shows the average annual growth rate of population from 1992 to 1998 in %.
2.2.2
1998
1998/1992
238,217
-1.44
10.4
382,187
-0.51
16.7
407,060
17.8
319,344
13.9
269,746
11.8
399,577
17.4
2,016,131
87.9
133,305
12.0
2,149,436
-0.03
-0.05
0.03
-0.67
-0.42
0.71
-0.35
Active Population and Inactive Population
Table 2.2.4 shows the active and inactive population. In 1998 the active population accounted
for 41.5% of the total population (891.7 thousand persons) and among this active population,
94.9% is “occupied (working population)” and the remaining of 5.1% is “unocupied
(unemployed)”. The working population has steadily decreased from 1992 to 1998. Judging
2-8
from the recent unfavorable economic situation, the actual number of unoccupied persons is
said to be much greater.
The number of pupils and students have increased and exceed the number of pensioners in
1998. In addition, the considerably high rate of “pensioner” of 471 thousands in 1998
characterizes the composition of population in Bucharest.
Table 2.2.4 Active and Inactive Population
Year
1992
Item
Persons
%
Active population 1,019,351
46.4
Occupies
956,770
43.6
Unoccup
62,581
2.9
Inactive
1,175,970
53.6
population
Student
401,732
18.3
Pensioner
468,716
21.4
Others
305,522
13.9
Total population 2,195,321
100.0
Source : Bucharest Annual Statistics
1998
Persons
891,685
846,179
45,506
1,257,751
41.5
39.4
2.1
58.5
%
500,326
471,189
286,236
2,149,436
23.3
21.9
13.3
100.0
Table 2.2.5 indicates the industrial composition of the working population in residential areas.
In the industrial composition the share of working population of the primary industry
increased from 1.8% in 1992 to 3.7% in 1998, reflecting a slump of economic activities in the
secondary industry. The number of working population in the secondary industry drastically
decreased by 154 thousand persons from 1992 to 1998; on the other hand, in the tertiary
industry the working population increased from 443 thousand persons to 477 thousand
persons during the same period. As a result, the share of working population in the tertiary
industry increased from 46.5% in 1992 to 56.4% in 1998. On the other hand, the share of the
secondary industry decreased from 51.7% in 1992 to 40.0 % in 1998.
In the Study Area most factories are located near terminal metro stations in the suburban areas.
Before the December 1989 revolution, most workers commuted from their apartments in the
city to these factories using mainly metro; however, the recent slump of these factories
constitutes one of the reasons for the decreasing number of metro passengers.
Table 2.2.5 Number of Working Population in Residence Place
Sector
Primary
Share (%)
Secondary
Share(%)
(Construction)
(Share %)
Tertiary
Share (%)
1992
16,987
1.8
1998
30,908
3.7
491,919
51.7
338,213
40.0
70,131
7.4
73,319
8.7
443,023
46.5
477,058
56.4
Total
951,929
846,178
Source : BUCURESTI ANUAR STATISTIC 1996, Census Data
in 1992 and Statistical Office
2-9
2.2.3
Working Population in Residence Place and Working Population in Work Place
As shown in Table 2.2.6, the working populations both in residence places and in work places
have decreased from 1992 to 1998. The working population in work places in 1998 was 901.1
thousand persons, which is larger than that of the working population in residence places by
about 55 thousands, since some persons living in the surrounding area commute to the Study
area to work. The working population is concentrated highest in Sector 1, which accounted
for almost 26% of the total figure.
Table 2.2.6 Number of Working Population in Residence Place and Work Place
Working population in residence place
Working population in work place
1992
1998
1992
1998
Population Share(%)
Population
Share(%)
Population
Share(%) Population Share(%)
Sector 1
100,894
10.1
86,506
10.2
264,391
26.5
230,222
25.5
Sector 2
172,024
18.1
132,370
15.6
192,285
19.3
175,691
19.5
Sector 3
183,103
19.2
160,920
19.0
189,400
19.0
168,816
18.7
Sector 4
146,099
15.3
149,003
17.6
99,988
10.0
84,882
9.4
Sector 5
116,761
12.3
114,226
13.5
92,296
9.2
96,598
10.7
Sector 6
182,920
19.2
150,527
17.8
123,066
12.3
109,781
12.2
Bucharest
901,801
94.7
793,551
93.8
961,426
96.3
865,990
96.1
Ilfov
50,128
5.3
52,627
6.2
36,642
3.7
35,085
3.9
Total
951,929
100.0
846,178
100.0
998,072
100.0
901,075
100.0
Source : BUCURESTI ANUAR STATISTIC 1996, Census Data in 1992 and Statistical Office
Sector
2.2.4
Number of Vehicles Registered
Table 2.2.8 shows the number of vehicles registered in Bucharest and the whole Ilfov area.
The number of vehicles registered in this area is 571,453 vehicles in 1998 as shown in Table
2.2.7, which increased from 498,932 vehicles in 1995 at an average growth rate of 4.7 %.
Among this total number of vehicle registered, the number of passenger cars is 429,682
vehicles (75.2% of the total vehicles).
According to the information from the statistics department of the Bucharest Municipality, the
number of passenger cars registered in the Study Area was estimated at 411,449 vehicles,
therefore, the motorization rate was 191 vehicles per 1000 persons in the Study Area in 1998.
If excluding the office-owned passenger cars from 411,449 vehicles, the number of passenger
cars owned by households is estimated at 352,612 vehicles, since 85.7% of passenger cars are
registered by households.
Judging from 290 vehicles in Budapest and 431.1 vehicles in Vienna, more motorization is
expected to proceed in the Study Area in the near future.
2-10
Table 2.2.7 Number of Vehicles Registered in Bucharest and the Whole Ilfov
Type of
1995
1996
1997
vehicle
Passenger car
373,170
396,746
419,664
Bus
5,710
5,622
5,522
Truck
65,207
68,896
71,736
Motorcycle
26,123
32,553
32,384
Others
28,183
29,566
30,512
Total
498,393
533,385
559,818
Source: DIRECTIA GENERALA DE STATISTICA, MUNICIPIULUI BUCURESTI
2.2.5
1998
429,682
5,470
73,989
31,504
30,808
571,453
(Unit : Vehicles)
Growth rate
(%)
4.8
-1.4
4.3
6.4
3.0
4.7
National and Local Budget
At present most of the tax revenue goes first to the central government, then necessary money
is redistributed to the local government. Therefore, the Bucharest Municipality is not
financially autonomous. However, in the near future, this tax system is scheduled to be
changed to enable the Bucharest Municipality to collect and utilize tax revenues, by itself.
The state budget in Romania for 1999 is shown in the following. The income and expense are
planned to be 86,884.4 billion lei and 93,384.4 billion lei, respectively. As a special road fund,
2,000 billion lei is assigned, which occupies 2.1% of the total national expense. Loan
payments account for about 5 % of the total expense.
(Unit Billion Lei)
Expense
93,384.4
Current expense
84,633.3
Capital expense
3,497.9
Grant
730.9
Notes payable
4,522.3
Income
86,884.4
Current Income
82,114.3
Capital Income
3,585.0
Accounts receivable 1,185.1
The budget of the Bucharest Municipality was 2,665 billion lei in 1998. About 54.3% of the
total income came from the central government as shown in Table 2.2.8. As for expenditures,
the Municipality spends about 218,434 million lei (8.2% of the total expense) for road
maintenance and street repairs. This amount is not sufficient to maintain the existing transport
infrastructure to an appropriate standard.
.
Table 2.2.8 Income and Expense of Bucharest Municipality
Items
Income
Current income
Capital income
From tax
Subsidies
Loans
Expense
Public authority
Social & cultural
Housing
Transport &communication
Others
Source : Municipality
1995
637,946
122,780
15,269
129,836
370,060
0
637,946
4,270
121,198
270,611
240,120
1,745
2-11
1995
939,559
210,556
11,422
201,710
515,860
0
939,559
5,390
203,225
361,813
365,519
3,610
1997
2,103,567
479,619
9,700
502,007
1,112,239
0
2,103,567
11,598
414,811
852,415
821,88
2,853
(unit: million lei)
1998
2,665,559
666,295
16,505
520,990
1,448,160
13,600
2,665,550
23,820
233,737
1,226,511
1,106,300
20,181
Table 2.2.9 shows the Bucharest Municipality’s budget and latest implementation amount for
road and street works in 1998. Road works (excluding the infrastructure works for
construction of dwellings) are financed by State budget, but street works are financed by the
Municipality. The continuing road works have already spent about 262,823 million lei,
however, only one-fifth of the budget was allocated. As for new works, road works take up
about 90,252 million lei, but the budget is only 1,100 million lei. This financial shortfall
should be covered by the Municipality. For the street modernization, there will be no problem
to implement the works.
In addition, the Municipality has an official duty to supervise RATB. For that duty, the
Municipality allocated 319,033 million lei in 1997.
Table 2.2.9 Road & Street Related Budget
(Million Lei)
Road & street works
Continuing works
Road
New work
Road
Sreet
Source : Municipality
Budget
Local
Implementation
Total
262,825
50,511
4,301
46,210
90,251
485
1,090
485
0
485
1,100
0
State
2.3 Physical Condition
2.3.1
Natural Conditions
Romania lies in the north of the Balkan Peninsula and borders Moldova, Ukraine, Hungary,
Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. To the east, the country faces the Black Sea. One of the main
arteries of river transportation in Europe leads from the Constanta port through the Danube to
Rotterdam, in the Netherlands.
Topographically, Romania consists of approximately 31% of mountainous areas having an
altitude of 800m or more, approximately 36% of hilly regions of 200 to 800m, and approx.
33% of plains of less than 200m above sea level.
The Study Area is located in one of the plains of less than 200 m in altitude, and its terrain is
flat and has no geographical hindrance to prevent the development of the city and the
expansion of the traffic network.
The Dambovita River crossing the city and several lakes in the north of the city demonstrates
that the surrounding areas are covered with river sediments. The fact that several earthquakes
have hit this region in the past shows that considerations for seismic activity are required in
the planning and construction of buildings and other structures.
The climate has four distinct seasons, and it is bitterly cold in winter. Bucharest has features
similar to cities in the northern region of the country.
2-12
2.3.2
Geographic Location of Bucharest
The geographical location of Bucharest is as follows;
East Longitude
- 25q 27u 15u
North Latitude
- 44q 14u 05u
Above the Sea
Lowest: 56.66 m
Highest: 96.63 m
2.3.3
The Underground
The Seismic Characteristics of Bucharest Metropolitan Area are summarized below.
(1) According to STAS 11100-/1993 The seismic zoning. Romania Territory Macro
Zoning , Bucharest is located in no. 8.1 seismic intensity zone; the index 1 corresponds to the 50 year recovery period.
The seismic micro zoning of Bucharest - presented in the map - indicates that the seismic
potential is different among zones.
- The zone of maximum intensity covers the area on the right side of Dambovita
(Militari District, Glina) and the micro zones on the left side of Dambovita, such as:
16 February District, Politehnica, Sala Palatului and the micro zones around Herastrau,
Floreasca and Tei Lakes.
- The zone of medium intensity (7-8 degrees) includes the meadows of Dambovita and
Colentina rivers.
- The zone of minimum intensity (7 degrees) encompasses the high fields in the
northern and southern parts of Bucharest.
(2) According to The Design Regulation for Constructing the Residential, Social-Cultural
and Industrial Building Against Earthquakes (P-100-92), the calculation values of
Ks and Tc parameters for Bucharest, mentioned on the zoning maps are: Ks =
C = 2.20 and Tc = 1.5 seconds.
2-13
3.
Existing Land Use and Environmental Condition
3. Existing Land Use and Environmental Condition
In the Study area, the urban area extends in all directions with a (maximum) radius of
10km. A considerable amount of agricultural land still remains within the municipal
boundary. Green and water areas occupy 35% of the total area. The gross population
density is 35 persons/ha.
For environmental aspects the present environmental conditions caused by urban transport
were examined and compared to other European countries’ experiences.
3.1 Present Institutional System for Urban Planning and Land Use Regulations
3.1.1 General
At present, the Law No. 50 of 1991 (concerning the authorization of construction and some
measures for house building) is the basic law that prescribes procedure and norms for building
and land use.
The Law No. 50 of 1991 stipulates in Art. 2 that “the building permit is issued on the basis of
respecting the documents of urban and territorial development approved in accordance with
the annex, which is an integral part of this law”. The annex shows documentation for urban
planning and territory arrangement with the organizations in charge of its assent and approval.
The Territory Arrangement Plan should be prepared from “at the national level” down to “at
the communal level”. The General Urban Plan (Plan Urbanistic General, PUG) should be
prepared from “at the municipal level” to “at the village level” and for resort areas. The Zonal
Urban Plan (Plan Urbanistic Zonal, PUZ) is prepared for the central part of each level of
administrative unit and for zones of special use or protection. The Detailed Urban Plan is a set
of documents required for every construction project in the urban area and classified into two
categories: national level and local level.
The Municipality of Bucharest is now preparing its Regional Territory Arrangement Plan
(Plan de Amenajare a Teritoriului-Zonal, PATZ) that covers the Bucharest Metropolitan Area
(BMA) including the peripheral communes, as well as PUG within the municipality boundary.
3.1.2 Characteristics of PATZ
The purpose of PATZ is to assure a permanent balance between the capitalization of resources
and the protection conditions of the natural environment, considering the suitable
development of the territory and settlements. The contents of PATZ are as follows
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Natural framework – balance of territory utilization
Economic potential
Population and settlements network
Infrastructure
Rehabilitation, protection and conservation of environment
PATZ can be considered a master plan of BMA that shows the outline of development
including spatial use and socioeconomic development. PATZ has legal force on planning and
developing activities executed by administrative bodies, but has no binding power on a third
party. This lack of legal force on inhabitants is similar to SD (Schema Directeur) of France
3-1
and F Plan (Flachennutzungsplan) of Germany. SD (for a period of 10 – 30 years) is, in
principle, prepared by a group of communes, indicating the basic land use policies, and if
necessary, new urban areas and redevelopment areas, as well as protection areas, transport
system, water supply, sewerage and waste disposal. F Plan (for a period of 10 – 15 years) is
the land use master plan of the municipality, which shows the outline of land use for its
administrative territory, including agricultural lands, forests, recreation areas, conservation
areas and lands for social facilities, transport facilities and infrastructure.
3.1.3 Characteristics of General Urban Plan
PUG is a set of documents that show objectives, actions and development measures for the
existing or future urban areas and settlements during a determined period (usually 5 – 10
years).
The essential contents of PUG are regulations and restrictions on which basis urban
development certificates and building permits are issued inside the urban areas and
settlements concerned. The scale of maps showing regulations and restrictions is 1/1,000 to
1/5,000. PUG is usually elaborated together with the Territory Arrangement Plan and is
correlated with its provisions.
PUG contains the strategy, priorities, regulations and restrictions of urban planning applied to
land use and building use within the urban areas and settlements, concerning the following:
(1) Demarcation of urbanization promotion area
(2) Division of use zones
(3) Size, structure and distribution of population and labor force
(4) Economic potential and distribution of activities
(5) Establishment of circulation system
(6) Establishment of use zoning with control indicators such as building height, building
coverage, floor area ratio and building prohibitions
(7) Locations of public use lands and public facilities
(8) Designation of historical zones and sites
(9) Designation of construction prohibition zones
(10) Designation of rehabilitation zones
(11) Development of urban utility network system
(12) Rehabilitation, protection and conservation of environment
PUG practically corresponds to POS (Plan d’Ocupation des Sols) of France. POS (for a
period of 5 – 10 years) is a detailed land use regulation plan of the commune, prepared under
the basic policies of SD, and the scales of maps are 1/2,000 to 1/10,000. This plan has legal
binding force on inhabitants.
3.1.4 Present Situation of Bucharest Municipality for Regulation of Urban Development
After PUG will be enforced, it will have the legal force to control all the urban development
projects. But at present PUG is at the preparation stage.
Although the PUG is not yet enforced, some authorized PUZs and the road network plan
prepared by the Municipality have a controlling power on PUDs (development projects)
proposed by individuals and organizations. PUZ is a more detailed plan than PUG for a
designated urban area with the purpose of controlling shapes of buildings and land use based
on the local information. Where PUZ is enforced, development certificates and building
permits are issued by consulting the regulations of PUZ. And, if necessary, PUG can be
3-2
revised in conformity with a PUZ. The scale of maps is 1/1,000 to 1/2,000.
PUZ has the character of B Plan (Bebauungsplan) of Germany. B Plan (for a period of about 5
years) is a detailed urban plan determining building use classification, indicators for building
use limits like building coverage, location of building/building line, designation of lands for
public facilities like roads. The scale of maps is 1/500 to 1/2,500.
For the areas without authorized PUZ, only the road network plan has the controlling power.
There are some cases in which the development body makes a proposal of PUZ for the area
surrounding their own project site. It seems that the office of chief architect judges its
propriety on a case-by-case basis.
Nowadays the economic situation is stagnant and development demand is not large. However,
when business activity recovers in future, construction demand will expand rapidly. It is
feared that disorderly building activity and urban development will increase in areas where
PUZ is not yet prepared. Therefore, the preparation and enforcement of PUG should be as
soon as possible. And for the important areas where construction activity is expected to grow
in future, PUZ should be enforced even before PUG is completed.
3.2 Existing Land Use and Urban Development Characteristics of Bucharest
3.2.1 General
The existing land use of Bucharest Municipality is graphically shown in Figure 3.2.1. For the
preparation of this map, the cooperation of the Urban Planning Center of Bucharest was very
important. The Center supplied the Study Team with the following two maps from which
information about land use was mainly obtained:
(1) Urban Functional Macro Zone (prepared by the Atelierul de Urbanism “URBIS ‘90”)
(2) Frame Regulation Regarding Building Permit for Housing and Other Buildings in
Bucharest, Town Development in Perspective (prepared by URBANA, Urban Planning
Center)
Figure 3.2.2 shows traffic zones and sectors.
3-3
Zones 2 (Cismigiu Park), 3 (Magheru Blvd. / The National Theatre), 25 (Sfantul Gheorghe
Church / The Historical Center / km 0) and 45 (The Parliament Palace) compose the present
city center of Bucharest. As common in European cities, commercial and service activities are
generally located on the ground floor, or in addition the first floor, of collective apartment
buildings except several office buildings and hotels in Bucharest. Therefore, in the city center
“Residential – collective dwellings in high apartment buildings” (colored orange in Figure
3.2.1) should be regarded as commercial area.
From the city center the urban area extends in all directions with a radius of maximum 10
kilometers. A considerable amount of agricultural land (colored pale yellow) is still left within
the municipal boundary. A large forest of Baneasa-Tunari is preserved to the north of the city
area. A series of lakes, with lakeside green areas, are located continuously from northwest to
southeast along the border of the urbanized area. In addition, there are many green and water
areas within the built up area. These areas in all occupy 35% of the city total. Considering the
municipal population of 2 million, Bucharest features a compact urban area with
comparatively rich green and water spaces.
According to Table 3.2.1, the total population of the Study Area is 2,149,436 and the gross
population density is 35 persons/ha. While the adjacent 13 communes have low densities of 3
to 7 persons/ha, the population of Bucharest Municipality is 2,016,131 and its gross
population density is 80 persons/ha.
3.2.2 Residential Area
As seen in Figure 3.2.1, there are two types of residential area; Type A (Collective dwellings
in high apartment buildings): Colored orange, and Type B (Dwellings mainly on lots):
Colored yellow.
Although some residential areas of Type A (other than the above-mentioned type in the city
center) are located adjacent to the center within the inner ring road, typical ones are mainly
constructed near the large-scale industrial zones called “Industrial Platform” located in the
east, west and south of the city. These apartment houses with 11-15 stories were intended to
accommodate the employees of the industrial platforms.
As shown in Table 3.2.1, net population densities of Zones with residential area of Type A
only vary from 181 persons/ha of Zone 70 (Cetatea) to 601 persons/ha of Zone 67 (Apusului).
Although Zone 51 (Rahova) and Zone 59 (Crangasi) include small portions of Type B, these
zones show high population densities of more than 1,000 persons/ha. Judging from the
population densities of other zones with a mixture of Types A and B, the population densities
of Type A can be considered between 500-1,000 persons/ha.
3-6
Table 3.2.1 Population and Population Density by Zone, 1998
Zone
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Sector 1
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sector 2
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Sector 3
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Sector 4
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Midyear
population
11,575
8,947
9,418
9,118
13,005
8,206
18,403
28,611
5,447
36,828
11,085
39,654
10,144
27,776
238,217
48,204
17,672
18,654
32,386
13,701
53,930
66,671
71,174
31,256
28,539
382,187
10,888
11,866
24,492
26,023
78,547
76,941
46,015
67,641
40,804
23,843
0
407,060
13,825
12,993
33,883
61,205
8,189
71,376
62,807
32,336
22,730
319,344
12,519
12,260
10,286
11,758
11,144
21,261
68,673
28,419
8,530
24,561
10,923
24,554
Zone area
(ha)
127
58
75
102
81
85
114
338
1,152
544
661
450
435
3,256
7,478
263
82
172
205
173
268
396
537
721
577
3,394
84
120
184
167
414
338
445
278
490
609
708
3,837
153
186
231
333
584
178
350
313
1,077
3,405
176
164
112
209
138
162
92
226
386
528
166
199
Residential area (ha)
Type B
Total
16
43
59
16
0
16
16
18
34
12
38
50
20
28
48
4
37
41
19
32
51
19
126
145
3
46
49
75
100
175
63
50
113
0
155
155
13
148
161
18
87
105
294
908
1,202
32
106
138
17
30
47
23
75
98
25
45
70
7
37
44
65
49
114
115
31
146
60
62
122
67
50
117
0
231
231
411
716
1,127
29
12
41
27
44
71
62
12
74
53
32
85
184
10
194
96
57
153
110
0
110
146
10
156
54
28
82
0
141
141
0
0
0
761
346
1,107
15
50
65
27
33
60
47
25
72
99
75
174
10
4
14
121
0
121
153
19
172
0
54
54
15
148
163
487
408
895
13
22
35
22
21
43
19
20
39
42
31
73
11
42
53
49
15
64
54
1
55
27
29
56
0
77
77
22
112
134
9
65
74
32
76
108
Type A
3-7
Population density
Gross(p/ha)
Net(p/ha)
91
196
154
559
126
277
89
182
161
271
97
200
161
361
85
197
5
111
68
210
17
98
88
256
23
63
9
265
32
198
183
349
216
376
108
190
158
463
79
311
201
473
168
457
133
583
43
267
49
124
113
339
130
266
99
167
133
331
156
306
190
405
228
503
103
418
243
434
83
498
39
169
0
106
368
90
213
70
217
147
471
184
352
14
585
401
590
179
365
103
599
21
139
94
357
71
358
75
285
92
264
56
161
81
210
131
332
746
1,249
126
507
22
111
47
183
66
148
123
227
Zone
no.
57
Sector 5
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Sector 6
Bucharest
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
Part of ilfov
Study area
Midyear
population
24,858
269,746
18,931
38,916
20,410
46,558
10,879
12,169
10,909
35,316
36,390
55,336
57,853
47,210
8,700
399,577
2,016,131
10,581
27,097
21,942
24,564
17,569
7,078
7,375
17,099
133,305
2,149,436
Zone area
(ha)
667
3,225
217
67
291
334
398
623
128
138
126
179
227
233
881
3,842
25,181
2,770
3,620
7,240
9,680
6,460
1,900
1,510
3,320
36,500
61,681
Residential area (ha)
Type B
Total
40
87
127
340
598
938
22
46
68
28
8
36
40
1
41
81
5
86
32
8
40
2
116
118
48
0
48
61
2
63
64
0
64
92
0
92
83
1
84
73
5
78
48
0
48
674
192
866
2,967
3,168
6,135
Type A
Population density
Gross(p/ha)
Net(p/ha)
37
196
84
288
87
278
581
1,081
70
498
139
541
27
272
20
103
85
227
256
561
289
569
309
601
255
689
203
605
10
181
104
461
80
329
4
7
3
3
3
4
5
5
4
35
Residential areas of Type B include those for higher income and for lower income. The
former is located mainly in the central part and, recently, in the northern part of the city, while
the latter in the northeastern and southwestern parts.
Old but well maintained detached houses built near the city center compose a high-class
residential area. Lands in the northern part with rich green and water spaces are generally
recognized as better areas for residential development and middle to higher income families
prefer to build their new houses there. Accordingly, the urbanization pressure is strong in the
northern direction even under the stagnant economic situation.
The northeastern Type B residential area in Zone 24 (Colentina) and the southwestern one in
Zone 54 (Ferentari) are typical lower income detached house areas. Roads in these areas are
scarcely paved except main streets and community service facilities such as daily shopping
facilities, schools and hospitals are insufficiently provided. Houses are not of high quality but
comparatively well maintained.
According to Table 3.2.1, net population densities of Zones including residential area of Type
B only vary from 111 persons/ha of Zone 53 (Prelungirea Ghencea) to 256 persons/ha of Zone
12 (Soseaua Chitila). The density of 599 persons/ha of Zone 43 (Progresul), which has
residential area of Type B only, appears to be too high and should be checked. Zone 13
(Bucurestii Noi), including Type A, shows the lowest density of 63 persons/ha. Generally, the
population density of Type B can be regarded as 50-250 persons/ha.
3.2.3 Industrial Area
Before the revolution, nearly 30 industrial platforms were developed in and around Bucharest
Municipality. The industrial platform is an industrial complex composed of several factories
belonging to various industrial categories, mainly located outside the Inner Ring Road. In
3-8
addition, many small-scale factories are scattered within the urban area as seen in Figure
3.2.1.
In the process of transition from a planned economy to a market oriented one, many of state
enterprises located in the industrial platform have lost their management staff and the number
of employed persons has decreased almost to half. Some factories have stopped production
activities and have no prospect to reopen. However, other industrial platforms such as Pipera
located in Zone 23 (Strandul Tei) have succeeded in introducing foreign investment,
maintained production and minimized the employment decrease.
It is considered an important theme of urban and economic planning is to relocate factories
from the central part of the city to vacant sites or bankrupted factories’ sites within the
industrial platform, as well as to revitalize stagnant platforms by introducing foreign capital
into them.
3.2.4 Commercial/Service Area
Commercial/service areas are not clearly shown in Figure 3.2.1. In the city center, however,
considerable accumulation of commercial/service activities is found with administrative and
cultural/educational facilities (classified as institutional: colored dark blue in the map). Along
the main streets, a variety of hotels, restaurants, theatres, department stores, supermarkets and
specialty shops are located continuously.
According to Table 3.2.2, which shows the number of employed persons by zone on a
workplace basis, 106,876 persons work in the city center (Zones 2, 3, 25 and 45). 84,371
persons (78.9% of the total) are engaged in the tertiary sector. The total land area of the city
center is 393 ha, of which 158 ha is regarded as “Workplace Area”, excluding “Green Area”,
“Rivers/Lakes”, “Vacant Lot”, “Cemetery” and “Agricultural Land”. While the average gross
employment density is 272 persons/ha (517 persons/ha in Zone 25), the average net
employment density on the workplace area reaches 676 persons/ha (1,060 persons/ha in Zone
25).
Within Zone 45 and the adjacent Zone 27 (Nerva Traian), widely spread vacant lots are left.
And along B-dul Unirii a series of apartment buildings remain half-completed, because the
recent stagnant economic situation has forced their construction to be suspended. In order to
utilize these vacant lots and half-finished apartment houses and to create a new city center, the
Municipality is studying a development project called “Bucharest 2000”.
Gara de Nord is an urban core formed in front of the railway terminal of Gara de Nord, where
national and international trains to and from Bucharest are daily arriving and departing.
According to Table 3.2.2, the total number of working persons in Zone 4 (Gara de Nord) is
22,544, of which 72.2% (16,288 persons) belong to the tertiary sector. The gross employment
density is 221 persons/ha and the net one is 347 persons/ha.
Obor is the present largest popular market place in Bucharest. It is located in Zone 21 (Obor)
but its boundary as a commercial/service center is hard to delimitate. The total of the tertiary
sector employment in the Zone is 14,269 persons (see Table 3.2.2). Most of them can be
assumed to work in the commercial area. In addition, the Industrial Platform-Obor (with a
comparatively good economic achievement) is located in the same Zone, with a secondary
sector employment of 17,286, which is larger than that of the tertiary sector. Accordingly,
Obor is an important employment center of commerce and industry.
3-9
Targ International located near Presei Libere is an exhibition complex where international
fairs and other international-scale events are sometimes held. It is located in Zone 10 (The
Exhibition Complex), which is a large zone with an area of 5.44 square kilometers is divided
into various land uses. The institutional area of 56 ha can be regarded as the present
international center zone. It is still low density and vast vacant lots are left adjacent to it. .
Other points and streets shown on the map are market places and commercial/service areas
with some characteristics of their own.
Generally speaking, the city center has a considerable scale of accumulation and appears to be
providing people with vivid commercial and service activities even under the present severe
economic conditions. However, the formation of hierarchical structure of sub centers and
incubation of service centers with specific functions seem to be insufficient in Bucharest.
Table 3.2.2 Number of Employed Persons on Workplace Basis, 1998
Zone
no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Sector 1
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Sector 2
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Sector 3
36
37
38
39
40
41
Employed persons on workplace basis
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
379
3,499
11,605
152
2,176
13,088
443
4,658
20,140
560
5,695
16,288
93
3,047
9,964
128
2,853
7,070
128
1,701
4,614
636
6,586
20,684
128
2,078
5,236
1,767
8,975
16,148
1,394
5,249
12,700
134
3,052
3,265
257
2,904
3,726
1,994
10,053
14,974
8,194
62,526
159,502
2,113
8,834
20,531
1,253
3,085
6,970
611
3,264
4,797
351
8,727
7,027
0
3,847
8,615
248
4,137
8,533
969
17,286
14,269
563
11,230
7,904
951
9,460
5,431
654
4,074
9,957
7,713
73,944
94,034
1,201
10,268
31,982
0
2,955
6,945
0
5,754
4,100
0
6,463
8,347
284
7,691
9,928
278
6,633
5,923
284
19,572
5,573
161
4,977
4,677
0
5,208
3,320
303
5,846
2,297
0
5,813
2,030
2,512
81,181
85,124
129
3,056
8,214
502
6,065
5,303
204
1,958
3,149
328
5,586
5,422
129
1,174
1,853
204
1,217
2,393
Total
15,483
15,415
25,241
22,544
13,105
10,051
6,443
27,906
7,442
26,890
19,342
6,451
6,886
27,022
230,222
31,478
11,308
8,672
16,105
12,463
12,919
32,523
19,697
15,841
14,685
175,691
43,451
9,900
9,853
14,811
17,903
12,833
25,429
9,816
8,528
8,447
7,844
168,816
11,399
11,871
5,311
11,337
3,157
3,815
3-10
Zone
area (ha)
127
58
75
102
81
85
114
338
1,152
544
661
450
435
3,256
7,478
263
82
172
205
173
268
396
537
721
577
3,394
84
120
184
167
414
338
445
278
490
609
708
3,837
153
186
231
333
584
178
Workplace
area (ha)*
72
20
38
65
48
46
54
170
524
317
174
201
235
612
2,576
140
47
99
80
73
150
241
180
238
350
1,598
41
71
91
92
207
256
353
171
193
323
307
2,105
69
85
85
174
93
121
Employment
Density
Gross (p/ha)
Net (p/ha)
122
215
266
771
337
664
221
347
162
273
118
219
57
119
83
164
6
14
49
85
29
111
14
32
16
29
8
44
31
89
120
225
138
241
50
88
79
201
72
171
48
86
82
135
37
109
22
67
25
42
52
110
517
1060
83
139
54
108
89
161
43
86
38
50
57
72
35
57
17
44
14
26
11
26
44
80
75
165
64
140
23
62
34
65
5
34
21
32
Zone
no.
Employed persons on workplace basis
Zone
Workplace
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
Total
area (ha)
area (ha)*
42
756
5,562
9,691
16,009
350
219
43
438
1,740
2,051
4,228
313
196
44
338
13,633
3,784
17,755
1,077
376
Sector 4
3,029
39,991
41,862
84,882
3,405
1,418
45
554
3,054
19,161
22,769
176
59
46
145
3,979
9,801
13,926
164
74
47
0
2,868
2,686
5,554
112
63
48
140
5,627
5,105
10,872
209
133
49
0
4,208
2,245
6,453
138
92
50
375
7,672
4,736
12,783
162
120
51
481
3,537
5,278
9,296
92
55
52
0
418
1,432
1,850
226
113
53
89
551
1,520
2,161
386
175
54
112
1,019
3,211
4,342
528
234
55
0
203
974
1,177
166
78
56
246
1,055
1,592
2,893
199
108
57
145
1,022
1,355
2,523
667
212
Sector 5
2,287
35,214
59,097
96,598
3,225
1,516
58
479
3,665
5,534
9,679
217
111
59
327
1,951
4,900
7,178
67
36
60
242
13,796
8,412
22,451
291
208
61
116
5,627
7,375
13,118
334
188
62
100
1,093
1,688
2,881
398
58
63
0
1,476
1,584
3,060
623
146
64
0
334
546
880
128
51
65
574
3,767
5,371
9,712
138
109
66
227
984
2,133
3,344
126
71
67
242
3,467
5,791
9,501
179
92
68
142
3,631
3,559
7,333
227
168
69
232
1,018
2,878
4,129
233
107
70
627
10,357
5,532
16,517
881
309
Sector 6
3,308
51,167
55,306
109,781
3,842
1,654
Bucharest
27,043
344,023
494,924
865,990
25,181
10,867
71
85
1,793
5,377
7,255
2,770
72
802
979
2,668
4,449
3,620
73
188
1,459
991
2,638
7,240
74
1,375
4,191
1,911
7,477
9,680
75
1,053
2,113
2,693
5,859
6,460
76
211
1,228
432
1,870
1,900
77
605
689
616
1,910
1,510
78
1,035
1,254
1,338
3,627
3,320
Part of ilfov
5,354
13,706
16,025
35,085
36,500
Study área
32,397
357,729
510,949
901,075
61,681
* Workplace Area is the total from "Residential Area Type A" to "Special Land Area" in Table 3.2.1
Employment
Density
Gross (p/ha)
Net (p/ha)
46
73
14
22
16
47
25
60
129
386
85
188
50
88
52
82
47
70
79
107
101
169
8
16
6
12
8
19
7
15
15
27
4
12
30
64
45
87
107
199
77
108
39
70
7
50
5
21
7
17
70
89
27
47
53
103
32
44
18
39
19
53
29
66
34
80
3
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
15
3.2.5 Urban Development Characteristics
Based on the above-mentioned present situation of main land use and the existing transport
network (details are described in other related chapters), the characteristics of urban
development pattern of Bucharest are summarized as follows:
(1) Transport Network
x Imperfect radial/ring road network (nine radial roads, two half ring roads and an outer
ring road on the outskirts of the urban area)
x Interregional/international railroad terminal of Gara de Nord on the inner ring road and
an outer ring railroad transporting freight to and from factories along it
x Metro, as the most important public transport system, connecting the city center with
industrial/residential areas in each direction (radial), and a ring line under the inner
ring road connecting district centers such as Gara de Nord and Obor
x Route networks of other public transport modes, such as tram, trolley bus and bus, not
3-11
forming simple patterns and insufficient interconnection among public transport
modes including metro.
(2) Locations and Qualities of Urban Activities
x Compact urban area
x Concentration of high-class commercial, educational/cultural, medical/welfare and
administrative activities, and historical structures in the city center
x Dilapidation of old residential buildings in the city center and transformation of them
into commercial buildings
x Suspended construction of a considerable number of apartment buildings in the city
center
x Changing relationship between home and work place, from near to far, brought about
by collapse of expected function for combined development of industrial platform and
high-rise apartment houses due to the recent stagnant situation of industrial activities
x Existence of old high-rise apartment houses, and of residential areas without sufficient
daily and social service facilities
x Existence of medium/small scale factories within residential/commercial areas
x Medium to higher class residential and second house development in the suburban
areas
x Recent location of large scale commercial centers for higher income classes with
private vehicles in the suburban areas
x Location of private freight distribution facilities on the outskirts of the urban area.
x Existence of vast vacant lots in the city center as well as in other parts of built up areas
x Comparatively rich green and water spaces within the urban area
x Agricultural lands and large scale forests in the suburban area
3.3 Environmental Conditions in Bucharest
This chapter examines environmental conditions in Bucharest with the emphasis on relating to
urban transport and how to control the urban environment. The chapter comprises
environmental impact by urban transport, the context of urban transport environment in EU
countries, environmental aspects in Bucharest and environmental regulation mainly. A
comparison between European countries’ experiences in Bucharest’s context must be valuable
in order to enhance the current environmental condition in Bucharest.
3.3.1 Overview of Environmental Impacts in Urban Transportation
The transport sector is a key of urban environmental quality and global environment.
Transport is a major contributor to pollution today and different forms of transport are the
main source of NO2 and CO, which are major pollutants of the urban environment. The
adverse effects of pollution on human health are most acute in urban areas where most people
live. On the other hand, the transport sector contributes to enhance economic activities and
convenience at the same time.
In order to mitigate these impacts, their causes shall be identified and countermeasures shall
be taken. Table 3.3.1 shows environmental impacts caused by the transport sector in general.
Remarkable aspects of environmental impact from transport sector are from road transport,
especially vehicle emission at the operating stage, and some others such as water quality, soil
and topographical and natural condition in pre-construction and construction stages.
3-12
Table 3.3.1 Environmental Impact by Surface Transport Sector in General
Air
xCombustion of fossil
fuel > Emission of
Nox, CO, CO2, VOCs,
SPM-air pollution,
health obstacle
xNox, VOCs>
photochemical smog
xUtilization of fuels and
addictive >lead and
VOC’s emission
xroad transportþair
pollution, /noise>
health obstacle
Rail transport
xpower generation for
electric locomotive>
emission for the air
xdiesel locomotive
>emission for the air
xsteam locomotive (coal
fuel)>emission for the
air
Source: Environment in Europe 1997, EEA
Road transport
Water
Soil/ topography
landscape/ nature
xconstruction materials
xdraining oils, salts and xRoad construction>
degradation of land
and aggregate, road
solvent>pollution of
by land appropriation> construction>
surface and ground
emission of harmful
decreasing landscape
water
substances by
xinfrastructure> split of
xNox, SO2 emission>
transport>risk of
acidity
community and
accident>soil
disturbance for wild
xRoad> impact on
contamination and
animal activity
water circulation
health obstacle
xfeet, oil, buttery, used
tire left> industrial
waste issue
xRailway line>change xdisturbance by traffic> xinefficiency by old
of hydrological system risk of accident
technology
xrail facility>
disturbance for wild
animal activity
3.3.2 Context of Urban Transport Environment in EU
In Western European countries, air pollution and global environment have suffered from the
transport sector and several mitigation measures have been taken. From this point, this
context is reviewed focusing on vehicle emission, energy consumption, and alleviation
measures.
(1) Emission from Transport Sector
Notable environmental impact from the road transport sector are vehicle emissions such as
Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Volatile Organic compounds (VOCs), lead
and Particulate Matters (PM). Those substances affect not only ambient air quality directly but
also some substances cause adverse pollution such as photochemical smog. The nature of
each substance is as follows:
1) NOx Emission from Road Transport
In the case of EU countries, light gasoline vehicles that is account for at approximately 70%
of total vehicles produce 56% of total NOx emissions. Approximately 2% of total vehicles
that is diesel vehicles, including bus, emits 34% of total NOx emissions. It is therefore true
that approximately 90% of total NOx emission is caused by road transport especially from
vehicles.
From limited information from Central and Eastern Europe, however, increasing motorization
after the end of the cold war in 1989, is projected to increase emissions rapidly. In the case of
Poland, the total emission of NOx will be doubled by the year 2000 compared to the year
1989 level. One of the effective engine technologies, catalytic system has been introduced for
mitigation of harmful vehicle emissions. It is projected that after introduced emission controls
are introduced, 20% to 30% of total NOx emission will be reduced in all of Europe. For
reference purpose following table shows the total amount of NOx emission from road
transport by type in the year 1990 in EU countries. Gasoline passenger cars and heavy diesel
vehicles emit 56.2% and 33.6 % of the total NOx amount respectively.
3-13
Table 3.3.2 Total Amount of NOx Emission from Road Transport by Type in EU
Engine type
Registered
Share (%)
vehicle (in
thousand)
Diesel engine: passenger car/ light vehicle
20,496
12.4%
Diesel engine: heavy vehicle/ bus
3,780
2.3%
Gasoline engine: passenger car/ light vehicle
115,241
69.9%
Gasoline engine: <3.5 tones heavy vehicle/ bus
785
0.5%
Other type of vehicle including motorcycle
24,529
14.9%
Total
164,831
100.0%
Source: Environment in Europe 1997, EEA Note: data shown is as of year 1990
NOx (1000
tones/year)
414
1,926
3,228
77
94
5,739
Share (%)
7.2%
33.6%
56.2%
1.3%
1.6%
100.0%
2) Green House Effects (Carbon Dioxide)
The transport sector causes on Green House effects from gas from vehicle emission contained
CO2, N2O and CH4. In Western Europe, emission of CO2 by the transport sector is responsible
for 25-30% of total CO2 emission while in the Eastern Europe; it is 7-11% (Czechoslovakia,
Hungary, Poland) because of the public transport oriented policy developed in the past.
Table 3.3.3 Projection of CO2 Emission in Europe 1990
Transport mode
Passenger transport
Passenger car
Bus
Rail
Air
Freight transport
Truck
Railway
Inner water
Air
CO2 projection
'/pass-km
133-200
35-62
39-78
160-465
'/ton-km
207-280
39-48
40-66
1160-2150
Source: Environment in Europe 1997, EEA
In the case of EU (1990), road transport dominates at approximately 80% of total CO2
emission. In other words, 1/3 of total CO2 caused by transport is from freight transport and
45% is from passenger cars.
3) Carbon Monoxide (CO)
The greatest volumes in absolute terms of toxic emissions are from CO created through
incomplete fuel combustion in petrol engines. Emission estimated by transport sources vary
between 30 and 90% of total CO emission. In EU, emissions of CO are produced by
petrol-powered passenger cars particularly in urban areas, while in Central and Eastern
Europe, stationary sources are also considered. CO has significant human health impact
especially interfering with absorption of oxygen.
4) Volatile Organic Compound (VOCs)
VOC emissions contribute to the build up of Tropospheric Photochemical Oxidants. They
arise from incomplete fuel combustion, the evaporation of fuel from petrol based engines and
service stations. Road transport, estimated to produce 35-45% of VOCs in the late 1980s in
the EU.
5) Particulate Matters (PM)
Mainly diesel engine are associated with 30-70% of PM more than gasoline engines.
3-14
Particulate matters can remain in the air for considerable periods of time and contribute to
particulate smog. Particles are also damaging to health, particularly those particles fine
enough to remain within the lungs.
(2) Characteristics of Speed Related Emission
The amount of emission of each substance is related to vehicle speed, which means engine
combustion ratio. It is apparent that all of the figures of speed related emission factors show
that emission amounts are higher especially at lower vehicle speeds.
CO Emission by Speed (EC)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5 15 25 35 45 55 65
HC Emission by Speed (EC)
12
90
CO catalyst
Emission Amount (g/km)
CO non-catalyst
CO disel
10
HC non-catalyst
HC catalyst
8
HC disel
6
4
2
Vehicle Speed (km/h)
NOx Emission by Speed (EC)
5
5
5
12
11
95
CO2 Emission by Speed (EC)
NOx non-catalyst
700
NOx catalyst
6
NOx disel
5
4
3
2
1
0
CO2 non-catalyst
600
CO2 catalyst
500
CO2 disel
400
300
200
100
T SP Emission by Speed (EC)
0.6
T SP non-catalyst
0.5
T SP catalyst
T SP disel
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
125
115
105
95
85
75
65
55
45
35
25
5
15
0
T ravel Speed (km/h)
Figure 3.3.1 Current Environmental Issues in Bucharest
3-15
5
5
5
12
11
95
10
85
75
65
45
55
35
25
5
15
5
5
5
12
11
95
10
85
75
65
55
45
35
25
15
5
0
10
85
75
65
55
7
45
35
25
95 105 115 125
15
0
85
75
5
80
(3) Energy Consumption in Transport Sector
Transport has become a major consumer of non-renewable energy sources since the beginning
of 1970s. In EU, road transport accounts for over 80% of oil consumption of the transport
sector. The following table shows trends in energy consumption by transport in different parts
of Europe over the last 20 years. Energy consumption doubled between 1970 and 1990 in EU.
In Central Europe, the increase of total energy used in transportation is far more modest,
however, gasoline products for road transport increased 50% between 1970 and 1990.
In the total sector of energy consumption, the transport sector in EU shared 31.9% in 1990
while the transport sector in Central Europe held 12.8% in 1990, though after the end of the
cold war in Central Europe, energy consumption due to increasing vehicle ownership has
been accelerating rapidly.
Table 3.3.4 Table Energy Consumption by Transport Sector in Europe 1970-1990
EU
EFTA
Central Europe
1970
1990
1970
1990
1970
1990
111.4 229.6
16.8
28.3
30.5
34.1
107.2 226.0
16
27.2
21.9
31.8
86.7
191.7
11.8
22.5
19.6
28.5
18.6% 31.9% 20.1% 26.3% 13.1% 12.8%
Total energy consumption by transport sector (Mtoe)
Gasoline product (Mtoe)
Oil products in road transport (Mtoe)
Energy consumption rate in transport sector
Source: Environment in Europe
Moreover, there have been improvements in road vehicle efficiency in Europe. During the
period 1970 to 1990, average fuel consumption of a new car in the EU decreased from 10
liters to 8.2 litters per 100 kilometers. Current technologies and weight reduction could have
reduced fuel consumption by more than a third, although such improvement in efficiency has
been written off by increases in vehicle ownership.
Furthermore, in a comparison of energy consumption and emissions by different passenger
transport shown in Table 3.3.5, the buses consume the same amount of energy as all rail
transport and passenger cars consume 2.5 times the bus energy use. Also regarding emission
factors, most harmful substances are considered to arise from public transport modes such as
bus, and rail is considered as environmentally efficient.
In Bucharest, the current share of total passenger trips depending on public transport is 75%.
Details of public transport sectors are subway (16%), tram (36.1%), trolley bus (11.8%) and
bus (36.1%). In this regard, only bus consumes fuel directly and emissions for the private car
ratio are less compared to other European cities,.
Table 3.3.5 Energy Consumption and Emission by Different Passenger Transport in UK
Type
Road transport
Passenger car
Bus
Rail
All rail
Diesel
Electric
Energy use
(KJ/passenger km)
2,000
800
800
800
800
CO2
NOx
150
40
2
1
80
80
80
0.6
1.5
0.5
Note: KJ;kilo-joules (1j=107erg=0.239Cal.)
Source: The Environmental Impact of Railway (T.G.Carpenter)
3-16
SO2
CO
(g/passenger-km)
0.05
10
0.1
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.0
0.2
0.2
0.02
HC
VOCs
1.5
0.1
2
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.001
0.3
0.5
0.001
(4) Environmental Alleviation for Transportation in EU
Action to alleviate the environmental consequences for transport has been taken in EU
countries. A variety measures have been including technical and non-technical approaches.
The encroachment of transport on the environment and on the quality of life has been
significantly reduced. Further improvements are possible through advanced technology and
better maintenance. Mandatory emission standards combined with regular in-service controls
emerged as the universal strategy to combat air pollution from road transport.
A common problem for policy makers in Europe is how to respond to the twofold issues of
growing transport demand and how this demand can be allocated to different transport modes.
There is need to consider the more wide-ranging use of different strategies including
economic instruments as a way to curb growth in transport demand in order to meet the
environmental targets.
(5) Measures to Control the Environmental Impact in EU
In order to optimize the mitigation of environmental impact in transportation, in the EU, the
following measures shown in Table 3.3.6 have been carried out based on EU Directives or
regulations in each country or cities.
Table 3.3.6 Measures to Control the Environmental Impact in EU
Technical Measures:
Emission standards on CO, VOCs, NOx and PM
for all kind of motor vehicles;
Fuel quality standards concerning lead, sulfur and
benzene;
Noise standards for motor vehicles.
Construction measures:
Low noise asphalt, noise protection walls along
major roads
Integration of transport infrastructure into
landscape;
Bridges and tunnels for animals crossing roads
and railways;
Transport Planning and Traffic Management:
Provision and improvement of public transport
facilities;
Provision of separate cycling tracks and along the
roads and in cities;
Restriction of car use in inner cities and
residential areas through pedestrian zones, speed
limitation, parking restriction, road safety
measures, alternate odd and even number plate
access;
Extension of rail, waterway and combined
transport;
Bans on through traffic.
Source: Environment in Europe, 1997, EEA
Economic Instruments:
Internalization of external costs for all transport
modes through taxes and fees (e.g. energy tax,
fuel tax, road pricing and parking fees);
Differentiated purchase taxes (e.g. leaded and
unleaded fuel)
Scrap benefits to encourage owners to replace
older polluting vehicles with cleaner vehicles
equipped with engines;
Differential circulation taxes (e.g. in EU)
Others:
Regular in-service emission tests for vehicles;
Time restrictions on transport movements (e.g.
bans on night and weekend driving for heavy
vehicles);
Lowering and enforcement of speed limits for
vehicles
Encouraging for smooth driving behavior;
Educational campaigns;
Car pooling;
Staggered working hours;
Carrying through existing resolution (e.g. ECMT
resolution on transport and environment (No.66)
and power and speed (No.91/5) and conventions
(e.g. Sofia protocol in NOx emission)
(6) EU Opinions on Each of the Applications for Membership
The Commission presents its communication "Agenda 2000", together with opinions on each
of the applications for membership. This publication constitutes the Commission’s
comprehensive response to requests from the European Council meeting in Madrid in
December 1995. The documents "Agenda 2000", taken together, offer a clear and coherent
3-17
vision of the Union as it enters the 21st century.
In the environmental section on Romania shown in the box below, the EU recommended
priorities and intermediate objectives as follows:
Short Term:
Continue transposition of framework legislation
Establishment of detail approximation programs
Implementation strategy related to individual acts
Medium Term:
Development and monitoring and implementation control structure and capacities
Continuous planning and implementation of approximation programs related to
individual acts
Air and water sector were to be improved
In addition, the recommendation for the overall environmental section on Romania is to
improve administrative capacity to deal with environmental issues in a market economy
Hence, EU has recognized that particular attention for Romanian environmental issues should
be given to administrative capacity and financing strategy.
Enlarging the European Union, Accession Partnership – Romania
4. Priorities and Intermediate Objectives
4.1 Short-term (1998)
Environment: continue transposition of framework legislation, establishment of detailed approximation
programmes and implementation strategies related to individual acts. Planning and commencement of
implementation of these programmes and strategies.
4.2 Medium-term
Environment: including the development of monitoring and implementation control structures and
capacities, continuous planning and implementation of approximation programmes related to
individual legal acts. A particular emphasis should be given to the air and water sectors.
Environmental protection requirements and the need for sustainable development must be integrated
into the definition and implementation of national sectoral policies.
Annex: Recommendations for Action
3.6 Quality of Life and Environment
Environment
Major efforts must be undertaken to advance the very low level of formulation environmental
legislation. There is a need to improve administrative capacity to deal with environmental issues in a
market economy. Particular attention should be given to the quick transposition of framework
directives dealing with air, waste, water and the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control directives,
as well as the establishment of financing strategies for legislation in the water, air and waste sectors
requiring major investments.
Overall, Romania will have to place higher priority on environmental issues, significantly increase
related finance and develop its administrative and financing capacity. A considerable effort must be
made to develop adequate implementation and enforcement structures. Public awareness with regard
to the environment field must be stimulated.
Source: Enlarging the European Union, Accession Partnership – Romania, EU, 1997
3.3.3 Environmental Aspects in Bucharest
Present environmental conditions in Bucharest in accordance with previous viewpoints are
examined such as general environmental issues, pollution and environmental legal
framework.
3-18
(1) Environmental Issues in Bucharest
Current environmental issues are shown in Figure 3.3.2. The issues mainly consist of six
fields-air pollution, noise, soil contamination, and degradation of green area, waste disposal
and water quality. Related to transport among these are air pollution from vehicle emission,
noise from transport and industrial activities, soil contamination from lead contained in
gasoline and green areas occupied by parked cars.
Figure 3.3.2 Current Environmental Issues in Bucharest
Table 3.3.7 Summary Urban Environmental Issues
Environmental
issues
1. Air pollution
1) NO2
2) CO2
3) SO2
2. Emission
3. Urban noise
4. Soil
contamination
5. Green area
degradation
Condition
Causes

NO2, 0.03-0.055 mg/m3 (std: 0.1) in 24hrs

Lower than STD level

Vehicle
emission
non-conformed with EURO2)

CO2, 0.2 to 0.3 mg/m3 (std: 0.15) in 24hrs

SO2, 0.02 mg/m3 (std;0.06 mg/m3 ) in central,
and 0.01 mg/m3 in fringe area

NOx, 60% form transport,85kg/psn/year

CO2, 18% from transport, 4,686kg/psn/ year

Roadside, 60-75 dB(A)

transport and industrial activities

Industrial activities (thermal power
plants, chemical factory, etc.)

automobile

industrial activities

Transport activities

Commercial and industrial activities

Emission contained lead

lead contamination (1.2µg/m3, std:0.7µg/m3)

Fuel sales share (leaded59%, unleaded7.2%,
disel 33.85)

12.2 sqm./habitant (std: 26sqm.)
(75%

Insufficient parking space in
residential área

Solid wastes
(2) Ambient Air Quality in Bucharest
Several institutes have carried out air quality measurement in different purposes and using
different methods, but that information has not been unified. One of the environmental
3-19
responsible organizations in Bucharest called Bucharest Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA Bucharest), the Ministry of Water, Forest and Environment, had carried out an air
monitoring survey in 1997, and Romania Auto Register (RAR), Ministry of Transport has also
carried out air quality monitoring. In addition, the Study Team carried out supplemental air
quality monitoring in order to obtain current air quality conditions.
In summary, air quality in Bucharest shown in Table 3.3.8 is neither polluted by NO2 nor SO2
(24 hrs. value). PM and pb in PM concentration exceed the standards sometimes. Those
substances are higher in concentration in the central part of the city, which has higher traffic
volumes and congestion.
Table 3.3.8 NO2 and PM Concentrations in Bucharest
30 minutes value
24 hours value
PM (•g/m3)
NO2 (•g/m3)
PM (•g/m3)
NO2 (•g/m3)
Standard
300
500
100
150
EPA Bucharest 1997
32-57
264-430
30-55
200-300
RARw 1995-96
55.7-385.6
133.4-349.5
51.7-176.3
78.9-127.8
JICA Study team
17-91
Source: EPA Bucharest, Romanian Auto Register, MOT and JICA Study team
Annual value
NO2 (•g/m3)
PM (•g/m3)
10
75
70
300
-
Concentration of SO2 in the central part is rather low, that is 1 3rd of the standard (annual) in
central part and 1 to 6th of standard in fringe area respectively according to EPA measurement.
JICA Study team’s measurement also shows lower concentration.(see Table 3.3.9.)
Table 3.3.9 SO2 Concentration in Bucharest
30 minutes value
Standard
750
EPA (Central part)
EPA(Fringe area)
JICA Study team
Source: EPA Bucharest and JICA Study team
SO2 (•g/m3)-1997
24 hours value
250
4-45
Annual value
60
20
10
-
Regarding lead (pb) concentration in PM, it has a higher concentration level, 1.2 •g/m3 in 24
hrs, level than the standard (0.7•g/m3 the 24 hrs value) shown in Table 3.3.10. The highest
concentration is in the Acumulatrul area, which is the central part of the city.
Table 3.3.10 Lead Concentration in Bucharest
pb (•g/m3) in 24 hrs value -1997
0.7
1.2
10.21
Starndard
Bucharest área
Acumulatrul área
Source: EPA Bucharest
3-20
1) Air Quality Monitoring by EPA Bucharest
According to EPA Bucharest’s information, NO2 concentration in EPA’s Laboratory
(University Area: central part of the City) does not exceed the standard level (0.1mg/m3 in 24
hours) that varies from 0.03 to 0.055 mg/m3 in Monthly Average. The Monthly Maximum
concentration, NO2 ranges form 0.06 to 0.13 mg/m3 in 24 hours value. There is a little
seasonal fluctuation so that it is rather lower from October to December, while it is rather
higher concentration from April to June.
Regarding PM concentration in the central part of the city the same NO2 sampling point,
concentration values range from 0.2 to 0.3 mg/m3 in 24 hours value which is nearly double
the concentration compared to the standard (0.15 mg/m3). There is also seasonal fluctuation
so it is rather lower in June and July.
In a comparison between Bucharest and other European cities, Bucharest is less polluted
especially NOx, SO2 and CO2. On the other hand, Bucharest is more polluted with particulate,
lead and VOC than other European cities.
2) Air Quality Monitoring By RAR
There is another air quality monitoring result carried out by the Romanian Auto Register
shown in Table 3.3.11 and Figure 3.3.3. The results show that O3, NO2 CO and PM
concentrations at the some points exceeded both 24h and 30 minutes average permissible
levels especially in the central part of the city, while the other pollutants are within
permissible levels.
Table 3.3.11 Air Quality Monitoring in Bucharest 1995-1996
Zone
Standard
Blv balcescu
Baneasa airpot
Colentina iesire
Colentina zona suveica
Militari iesire
Blv.kogalniceanu
Blv kogalniceanu-lic.lazar
Bucrestii noilaromet
Source: Romanian Auto Rregister
O3
(•g/m3)
30
20.8
62
21.8
26.7
18.2
25.5
29.5
57.6
24 h Average
NO2
CO
(•g/m3)
(mg/m3)
100
2
176.3
6.9
55.7
2.3
105.2
2
113.3
1.5
51.7
1.6
96.5
2.1
65.6
1.3
56.3
1.4
3-21
PM
(•g/m3)
15
102.9
106.3
115.2
127.8
96
78.9
97.9
99.4
O3
(•g/m3)
100
78.8
122.3
73.4
51.9
139.6
38.7
62.6
129.8
30 min. Average
NO2
CO
(•g/m3)
(mg/m3)
300
6
319.9
23.1
181.5
6
385.6
3.5
237.6
2.8
208.4
3.6
55.7
1.4
178.4
4.2
116.8
3.2
PM
(•g/m3)
500
169.9
349.5
256
338.6
211.5
133.4
167.9
197.5
NO2 Concentration 1995-1996
PM Bucharest 1995-96
450
400
24 h Average NO2
400
24 h Average PM
30 min. Average NO2
385.6
350
349.5
30 min. Average PM
338.6
350
300
319.9
256
250
237.6
208.4
181.5
176.3
178.4
211.5
200
197.5
169.9
167.9
150
150
133.4
127.8
56.3
Blv.Kogalniceanu
Blv.Balcescu
Militari iesire
0
Bucrestii Noi- LAROMET
Blv.KogalniceanuLic.Lazar
Blv.Kogalniceanu
Militari iesire
Colentina zona Suveica
Colentina iesire
Baneasa Airpot
0
Blv.Balcescu
99.4
50
Colentina zona Suveica
55.7
51.7
97.9
96
78.9
65.6
Colentina iesire
55.7
50
100
96.5
115.2
106.3
102.9
Baneasa Airpot
105.2
100
116.8
113.3
Bucrestii NoiLAROMET
200
Blv.KogalniceanuLic.Lazar
250
PM (micro.g/m3)
NO2 (micro.g/m3)
300
Locations
Locations
Figure 3.3.3 NO2 and PM Concentration in Bucharest
3) Supplemental Air Quality Monitoring by the Study Team
The Study Team carried out roadside air quality monitoring of NO2, NOx and SO2 for 20
locations including one benchmark in order to measure the current concentration of pollutants
in a supplementary saving in November 1998 shown in Table 3.3.12. Three (3) monitors
including background point were lost and seventeen (17) monitors were processed for
chemical analysis. The locations of the point are mainly set in heavy traffic roadside in the
city and the results of the monitoring of each substance are shown in Figure 3.3.4 and Figure
3.3.5. Sampling point No.20 is considered as benchmark instead of the last point.
The results is an average concentration within the monitoring period of November 17- 9, 1998,
exposure duration from 45 to 60 hours. The monitoring results are summarized as follows:
NO2: central part of the city shows higher concentration level. In comparison between Air
Quality Standard in 24 hours value and the results, the results show less than permissible level
(0.1 mg/m3).
NOx: central part of the city and along the arterial roads, especially northern part shows
higher concentration level. Vehicle emission contributes to this result due to a majority of
non-catalyst cars.
SO2: central part of the city, shows higher concentration level. It is doubtful about that the
fuel contains a higher S ratio the heating plant in the city. In comparison between Air Quality
Standard in 24 hours value and the results, the results show that it is less than the permissible
level (0.25 mg/m3).
3-22
Table 3.3.12 Location of Supplemental Air Monitoring
No. Sampling location
1 Colentina / mihai bravu
2 Crangasi / splaiul independentei
3 Viilor cosbuc
4 Buc. – pitesti / valea cascadelor
5 Buc. –ploiesti / poligrfiei
6 Titulescu aviatorior
7 n/a
8 Basarabia / mihai bravu
9 Giurgiului / oltenitei
10 Sos. alexandriei / sos. antiaeriana
No.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Sampling location
B-dul. elisabeta / b-dul. magheru
B-dul. dacia / b-dul. magheru
Grivita / ion mihalache
Sos. berceni / ring road
Theodor pallady / nicolae grigorescu
Brancoveanu / sos. magurele
Buc. - ploiesti / ring road
Bucuresti – branesti / ring road
Colentina / fundeni
Herastrau park
NOx
NO2
1.200
0.110
MPL
0.100
1.000
0.083
0.080
0.075
0.071
0.074
0.800
0.065
0.070
0.060
0.055
0.053
0.050
0.053
0.043
0.043
0.040
0.040
0.041
NOx (mg/m3)
NO2 (mg/m3)
0.090 0.082
0.080
1.033
1.013
0.091
0.030
0.725
0.721
0.510
0.410
0.400
0.308
0.017
0.000
0.000
0.000
0 .000
0.000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
1
Sampling locations
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Sampling Locations
SO2
0.050
0.045
0.045
0.040
0.038
0.035
SO2 (mg/m3)
0.174
0.096
0.000
0 .000
0.000
0.219
0.171
0.200
0.010
0.401
0.394
0.294
0.030
0.020
0.682
0.598
0.600 0.549
0.032
0.030
0.029
0.029
0.028
0.030
0.026
0.025
0.020
0.018
0.016
0.013
0.012
0.015
0.012
0.017
0.014
0.018
0.010
0.004
0.005
0.000
0.000
0 .000
0.000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Sampling Locations
Figure 3.3.4 Results of Supplementary Air Monitoring Study
3-23
Location of Air Quality S ampling
NO2, NOx, S O2
Results of Air Quality S ampling
NOx unit: ppb
17
150
5 20
13
4
299
116
19
6 1
8
11
2
10
118
162
176 304
87
121
51 18
3
9
15
16 201
64 Study Area
14
S O2 unit: ppb
6
21.1
36
27
26
Study Area
28
NO2 unit: ppb
21
91
6
31.8
25.7
39.1
44.4
39.7
5
10
4
14.8 34.6
6
Study Area
9
10 13
16
5
5
40.3
19.4 8.2
10
11
4
Study Area
Figure 3.3.5 Location of Supplemental Air Quality Sampling, NOx, NO2 and SO2
4) Vehicle Condition and Fuel Sold in Bucharest
Related to air pollution, vehicle condition can be an important factor. According to survey
results of Romanian Auto Register, 76.3% of total registered vehicles in Romania from
1995-1997 do not conform with EURO2 standard and 23.7% conform as shown in Figure
3.3.6. In detail, 77% of passenger cars and 80% of buses were non-conformity vehicles.
3-24
Vehicle Condition in Bucharest 1995-1997
conformed
23.7%
non-conformed
76.3%
Figure 3.3.6 Vehicle Condition in Romania
Moreover, for fuel sold in Bucharest in 1998, leaded gasoline, unleaded gasoline and diesel
oil shares are 59%, 7.2% and 33.8% respectively. For sold gasoline, leaded gasoline shares
89.1% while leaded gasoline is 0.9%. This large share of leaded sales is related to
non-conformed vehicle share.
Fuel Sales Share in Bucharest 1998
Disel Oil
33.8%
Leaded
Gasoline
59.0%
Unleaded
Gasoline
7.2%
Source: PET ROM
Figure 3.3.7 Fuel Sales Share in Bucharest, 1998
5) Growth of Vehicle Number
Growth of registered vehicles from year 1995 to year 1998 is 4.7% on average shown in
Figure 3.3.8. Especially growth of passenger car, truck, trailler and mortorcycle are higher
constantly through out the period.
3-25
Growth of Vehicle Number 1995-1998
50.0%
Growth Ratio (%)
40.0%
39.5%
30.0%
95-96
20.0%
96-97
16.1%
10.0%
0.0%
1.8%
1.6%
1.1%
2.4%
8.8%
6.8%
6.6%
5.0%
3.7%
5.4%
0.8%
-0.1%
-0.6%
-0.7%
Semi T railer
T railer
Motorcycle(small)
Vehicle T ype
Source: Bucharest Municipality
-7.5%
3.3%
0.3%
1.5%
-0.3%
-0.7%
Motorcycle(large)
T ractor
-1.5%
-1.7%
-3.2%
T ruck
Special van
Van
-2.1%
-2.7%
-2.9%
97-98
8.7%
1.5%
Bus
Microbus
Passenger Car
-10.0%
6.3%
5.8%
Figure 3.3.8 Registered Vehicle Growth by Type
From the viewpoint of vehicle type share, passenger vehicle dominates 75% of total registered
vehicles in 1998 shown in Figure 3.3.9. So the volume and condition of passenger cars should
be considered as a major source of pollution in order to mitigate air pollution in Bucharest.
Registered Vehicle Share in Bucharest, 1998
Motorcycle(L)
1.6%
T ruck
T ractor
0.02%
2.33%
Motor cycle(S) T railer
2.52%
4.0%
Semi T railer
0.54%
Special van
1.21%
Van
11.71%
Bus
0.67%
Microbus
0.29%
Passenger Car
75.19%
Figure 3.3.9 Registered Vehicle Share in Bucharest, 1998
(3) Emission Amount
CO2 and NOx emissions are considered as green house effects and air pollution respectively.
In EU12 countries, the transport sector contributes 18.1% of total CO2 emissions while in
Romania, the road transport sector contributes only 2.3%, which is 1/9 of EU12 share shown
in Figure 3.3.10.
3-26
CO2 Emission in Romania
CO2 Emission in EU12 Countries
Waste treatment
and disposal
1.4%
Agriculture
0.7%
Other mobile
sources and
machinery
2.9%
Nature
6.2%
Public power,
cogeneration and
district heating
25.6%
Road transport
2.3%
Other mobile
sources and
machinery
3.9%
Public power,
cogeneration
and district
heating
34.5%
Road transport
18.1%
Industrial
combustion
38.4%
Extraction and
distribution of
fossil fuels
0.5%
Production
processes
4.7%
Industrial
combustion
22.3%
Commercial,
institutional and
residential
combustion
17.7%
Commercial,
institutional
and residential
combustion
20.9%
Figure 3.3.10 CO2 Emission Source by Sector -EU12 and Romania
Regarding NOx emissions, the road transport sector in EU12 antilates 50.9% of total NOx
emission while the road transport sector in Romania is 9.2% as shown in Figure 3.3.11, which
is 1 10th of the EU12.
NOx as NO2 Emission in EU 12 Countries
Waste treatment
and disposal
0.9%
Other mobile
sources and
machinery
12.0%
NOx as NO2 Emission in Romania
Public power,
Agriculture
Nature cogeneration and
0.3%
0.4%
district heating
18.3%
Waste treatment
and disposal
3.8%
Commercial,
institutional and
residential
combustion
3.8%
Extraction and
distribution of
fossil fuels
0.6%
Public power,
cogeneration and
district heating
30.6%
Other mobile
sources and
machinery
34.0%
Industrial
combustion
11.2%
Road transport
50.9%
Agriculture
2.1%
Commercial,
institutional and
residential
combustion
5.4%
Production
processes
1.6%
Road transport
9.2%
Production
processes
3.2%
Industrial
combustion
11.8%
Figure 3.3.11 NOx Emission Sources by Sector -EU12 and Romania
In comparison between Bucharest’s CO2 emission share by sector shown in Figure 3.3.12, the
transport sector contributes 18% of the total emission amount. This is double the share
compared to national level, which is nearly the same as the EU12.
3-27
CO2 Emission Source in Bucharest
Others
14%
T ransport
18%
T hermal Power
68%
Figure 3.3.12 Emission Share by Sector in Bucharest
Moreover, only one substance in Romania, SO2, exceeds EU12 average in total amount, this is
139% of EU12 average shown in Table 3.3.13. The other substances, NMVOC, CO2 and NO2
are less than the EU12 average.
Table 3.3.13 Emission Amount in CEE Countries
in k.tones
EU12 average
Bulgaria
Czech republic
Hungary
Poland
Slovakia
Romania
Source: EEA1996
NMVOC
1,160
100%
394
34%
294
25%
148
13%
1,295
112%
237
20%
769
66%
CO2
234,841
91,054
157,527
60,841
414,920
50,639
171,110
100%
39%
67%
26%
177%
22%
73%
SO2
945
2,008
1,863
905
3,273
542
1,311
100%
212%
197%
96%
346%
57%
139%
NOx as NO2
938
100%
361
38%
773
82%
191
20%
1,446
154%
227
24%
546
58%
Furthermore, considering another aspect of CO2 and NOx, the annual CO2 emission per capita
in Bucharest and Romania are 4,686 kg/year and 7,538 kg/year respectively. This aspect is
lower than that of EU12. On the other hand, NO2 emission in Bucharest and Romania are 85
kg/year and 24 kg/year respectively.
3-28
CO2 Emission per capita
NO2 Emisiion Per Capita
18,000
90
15,294
16,000
70
12,000
10,749
10,712
9,207
10,000
kg/capita/year
kg/capita/year
75
80
14,000
7,538
8,000
5,965
6,000
85
4,686
60
50
30
37
37
40
24
4,000
19
16
20
2,000
10
0
Bucharest Romania
EU12
Bulgaria
Czech
Hungary
0
Poland
Bucharest Romania
EU12
Bulgaria
Czech
Hungary
Poland
Source:EPA and EEA
Figure 3.3.13 Comparison of CO2 and NO2 Emission per Capita
Bucharest’s data shows that it is more than three times the national one, for industrial and
road traffic centered activities.
(4) Water Quality
The most important aspect of water quality in Bucharest is insufficient water treatment
facilities for domestic and industrial waste water. These are waste water degrades water
quality and encourages eutrophication in down stream of Dambovita river system and lakes.
For the transport sector, depots are required by regulation to treat their residual water before it
is discharge to of the sewage system. At present, depots have been carry out primary treatment
such as extracting oil from the residual water.
(5) Wastes
4,500 tons of daily waste are generated in Bucharest while daily disposal capacity is 100 tons,
so the remaining waste is dumped at a landfill site Ochiul Boului-Glin, which has quite a
limited capacity. In the transport sector, i.g., RATB depots have been trying to recycle solid
wastes.
Table 3.3.14 Waste Generation and Disposal Capacity in Bucharest
Daily wastes
4,500 tones
100 tones
25,000 tones
Daily wastes
Daily disposal capacity
Annual disposal capacity
(6) Noise
Noise monitoring of 35 streets in Bucharest was carried out under the INCERC study shown
in Table 3.3.15. 20 out of 35 streets were over 75 dB(A) caused by commercial, transport,
industrial, etc., activities. According to roadside noise standards, arterial road (category I) is
75-90 dB(A) so that the current condition is within the local standard level due to higher level
of standard.
3-29
Table 3.3.15 Roadside Noise Level in Bucharest
Sound level dB(A)
60-65 dB(A)
66-70 dB(A)
71-75 dB(A)
75-over dB(A)
Number of street exceeded
1
6
8
20
(7) Green Area
There is 2,453 ha of green area in Bucharest including parks, which form 9.7% of the total
Bucharest area. There are 12.2 sqm./habitant while the regulation (P41/73) stipulates 26
sqm./habitant. The current condition of green area per habitant is higher than that of Paris
(11.8 sqm./habitant), and it is nearly half of London (25.3 sqm./habitant).
Table 3.3.16 Green Area Distribution by Sector
Area (ha)
Sector 1
Sector 2
Sector 3
Sector 4
Sector 5
Sector 6
Bucharest total
Share
429
542
395
473
280
334
2,453
17.5%
22.1%
16.1%
19.3%
11.4%
13.6%
100.0%
per habitant (sqm)
18.0
14.2
9.7
14.8
10.4
8.3
12.2
Distribution of green area is shown in Table 3.3.16, Sector 2 has the largest green area and
Sector 1 has the largest green area per habitant, which is 18.0 sqm/habitant. Referring to
major cities in the world, Bucharests green area ratio is of medium level as shown in Figure
3.3.14.
Green Area/habitant Comparison
5.2
Tokyo
29.1
New York
Paris
11.8
London
25.3
Bucharest
12.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
sqm./habitant
Figure 3.3.14 Comparison of Green Area Per Habitant in Major Cities
In addition, regarding road area ratio, Bucharest is 12.7% of total municipal area, which is
lower than that of Paris (20.0%), London (16.6%) and Tokyo (15.2%) shown in Figure 3.3.15.
3-30
Road Ratio Comparison
15.2
T okyo (23 Word)
London
16.6
Paris
20.0
Washington DC
25.0
Bucharest
12.7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Road Ratio (%)
Figure 3.3.15 Road Area Ratio Comparison in Major Cities
(8) Environmental Information System
This is an on going process. EPA Bucharest has a plan to create an environmental
information system to integrate a systematic monitoring system and to store these data in
corroboration with Bucharest municipality.
3.3.4 Environmental Legislation in Romania
According to EU’s Agenda 2000, various kinds of environmental legislation have been
formulated and issued. This section discusses legislation related to the transport environment
such as environmental protection law, environmental impact assessment, environmental
standards, environmental monitoring system, area pricing system, vehicle inspection system,
etc.
(1) Environmental Protection Law (EPL)
Ministry of Water, Forests and Environment (MWFE) stipulated Environmental Protection
Law (137/1995) in order to enhance environmental protection in the nation. The law focuses
on major public interests based on the principles and strategic elements that lead to a
sustainable development of society.
The laws consists of five chapters as follows:
Chapter 1 General Principles and Provisions
Chapter 2 Regulation of Economic and Social Activities Having an Environmental Impact
Chapter 3 Protection of Natural Resources and Conservation of Biodiversity
Chapter 4 Prerogatives and Responsibilities
Chapter 5 Penalties
Chapter 2 give the regulations permitting procedures regarding environmental impacts caused
by economic and social activities. The subject project for EIA is shown in Appendix II.
Regarding transportation projects with activities that are subject to the procedure for EIA the
issuing of the environmental agreement and/or permit is shown on the following table.
3-31
Table 3.3.17 EIA Requirement for Transportation Projects
Category
Road traffic
Subjects

Rail traffic

Water navigation

Air navigation

Highways
Main roads with busy traffic
Other main roads; all roads within protected area
Parking for stationing (lands or buildings) for more
than 300 cars
New public transportation lines
New rail roads lines
Other rail instruction, including doubling or
expending of existing lines
Harbor installation for ships belonging to public
shipping companies
Industrial harbors with fixed loading and
unloading installations
Recreation harbors with more than 100 places for
mooring
Navigable routs
Airport
Airdrome, with exception of heliports
Heliports in protected area
(2) Environmental Impact Assessment Guideline
In addition, to these above mentioned procedure and conducting the EIA, a guideline titled
“Permitting Procedure for Economic and Social Activities Having an Environmental Impact
(Order 125/1996) “according to the Environmental Protection Law (137/1995) has been
prepared. Definition of Environmental Agreement and Environmental Permit are explained as
follows:
1) Environmental Agreement
The technical and legal act that establishes the conditions for implementation of a project or
an activity from the environmental impact point of view
2) Environmental Permit
The technical and legal act that establishes the conditions and operating parameters for
existing activities and for new ones, on the basis of the environmental agreement
The procedure for EIA consists of the preliminary stage, the main stage, the analysis and
validation stage. The environmental protection authority shall organize and decide on the
application of the stage of the procedure as shown in figure 3.3.16. The Environmental
Agreement and Permit is valid for a maximum five years.
3-32
Application of EIA Procedure that
Includes Project Description to
Environmental Protection
(EPA)
Identification of
Protection in the Project, and to judge
that EIA is necessary or not
Yes
No
Evaluation of the Scope of
Participating with EPA or Local
Administration
Yes
No
Preliminary Review of the Report by
EPA
Public Notification and Hearing of
the Report
To Issue Environmental
or Permit by EPA
Figure 3.3.16 Environmental Assessment Procedure in Romania
(3) Environmental Standards Related to Transport
Environmental standards related to transportation are formulated by Ministry of Water,
Forests and Environment, Ministry of Transport, Ministry of Public Works, Ministry of Health,
Bucharest Municipality, etc.. The standards explain maximum permissible level of each
environmental factor, regulation of chemical ingredients, development restriction and so on.
Those standards are classified by environmental factors shown in Table 3.3.18 and amended
after 1989 in accordance with EU and other International Organization’s support, which cover
all environmental factors. Especially EU directives are taken in account for further progress to
become a member of the European Union.
An important aspect among environmental standards is that EURO2 (EU Directives 96/44),
which regulate emission from vehicles in order to mitigate emission level. This standard also
effects periodical vehicle inspection.
3-33
Table 3.3.18 Matrix of Environmental Regulations by Transport Mode in Romania
Petrol
engine
Vehicle
Diesel
engine
Railway
Trolley bus
Metro
Tram
Ambient
Railway
1. Airquality
1) Ambient air quality
2) Emission
3) Fuel standard
-
-
RNTR 1
EURO2
*
STAS
12574-87
RNTR 1
EURO2
*
STAS
12574-87
-
SR13342,
1996
-
-
-
-
STAS
12574-87
STAS
9490/78
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SR13342,
1996
SR13342,
1996
SR13342,
1996
-
SR13342,
1996
STAS
6926/15-76
-
STAS
10009/88
STAS
10009/88
NTR
2367/85
-
STAS
10009/88
-
-
STAS
6156-86
6161/1-89
6161/2-89
6161/4-89
-
-
6161/3-89
-
-
SR 12025-2
-
-
STAS
12025/1-81
-
-
-
-
-
GPU
2. Noise
1) Ambient noise level
2) Sound level
- Ambient noise
-The noise upon the
buildings
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The noise in the urban
areas
3. Vibration
1) Vibrations upon the
buildings
2) Vibrations produced by
the traffic
4. Area charge
1) Traffic flow
Law 118/96
5. Historical heritage
1) City plan
Note: * “Technical Conditions for the Atmosphere Protection” (Annex 4) - MFWE
(4) International Agreement
Romania is one of the countries which ratified International Protocol on Climate Change
(IPCC) as a transition country. The government has provided an action plan for reducing
Green House Effects.
(5) Road Pricing Regulation
1) Area Charge System for Heavy Vehicles in the City
There is a tool (Law 118/96) that effect on mitigating emissions from heavy vehicles in
central part of the city. This regulation subjects to more than 3.5 tons freight vehicle
(authorized vehicle weight of freight). The vehicle is prohibited to enter the controlled zone
from 6:00 hours to 20:00 hours. If it is necessary to enter the zone, user charge system is
applied and the charge system was amended from 1st of October 1998 described below.
3-34
Table 3.3.19 Area Charge System for Heavy Vehicle
Old charge
One day permission
One month permission
Note: 1US$=9,000 Lei
5,000 Lei
25,000 Lei
New charge
(from Oct.1,1998)
50,000 Lei
500,000 Lei
In addition, the Municipality Police have a more comprehensive proposal according to the
regulation follows:
Schedule
Regulation
7.00-10.00
Charge system
10.00-17.00
Prohibit to enter the zone
17.00-20.00
Charge system
Source: Municipality Police
(6) Existing Monitoring System
There are 21 stationary and 3 mobile air quality monitoring stations in Bucharest belonging to
different organizations shown in Table 3.3.20. Mainly, MFWE is active on ambient air quality
monitoring. Subject substances and frequency of monitoring vary in each organization.
Table 3.3.20 Summary of Air Monitoring System in Bucharest
1. Environmental protection agency (EPA) of
bucharest, MFWE
2. Environmental engineering research
Institute (ICIM), MFWE
3. Publichealth Inspectorate (direction)
4. LACECA
5. Physical atmosphere laboratory (in
afumati)
6. Municipality of bucharest
7. Romanian auto register, ministry of
transport
Air quality monitoring system
Stationary
Mobile
5
1
5
1
5
4
1
0
0
0
0
1 Lab belonging to RAR
60 Labs which signed franchise
contracts with RAR
1
4 Labs for the vehicles emissions
measurements
1 Lab also for the atmospheric
measurements
Table 3.3.21 Subject Substances for Air Quality Monitoring
1. Environmental protection agency (EPA) of
bucharest, MFWE
Institute (ICIM), MFWE
3. Public health Inspectorate (direction)
4. LACECA
5. Physical atmospherelaboratory (in afumati)
transport
Subject substances
Stationary monitoring
Mobile monitoring
SO2, NO2, NH3, CH2O, O3, Pb, SO2, NOx, CO, O3, HCH, PM
Cd, Zn, Cu
SO2, NO2, NH3
NOx, SO2, CO, O3, TSP
SO2, NO2, CO, Pb, PM
SO2, NO2, NH3
-
No measurements, just estimating the pollution using the measurements
made by Romanian Auto Register
NOx, HC, NH3, CO, H2S, SO2, O3,
dust
CO, NOx, HC, particles from the CO from the atmosphere
vehicles
CO, NOx, HC, particles from the
vehicles
3-35
Table 3.3.22 Frequency of Air Quality Monitoring
1. Environmental protection agency
(EPA) of bucharest, MFWE
institute (ICIM), MFWE
3. Public health inspectorate (direction)
4. LACECA
5. Physical atmosphere laboratory (in
afumati)
transport
Subject substances
Mobile monitoring
Continuously, during 2-4 day
periods, between 1995-1997
No periodical measurements, but only some studies from time to
time; the most recent one – in 1995
4-5 days/week; 24 h/day
No air monitoring
Stationary monitoring
-
Once a week
Frequency imposed by RNTR 1 Permanently, if the
and HG 778/1995 (de cautat)
meteorological conditions permit
the equipment to be used
(7) Taxation System Related to Vehicle and Fuel
The government levies a certain amount of taxes from vehicle purchasing and owning, and
the purchase fuels. That revenue is spent for the general account budget and special account
budget for roads. Regarding expenditure for environmental protection, this idea has not been
introduced yet.
1) Vehicle Fuel Tax
The Government has levied a tax on vehicle fuels such as leaded, unleaded gasoline and
diesel oil. The taxation ratios among those fuels are the same as shown in Figure 3.3.17 that is
25% of oil price. VAT (22%) is also charged on fuel so that total tax ratio reaches 32% of total
fuel price.
Taxation Ratio of Fuel
VAT (22%)
15%
Fuel T ax
(25%)
17%
Oil Price
68%
Figure 3.3.17 Taxation Ratio on Fuel
2) Vehicle Taxes
When purchasing and owning a vehicle, five kinds of taxes are charged according to the
taxation system shown in Table 3.3.23. This system varies depends on engine capacity, and
distinguishes a locally made car and imported car. A notable aspect of this system is whether
or not a vehicle meets EURO2. It is apparent that EURO2 vehicles have an advantage in the
market, however, there is not much difference in less than 2L engine car between a EURO2
conforming vehicle and a non-conforming vehicle.
3-36
Table 3.3.23 Example of Vehicle Taxes on New Local and Imported Car
Tax
1. Road tax
2. Import tax
1) Custom duty
2) Custom commission
3) Surcharge tax
4) Excise
New car
10%
Imported car
5%
18% (EU)
0.5%
4%
1% (1.4L normal)
0% (1.4L euro2)
72,000 Lei (1.4L)
3. Vehicle tax
4. Registration
1) Registration fee
2) Registration certificate
3) Number circuration
5.VAT
Source: RAR
8,300 Lei
75,000 Lei
70,000 Lei
22%
(8) Vehicle Inspection System
There is sufficient vehicle inspection regulation managed by Romanian Auto Register,
Ministry of Transport due to the introduction EU directives on Emission shown in Table
3.3.24. Private and commercial vehicles including taxi and bus shall be inspected every 2
years and every 6 months respectively and trucks are inspected every year.
Table 3.3.24 Vehicle Inspection Period
Vehicle type
Motorcycles
Freight vehicles < 3.5 t
Passenger cars (private)
Taxi
The cars belonging to the driving schools
Trucks > 3.6 t
Bus
Inspection period
every 2 years
every 2 years
every 2 years
every 6 months
every 6 months
every year
every 6 months
Source: RAR
1) Comparison between EU and Romania of Measures to Control the Environmental
Impact in the Transport Sector
Romania has been taking various technical and economic measures according to EU’s
experiences in order to mitigate environmental impacts from the transport sector especially
from road transport shown in Table 3.3.25. Most of the ideas come from EU directives
modified for current Romanian conditions. However, enforcement of those regulations such
as for vehicle inspection are rather difficult due to the current economic situation.
Providing stringent regulation for emission control, the EURO2 standard was applied in
January 1999, however, it takes time to upgrade existing registered locally made vehicles,
which do not conform to EURO2.
In order to enhance the environmental protection capacity, continuing sufficient transport
planning, an enlightened policy and management capacities including funding public
transport, efficient transport facilities, traffic control system, etc., should be further taken into
taken in account.
3-37
Table 3.3.25 Measures to Control the Environmental Impact
in Transport Sector, EU and Romania
EU
Technical measures:
1. Emission standards on CO, VOCs, NOx and PM for all
kind of motor vehicles;
2. Fuel quality standards concerning for lead, sulfur and
benzene;
3. Noise standards for motor vehicle.
Construction measures:
1. Low noise asphalt, noise protection walls along major
roads
2. Integration of transport infrastructure into landscape;
3. Bridges and tunnels for animal crossing roads and
railways;
4. Transport planning and traffic management;
5. Provision and improvement of public transport facilities;
6. Provision of separate cycling trucks and along the roads
and in cities;
7. Restriction of car use in inner cities and residential areas
through pedestrian zones, speed limitation, parking
restriction, road safety measures, alternate odd and even
number plate access;
8. Extension of rail, waterway and combined transport;
9. Bans on through traffic
Economic instruments:
1. Internalization of external costs for all transport modes
through taxes and fees (e.g. energy tax, fuel tax, road pricing
and parking fees);
2. Differentiated purchase taxes (e.g. leaded and unleaded
fuel)
3. Scrape benefits to encourage owners to replace older
polluting vehicles with cleaner vehicle facilitated catalyst;
4. Differential circulation taxes (e.g. in EU)
Romania/Bucharest

RNTR 1 – Romanian auto register

Air quality standard – STAS 12574-87

“Technical conditions for the atmosphere protection”annex
4) – MFWE

Gasoline features (STAS 176-80) and diesel oil features
(STAS 240-80)

Only for the type approval executed by romanian auto
register.

Regulation 51- EU (with the amendments 51.01 and
51.02), adopted identically after the european legislation

No legal regulations

For the road transports, there is the govern ordinance no.
43/1997

For the road transports, there is the govern ordinance no.
44/1997

There are some decisions, made by local authorities

There are some (local) decisions, made by local authorities

Ordinance 42/1997

Ordinance 43/1997 – Juridical regime of the roads

Ordinance 44/1997 – Road transports

Law 129/1996 – Railway transport

Govern decision HG 190/1997 – Activity contract of
SNCFR

Law 118/1997 (regarding the setting up of a special fund
for the public roads); there are some taxes for the use of
danube – Black sea cannel and for the civil airports.

There are some parking taxes in the urban zones, locally
established (for bucharest – decision DPG 1558/1994)
Only for the gasoline (the unleaded one is cheaper)

For the moment, there are only some small discounts for
the excises paid for the imported cars that respect EURO2.

Law 118/1996 (roads tax), completed by the govern
ordinance 72/1998
3-38
Others:
1. Regular in-service emission tests for vehicles;
2. Time restrictions on transport movements (e.g. bans on
night and weekend driving for heavy vehicles);
3. Lowering and enforcement of speed limits for vehicles
4. Encouraging for smooth driving behavior;
5. Educational campaigns;
6. Car pooling;
7. Staggered working hours;
8. Carrying through existing resolution (e.g. ECMT
resolution on transport and environment (No.66) and power
and speed (No.91/5) and conventions (e.g. Sofia protocol in
NOx emission)

RNTR 1 – Romanian auto register – the technical periodic
inspections, according to the minister of transport order
353/1998

Local authorities decide these restrictions locally. For
bucharest there are some decisions regarding the freight
heavy vehicles (HCLMB 18/1992, HCLMB 18/1993, DPG
67/1993)

Decision of modifying and completing the decree no.
328/1966 (march, 1999)
There are no legal regulations; there are only some measures
for punishing the contravention (road code)
There is no plan at a national level. Locally, the road police
and the NGOs have some actions from time to time
There is a contract signed with dalli parking company
EU directives, i.g. EURO2
3-39
4.
Person Trip Characteristics
4. Person Trip Characteristics
A person trip survey was conducted through home interviews on 90,272 persons. The
average trip production was 2.7 trips per day. For the composition of the trip purpose, “To
Work” trips account for the largest share of 24.7%. For the composition of the transport
mode, the share of public transport was 34.0% and that of private cars, 18.8%. Large trip
generation appears in traffic zones along the Inner Ring Road and Middle Ring Road, on
the other hand, large trip attraction concentrates on central zones. Concerning the trip
distribution, passenger cars and buses come from all directions, but metro users are from
the South and Southeast, and tram users from the North and Southeast.
4.1 Person Trip Survey
4.1.1 Sampling
The sampling of the person trip survey was conducted on the basis of the household data
obtained from the Census survey in 1992 under the sample rate of 5.0% in the Bucharest
municipal area and 3.0% in the Ilfov area within the Study area. As a result, in the Bucharest
municipal area 37,130 households were selected and in Ilfov 1,173 households were selected.
The total number of households selected for this person trip survey was 38,303 households
and the sample rate was 4.9% as shown in Table 4.1.1.
Table 4.1.1 Number of Samples and Sample Rate
Area*
Traffic zones
No. of household
Sector 1
1-14
101,517
Sector 2
15-24
144,876
Sector 3
25-35
148,601
Sector 4
36-44
112,571
Sector 5
45-57
92,828
Sector 6
58-70
142,213
Bucharest
1-70
742,606
Ilfov
71-78
39,113
Total
1-78
781,719
Note : * Area of each sector is indicated in Figure 3.2.2.
No. of samples
5,076
7,244
7,430
5,629
4,641
7,111
37,130
1,173
38,303
Sample rate (%)
5 .0%
5 .0%
5 .0%
5 .0%
5 .0%
5 .0%
5 .0%
3 .0%
4.9 %
During October through mid-December 1998, the surveyors visited selected households and
interviewed each family member on their travel behavior in one day. In the case that the
surveyors did not meet household members even after visiting the object households three
times, other households were visited according to the rules determined by the sampling
method. The survey result of the sampled households is indicated in Table 4.1.2.
4-1
Table 4.1.2 Outline of Sampled Households
Sector
No. of
households
No. of family
members
Sector-1
5,014
12,296
Sector-2
7,133
18,521
Sector-3
7,331
19392
Sector-4
5,603
15,026
Sector-5
4,584
12,654
Sector-6
7,155
18,664
Bucharest
36,820
96,553
Ilfov *
1,176
4,050
Total
37,996
100,603
Note : * Excluding unknown data on car ownership
No. of family
members more
than 5 years old
11,967
17,921
18,724
14,564
12,095
18,090
93,361
3,875
97,236
No. of persons
interviewed
11,686
17,321
18,109
14,142
11,612
17,574
90,444
3,758
94,202
No. of car
ownership
households*
1,852
2,614
2,444
1,949
1,524
2,521
12,904
386
13,290
No. of non-car
ownership
households*
3,156
4,509
4,883
3,650
3,055
4,627
23,880
783
24,663
The number of actually surveyed households was 37,996 households (36,820 households in
the Bucharest municipal area and 117 in the Ilfov area), which was smaller than the targeted
number of 38,303 households by 1,483 households. The main reasons were as follows:
Most of the answers to the questions on the survey sheet were not completed;
Most of the family members refused to participate in the interview.
As a result, the effective sample rate was 4.8% in the Study Area (4.96 % in the Bucharest
municipal area and 3.0% in the Ilfov area) , since the estimated numbers of households in
1998 were 742,606 in the Bucharest municipal area and 39,113 households in the Ilfov area.
The number of interviewed persons was 94,207 persons, which is smaller than the number of
persons more than 5 years old by 3,034 persons. These persons could not be interviewed
because of the following reasons:
He or she was not in the house because of business trips outside the Study area, visit to
relatives or stay in the hospital;
He or she refused to participate in the interview.
4.1.2 Expansion
With the number of the above interviewed persons and the actual number of population in
1998, the expansion rate was determined by age and by sex. As a result, the expansion rate
was 22.6 for male and 21.6 for female as shown in Table 4.1.3.
4-2
Table 4.2.1 Households and Car Ownership by Income Level, 1998
Income class
(1,000 lei /
month)
<500
500 - 1,000
1,000 – 1,500
1,500 – 2000
2,000 – 5,000
5,000 – 10,000
10,000 - 30,000
30,000+
Total
No. of
households
Accumulate
(%)
13,833
7,097
5,025
2,443
2,782
181
4,163
369
35,893
38.5
58.3
72.3
79.1
86.9
87.4
99.0
100.0
Total
income
(1,000 lei /
month)
2,561,200
4,993,050
6,118,400
4,244,150
7,757,850
1,085,500
43,411,600
12,059,150
82,230,900
Accumulate
(%)
3.1
9.2
16.6
21.8
31.2
32.5
85.3
100.0
Average
income
(1,000 lei /
month)
185
704
1,218
1,737
2,789
5,997
10,428
32,681
2,291
No. of
owned cars
(vehicles)
Rate of
ownership
(%)
2,167
2,375
2,411
1,450
2,173
215
2,096
275
13,162
15.7
33.5
48.0
59.4
78.1
118.8
50.3
74.5
36.7
4.3 Trip Production
4.3.1 Number of Person Trips
The total number of daily trips in the Study Area is 5,765,600 trips as shown in Figure 4.3.1.
Among all these trips, residents within the Study Area make up about 99.0%. Internal trips
account for 97.5%, and 3.8% are trips between points inside and outside of the Study Area
(i.e., internal-external and external-internal trips). The number of external to external trips is
very little.
Total Trips (5,766)
5,621
145
Unit : 1,000
i
2
Figure 4.3.1 Result of Person Trips
4.3.2 Trip Production Rate
The total number of daily trips generated from and attracted to the Study Area is about 5.7
million trips. Since the population of 5 years old and over is 2.1 million persons, the average
trip production (gross rate) is 2.68 trips per person per day. The shares of persons who made
trips and persons who did not make any trips during the survey day were 73.4% and 26.2%;
therefore, the average net trip production becomes 3.3 trips per person per day. As shown in
Table 4.3.1, the male’s trip production rate is slightly higher than that of the female.
Table 4.3.1 Average Trip Production Rate
Item
Number of trips
Population
Gross trip rate
Male
2,763,227
1,011,053
2.73
4-5
Female
3,002,373
1,138,383
2.64
Total
5,765,600
2,149,436
2.68

All M odes

W alk

B icycle

«É¸ÅÊÇÆÉËw¤Æ»¼
Truck

Taxi

M axi Taxi

C ar

R ail

B us
Trolley B us
Tram

M etro

ÀÊË¸Åº¼wÂÄ

Figure 4.3.3 Average Trip Distance by Mode
4.3.5 Starting and Arriving Time of Trips
Figure 4.3.4 shows the starting time of trips by mode. Most trips start between 7:00 and 8:00,
which indicates the morning peak hour for every transport mode except “Others”. The
morning peak ratio is about 12-16% of the trips. On the other hand, the evening peak is
considered between 16:00 and 17:00 and its peak hour is around 8-10%. The peak hour of
“Others (almost walk trips)” is between 11:00-14:00.

¤ ¼ ËÉÆ
« É¸ Ä
« ÉÆ ÃÃ¼ Ð
ÌÊ
¸É
¦ Ë¿ ¼ ÉÊ
§ Ì ¹ ÃÀº
« Æ Ë¸ Ã

¦ ~º ÃÆ º Â
Figure 4.3.4 Starting Time of Trips
4-7

ª¿¸É¼w|

4.6.2 Transfer between Public Transport Modes
Table 4.6.2 shows the share of transfer between public transport modes. The transfer from bus
to bus indicates the highest share 33.1%, followed by transfer between bus and tram.
Passengers using metro and trolley bus do not transfer each other so much (only 1.6%). As a
result, transfer facilities between bus and bus or between bus and tram should be improved.
The improvement of transfer facilities is also necessary for big Piatas such as Obor, Sudului,
Unirii, etc., because many passengers concentrate in these areas.
Table 4.6.2 Share of Transfer between Public Transport Modes
(Unit : %)
Bus
Trolley bus
Tram
Metro
Bus
33.1
Trolley bus
5.5
1.5
Tram
21.9
3.9
13.8
(Unit : %)
Metro
6.5
1.6
5.1
7.1
There are many transfer patterns for one trip as shown in Table 4.6.3. Among these transfer
patterns, the “Bus to Bus” and “Tram to Tram” pattern account for a large share. More than
three times transfer pattern are very few, however, the patterns of “Tram-Tram-Tram”, “TramTram-Metro” and “Trolley-Tram-Tram” have a relatively large share.
Table 4.6.3 Transfer Pattern between Public Transport Mode
Pattern
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
First mode
Bus
Trolley bus
Tram
Metro
Bus
Trolley bus
Tram
Bus
Bus
Bus
Trolley bus
Trolley bus
Tram
Bus
Bus
Bus
Trolley bus
Trolley bus
Tram
Bus
Bus
Bus
Trolley bus
Trolley bus
Tram
Bus
Bus
Trolley bus
Second mode
Bus
Trolley bus
Tram
Metro
Bus
Trolley bus
Tram
Trolley bus
Tram
Metro
Tram
Metro
Metro
Bus
Bus
Bus
Trolley bus
Trolley bus
Tram
Bus
Bus
Bus
Trolley bus
Trolley bus
Tram
Trolley bus
Tram
Tram
Third mode
Forth mode
Bus
Trolley bus
Tram
Trolley bus
Tram
Metro
Tram
Metro
Metro
Bus
Bus
Bus
Trolley bus
Trolley bus
Tram
Trolley bus
Tram
Tram
4-16
Trolley bus
Metro
Metro
Tram
Metro
Metro
Share(%)
26.3
2.3
21.1
12.0
0.1
0.1
1.1
0.7
2.6
0.6
12.0
4.3
14.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.9
4.7 Freight Movement
4.7.1 Statistics of Freight Transport
(1) Domestic Goods Transport by Mode
Table 4.7.1 describes the volume of goods carried by domestic transport in Romania, from 1991 to
1996. The total weight of goods carried decreased from 1,187 million tons in 1991,to 737 million tons
in 1993. Afterwards, it slightly increased to 796 million tons in 1996. According to this table, the role
of road transport is quite high and it has consistently maintained 80 percent of the total goods carried.
Table 4.7.1 Domestic Goods Transport by Mode
Year
Total
Railway transport
Road transport
River transport
Sea transport
Air transport
Transport through pipelines
1991
1,186,947
146,273
12.3
993,992
83.7
8,249
0.7
22,316
1.9
13
0.0
16,104
1.4
1992
865,790
111,419
12.9
719,226
83.1
6,198
0.7
14,133
1.6
47
0.0
14,767
1.7
1993
736,737
98,961
13.4
593,432
80.5
7,074
1.0
23,819
3.2
35
0.0
13,416
1.8
1994
756,611
99,179
13.1
621,257
82.1
9,405
1.2
10,669
1.4
46
0.0
16,055
2.1
1995
764,843
105,131
13.7
616,044
80.5
14,392
1.9
13,047
1.7
46
0.0
16,183
2.1
(Thousand tons)
1996
795,752
105,040
13.2
649,746
81.7
14,142
1.8
11,936
1.5
26
0.0
14,862
1.9
(2) Number of Trucks Registered
The number of trucks in the Municipality of Bucharest, registered with the traffic Police, is
shown in Table 4.7.2, compared with the total number of registered vehicles, (which includes
the number of motorcycles). While the share of the number of trucks is about 14 percent in
each year, the number of trucks has been increasing by 3.5 to 5.4 percent annually.
Table 4.7.2 Number of Trucks Registered in the Municipality of Bucharest
1993
Type of vehicles
Utility van(pick-up)
Mixed use truck
Special truck
Trailer
Vehicle for freight total
(Annual growth)
Total registered vehicle
(Annual growth)
(Veh.)
26294
1791
29332
4330
1994
(%)
6.1
0.4
6.8
1.0
61,747
14.4
100
428215
100
(Veh.)
29844
2527
29864
4559
1995
(%)
6.4
0.5
6.4
1.0
66,794
14.4
108
463507
108
(Veh.)
32417
3014
29697
4648
1996
(%)
6.7
0.6
6.1
1.0
69,776
14.4
113
484150
113
(Veh.)
35530
3757
29561
4750
1997
(%)
7.0
0.7
5.8
0.9
73,598
14.4
119
511084
119
(Veh.)
37454
4381
29772
4775
(%)
7.0
0.8
5.6
0.9
76,382
14.2
124
536347
125
(3) Freight Vehicle Volume at Cordon line
The following table provides a survey of the freight vehicle traffic counted at the cordonline.
The highest freight vehicle volume was counted 2,523 vehicles at Point-3 on DN2 which
connects the industrial area in the western part of the Study area and central area of the City.
The numbers of freight vehicles at Point-8,9,11,12 and 13 were counted about 2,000.
4-17
Table 4.7.3 Number of Trucks Counted at Cordon Line
Cordon
location
Point-1
Point-2
Point-3
Point-4
Point-5
Point-6
Point-7
Point-8
Point-9
Point-10
Point-11
Point-12
Point-13
Survey
hour
Total
vehicles
counted
24h
14h
24h
14h
14h
14h
14h
24h
14h
14h
24h
14h
14h
During 24
or
14 hr.
period
1,674
315
2,523
824
5221
307
114
1,940
1,750
265
1,991
1,940
1,982
25,211
2,287
21,548
6,418
3,793
2,624
1,472
9,588
6,816
2,327
17,867
8,273
8,788
Number of Trucks Counted
Rate
During
night time
(%)
12 hr.
period
6.6
355
13.8
11.7
736
12.8
13.7
11.7
7.7
20.2
424
25.7
11.4
11.1
513
23.4
22.6
Rate
(%)
Point-1
25,211 (1,674)
Point-13
8,788 (1,982)
Point-2
2,287 (315)
Point-12
8,273 1,940)
Point-3
21,548 (2,523)
Point-11
17,867 (1,991)
Point-4
6,418 (824)
Point-10
2,327 (265)
Point-9
6,816 (1,750)
Point-6
2,624 (307)
Point-8
9,588 (1,940)
Point-7
1,472 (114)
Point-5
3,793 (521)
Number of Vehicles
Total (Trucks)
Figure 4.7.1 Number of Vehicles Counted at Cordon Line Freight Survey
4-18
21.2
29.2
21.9
25.8
4.7.2 Freight Movement Survey
A small-scale yet comprehensive freight survey was conducted to better understand the
magnitude of truck trips generated by different types of companies, the utilization of trucks
for different commodity types, and the actual movement of trucks in and around Bucharest.
This survey involved a series of detailed interview questionnaires carried out on-site at 100
companies (80 in Bucharest Municipality and 20 outside of Bucharest but within Ilfov) in
November and December 1998.
(1) Selection of Companies
There are a number of data sources providing lists of companies: commercial registration,
truck registration database at Traffic Police, truck operation license database at Ministry of
Transport, and company database complied by the Statistics Department. After much analysis,
it was concluded that the company database available from the Statistics Department was the
most useful and reliable. In the selection of the 100 companies, company data was initially
obtained from all companies ranked in the first 25 in terms of 1997 annual revenues by
economic sector. These company lists were compiled separately for Bucharest Municipality
and Ilfov.
The 19 economic sectors are as follows:
-
Agriculture
Forestry
Fishing
Mining
Processing Industry
Electrical Energy, Thermal Energy, Gas, and Water
Construction
Wholesale and Retail, Including Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Repair
Hotels and Restaurants
Transport and Warehousing
Post and Telecommunications
Financial Services and Banking
Real Estate
Public Administration
Education
Medical/Health
Other Community, social, and Personal Service Activities
Activities of Persons Employed within Households
Activities of External Organizations
Data provided on each company included (1) ownership type, (2) social capital, (3) annual
1997 revenues as reported by the Treasury Department, (4) number of vehicles, (5) number of
salaried employees, (6) number of contract (i.e., non-salaried) employees, (7) company
address, telephone number, and fax number, and (7) economic activity division code. There
are five company ownership categories/1) state-owned, (2) mixed or combination of state
and private, (3) private, (4) cooperative, and (5) other.
The 100 companies were then chosen with respect to company economic activity division,
company size in terms of annual revenue, company ownership type, vehicle fleet size, and
4-19
geographical location such that a broad representation of companies that generate truck trips
would be selected. Many economic activity divisions were not represented in the selection of
companies because these divisions do not contain companies that generate a significant
number of truck trips.
Typical economic sectors that were considered less important for the freight survey in
Bucharest and Ilfov include forestry, fishing, hotels and restaurants, financial services and
banking, education, and medical/health care. The most significant economic activity sectors
for truck trips are processing industry, construction, and transport and warehousing.
(2) Questionnaire
Five different sets of questionnaires were used for the freight survey: 1) business entity
questionnaire, 2) commodity inflow questionnaire, 3) commodity outflow questionnaire, 4)
truck operation questionnaire, and 5) fleet operation questionnaire for transport companies.
Pilot tests of the questionnaires were conducted at a few companies prior to finalization of the
survey sheets.
1)
Business Entity Questionnaire
The Purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain information on the profile of the business entity
chosen for the freight survey. This questionnaire included the following types of information:
-
number of employees, acreage/hectarage of site, and facility floor space of all offices
relationship between commodity flow and business transactions
address, type, and scale of the facilities for commodity flow located at the sites apart from
the place where the current business entity is located
general information on main products inbound and outbound in terms of percentage of
total tonnage
locations of main origins and destinations of freight traffic attracted to and generated from
the office and percentages of these in terms of total inflow and outflow tonnage
general information on the frequency of commodity flow
general information on main transport modes used for commodity flow
number of vehicles owned and number of vehicles surveyed
2) Commodity Inflow and Outflow Questionnaires
The Purpose of these questionnaires is to obtain information on the commodity flow handled
by the business entity chosen for the freight survey. These questionnaires included the
following types of information:
-
type of commodity, tonnage
address, facility type, company ownership type, and economic activity type (industry
type) of the facility(at both the origin and destination of commodity movements)
transport mode at starting or arrival point and owner of transport means
transshipment activities between origin and destination
frequency of transport for each freight shipment
3) Truck Operation Questionnaire
The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain information on the truck movements operated
by the business entity chosen for the freight survey. This questionnaire, completed by those
4-20
who actually operated the trucks or managed their operations, included the following types of
information:
- type of truck and maximum loading capacity
- address, facility type, company ownership type, and economic activity type (industry
type) of the facility at arrival places
- arrival and departure times
- types off commodities loaded and unloaded and their tonnage
- trip purpose to the destination
4) Fleet Operation Questionnaire for Transport Companies
The purpose of this questionnaire is to obtain additional information on the truck movements
of transport companies (i.e., commercial trucking companies) chosen for the freight survey.
This supplementary questionnaire included information on all regular routes operated by the
transport company, including origin, destination, frequency of truck trips, commodity tonnage,
and main commodity types.
4.7.3 Outline of Freight Survey Result
(1) Companies Interviewed
Although the survey was conducted at the selected 100 companies, answers from 98
companies had been collected and processed in a database by the end of January. The
industrial activities of the companies are shown in Table 4.7.4, and as shown twelve transport
companies answered. About 3,500 freight vehicles are owned by these companies in total,
while the number of heavy trucks and special trucks is over 2,000 or 57 percent of the total
number as shown in Table 4.7.5. The twelve transport companies possess 1,000 vehicles in
total.
Table 4.7.4 Business Activity of the Companies
No. of
answers
1
(%)
1.0
Industry
45
45.9
Construction
15
15.3
Wholesales
4
4.1
Retail
7
7.1
Financial/Insurance
0
0.0
Transport/Comm.
12
12.2
Electricity/Water
1
1.0
Services
4
4.1
Public adm.
0
0.0
Others
9
9.2
Total
98
100.0
Industrial sector
Agriculture
4-21
Table 4.7.5 Number of Trucks Owned by Surveyed Companies
Vehicle type
No. of vehicles
Very light truck (less than 1.5t)
418
Light truck
282
(1.5t-3.5t)
Medium truck (3.5t-10t)
Heavy truck
724
(more than 10t)
1,009
Special vehicle
1,023
Total
3,456
(2) Typical Flow Pattern of Freight Trucks
A typical flow pattern of commodities in Romania is conceptually shown in Figure 4.7.2,
which also explains the relation between the flow of commodities and transport points.
Companies have the different role through this flow according to their activity by industrial
sector. An industrial company, for example, transports materials of its products to a factory,
and it needs to transport the products to a wholesale company, to a retail company or directly
to shops. On the other hand, a wholesale/retail company buys products made by the factory
and stocks them in its warehouse, and it sells and delivers the commodity to a retail company
or shops.
/CVGTKCN
2CTVU
(CEVQT[
/CMGTU
(CEVQT[
6TWEM
6GTOKPCN
9JQNGUCNG
6TCPUUJKROGPV
2QKPV
&GRQV
4GVCKN
9CTGJQWUG
&KUVTKDWVKQP
%GPVGT
Figure 4.7.2 Concept of Typical Commodity Flow
The typical flow diagrams of commodities by type of company activity obtained by the
survey are presented in the following pages.
The commodity flow for industrial companies is shown in figure 4.7.3. A truck leaves the
terminal first and carries commodities from a factory to the firm’s warehouse. This trip is
usually made by heavy trucks. On the other hand, light trucks transport the commodities from
the warehouse to retail companies or shops. The trucks makes a “going to and bank” trip, or a
round trip, between shops according to the amount and type of commodities which are being
4-22
carried. As shown in figure 4.7.4, trucks owned by a construction company have a travel
pattern very similar to those in an industrial company, although their trips are mostly “going
to and bank” trips. Long distance trips are covered by heavy trucks outside of the
Municipality of Bucharest, while light trucks cover inside of thee Municipality, as the
commodities are carried over a relatively short distance. The commodity flow for a wholesale
and retail company is displayed in figure 4.7.5, and that for a transport company is shown in
Figure 4.7.6. The commodity flow for a transport company is essentially a combination of the
trips which can be seen in the other type of companies.
5JQR
6TWEM
6GTOKPCN
5JQR
(CEVQT[
5JQR
9CTGJQWUG
5JQR
Figure 4.7.3 Flow Pattern of an Industrial Company
4-23
%QPUVTWEVKQP
5KVG
(CEVQT[
6TWEM
6GTOKPCN
(CEVQT[
%QPUVTWEVKQP
5KVG
+PFWUVTKCN
%QORCP[
%QPUVTWEVKQP
5KVG
9CTGJQWUG
+PFWUVTKCN
%QORCP[
%QPUVTWEVKQP
5KVG
Figure 4.7.4 Flow Pattern of a Construction Company
9CTGJQWUG
(CEVQT[
6TWEM
6GTOKPCN
9CTGJQWUG
5JQR
9CTGJQWUG
9CTGJQWUG
5JQR
Figure 4.7.5 Flow Pattern of a Wholesale and Retail Company
4-24
(CEVQT[
9CTGJQWUG
5JQR
1VJGTU
6TWEM
6GTOKPCN
Figure 4.7.6 Flow Pattern of a Transport Company
(3) Others
1) Operational Efficiency
Table 4.7.6 and Table 4.7.7 describe the operational efficiency of trucks based on the answers
obtained from the freight survey. The average number of vehicle trips range from 2.25 in the
agriculture sector to 4.8.6 in wholesale. Although the average distance per vehicle trip is
almost 300km, the average efficiency is less than 50%, meaning that trucks are empty for half
on the round trip.
Table 4.7.6 Operational Efficiency of Trucks by Sector
Activity
Agriculture
Industry
Construction
Wholesale
Retail
Financial
Transport
Electricity
Service
Public
No. vehicles No. of trips Average no.
surveyed
surveyed
of trips
4
9
2.25
374
1,275
3.41
188
632
3.36
69
335
4.86
38
121
3.18
157
537
3.42
8
20
2.50
65
257
3.95
-
No. of
answers
4
311
158
67
33
135
5
63
-
Total
KilometerAverage
kilometer- age without kilometerAverage
age
load
age by trip efficiency
323
141
80.8
43.7
87,549
38,192
281.5
43.6
17,873
8,285
113.1
46.4
13,728
6,394
204.9
46.6
7,057
3,226
213.8
45.7
129,129
58,833
956.5
45.6
169
81
33.8
47.9
9,024
3,821
143.2
42.3
-
Others
42
119
2.83
38
8,977
4,417
236.2
49.2
Total
945
3,305
3.50
814
273,829
123,390
336.4
45.1
4-25
Table 4.7.7 Operational Efficiency of Trucks by Vehicle Type
Vehicle type
Light truck
Medium truck
Heavy truck
Total
Kilometer- Average
No. vehicles No. of trips Average no. No. of
kilometer- age without kilometer- Average
surveyed
surveyed
of trips
answers
age
load
age by trip efficiency
156
487
3.12
128
20,644
9,176
161.3
44.4
343
1336
3.90
288
63,622
30,733
220.9
48.3
306
990
3.24
287
174,769
76,251
609.0
43.6
Special truck
102
309
3.03
76
9,389
4,652
123.5
49.5
Total
907
3122
3.44
779
268,424
120,812
344.6
45.0
4.7.4 Existing Freight Movement Problems
Consistent with city regulations, there is no wholesale company in the central area. Almost
all major wholesale and other large markets are located along the radial trunk road outside of
the inner ring road, such as Sos. Colentina and B-dul Iuliu Maniu, and some of them are
located in the northern part of the Study Area, outside the outer ring road.
These locations avoid the attraction of trip made by heavy trucks into the central area and
ensure quick access to national roads connecting to adjacent countries. However, the
excessive concentration of wholesale and other large markets will generate and attract lots of
heavy trucks according to the economic growth, so that the severe traffic congestion might
occur without consideration of appropriate road plan and truck terminal plan.
In addition, at present the truck movement is basically allowed to pass within the central area
of the Study area for only night time. This regulation does not cause the traffic congestion by
loading or unloading on streets during day time in the central area. Therefore, this regulation
should be continued hereafter.
4-26
5.
Road Facilities and Road Traffic
5. Road Facilities And Road Traffic
In this chapter, the existing conditions of road facilities and road traffic are analyzed. At
first the outline of the interregional road network, which is mainly located outside the
study area, is briefly summarized to clarify the traffic situation of Bucharest in Romania.
Secondly the road conditions in the study area are studied to grasp the present situation and
identify the existing problems.
5.1 Inter-regional Road Network
5.1.1 Existing network
Romania is situated at a transit corridor between Central Europe and Eastern Europe and the
Middle East. In 1985 Romania joined the European Accord on Large International Transport
Roads, which was signed in Geneva in 1975. Following this, the major national roads in
Romania have become a part of the European road network. Namely, Constanta, facing the
Black Sea, is the entrance point from the Middle East to Central Europe via Budapest, the
capitalof Hungary. Giurgiu located about 50 km south of Bucharest, is also another entrance
from the Balkans as well as the Middle East to Moldova or Kiev of the Ukraine.
Bucharest is situated at the intersecting point of such international transport corridors as
Constanta – Bucharest – Brasof - Oradea – Budapest, Giurgiu – Bucharest – Kiev etc..
Figure 5.1.1 Nationwide Road Network
5-1
The Figure 5.1.1 shows the major interregional road network in the vicinity of Bucharest.
These roads are a part of the international road network mentioned above, linking Bucharest
with the surrounding cities such as Ploiesti, Buzau, Calarasi, Giurgiu, Pitesti etc..
For the major interregional roads outside of Bucharest, the competent authority is the Ministry
of Transport. The actual design, construction, and maintenance of interregional roads is
managed by the National Road Administration, a subordinate organization of the Ministry of
Transport, in the corresponding district of the project.
Table 5.1.1 shows the length and width of the interregional roads. All the roads are paved and
generally well maintained. Most of them are 4-lane roads.
Table 5.1.1 Major Interregional Roads
Road No.
DN1
Length
(km)
Route
No of
Lanes
44.2
17
4
Buc*Buftea
7.2
9*11
2
DN2
Buc*Afumati (Urziceni)
9.4
16
4
DN3
Buc*Lehlie
58.2
9*11
2
DN4
Buc*Oltenita
58.8
9*11
2
DN5
Buc*Ad.Copaceni
12.9
17*19
4
DN6
Buc*Mihailesti
13.9
17*19
4
DN7
Buc*Titu
4.1
9*11
2
95.9
24*26
4
DN1A
Buc*Otopeni*Ploiesti
Width
(m)
Autostrada
Buc*Sfalsit
DN65B
Autostrada*Pitesti
7.5
17*19
4
Source: Ministry of Transport
DN1A
DN1
DN2
DN7
DN3
Autostrada
DN6
DN5
Figure 5.1.2 Interregional Road Network
5-2
DN4
5.1.2 Future Development
With regard to the priority international corridors in Europe, the Pan European Motorway
Network Plan was proposed as elaborated by an order of the European Commission for
Transportation. The Plan includes the following network;
- Berlin/Nurenberg – Praha – Budapest – Bucharest – Constanta – Istanbul – Athens
- Helsinki – Moscow - Kiev – Odessa – Bucharest - Istanbul
In accordance with this Plan, a nationwide motorway development plan was identified and
prepared by the Government of Romania. Bucharest will be linked with major cities in the
neighboring countries by expressways.
Based on the national motorway network development plan, the Ministry of Transport is
promoting the development of the Autostrada projects. The present status of the projects in
the vicinity of Bucharest is summarized in the Table 5.1.2 and Figure 5.1.3.
Table 5.1.2 Progress of Autostrada Projects
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
Autostrada
Name
BucharestConstanta
Centra
Bucharest Sud
Bucharest –
Giurgiu
BucharestBrasof
BucharestTimisoara
BucharestSuceava
Total
Length
Project
Section
Length
(km)
Constr.Cost
U$’000/km
Present status
4
D/D for
Buc.-Fetesti
Same as left
10
F/S
43 km
Same as left
4
F/S
168 km
Ploiesti
60
12
Pre-F/S
468 km
Craiova
200
5
Under study
463 km
Buzau
120
4
Under study
201 km
Lehliu
58 km
50
In addition to the above projects, the following road projects are on-going.
a. Reinforcement of DN1 for the section near Ploiesti.
- improvement of the pavement etc.. (almost completed)
b Improvement of DN1A for the section Bucharest - Ploiesti
- improvement of vertical and horizontal alignment (F/S approved)
c. Improvement of DN3 for the section Bucharest - Lehliu
- improvement of shoulders, draining system etc.. (F/S approved)
5-3
Figure 5.1.3 Autostrada Projects in the Vicinity of Bucharest
5.1.3 Interregional Traffic related to Bucharest
Interregional traffic characteristics can be obtained from the cordon line interview survey.
The Figure 5.1.4 and Figure 5.1.5 show the major OD (the highest 10 OD each) of the
interregional traffic. Although freight vehicles tend to have more long haul trips than
passenger cars, the main OD in terms of volume is almost the same for both vehicle types;
major trips are those between Bucharest and neighboring regions such as the Ploiesti-Brasof
area, the Pitesti-Craiova area, the Giurgiu area and Urziceni-Focsani area.
International traffic is not so large, only the freight traffic from/ to Turkey is prominent.
The freight traffic from/to Constanta is not large as well, -only about 180 vehicles per day.
The through traffic also is not large, -the OD with the largest volume is between the UrziceniFocsani area and the Pitesti-Craiova area for both freight and passenger vehicles.
As shown in Table 5.1.3, the most commonly transported commodities in terms of trip
frequency are construction materials (24%) and miscellaneous manufactured articles (11%).
If the five agricultural product categories are combined, this figure becomes the most
significant at 35%. Light trucks are used most frequently for transporting agricultural
products, while heavy trucks are used most frequently for transporting construction materials.
Long vehicles with trailers have a relatively high share of trips involving haulage of fuels and
miscellaneous manufactured articles.
5-4
Figure 5.1.4 Interregional Traffic Related to Bucharest (Truck OD)
Figure 5.1.5 Interregional Traffic Related to Bucharest (Passenger Car OD)
5-5
Table 5.1.3 Commodity Types of Interregional Freight Traffic
Commodity Type
Fresh fruits, vegetables
Refrigerated and frozen foods
Other processed foods
Beverages
Other agricultural products
Metal products
Construction materials
Machinery, equipment
Fuels
Chemicals, chemical products
Misc. manufactured articles
Other
Total
Light Truck
(1.51-3.5t)
7%
11%
18%
10%
6%
6%
9%
6%
1%
9%
12%
5%
100%
Truck Type
Average
Medium Truck
Heavy Truck
Long Vehicle
(3.51-10t)
(>10t)
(w/trailer)
5%
2%
3%
5%
8%
3%
5%
7%
10%
6%
8%
11%
5%
3%
8%
6%
6%
6%
7%
6%
9%
7%
4%
7%
24%
48%
17%
24%
5%
4%
5%
5%
5%
3%
11%
4%
7%
5%
8%
7%
10%
7%
18%
11%
8%
5%
6%
6%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Note: The percentage shows the trip frequencies
5.2 Outline of the Road Conditions in the Study Area
5.2.1 Network Pattern
The road network in Bucharest is basically formed by a radial and ring road pattern.
The major roads are the nine radial roads centering on the Piata Universitatii and the two half
ring roads located about 3 and 5 km respectively from the center. These major roads are
mainly more than 6 lanes with a width of 21 m or greater. In addition, an outer ring road with
2 lanes is located at the outskirts of the urban area of Bucharest City, and it is mainly used for
freight trucks at present.
Figure 5.2.1 shows the existing road network in the study area.
In the central area, the major streets are B-Dul Magheru / Nicolae Balcescu / Bratianu and
Calea Victoriei, running in the North-South direction. For the East-West direction, B-dul
Unirii and B-dul Regina Elisabeta / Carol I function as arterials.
As for the suburban and rural areas, there are roads connecting with the surrounding major
cities such as Ploiesti, Constanta, Giurgiu, and Pitesti. In addition to the major inter-city
highways, there is an expressway (so-called Autostrada). Based on the expressway
development plan, an autostrada was constructed between Bucharest and Pitesti, and a new
autostrada toward Constanta is now under construction.
5.2.2 Road Conditions and Intervals
The total road length in the city of Bucharest is approximately 1,900 km, of which 160 km is
trunk roads according to the Municipality. The total road area is about 21 square km, about
80% of which is paved with either asphalt, concrete or stone. Except for the major arterials,
the road surface is generally not in a satisfactory condition due to insufficient maintenance
work.
The interval or spacing of the trunk roads in the central area (inside the inner ring) is about 1
km for the E-W direction, and 2 to 3 km for the N-S direction. This indicates that the density
of trunk roads in the N-S direction is very low compared to the E-W direction. As for the
surrounding area, the interval becomes greater, -about 3 to 4km for both directions.
The interval of local streets generally ranges from 70m to 300m depending on the district and
direction.
5-6
Particularly in the winter season, congestion becomes heavier due to the slippery road surface
and the piles of snow along the roadside. These congested points are found particularly in the
N-S direction of the central area, where through traffic is usually mixed with local or district
traffic, since the interval or spacing of main roads is too large.
5.2.5 Organizations Responsible for Roads
The organizations responsible for the road network in the study area are the Municipality of
Bucharest and the Ministry of Transport. The former is responsible for roads inside the Outer
Ring Road, whereas the latter is responsible for roads outside the Outer Ring Road.
Network planning for the Municipality is undertaken by the Urbanization Department in
collaboration with the Urban Planning Center. The approval of the plan and its execution is
decided through discussions in the Traffic Committee of the Municipality. As for the actual
implementation and maintenance work, the Street Administration of the Municipality is
responsible.
With regard to the roads outside the Outer Ring, at the planning stage, the Ministry of
Transport is in charge. As for design, construction and maintenance, the National Road
Administration, which is a subordinate organization of the Ministry of Transport, is
responsible. The National Road Administration is composed of the district offices of
Bucharest, Sibiu, Brasov, Constanta and others.
Regarding traffic management, -planning is undertaken by the Urban Planning Center of the
Municipality, and implementation and maintenance are performed by the Street
Administration. The traffic police provide information and advise on the site.
Table 5.2.1 Organizations Responsible for Roads
Project Stage
Inside of Outer Ring
Dept. of Urbanization
Road network planning
Designing
Construction
Street Administration
Maintenance
Street Administration
Outside of Outer Ring
Ministry of Transport
National Road
Administration
National Road
Administration
National Road
Administration
5.2.6 Design Standard
Urban roads are classified into 4 categories according to the national standard (STAS10144/180).
Category I is the most important arterial road with 6 lanes or more.
Category II is a secondary major road with 4 lanes.
Categories III and IV are collectors and minor service roads with one or two lanes. The
traffic intensity in the standard seems to be very low, perhaps because it was prescribed about
20 years ago.
Table 5.2.2 Design Standard by Road Classification
Category
No. of Lanes
Width of Carriage Way
(m)
Design Speed
(km/hr.)
Traffic Intensity
(pcu / day)
I Arterial
6
21.0
60
More than 6,000
II Semi-arterial
4
14.0
50-60
3,000-6,000
III Collector
2
6.0-7.0
40-50
300-3,000
IV Local Service
1
3.0-3.5
25
Less than 300
Note: Design speeds are those for flat area.
Source: National standard STAS 10144/1-80
5-8
Based on the above classification, the standards for design elements such as maximum
gradient, visible distance, lane width etc. are set forth in the national standard (STAS
10144/3-81).
The cross sections of each category of roads in the urban area are shown as a design standard
in the STAS 10144/1-80. The typical cross sections for Category I and II are as depicted in
Figure.5.2.2. The width of each traffic lane is set up as 3.5 m for Category I and II, and 3.0 to
3.5m for Category III and IV .
¸Ë¼¾ÆÉÐw 1>5
2.0
21.0
2.0 1>5
¸Ë¼¾ÆÉÐw 1>4 1.5
14.0
1.5 1>
Figure 5.2.2 Typical Cross Section
5.3 Road Network Characteristics in the Study Area
5.3.1 Road Length and Area
The total road length in the city of Bucharest is about 1,940 km as of 1998 as shown in Table
5.3.1. Although road length by road category is not available, the road length by surface type
is shown.
Table 5.3.1 Road Length and Area in Bucharest
Surface Type
Total Road
Total Road
Length (km)
Area (km2)
Asphalt
634
8.42
Concrete
241
2.64
Macadam
318
2.13
River Stone
281
3.27
3
0.1
Sub-total
1477
16.56
Ballast
390
3.33
Clay
77
0.76
1944
20.65
Other Pavement
Total
Source: Municipality of Bucharest
According to the above table, the pavement ratio in terms of road length is 76% for the whole
city. The main roads are mostly paved with asphalt or concrete, while the minor local streets
in residential areas are not always paved even with stone.
5-9
Table 5.3.2 presents a comparison of road densities, (the road length per unit area) among a
number of major cities in the world. The road density of Bucharest seems to be at a low level
when compared to other European cities.
Taking the road area ratio (the road area per unit area), the indicator in Bucharest becomes
almost the same level as Vienna or Tokyo. This implies that the width of each road is
comparatively wide but that the density of the road network as a whole is not sufficient.
The road density data by Sector in Bucharest are also available. As shown in Table 5.3.3, the
road density of Sector 6 is extremely low, -less than half of the average for the whole city.
Even in the case that the area of urban use is taken instead of the total area, the same results
are obtained. Sector 6 is less developed in terms of the density of paved roads as well.
On the other hand, the districts with relatively high road densities are Sector 4 in terms of the
total road length and Sector 2 in terms of the paved road length.
Table 5.3.2 Comparison of Road Density, 1997
City
Rd.Length
km
Total area
km2
Paris
1,601
Urban area
Rd.Density
Rd.Density
km2
to T otal A
to Urban A
105
95
15.2
-
16.9
Madrid
3,215
607
Brusel
2,068
162
103
12.8
5.3
20.1
Vienna
2,776
415
134
6.7
20.7
Istanbul
5,013
5,220
1,950
1.0
2.6
Berlin
5,192
891
271
5.8
19.2
Munik
5,283
-
311
-
-
17.0
New York
10,079
833
645
12.1
15.6
Tokyo
23,224
2,187
1,075
10.6
21.6
1,944
228
219
8.5
8.9
Bucharest
Note:
(1) T otal area is the total city planning area.
(2) Urban area is the total city planning area excluding water,forest, etc..
Source:
Major city of the World 1997
Table 5.3.3 Road Density by Sector of Bucharest
Sector
Indicators
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
395
261
268
252
195
106
1477
45
34
41
313
0
34
467
Total (km)
440
295
309
565
195
140
1944
Area of Sector (km2)
68
30
33
32
28
37
228
6.47
9.83
9.36
17.66
6.96
3.78
8.53
Paved Rd Density (km/km2)
5.81
Source : Municipality of Bucharest
8.70
8.12
7.88
6.96
2.86
6.48
Road
Paved (km)
Length
Unpaved (km)
(km)
Road Density (km/km2)
5-10
5.3.2 Characteristics of Major Roads
(1) B-dul Magheru / Balcescu / Bratianu / Cantemir
This is the busiest street in Bucharest, connecting Pta.Victoriei, Pta.Romana and Pta.Unirii in
the N-S direction. Shops, hotels, theaters, etc., line both sides of the street. A university and
the city's largest shopping center are also located in the central area along this road. The
number of traffic lanes varies from 6 to 8 depending on the section.
(2) Calea Victoriei
Calea Victoriei is the major street running parallel with B-dul Magheru / Balcescu, connecting
Pta.Victoriei and Pta.Universitatii.
Historically valuable buildings, hotels and boutiques, etc., are located on both sides of the
street. The central area along the street is the financial center of Bucharest. The street is one
way from North to South.
(3) Regina Elisabeta / Carol I / Protopopescu / Iancului
The main street in the E-W direction, connecting the Cotroceni area, city center and a
residential area at Iancului. Many small shops and services are located along the street in
addition to the Municipality office and University in the central area. The road is one way
west of Calea Victoriei.
(4) B-dul Unirii
B-dul Unirii is a wide E-W street constructed in the Ceausescu era as a symbolic road,
connecting the Parliament House, Pta.Unirii and Pta.Alba Iulia. Tall and modern buildings as
well as half-constructed apartment buildings which line both sides of the street, and
Government offices such as ministries which are also located near the Parliament house.
(5) Stefan Cel Mare / Mihai Bravu
These streets consist of Inner Ring Road which is located at about 2.5 km ~ 3 km from
Pta.Unirii. Along the roadside are mainly building complexes composed of small shops,
restaurants and services for daily life and residences. The number of lanes is six excluding the
tram lines located in the center of the road.
(6) Sos. Kiseleff
This road connects the north area of the Metropolitan region including Otopeni airport with
Pta.Victoriei, the entrance point to the center. Along the street is a high income residential
area.
The road is one way from north to south.
(7) B-dul Iuliu Maniu
This arterial stretches from Cotoroceni area to the Militari residential area in the west and
further links with the Autostrada to Pitesti. The road sides are mainly occupied by high rise
apartment buildings. The number of lanes is six.
5-11
(8) Splaiul Independentei
There is a river called Dambovita dividing the city into a north part and a south part. This
road is a pair of one way streets along both sides of the Dambovita. Each one-way street has 3
lanes.
5.3.3 Road Width
Road width generally varies by road section, ranging from 7m to 68 m. The widest roads are
B-dul Aviatorilor, B-dul Theodor Pallady and B-dul Camil Ressu. In addition to the 6 lane
carriage way and wide sidewalks, either tram lines or wide green belts are provided for these
roads. And for some sections, local service roads are provided at the sides of the main
carriageways.
On the other hand, there are many narrow roads, where sometimes sidewalks are not provided.
As long as these narrow streets are used as local residential roads, no problems arise.
However, some small roads are used as trunk roads with high volumes of through traffic. For
example, Str.Buzesti, which connects Pta Victoriei with Str.Stirbei Voda and Eroilor, is a
narrow street and serves exclusively for tram tracks without providing carriage way for the
section between Calea Grivitei and Stirbei Voda. Nevertheless, it is used by through vehicular
traffic due to the lack of an alternative route.
The lane width is generally 3.5 m per lane in the case of trunk roads. The number of lanes is
generally more than 4 lanes for the arterial and semi-arterial roads, most of which are twoway. The one-way system is applied to the following main roads; Calea Victoriei,
Sos.P.D.Kiseleff, B-dul Regina Elisabeta, etc. The number of lanes for the main roads is
shown in Figure.5.3.1.
Another point to be noted regarding the number of lanes is that they are not continuous over
the whole stretch of road. In the case of radial roads, the number of lanes normally does not
change or diminish with respect to the distance from the center, corresponding to the traffic
volume. Rather, the number of lanes changes irrespective of traffic intensity, sometimes
increasing and/or decreasing suddenly. This situation is not desirable from the viewpoint of
improving traffic flow.
5-12
Road, and the other seven are located either on the Inner Ring Road or in the city center. Most
of them are grade separated by having an underpass on the main road with the heavier traffic
volume.
- Unirii : underpass: B-dul Unirii / B-dul Cantemir
- Muncii : underpass: Mihai Bravu / Calarasi
- Obor : underpass: Mihai Bravu / Colentina
- Pta.Victoriei : underpass: Nicolae Titulescu / Victoriei
- Giulesti : interchange: Crangasi / Giulesti
- Lujerului : underpass: Iuliu Maniu / Lujerului
- Mircea Voda : underpass without access: Mircea Voda / Marasesti
(2) Rotary Intersections
There are also many rotary intersections. In most cases, there are multi-legged intersections,
with 5 legs or more. Although traffic management becomes difficult when the traffic volumes
increase, most intersections have been saved from a serious condition through several
improvement measures, such as constructing an underpass or direct passage of a major
crossing road and reducing the inflow by applying a one-way system. The major rotary
intersections are Pta.Unirii, Obor, Mihai Bravu/ Burebista, Pantelimon / Iancului, Pantelimon
/ Basarabia, Pta.Charles De Gaules, Pta.Presei Libere and Pta. George Cosbuc.
(3) Congested Intersections
The following intersections are relatively congested, and their locations are shown in Figure
5.3.2.
1) Pta.Universitatii
In addition to the fact that various urban functions are concentrated near the intersection, two
major arterial roads cross at this point; therefore, traffic volumes on the two roads are heavy.
2) Mihai Bravu / Ferdinand I
Both roads have heavy vehicular traffic volumes as well as tramlines and trolley buses.
Particularly, the traffic from Mihai Bravu in the north eastbound to Ferdinand I and the
opposite direction is extremely heavy. Since the route no. 1 tramline turns from Mihai Bravu
to Ferdinand I at this intersection, the turning movement of tramcars and the movement of
vehicles cross each other. This crossing serves as a congestion point.
3) Mihalache / Turda
The road width is narrow for both roads. In addition to tram lines running on both roads, the
traffic volumes are considerably high. Although left turns are prohibited at the intersection,
traffic congestion is quite serious.
4) Razoare / Drumul Taberei
This intersection has 5 legs, and traffic volumes are rather heavy on all the roads. The
tramlines run from/to B-dul Timisoara to/from Str. Progresului. The movement of vehicles
from Timisoara or Drumul Taberei to Razoare crosses with the tram car movement. Heavy
vehicle traffic and the design of this crossing are the causes of the congestion.
5-14
5.3.5 Road Maintenance
The maintenance work of the roads inside the Outer Ring Road is undertaken by the Street
Administration of the Municipality. The sectorial administration office, responsible for each
sector of Bucharest, is in charge of the actual maintenance work under the supervision of the
Street Administration. The Street Administration is responsible not only for road maintenance
but also for all the related facilities such as installation of traffic signs, signals, street lamps
and provision of parking spaces on the roadside etc.. Due to the shortage of financial
resources, road maintenance is not sufficiently carried out. Even for arterial roads, road
surfaces are heavily damaged and many holes and cracks can be found particularly on the
Inner Ring Road, and the main radial roads outside the Inner Ring Road mainly caused by
heavy vehicles. The lane markings and zebra crossings are not clear, -almost invisible, or
non- existent. Heavy vehicles are often overloaded, however, there is no system to check
overweight at present. The traffic police, who are regarded as the responsible organization,
check only the permit of the trucks required for entering the central area.
5.4 Existing Road Traffic
5.4.1 Daily Traffic Volumes
(1) Traffic Inflow to the Center
The existing traffic volumes on major roads can be roughly gauged from the traffic surveys
such as Cordon Line Survey and Screen Line Survey conducted in November 1998.
The Figure 5.4.1 shows the daily traffic inflow to the city center from the outside.
At the Outer Ring Road, the total amount of vehicle inflow from the outside of Bucharest is
found to be about 61,000 veh./day. Particularly large inflows are observed at Sos.BucurestiProiesti, Sos.Colentina and B-dul Iuliu Maniu. The high traffic volumes can be explained by
two factors; One is that these roads are connected to major radial roads, National Road No.1,
No.2 and the Autostrada for Pitesti respectively. The other is that urbanization is expanding
toward the North, Northeast and West. The latter factor seems to be more important, since the
composition rate of passenger cars is very high, representing nearly 90 % of the total traffic.
At the Inner Ring Road, the total amount of traffic inflow from the outside increases to about
250,000 veh./day, which is more than 4 times the traffic volume at the Outer Ring Road. This
fact indicates that although the expansion of the urbanized area is proceeding toward the
outside of the Outer Ring Road, most of the densely populated area still remains inside the
Outer Ring Road, namely within approximately 8 km radius from the city center.
The traffic volumes of the major roads at the Inner Ring Road are not so different from these
obtained at the Outer Ring Road. Namely, the daily traffic inflow ranges from 15,000 vehicles
to 25,000 vehicles.
5-16
The Table 5.4.1 shows the comparison of the traffic inflows by direction between those at the
Outer Ring and the Inner Ring. In general, both the traffic inflows by direction do not seem to
be proportional. The following reasons can be pointed out.
1) The main portion of the traffic at the Inner Ring Road originates from the densely
populated area located between the two ring roads.
2) The Inner Ring Road is functioning for dispersing the traffic inflows from the outside
areas.
3) There are several sub-centers around the Inner Ring Road such as Pta.Obor, Presei Libre,
Pta.Victorie and Pta.Sudlui etc., absorbing some traffic inflow from the outside and
generating other traffic in different directions.
Table 5.4.1 Comparison of Traffic Inflows to the City Center
Direction from
City Center
North
Northwest
West
Southwest
South
Southeast
East
Northeast
TOTAL
Traffic Inflow
At Outer Ring Road
(veh/day)
13,000
10,000
9,000
4,000
6,000
3,000
4,000
12,000
61,000
Traffic Inflow
At Inner Ring Road
(veh/day)
50,000
12,000
51,000
28,000
21,000
22,000
45,000
21,000
250,000
Remarks
Some traffic are mixed
At the Inner Ring
-ditto-ditto-ditto-
Note: 1) The traffic volume at the Inner Ring Road includes those estimated by using the results of traffic assignment
2) Calea Grivitei is disconnected due to the construction work for metro.
(2) Distribution of Traffic crossing Dambovita
The Dambovita River is running through the city center from the northwest to the southeast,
dividing the built up area of Bucharest into two regions. Therefore, the traffic volume
crossing the Dambovita shows one of the typical characteristics of traffic flow inside the built
up area.
The Figure 5.4.2 shows the daily traffic volume counted at each crossing point over the
Dambovita based on the screen line survey. From the traffic count, the following findings can
be pointed out.
1) The total traffic volume crossing the Dambovita river is found to be approximately
500,000 vehicles per day for the total of both directions. This traffic volume makes up
about 40% of the total vehicle trips generated in the study area.
2) The most prominent feature of the traffic crossing over the Dambovita is the extremely
high concentration of traffic to Pta.Unirii, located at the center of the city. It
accommodates more than three times as much traffic as any other crossing point. In fact,
the number of vehicles observed at Piata Unirii (143,000 veh/day) represents nearly 30%
of the total traffic volume crossing the river.
This fact implies that main streets are concentrated at Pta.Unirri but there are no other
broad crossing streets with sufficient capacity in the central area.
3) Another feature is the high share of passenger cars to the total traffic volume. The
composition rate of passenger cars is found to be 93 % of the total volume crossing the
river.
It tends to be lower in accordance with the distance from the city center, it occupies 97%
at Pta.Unirii, while only about 60% at the Outer Ring Road.
4) There is a general trend of a morning peak period (07:30-08:30) in the northbound
direction and a corresponding afternoon peak period (15:30-16:30) in the southbound
5-18
direction. This indicates that there are more work places located at the northern side of
the Dambovita than the southern side.
5.4.2 Traffic Characteristics
(1) Peak Hour Traffic Volume
The peak hour varies depending on the location and the type of road. Table5.4.2 shows the
total peak hour traffic volumes observed on the main radial roads at the crossing points with
the Inner Ring Road and the Outer Ring Road.
In case of inflow to the city center, the peak hour traffic is observed in the morning, whereas
for the outflow, the peak is found in the evening at both the ring roads. It is also noted that the
peak time at the Inner Ring is one hour earlier than that at the Outer Ring in the inflow case,
and that the latter is two hours earlier than the former in the outflow case. This is because the
composition rate of freight vehicles is relatively high at the Outer Ring, and their movement
has a peak at the corresponding time.
As for the peak hour ratio to the daily traffic volume, there is not much difference between the
two ring road observation points, ranging from 7% to 9%.
Table 5.4.2 Peak Hour Traffic
Type of Traffic
Main Radial Roads
Observed at Inner Ring
Traffic
Peak
Volume
Hour
Peak Hour Traffic
(vehicles / hr.)
12,700
8:00 a.m.
Total Traffic
Daily Traffic
*
Inflow
(vehicles / day)
156,000
9:00 a.m.
To Center
Peak Ratio
(%)
8.1
Peak Hour Traffic
(vehicles / hr.)
10,800
17:00
Total Traffic
Daily Traffic
*
Outflow
(vehicles / day)
146,000
18:00
From Center
Peak Ratio
(%)
7.4
Note: The traffic volume is calculated from the cordon line survey results.
5-19
Main Radial Roads
Observed at Outer Ring
Traffic
Peak
Volume
Hour
4,700
61,000
9:00a.m.
*
10:00a.m.
7.7
5,400
61,000
8.8
15:00
*
16:00
(2) Vehicle Composition
Vehicle composition of main roads differs by location, particularly between the roads inside
and the roads outside the Inner Ring Road. The reason is the traffic zone system for freight
vehicles, which restricts trucks from entering the area inside the Inner Ring Road without a
specific permit.
The Figure 5.4.4 shows the comparison of vehicle compositions at just inside the Inner Ring
Road and at the Outer Ring Road. Passenger cars make up about 95% of the total traffic
volume in the case of inside the Inner Ring, while they decrease to 84% in the case of the
Outer Ring Road.
For freight vehicles, on the other hand, the composition rate is only 2% in the case of inside
the Inner Ring, and occupies 14% at the Outer Ring.
Inside the Inner Ring Road
| |
At the Outer Ring Road
|
|
|
|
¸É
«ÉÌºÂ
ÌÊ
¸É
«ÉÌºÂ
ÌÊ
Figure 5.4.4 Comparison of Vehicle Composition
(3) Travel Speed
In general, the average speeds within the Inner Ring Road are, on average, 8-10 kph lower
than the average speeds outside the Inner Ring Road as shown in Figure 5.4.5. The afternoon
speeds are the lowest, with an average of 24.4 kph within the Inner Ring Road and 32.3 kph
outside the Inner Ring Road, reflecting lower speeds in the central area. The overall average
speed for all survey time periods consisting of morning, noon and evening peak hours and for
the full lengths of the routes combined was determined to be 32.6 kph (compared to 27.6 kph
within the Inner Ring Road and 36.1 kph outside the Inner Ring Road).
5-21
Outer Ring Road
Inner Ring Road
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Red Traffic Light or Policeman’s Signal
Congestion
Pedestrian Crossing the Road
Other
Figure 5.4.6 Delay Duration by Reason
5.5 Parking Conditions
5.5.1 General
The parking problem in Bucharest should be analyzed from two aspects: one is the lack of
parking facilities in the central area combined with the densely populated residential area and
the other is on-street parking, which reduces effective traffic capacity and sometimes can
serve as an obstacle for the passage of vehicles and pedestrians.
Because of the shortage of parking facilities, regulations regarding on-street parking are not
strict in Bucharest. Generally parking is not prohibited along most streets except for sections
designated as "No Parking" or "No Stopping". Further, parking on the sidewalk is not illegal
unless the vehicle blocks the entire width.
There are road side parking spaces organized (identified) by either one of the following: the
Road Administration, the Sectorial Administration Office or private companies. In addition,
there are off street parking spaces including underground facilities mainly operated by private
companies.
5.5.2 Parking Survey
In order to find the on-street parking conditions, a parking survey was carried out during the
period from mid-October to the end of November, 1998. The main purpose of the survey was
to estimate the approximate parking demand in the central area. The survey area is the central
area illustrated in Figure 5.5.1. The survey was made by simply counting the total number of
parked cars on the street during the hours 9:30-11:30 and 17:00 -18:30. Since business and
commercial facilities are concentrated in this area, the morning survey period time may be
regarded as the peak parking time.
5-23
high-demand spots scattered outside the central area, such as Obor, Gare de Nord and Drumul
Taberei. According to reports from the two companies, the total number of roadside parking
spaces is 675 and 391 respectively. By comparing these figures with those in Table 5.5.2, the
share of Dalli's parking spaces can be obtained. In Zone 1, Dalli's share is about one third of
the total.
Table 5.5.2 Parking Spaces Managed by Two Main Companies
Type of
Facility
On Street
Dalli
Off Street
Total
On Street
PS
Off Street
Total
On Street
Total
Off Street
Total
Source: Dalli and PS
Company
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
594
343
937
594
343
937
48
286
334
48
286
334
110
65
175
110
65
175
30
45
75
30
45
75
Other
Area
593
344
937
391
278
669
984
622
1,606
Total
1,375
1,083
2,458
391
278
669
1,766
1,361
3,127
Parking spaces managed by the two companies are normally charged on an hourly, daily or
monthly basis. Table 5.5.3 presents the operator interview results of off-street parking
facilities located in the control area. The largest parking facility in the table is the one located
underground below B-dul Bratianu and operated by a private company, Ciclop. The
occupancy rate is considerably high for all of the facilities, particularly since they are almost
full at capacity during the daytime. According to the report from the Municipality, the average
occupancy rate in October 1998 was 79.8 %. The past record shows an increasing tendency of
occupancy.
Table 5.5.3 Off-Street Parking Facilities
Location
Parking
Capacity
Company
Name
Balcescu
55
Dalli
Balcescu
Balcescu
60
20
Intercontinental
Theater
Independen
tei /Peco
70
Dalli
Calea
Victoriei
50
Hilton Hotel
UnderGround of
Bratianu
UnderGround of
Obor
1,300
1,000
Ciclop
PS
Parking
Charge
2300 lei/h
320,000
lei/month
Only Guests
2300 lei/h
320,000
lei/month
Only Guests
180,000/m
(person)
200,000/m
(company)
20,000/day
150,000/m
(person)
200,000/m
(company)
Peak Hr.
120%
(11:30-14:00)
Occupancy Rate
Off Peak
Average
30-40%
80%
-
-
60%
50%
110%
(8:00-15:00)
-
70%
-
-
40%
-
90%
-
95%
-
-
Source: Study Team
The other on-street parking spaces are arranged by either the Road Administration or
Sectorial Administration Office.
The number of parking spaces arranged by the Road Administration is not available. Those
arranged by the Sectorial Administration Office are usually approved and registered by the
Office as for residential use.
5-26
The survey results include all types of roadside parking. Therefore, the difference between the
arranged parking spaces in Table 5.5.1 and the total on-street spaces of the private companies
in the corresponding areas is theoretically considered to be the spaces identified by either the
Road Administration or the Sectorial Administration Office. However, the number of actual
parked vehicles at the companies' spaces seems to exceed the "capacity" which is reported by
the company, sometimes nearly double. The reason may be that more than 50% of the
collected parking fees should be paid to the Municipality. Therefore, the parking spaces of the
Road Administration and Sectorial Office should be somewhat less than the difference stated
above.
The parking fee charged by the Sectorial Office is 5,000 lei per month as of Nov.1998. The
collected fee is exclusively spent for the management of the Sectorial Office. On the other
hand, the parking space identified by the Road Administration is not charged at present.
5.5.4 Parking Restrictions
For certain road sections, car parking is prohibited. There are two types of noticeboards for
the prohibition: one is "No parking" and the other is "No stopping". Both notices are valid for
the road section within 50 m (before and after) of the board. These boards are mainly installed
in areas near special buildings such as hotels, hospitals or certain public use facilities on
arterial streets. Installation of the board is made by the Road Administration based on the
conditions of the road and the surrounding building use.
The supply of parking facilities is not sufficient; therefore, strict policies regarding on-street
parking cannot be reasonably applied in Bucharest.
Generally, roadside parking is not illegal except for the above situation. Therefore, when cars
are parked on both sides of a street, two-way traffic becomes extremely difficult if the street is
not wide enough. Even in the case of illegal parking, the fine is only 15,000 lei as of
November 1998. Because this fine is relatively low, illegal parking was often observed while
undertaking the parking survey mentioned above.
5.6 Traffic Management Sysytem
5.6.1 Traffic Signal
During the years from 1995 to the present, the development of traffic signals in Bucharest has
progressed remarkably; the number of traffic signals has doubled, some vehicle detectors
have been installed, and radio control was started at six intersections.
At present, there are 240 signalized intersections, of which about 70 % are equipped with
French-made controllers, and are capable of adjusting the signal phases automatically by
computer aid.
However, the cycle time and the signal phase are fixed at all intersections. The cycle time
varies from 60 seconds to 110 seconds depending on the characteristics of each intersection.
The signals are working for 24 hours at 30 major intersections, while the others are fixed as a
yellow light during the night time from 23:30 to 05:30.
The cycle time is to be changed to 90 seconds at maximum, since long waiting times irritate
drivers and sometimes make them misunderstand that the signal is out of order. A detailed
study on the improvement of signal phases at each intersection should be undertaken, but
there has been no progress at present due to a shortage of manpower and funds.
According to the Road Administration of the Municipality of Bucharest, even for the
intersections with detectors (except for Militari), the installation does not seem to be effective,
since the vehicles are continuously detected with high traffic volumes.
5-27
Synchronization is also possible for the above French-made signals. According to the Road
Administration, coordinated signal times were implemented along the Inner Ring Road for the
Stefan Cel Mare section (Dorobanti – Str. Polona); however, this measure was suspended
with the introduction of a one-way system.
The total number of intersections to be signalized is 400; therefore, signal installation is
required at the remaining 160 intersections. The installation of detectors is also required,
particularly to control incoming traffic to the center in the morning peak during weekdays,
and outgoing traffic on Sundays. However, these plans are now pending due to a shortage of
funds.
The Figure 5.6.1 shows the signalized intersections in Bucharest.
Figure 5.6.1 Signalized Intersections
5.6.2 One-Way System
The one-way system was introduced to increase the effective traffic capacity of roads in the
central area, where roadside parking has prevented the traffic from smoothly flowing and
sometimes even vehicle passing movements. Among several alternative plans, the present one
was adopted by the Traffic Committee. Most of the one-way modifications have been carried
out based on the original plan, but the rest are still under consideration. The present one-way
system is illustrated in Figure 5.6.2.
The one-way system in Bucharest is generally unbalanced. For example, Regina Elisabeta is
an arterial street in the E-W direction. This street has been changed to one way from the east
to west, whereas the neighboring one way street in the opposite direction is Lipscani, which is
a small local street and its length is too short to function as a pair road. The one-way pair for
the N-S direction in the central area is also unbalanced in terms of the number of lanes; the
number of northbound lanes seems to be low, and the traffic survey results at the screenline
5-28
demonstrate that the northbound traffic volume is higher than the southbound traffic volume
at the center.
Figure 5.6.2 One-Way System
With regard to bus lanes, they have been introduced on only a short stretch of a few roads
because of the insufficient number of vehicle lanes. The main roads, with exclusive bus lanes,
are B-dul Regina Elisabeta and B-dul Dacia, where the one-way system has been adopted.
Only buses and trolley buses can use the lane, which is for the opposite direction of the
designated one way direction. (i.e., contraflow lane)
Table 5.6.1 Trolley Bus and Bus Lanes
Road Name
Regina Elisabeta
Dacia
Iancu Cavaler de Flondor
Unirii
Bus or trolley
Bus and Trolley
Bus and trolley
Trolley
Bus
Section
Length(m)
Kogalniceanu– Academiei
1050
Dorobantilor- Icoanei
150
Ferdinand I150
Pta.Unirii- Mircea Voda
600
Source : Municipality of Bucharest
5.6.3 Other Traffic Management System
(1) Restrictions for Heavy Vehicles
At present a restriction system for heavy vehicles is practiced in Bucharest. Vehicles
exceeding 5 tons are not allowed to enter into the area within the inner ring road without a
permit. The main reasons for this restriction are low truck speeds and the public nuisance
such as air pollution of the heavy vehicles.
5-29
to make a rotary type traffic flow at some intersections, even in case that the intersection is
not a rotary type.
Accordingly, the intersections, where the left turn prohibitions are applied, would have the
following conditions.
- The traffic volume is considerably heavy for both the streets.
- The intersection is not a rotary type.
- The road width is too narrow to install a left-turn lane.
The major intersections with left turn prohibition are the intersection of B-dul Dacia with
Calea Victoriei, the intersection of B-dul Ion Mihalache with Str.Turda.
5.7 Existing Problems
(1) Road Network
The problems of the road network in the study area are mainly explained by the following
three factors;
One is that the road network in Bucharest has not been properly developed as a whole.
Historically it seems to have been expanded by district, therefore, the road network is often
discontinuous in terms of road width and functions. For instance, a broad street in a certain
district used as a trunk road suddenly changes to a narrow local street in the next district. It is
also explained by many T type junctions of arterial roads. The sudden change of width affects
the pedestrian sidewalk conditions as well.
The second reason is that the network development could not adequately follow up the
urbanization progress due to the shortage of financial resources. Accordingly the arterial road
network including the ring roads is still incomplete, partly caused by physical difficulties such
as railway lines. In some densely populated residential zones, the road network has not been
sufficiently developed. Hence, the road density is still at a low level compared to other
European cities.
The third reason is that a part of the network has been destroyed by redevelopment in the
Ceausescu era. By constructing gigantic buildings in the central area, several major roads
have vanished. In addition, the large buildings standing continuously along the B-dul Unirii
block the traffic in the north – south direction.
(2) Traffic Management
Traffic congestion is mainly found at major intersection areas. Although it is partly caused by
the network structure whereby major roads converge onto those intersections such as Pta.
Unirii, Obor, Victoriei etc., but it is also caused by inadequate traffic management regarding
road use. This problem consists of the following two factors;
The most fundamental factor is the lack of a traffic management strategy for how to use the
limited road space effectively. For instance, on-street parking is a serious problem particularly
in the central area. Wherever possible, vehicles are parked irrespective of the roles the
corresponding road has to play from the network viewpoint. The priority of the road users,
either public transport or ordinary traffic or pedestrians should be different depending on the
location and the type of the road. Based on the strategy for road use, various traffic
management measures such as parking restriction, the revision of one way system, the
improvement of intersections including the change of traffic signal control, the provision of
more pedestrian spaces etc. should be applied.
Another factor is the shortage of traffic management related facilities; For instance, there are
many non-signalized intersections causing traffic disorders. As for the signalized intersections,
the traffic signals can not change the signal phases in accordance with the traffic variation
5-31
because of old controllers and lack of detectors. The shortage of parking facilities is also
reducing the possibility or effectiveness of the traffic management measures.
(3) Institutional and Legal Framework
1) Financial problem
Due to the shortage of financial resources, the investment in road development is limited. For
the inter-city roads, a special road fund mainly derived from fuel tax has been approved in
1998. However, there are no special sources for developing urban streets. The budget for the
road maintenance is also insufficient.
An additional financial resource should be considered ; for example, the vehicles parked at
the road side can be charged for developing new parking spaces etc..
2) Coordination among organizations
As for the Municipality, the traffic committee function for coordination of the various
sections related to urban transport. However, coordination between the Municipality and the
Ministries seems to be insufficient, particularly, the coordination with the Ministry of
Transport is important in various aspects such as road network planning, construction, and
maintenance work.
3) Traffic enforcement
The enforcement of traffic regulation by traffic police is not very strict in Bucharest. The
violation of traffic laws is frequent; e.g. driving of private cars on the exclusive bus lanes or
on one way streets in the opposite direction, and illegal parking. The fine for illegal parking
also seems to be very low, only 15,000 lei as of November 1998, which is lower than the
parking charge per day. Institutional arrangements for reducing illegal traffic activities should
be considered.
5-32
6.
Public Transport
6. Public Transport
In this chapter, the existing conditions of public transport traffic, facilities, operation and
management are analyzed. At first the outline of the public transport system is briefly
summarized to clarify the public transport situation in Bucharest City and its Metropolitan
area. Then analyses were made by mode, namely, metro, tram, trolley bus, bus, maxi-taxi,
railway, air transport. Also inter-modal facilities and transferring system were analyzed
because of their importance for the public transport system as a whole. Existing conditions
of an institutional and administrative nature were also analyzed by mode. Finally based on
these analyses, the problems were identified.
6.1 Outline of Public Transport System
6.1.1 Composition of Public Transport
Public transport within the urban area of Bucharest is provided by four major mass transit
modes: metro, tram, trolley bus and bus. The bus services include a small number of express
lines. These modes are supplemented by maxi-taxis, which are minibuses running on fixed
routes, and ordinary taxis. While there are several above ground railway stations within the
urban area, in practice they are not used to any significant extent for urban transport.
Urban public transport in Romania is generally under the responsibility of local government.
Thus, in Bucharest the responsibility for the surface modes of public transport lies with the
Municipality, which has in turn devolved the responsibility to the principal public transport
operator, RATB. However, the Bucharest metro is the responsibility of an enterprise of the
Ministry of Transport called Metrorex.
Compared with other public transport modes, recently the decrease of metro passengers is
outstanding. Also the number of surface public transport passengers showed the tendency to
decrease, when statistical adjustment for exclusion of data discrepancy is taken into account.
In the first half of 1998, 388.7 million passenger journeys were estimated by RATB to have
been made by RATB services. This figure is based on ticket sales and therefore excludes fare
evaders, estimated by CIE Consult to be up to 25 percent. Holders of one-line season tickets
were estimated to make 50 journeys per month, holders of two line season tickets 100
journeys and holders of all line season tickets 150 journeys. Out of the total of 388.7 million
journeys, 159 million (or 41 percent) were estimated to have been made by holders of free
passes. Holders of full fare season tickets were estimated to have made 82 million journeys
(21 percent) and holders of half fare season tickets 75 million journeys (19 percent). The
remaining 73 million journeys (19 percent) were made by passengers holding single journey
tickets (Table 6.1.1).
6-1
Table 6.1.1 Passengers of Public Transport
Metro
1,000pass./year
1,000pass./day
Trams
1,000pass./year
1,000pass./day
Trolleys 1,000pass./year
1,000pass./day
Buses
1,000pass./year
1,000pass./day
Total
1,000pers./year
1,000pers./day
Source:
Note:
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
246,825 244,356 207,496 172,040 172,605 164,418
676
669
568
471
473
450
100
99
84
70
70
67
236,100 267,200 345,800 281,900 264,900 244,500
647
732
947
772
726
670
100
113
146
119
112
104
53,300 73,700 99,600 111,400 88,300 78,700
146
202
273
305
242
216
100
138
187
209
166
148
147,000 226,500 299,900 289,600 275,700 252,000
403
621
822
793
755
690
1996
152,900
419
62
340,600
933
144
110,900
304
208
340,600
933
1997
151,295
415
61
316,400
867
134
103,000
282
193
316,400
867
100
154
204
197
188
171
232
215
683,225 811,756 952,796 854,940 801,505 739,618 945,000 887,095
1,196
1,555
2,042
1,871
1,723
1,576
2,170
2,016
100
119
139
125
117
108
138
130
Annual Report, Metrorex and RATB
Number of passengers of RATB modes in 1996 and 1997 includes those passengers free of charge.
Number of passengers excludes fare evaders.
6.1.2 Network
Until the early 1970’s, the public transport system developed in a radial and concentric pattern
typical of many Central European cities. Primary radial and circumferential services were
provided by trams, supplemented by trolley buses. Buses provided feeder services,
intermediate connecting services and local services.
The primary network was largely oriented towards the city centre, with many through lines. In
addition, there was a circular line around the city centre served by both trams and buses.
In the early 1970’s, a number of circumstances resulted in a fundamental change in the pattern
of the public transport system. The demolition of a large part of the city centre and the
construction of a new government quarter resulted in the truncating of many services on the
periphery of the central area. The construction of industrial complexes around the periphery
of the city and of new residential areas between the city centre and the periphery resulted in a
reorientation of transport demand. The construction of a metro system resulted in the closure
of parallel tram and bus services.
The resulting network forms the basis of the services currently provided.
Existing routes of surface public transport are categorized into 7 route patterns.
Though the routes of trolley bus and bus reach the central district of Bucharest, no tram route
reaches the central district (Figure 6.1.1).
Detailed descriptions of the networks and characteristics of individual mass transit modes are
presented in subsequent sections of this chapter.
All modes suffer from poor inter-modal connection facilities, poor passenger facilities, lack of
passenger information, poor state of infrastructure, poor state of vehicles, lack of planning
tools.
6-2
Concerning transferring, in general the public transport modes are not well connected with
those supplied by other public transport service suppliers. Especially concerning the
transferring between metro and surface public transport modes, although the function is well
developed at Gara de Nord or Sudului, the role of the surface public transport modes is not
apparently recognized as a feeder service transport.
Regarding surface public transport, some fifteen RATB transfer terminals are located in
Bucharest and 6 autogaras for regional buses other than those served by RATB are located
within Bucharest. However the connection between the RATB terminals and autogara is not
well arranged, though generally bus or tram routes are provided to connect RATB terminals
and autogara.
Even in the case of the RATB network, there are some routes which force passengers to
transfer in spite of the possibility of delineating the direct access route to the central area. The
transferring facilities, passenger facilities and information facilities are generally poor.
6.1.3 Role of Each Public Transport Mode
Out of four major public transport modes, metro has the largest transport capacity of 912
passengers per train operating at 3 minute intervals in the peak period. Tram trains are
generally composed of 2 or three rolling stock and the average capacity is around 210
passengers for a three-car train. In some section it can be observed that trams are densely
operated on the same track at less than one-minute intervals in the peak period.
Each public transport mode generally operates from 5 a.m. to 11 p.m., therefore the operation
hours are regarded to be long.
Metro is playing the major role as a transport means for commuting, business and other
passengers in the Bucharest Metropolitan area because of its large transport capacity, rapidity,
punctuality and safety. The following is assumed to be the detailed role of the tram.
- Liner transport mode with moderate capacity between residential areas and work areas
- Transport mode to correspond to the transport demand within the business area
- Transport mode to connect with major regional transport facilities corresponding to the long
distance transport demand
Though tram is somewhat inferior to metro in terms of capacity, operating speed, punctuality
and safety, a historically dense network was established in Bucharest Metropolitan area, and it
is playing a significant role as a passenger transport mean for commuting, business and so on.
The expected role of the tram is assumed to be a public transport means to meet the demand
that is not large enough for mass public transport means. However the demarcation of the
function between metro and tram is not clearly identified and competition and duplication
with metro is emerging in Bucharest Metropolitan area. Presently, the tram is not fully
realizing its special functions compared with bus and trolley bus.
Trolley bus has disadvantages of relatively large energy consumption per transport capacity
unit compared with tram and of relatively large required cost for facilities despite little
difference from bus regarding transport capacity. However it is functioning to serve as
transport means for access to the center of the city and to serve as a feeder transport means
to connect with tram or bus in the peripheral area.
In Bucharest Metropolitan area, a large passenger volume is transported by bus. It is
functioning not only as an area servicing means but also as a major public transport means for
the transport demand such as access to the central area.
6-4
Following roles are taken care of by buses:
- Area servicing public transport mode to meet the demand for transport between areas
beyond the capacity of taxis.
- Transport mode together with rail transit to apply the feeder transport demand which is not
large enough for rail transit
On the other hand, it serves as a trunk public transport mode in areas where large public
transport demand exceeds the capacity of trams or where no rail transit is supplied in spite of
large transport demand.
6.1.4 General Opinion of the Public Transport
As part of the household interview survey, a subset of about 500 people was selected
randomly to respond to a public transport opinion survey. Respondents were asked to state
whether they agreed or disagreed with a number of statements about various aspects of public
transport in Bucharest. The statements were both positive and negative. The survey was
designed to elicit responses on a scale of 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). In
addition, an open question was included to permit respondents to highlight any other aspect of
public transport that was of concern to them.
From the results of this survey, the perception of public transport may be summarised as
follows. In general, there is a lack of information. Public transport is expensive and
uncomfortable. It is not convenient to change from one mode to another and the attitude of
staff is poor. Buses are generally preferred to trams, although neither mode is regarded as
providing a reliable service. The routes are not well adapted to demand. If available, metro is
the preferred mode, providing a fast service. The length of time between trains did not seem
to be a big issue. However, in general speed does not appear to be a concern, with no mode
regarded as slow. There would appear to be an indifferent opinion on the fact that there are
several different ticketing systems.
The highest number of occurrences of the response ‘don’t know’ was for statements referring
specifically to the characteristics of the metro. Such responses tended to be made by those
who did not use or did not have access to metro services.
The open question asked respondents whether they had any particular comments to make
about public transport in Bucharest. Among those responding to these questions, many
reiterated statements from the previous question e.g. that the waiting time for public transport
was too long and that a higher frequency was necessary. This was in fact the most frequent
response to the open question. Comments relating to other aspects of public transport which
arose frequently included the following:
x vehicles should run to a schedule (i.e. at fixed times, not fixed intervals)
x vehicles should be heated in winter
x vehicles should be cleaner
x the attitude and behaviour of ticket inspectors is bad
x old vehicles should be replaced
x services are overcrowded.
6.2 Metro
6.2.1 Network
After the preliminary study on the construction of metro from 1972 to 1975, the organization
for the metro was established in February, 1975 and design work and construction work were
started with Romanian-made equipment.
The metro was proposed with a background where the transport capacity was 600,000
6-5
Table 6.2.1 Specifications of Metro Rolling Stock
Unit type:
B-B+B-B with mono motor bogie
Gauge:
1,435 mm Electricity supply:
Jointly use of third rail and catenary (depot) Body scale:
18.6m(L) x 3.1m(w) x 3.6m(h) Regulated capacity:
34 seats +166 standees
Weight:
36 tons Bogie:
Air-spring
Axle box suspension:
Chevron spring
Wheel base (car):
12.3 m
Wheel base (bogie):
2.2 m Wheel diameter:
Driving method:
910 mm
Right angle cardan drive (two shaft driving by one motor)
Main motor power:
185 kW x 4 /unit (DC 750V)
Control system:
Electro-pneumatic cam shaft controller with dead-man device
Braking system:
Electro-pneumatic straight air brake equipment (jointly use of dynamic brake), Safety installation Train radio system:
Wayside color light signal (without ATS and ATC)
Inductive wire radio system
Supplementary power source:
72 Ah (110v-24v)
Air-conditioning:
No heating, no fan, and no cooling system
Maximum speed:
80 km/h
disk brake assembly
Average operating speed:
36 km/h
Acceleration:
4.32 km/h/s
Source: METROREX
6.2.2 Cars
The cars used for Metro were completely manufactured by ASTRA Vagoane Arad in
Romania.
The average age of rolling stocks of Metrorex is about 10 years and the life expectancy is
assumed at 24 years. The rolling stocks are operated in double car units and trains are
principally composed of 3 double car units. The rolling stocks were made in mono-motor
bogie type with main motor power of 185 kW (750V DC) and 1,435 mm track gauge.
Passenger capacity is designed as 34 seats and 166 standees (Table 6.2.1). The number of
available rolling stocks amounts to 251 double car units in 1997. Out of these car units, 197
car units were usable and 180 car units were actually operated in 1997.
The number of trains operated on each line were 40 trains and 18 trains for M1 and M3 lines,
and M2 line respectively.
6.2.3 Infrastructure
The designed inner diameter of standard Metro tunnel is 5.7 m with a concrete thickness of 35
cm. This concrete was designed to bear the compressive strength of 500 kg per sq. cm. For
double tracks, a rectangular shape tunnel was adopted. The standard inner width and height of
this rectangular shape tunnel is 8.5m x 4.7m with concrete thickness of 0.8 to 1.0 m.
According to the Metrorex information, the tunnel is being electrolytically corroded.
The Metro rails are set at 7.8m to 19.6m below the surface and generally 12 m depth was
adopted.
There are 41 stations on the Metro routes and generally two entrances and one ticket office
are provided at each station. The length of the platforms is in the range of 135 to 175 m and
island platforms were adopted at 15 stations and opposite platforms were adopted at 25
6-7
stations. Granite and marble were used for walls, floors, poles at stations, and were seemingly
good in terms of quality, durability and environmental aspect. Escalators were equipped in the
case of over 5m difference between floor levels, however most of these escalator facilities are
currently dismantled. On the platform, speakers, clocks, emergency button, TV screens are
generally provided.
According to the SYSTRA Study (“Project of Modernization and Rehabilitation of Metro of
Bucharest”) in 1996 the rail suspension condition was not good and required grinding.
Three depots IMGB, Pantelimon and Militari are serving for metro operation. At IMGB and
Militari depots workshops coexist. Pantelimon depot covers M1 and M3 lines to which 169
car-units belong, and IMGB depot serve the M2 line to which 82 car-units belong.
Regarding the safety facilities, wayside color light signal with automatic block system was
provided, however Automatic Train Protection system and Automatic Train Control System
are not used as yet. As a safety facility, INDUSI 160 was introduced.
Two different voltages AC 10 KV (50Hz) and AC 20 KV (50Hz) are supplied to 41
substations, and an electric power dispatch center which would monitor these power sub
stations was established. However high speed circuit breakers were not equipped at the power
station.
Basic characteristics of the infrastructure are as follows.
Gauge:
Power transmission line:
Track:
- Rail sleeper
- Ballast
Minimum curve radius:
Maximum gradient:
Signaling and Safety
systems:
Power supply system:
- Substations
- Receiving voltage
Station facilities:
- Elevator
- Escalator
- Automatic ticketing
- Monitoring TV
Train dispatcher:
Electric power dispatcher:
1,435 mm
third rail 750V DC (overhead contact line 750V DC at depot)
60 kg/m, 49 kg/m
twin block concrete (tunnel section)
wood (UIC-49, 60)
concrete
150m
3.5%
automatic block system, wayside color light signal
dead-man device
punctual speed controller
41
10KV AC (50Hz), 20KV AC (50Hz)
not provided
provided for 80 % of stations
not provided
provided at each station
radio communication system between train and
train dispatcher center
central controlling
6.2.4 Performance
Following numbers of programmed trains are operated for each line in November 1998.
M1 line (Industriilor – Republica) 222 trains a day (both directions)
M2 line (IMGB – Pipera)
362 trains a day (both directions)
M3 line (Dristor 2 – Republica) 292 trains a day (both directions)
Other than above, 68 shuttle trains between Pantelimon and Republica are operated. Those
trains are operated at average headway of 4 to 5 minutes in peak periods (6 – 8 AM. and 3 – 5
PM.) and 8 to 10 minutes in off peak period. The schedule speed is 36 km./h.
6-8
The number of Metro passengers is decreasing since 1990. From 1990 to 1997 some 40 %
decrease in the number of passengers was observed. In 1997 the total number of yearly
passengers was 151.3 mil passengers per year, and this was translated into 450 thousand
passengers a day (Table 6.2.2). It was observed that the number of passengers is decreasing
not only by metro but also by other public transport means. It is said that the dissemination of
private vehicles and economic stagnation in 1990s are the main causes of this tendency.
Especially motorization is regarded as the primary factor of rapid decrease in captive riders.
The number of Metro stations with over 10 thousand passengers getting on amounts to 11 and
are located at central district on M2 and M3 line. Piata Unirii station was used by the largest
number of passengers and Universitatii station and Gara de Nord station followed in that
order (Table 6.2.3 and Figure 6.2.2).
A Metro passenger survey to get detailed information on the metro passenger traffic at peak
periods was conducted on weekday by the JICA Study Team with assistance of METROREX.
A Representative train was chosen in each direction of each line. The survey results showed
that high passenger density was observed between Piata Romana and Eroii Revolutiei of M2
line with over 1,000 passengers on board in total of both directions. And the section between
Eroilor and Politehnica also showed over 1,000 passengers on board Presently, the number of
passengers in suburban areas near terminals is low. The section between Obor and Dristor of
M2 line which is located on the inner ring road had a relatively low number of passengers
showing less than 500 (Figure 6.2.3).
Table 6.2.2 Metro Passengers
Total
(1,000
passengers/year)
(1,000
passengers/day)
Index (1990=1000)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
246,825
244,356
207,496
172,040
172,605
164,418
152,900
151,295
676
669
568
471
473
450
419
415
100
99
84
70
70
67
62
61
Source: Metrorex
6-9
Table 6.2.3 Metro Passengers by Station
Yearly Passengers (pax./year)
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
41
Industriilor
Pacii
Gorjului
Armata poporului
Politehnica
Eroilor
Izvor
Piata unirii 1
Timpuri noi
Mihai bravu
Dristor 1
Nic.grigorescu
Titan
C. georgian
Republica
Antilopa
Grozavesti
Semanatoarea
Crangasi
Basarab
Gara de nord
Depoul IMGB
IMGB
Aparatorii patriei
Piata sudului
C. Brancoveanu
Eroii revolutiei
Tineretului
Piata unirii 2
Universitatii
Piata romana
Piata victoriei 1
Aviatorilor
Aurel vlaicu
Pipera
Piatavictoriei 2
Stefan cel mare
Obor
Iancului
Piata muncii
Dristor 2
Total
Source:METROREX
1996
1997
1,331,963
2,343,107
812,854
4,462,419
1,968,676
5,885,365
2,775,814
8,981,289
3,406,723
2,528,414
4,713,626
8,335,870
4,070,565
2,716,609
2,938,115
48,282
3,019,762
1,076,924
5,342,712
2,009,647
8,553,307
269,363
628,517
3,050,276
6,811,476
3,262,214
5,196,135
3,591,783
6,683,571
8,807,621
6,209,318
1,715,655
3,397,912
2,941,756
1,523,218
3,970,289
3,046,449
7,087,039
2,992,342
1,948,144
2,444,519
152,899,640
1,158,106
2,057,063
711,362
4,136,035
1,796,958
5,495,379
2,731,325
7,720,683
3,462,944
2,229,880
4,863,564
8,356,328
4,003,749
2,708,547
2,607,582
346,746
3,063,898
1,201,680
5,473,605
1,782,935
8,166,547
302,004
722,382
3,149,596
7,181,373
3,467,154
5,207,013
3,605,844
6,600,560
9,101,873
6,431,055
1,829,647
3,630,266
2,922,142
1,506,931
4,349,629
2,971,191
6,876,799
2,886,301
2,176,319
2,302,264
151,295,259
1998
(Jan.-Aug.)
505,530
769,201
370,275
2,269,450
916,397
2,450,535
1,495,099
3,579,312
1,964,377
1,154,359
2,695,301
4,495,083
1,918,511
1,357,301
1,012,066
119,631
1,550,399
533,543
3,109,329
889,586
3,763,670
160,297
398,643
1,813,830
3,681,259
1,747,367
2,917,217
1,705,480
3,253,468
4,598,781
2,804,839
1,067,800
1,993,393
1,720,260
532,411
2,373,124
1,613,120
2,994,332
1,490,671
1,186,655
1,238,483
76,210,385
6-11
Average Daily Passengers (pax./day) Ave. Increase
Rate
1996
1997
1998
1996-1998
3,649
6,419
2,227
12,226
5,394
16,124
7,605
24,606
9,333
6,927
12,914
22,838
11,152
7,443
8,050
792
8,273
2,950
14,638
5,506
23,434
738
1,722
8,357
18,662
8,938
14,236
9,841
18,311
24,130
17,012
4,700
9,309
8,060
4,173
10,878
8,346
19,417
8,198
5,337
6,697
10,429
3,173
5,636
1,949
11,332
4,923
15,056
7,483
21,153
9,488
6,109
13,325
22,894
10,969
7,421
7,144
950
8,394
3,292
14,996
4,885
22,374
827
1,979
8,629
19,675
9,499
14,266
9,879
18,084
24,937
17,619
5,013
9,946
8,006
4,129
11,917
8,140
18,841
7,908
5,963
6,308
10,110
2,080
3,165
1,524
9,339
3,771
10,085
6,153
14,730
8,084
4,750
11,092
18,498
7,895
5,586
4,165
492
6,380
2,196
12,796
3,661
15,488
660
1,641
7,464
15,149
7,191
12,005
7,018
13,389
18,925
11,543
4,394
8,203
7,079
2,191
9,766
6,638
12,322
6,134
4,883
5,097
7,649
-23.7%
-28.0%
-17.2%
-12.4%
-16.1%
-19.8%
-9.7%
-22.2%
-6.6%
-17.0%
-6.8%
-9.5%
-14.8%
-12.5%
-26.5%
-14.1%
-11.3%
-10.9%
-6.1%
-18.2%
-17.6%
-4.1%
-1.1%
-5.1%
-8.8%
-9.0%
-7.8%
-14.3%
-13.6%
-10.4%
-15.5%
-2.8%
-5.3%
-6.1%
-24.0%
-4.2%
-10.5%
-18.8%
-13.0%
-3.2%
-12.5%
-13.7%
Table 6.2.4 Energy Consumption by Metrorex
Total consumption
Train traction
Source: Metrorex
1994
153,616
95,144
1995
147,300
102,270
1996
152,276
91,861
1997
151,591
97,084
6.2.5 Fares, Revenues and Expenditures
(1) Fares
The types of tickets socially issued comprise daily tickets (valid for two trips), one-day card,
commuter tickets (for 10 trips), and season tickets (valid for one month) (Table 6.2.6). For
ticketing, magnetic strip card system has been introduced.
The tariff of seasonal tickets for the socially weak (students and others) are set at half of the
normal ticket. In 1998 the daily ticket valid for two trips costs 3,300 lei and it was raised
over 700 percent from 450 lei in 1995.
Metrorex tariffs are characterized by legally approved vast free passengers for those of Metrorex
personnel and retired personnel, their families, SNCFR members, disabled, war veterans, collaborators,
police staffs, etc. However in 1997 the grant of free access to Metro for SNCFR personnel was
abolished
(2) Operating Cost
Owing to the recent frequent revision of Metro tariffs, the cost revenue ratio has been
improved. However even now, revenue from passenges is hardly comparable to the operating
cost. In 1997 revenue, excluding the subvention per car-unit km, was about 38 % of operating
cost per car-unit km. Revenue per passenger was estimated as 713 lei and it was also about
38 % of 1,864 lei per passenger, that is, the operating cost per passenger (Table 6.2.6).
(3) Subsidy
At present a high proportion of Metrorex’s finance is subsidized by the Central Government.
In 1997 Metrorex’s financial accounts showed that the revenue received from passengers was
just over one third of its estimated costs. However this rate improved slightly compared with
the one in 1996 because of frequent revision of tariffs (Table 6.2.7).
For capital expenditure, Metrorex also received additional finance for capital expenditure for
renewal and desired extension of network and vehicle fleet.
Table 6.2.5 Fares of Metrorex Transportation, 1998
Ticket type
Normal
Daily tickets
2 trip card
One day card
Commutation ticket
10 trip card
Seasonal tickets
One month card
Source: METROREX
Discount
(students, etc.)
3,300
6,600
15,000
70,000
6-12
35,000
Table 6.2.6 Accumulated Mileage, Cost and Income per Car-Unit km
1994
18,365
182,l960
16,646
60,980
906
91
3,320
333
Accumulated mileage
(mil. car-unit km.)
Metro Passengers
(mil. passengers)
Revenue
1)
(mil.lei)
Expenditure
(mil.lei)
Revenue per car-unit km.
(lei/car-unit km.)
Revenue per passenger
(lei/passenger)
Cost per car-unit km.
(lei/car-unit km.)
Cost per passenger
(lei/passenger)
Source: Metrorex
Note: 1) Subsidies are not excluded.
1995
18,903
174,282
29,396
87,289
1,555
169
4,618
501
1996
18,280
168,745
43,732
122.,596
2,392
259
6,707
727
1997
19,019
151,295
107,814
282,028
5,669
713
14,829
1,864
Table 6.2.7 Revenue and Expenditure of Metrorex
1990
Revenue
Revenue from passenger
Subvention
Others
Total
Expenditure
Personnel expenditure
Expenditure for material
Others
Total
Source: Metrorex
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
(mil.lei)
1997
468
192
1
661
488
2,055
7
2,550
1,805
6,427
36
8,267
5,033
20,684
196
25,913
15,728
42,103
918
58,748
28,115
51,500
1,281
80,896
40,254
73,225
3,478
116,957
100,275
160,613
7,540
268,427
356
362
6
725
1,387
1,053
120
2,560
4,536
4,408
85
9,029
13,313
14,280
818
28,411
31,791
28,514
675
60,980
44,889
41,177
1,224
87,289
64,141
56,839
1,616
122,595
143,163
133,153
5,712
282,028
6.2.6 Future Plan
Current Metro network plan was initially proposed in the 1970s to cater for presumed urban
and regional transport demand. The total length of Metro for urban transport (Metroul urban)
was 146.8 km, out of those lines only 56% of the total was completed and construction was
started on 5% before 1989. After 1989 construction was suspended. The total length of the
metro for regional transport (“Metroul regional”) was 115 km, and no construction work has
started as yet (Figures 6.2.4 and 6.2.5).
The projects officially announced at present as most important investments in "The Most
Important Future Investments" are the following.
1. 18 EMU-s AC drive modernization
Present EMU-s having disadvantages of high energy consumption, low reliability of operation,
frequent replacement of parts and materials, large work force requirement for maintenance are
to be modernized from DC drive to AC drive asynchronous motors acted on by IGBT
inverters, using the existing bodies.
2. Construction of the M4 line (1 May - Laromet)
This line is planned to extend the section between Gara de Nord and Laromet which is now
under construction with the length of 3.1 km and 2 stations as the second part of the
construction work of M4 line.
6-13
3. Construction of the section between Nicolae Grigorescu and Linia de Centura
This line is planned with length of 3.9 km and 4 stations between Nicolae Grigorescu and
Linia de Centura to connect with the existing M3 line.
4. Construction of the M5 line (Drumul Taberei - Universitate)
The section between Drumul Taberei and Universitate is to be constructed at the first stage to
form the M5 line between Drumul Taberei and Pantelimon.
5. Construction of the line between Pajura and Otopeni
This line is planned to provide faster connection between Gara de Nord and the Baneasa and
Otopeni Airports with 14 km length and 11 stations.
6. Construction of line between Rahova and Colentina
This line is planned to form the radial metro line network to the southwest with a length of
15.4 km and 22 stations.
7. Construction of southern ring metro line (Crangasi - Dristor 2)
This line is designed to form the ring route in the southern part of the Bucharest Municipality
between Crangasi and Dristor 2 with 17.3 km and 19 stations.
8. Construction of the M4 line (Gara de Nord - Gara Progresul)
This line is planned to form the southern section of the M4 line between Gara de Nord and
Gara Progresul with 11.1km length and 13 stations.
6-14
6.3 Tram
6.3.1 Network
Since the opening of the metro, the tramway is intended to provide a complementary network
of services in densely trafficked medium and long distance corridors. However, it does not
provide access to or across the city center. Instead, radial lines link up with an incomplete
circumference line at some distance from the central area. To a large extent, this results from
the destruction of a large area of the city center since the mid 1970s for the new government
district, prior to which tram routes did cross the central area.
A schematic representation of the tram network in 1970 and 1998 is shown in Figure 6.3.1.
This is based on a conceptual plan of the tram network drawn up by CIE Consult.
1970
1998
Inner tram ring
Tram lines
City
Centre
City
Centre
Radial tram lines
Residential areas
Industrial areas
Source: after CIE Consult / Regional Consulting (1998) Pre-Investment Study for Bucharest Urban Transport,
Draft Final Report, Fig C.1.
Figure 6.3.1 Schematic Representation of the Tram Network in 1970 and 1998
The figure shows the 1970 network as consisting of an inner ring route and radial routes, some of
which crossed the city centre. In the 1998 network, a reduced number of radial lines is shown and they
no longer cross the city centre. The inner ring is shown as being no longer continuous, with lines
coming in from outer urban areas, traversing a section of the ring and then turning outwards again
along another radial line. The essential role of the routes is shown to be to link together residential and
industrial areas.
While the concept provides some broad indications of the form of the tram network, it only
really applies to the south-west quadrant of the city.
Figure 6.3.2 shows a less conceptual plan of the network, while still retaining a schematic
representation of the lines. The objective of this diagram is to provide an understanding of the
basic pattern of tram services.
6-17
A key feature of the network is the semi-circular routes along the inner ring line. These are
shown in red in the figure. Two sets of routes run radial from southern outer-urban locations
to the inner ring, then split towards the east and the west, traversing the inner ring from the
south of the city to the Gara de Nord. There is no direct service provided between the north
and west sectors of the ring. Some of the routes leave the inner ring in the north to provide
radial links to outer-urban areas.
These routes are supplemented by a number of radial routes. In the southern sector of the city,
there are radial routes that run through from south east to south-west. They are shown in
yellow in the figure. Some of these routes from the east branch to the inner ring in the south.
In the south-west quadrant of the city, there are pairs of radial lines from suburban locations
linked together by short sections of the inner ring. They are shown in blue. There are also
radial lines from outer-urban locations to the city centre, to the Gara de Nord and to the inner
ring.
In the north west quadrant there are radial lines from outer-urban locations to the Gara de
Nord and city center, shown in gray. There is also an outer ring in this quadrant.
In the north east quadrant, there are radial lines from outer-urban locations to the city centre.
They are shown in green. Some of these are linked together in the centre. There are also links
from outer-urban locations to the Gara de Nord via the inner ring.
The actual route network is shown in Figure 6.3.3. In the first half of 1998, the total length of
tram route in service was 305.6 km, excluding lines in depots. It should be noted that the
services differ slightly during the summer period compared with winter. The service is also
reduced by about a third at weekends. The summer network of 1998 was made up of 36 routes.
The current winter weekday network is made up of 38 routes, details of which are shown in
Table 6.3.1.
There are 555 permanent tram stops at which passengers board and alight. The average
distance between stops is 0.55 km.
The numbers of units on each route are shown in Table 6.3.1. Figure 6.3.4 shows the
maximum number of units on each section of the tram network in the peak period.
The routes are operated from eight depots, as identified in Table 6.3.1. The location of these
depots is shown in Figure 6.3.5.
The only priority measures that exist for trams are the segregated rights of way that occur
along several routes. The locations of these segregated rights of way are shown in Figure
6.3.6. There are other sections of road where the carriageway is generally wide enough for
trams to be effectively segregated, even though there is no physical barrier. A greater respect
for the right of way of trams appears to be achieved when there is one traffic lane for trams
and at least two traffic lanes for other vehicles.
Even when other vehicles are not allowed to use lanes reserved for trams, they often do so.
Vehicles are frequently observed travelling along the tram lane to bypass queuing traffic at
traffic lights, including driving through the tram stop. This latter action is specifically
prohibited and is particularly dangerous to waiting tram passengers.
6-18
45
45
45
45
45
555
20,31
20,31
20,31
24
24
15
24
15
15
24
15
15
15 3
333
33
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
16,36
16,36
16,36
18
18
18
18
18
18
42
42
42
42
42 333
66666 32
32
32
44
44
44
32
32
32 4
2,11,44
2,11,44
2,11,44
2,11,44
2,11,44
2,11,44
3333 41
41
41
36
36
36
36
36
36
9
999
99
25
25
25
25
25
25
17
17
17
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
11111
21
21
21
21
21
21
25
25
25
25
25
25
21
21
21
21
21
21
21
26
26
26
26
26
9999 26
26 28
9
28
28
28
28
47
47
28
47
47
47
47 46,52
46,52
46,52
6
61
61
61
61
61
61
25
25
6134
25
25
25
34 25
12
42
42
42
35
35
35
35
47,48
47,48
47,48
47,48
22
22
22
22
22
22
22
26
26
26
26
26
26
21
21
21
21
21
9
999
99
20
20
20
28
28
20
28
20
28
28
28 20
12
12
35
35
12
35
12
12
35
35
12
35
9
3
13
13
999
99 13
33
33
33 52
13
13
13
13
999 31,45
31,45
52
35
35
24
31,45
31,45
35
24
31,4534
52
35
35
24
35 12
24
12
27
27
27
12
12
12
27
27
27
15
15
12 2736
9
9
9
9
9
15
26
26
9
15
15
26
9
9
9
9
9
15 24
36
26
26
24
24
9
9
36
26
36
25
25
24
24
24
25
24
25
25
31
31
31
25
22
22
22
18
18
18
31 16
22 14
18
18
18
18
47
47
16
16
47
14
20
20
16
47
47
47
14
35
35
35
20
35
35
35
35
5
5
5
5
9
9
9
5
5
5
9
5
5
37
18
18
37
24
24
18
37
41
41
24
37
18
18
41
24
24
41
41
24
41 18
19
19
5,14,46
19
5,14,46
19
19
5,14,46
35
35
19
5,14,46
44
14
14
35
35
44
3544
14
14
44
13
13
13
14 32
13
13
13
32
13
13
13
13
13
13
32
13
13
32
32
32
14
14
14
21
21
14
14
14
21
21
21
16.36
16.36
16
16
16.36
16.36
16
16
41
41
41
16
41
22
22
22
22
22
22
22 32
32
24
24
32
24
32
24
24
24
36
36
36
36
36
36
34
34
34
34
34
34
23,50
23,50
11
11
34
34
34
11
34
34
34
34
23,50
23,50
11
11
34
23,50
11
46
46
41
41
46
26
26
46
46
27
27
26
46
26
26
41
26
27
13
13
13
13
13
13
40
40
40
22
22
22
40 66
22
22
22
22
56
56
6666
56
17
17
56
56
17
56 55
6666
17
17
17
55
55
55
55
55
18
18
18
18
18
51
51
18
51
51
51
49
49
51
49
27
27
27
49
49
30
30
49
27
27
27
27
40
40
30 38
38
40
40
40
40
38
32,37
32,37
32,37
50
50
50
50
15,19,27,38
47
47
15,19,27,38
47
18
18
47
47
15,19,27,38
47
18
18
22222
18
18
18
18
18
18
19
18
19
19
19
15,30
15,30
777 13
15,30
13
13
13
21
21
21
21
21
21
88888
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
18
18
18
18
18
18
65
65
65
65
65
65
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
8,18,23,58
8,18,23,58
8,18,23,58
18
18
18
18
18
18
47
47
47
47
47
47
7,12,17
7,12,17
7,12,17
7,12,17
7,12,17
29
29
29
29
2
222
22
29
29
29
29
29
Figure 6.3.3 Tram Route Network
6-20
1,9,11,34
1,9,11,34
1,9,11,34
Table 6.3.1 Tram Routes October, 1998
Route
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
24
27
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
41
42
44
45
46
47
48
50
52
From
Cartier Colentina
Depoul RATB Alexandria
Sos. Bucuresti
Gara de Nord
CFR Progresul (suspended)*
Zetarilor
ROMPRIM SA (suspended)*
CFR Progresul
CFR Progresul
Granitul SA
Platforma Industriala Pipera
CFR Progresul
Piata Rahova
Complex RATB Titan
Laromet SA
Cartier Colentina
Zetarilor
Cartier Damaroaia
Complex RATB Titan
CFR Progresul
Gara de Nord
Giurgiului
Depoul RATB Militari
Republica SA
Complex RATB Titan
Piata Presei Libere
Cartier 16 Februarie
Mezes
Granitul SA
CET Vest Militari
CET Vest Militari
FAUR - Poarta 4
Baicului
To
Giurgiului
Granitul SA
Bd. Expozitiei
Sura Mare
Gara Basarab
Gara Basarab
Piata Sf. Gheorghe
Complex RATB Titan
Republica SA
Bd. Lacul Tei
CFR Progresul
Giurgiului
Mezes
Piata Sf. Gheorghe
FAUR - Poarta 4
Gara de Nord
Baba Novac
CFR Centura Jilava
Ilioara
LAROMET
Piata Unirii
Gara de Nord
Calea Plevnei
Depot
Colentina
Alexandria
Colentina
Buc. Noi
Giurgiului
Militari
Alexandria
Alexandria
Colentina
Alexandria
Victoria
Giurgiului
Giurgiului
Titan
Buc. Noi
Colentina
Alexandria
Buc. Noi
Titan
Giurgiului
Alexandria
Victoria
Alexandria
Dudesti
Militari
Platforma Industriala Pipera Colentina
Calea Plevnei
Alexandra
P-ta Titan
Titan
Cartier T. Vladimirescu Victoria
Bd. Expozitiei
Militari
Calea Plevnei
Buc. Noi
Gara de Nord
Buc. Noi
Gara de Nord
Victoria
Calea 13 Septembrie
Militari
Calea 13 Septembrie
Militari
Giurgiului
Dudesti
Gara de Nord
Victoria
1-way
length
(km)
12.2
12.5
15.9
5.9
4.1
15.0
8.5
16.4
12.2
8.0
17.6
14.1
14.7
7.9
13.1
8.7
7.6
13.8
7.4
8.2
2.7
10.8
8.0
5.7
14.5
12.6
13.0
10.5
3.6
9.4
13.3
7.1
7.4
11.0
8.4
8.4
8.9
7.4
373.4
Vehicle
type
V3A-93
V3A
V3A-93
EP/V3A
V3A
T4R
V2A
V3A
V3A
V3A-93
V3A
EP/V3A+V3A-93
V3A
V3A
V3A
EP/V3A
V3A-93
V3A
EP/V3A
V3A
V3A
V2A/2S+V3A/2S
EP/V3A
V3A
V3A+VTF/VTM
T4R
V3A-93
V3A
EP/V3A
EPV3A+V3A-93
T4R
EP/V3A
EP/V3A
V3A
T4R
T4R
VTF/VTM
Source: RATB data NB Routes suspended
6-21
No. of
vehicles
6
9
21
4
(14)*
18
(12)*
9
34
12
20
27
13
6
16
12
21
9
4
3
1
9
6
16
36
16
9
6
9
30
5
12
14
11
2
2
9
4
441.0
Route
time
(mins)
55
49
68
25
17
55
37
62
50
38
60
58
60
33
47
37
33
55
31
30
10
41
34
21
59
48
47
46
13
38
53
29
30
46
55
55
35
34
1540.0
Average
speed
(km/h)
13.3
15.2
14.0
14.2
14.5
16.3
13.8
15.8
14.6
12.6
17.6
14.6
14.7
14.4
16.7
14.1
13.7
15.1
14.3
16.4
16.2
15.7
14.0
16.1
14.7
15.8
16.5
13.7
16.6
14.8
15.1
14.6
14.8
14.3
9.2
9.2
15.2
13.1
14.5
Frequency
Capacity
max
min
(max
(veh/hr)
(veh/hr) places/hr)
3.2
2.1
998
5.3
3.4
1588
9.0
4.9
2844
4.4
3.3
1467
22.1
15.0
9.5
6.3
2842
9.2
4.5
4.2
0.9
1266
19.6
12.5
5885
9.1
5.2
2880
9.7
6.3
2903
13.5
8.9
4385
6.3
3.4
1902
5.2
3.4
1565
9.8
6.1
2939
9.5
6.2
3126
18.3
11.6
5770
4.7
2.6
1333
3.4
2.7
1238
2.9
1.9
871
2.5
0.0
750
5.9
3.9
1503
5.1
3.3
1697
21.8
13.6
6545
18.0
13.3
4725
9.8
6.7
2939
5.5
3.5
1741
3.9
1.2
1161
18.0
11.3
5940
22.5
14.3
7236
2.7
1.1
839
12.0
8.0
3960
13.6
8.4
4471
7.0
5.0
2106
2.0
0.0
600
2.0
0.0
600
7.3
4.8
1642
3.3
2.5
1100
95357
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
3333
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
3333
4444
32
32
32
32
21
21
21
21
25
25
25
25
22
22
22
22
4444
14
14
14
14
26
26
26
26
35
35
35
35
41
41
41
41
22
22
22
22
36
36
36
36
46
46
46
46
13
13
13
13
555
26
26
26
26 5
6666
56
56
56
56
51
51
51
51
1 - 15 vehicles/hour
21
21
21
21
26
26
26
26
26 28
999 26
28
28
50
50
50
28
28
28
50
50
50
50 999
32
32
32
32
32
32
42
28
32
42
28
28
42
42
28
42
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
26
26
26
26
26
26
999999
26
47
47
47
47
Legend
Legend
18
18
18
18
25
25
25
25
36
36
36
36
25
25
25
25
21
21
21
21
9999
25
25
25
25
36
36
36
36
55
55
55
55
55
55
55
47
47
47
47
99999
20
28
28
20
28
20 9
28 20
35
35
35
35
35
12
12
999999
35 12
12
12
12
12 333333
13
13
13
13
13
13
3
13
35
35
35
3512
12
12
27
15
27
12 27
15
27
27
15
15
27 15
18
18
15 24
18
18
18
18
31
31
31
24
24
9999 31
31
31
24
24
22
22
31 16
24
22
22
22
22
16
16
16
9999
555555
24
24
24
24
24
18
41
41
24
18
41
18
18
41
41
18
41 18
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
32
32
32
32
11
11
11
11
34
34
34
34
24
24
24
24
60 +
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
34
34
34
34
40
40
40
40
17
17
17
17
12
12
12
12
22
22
22
22
6666
18
18
18
18
27
27
27
27
49
49
49
49
65
65
65
65
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
40
40
40
40
13
13
13
13
18
18
18
18
63
63
63
63
35
35
35
35
47
47
47
47
2222222
Figure 6.3.4 Trams per Hour, October 1998 Peak Hour
6-22
vehicles/hour
Bucurestii Noi
Colentina
Victoriei
Militari
Dudesti
Titan
Alexandria
Progresu
Figure 6.3.5 Location of Tram Depots
Figure 6.3.6 Segregated Rights of Way for Trams
6-23
Table 6.3.2 Tram Fleet Characteristics, November 1998
V3A
1972
Romania
Double
articulated
4
4
42
258
V3A-2S
1972
Romania
Double
articulated
4
4 each side
42
258
Maximum capacity
300
300
Maximum speed (km/h)
Total vehicles in fleet
Av. no. motor units in
service
70
181
142
70
6
5
Year of first manufacture
Country of manufacture
Type
Number of bogies
Number of doors
Number of seats
Maximum standing places
EP/V3A
1976
Romania
Motor unit
+ trailer
2+2
3+3
20 + 20 = 40
145 + 145 =
290
165 + 165 =
330
70
117
80
V2A
1981
Romania
Articulated
V2A-2S
1985
Romania
Articulated
3
3
32
184
3
3 each side
28
172
V3A-93
1994
Romania
Double
articulated
4
5
33
267
216
200
300
65
41
31
65
8
8
55
140
120
V3A-H
1997
T4R
1974
VTF
1956
VTM
1956
VTM
1956
Romania
holland
Double
articulated
Czech
republic
Double
motor unit
Germany
Germany
Germany
Motor unit
+ trailer
Motor unit
+ trailer
Motor unit +
trailer
Number of bogies
4
2+2
2+2
Number of doors
Number of seats
Maximum
standing places
Maximum capacity
5
32
268
3+3
33 + 33 = 66
79 + 79 = 158
3 axles + 3
axles
3+3
28 + 32 = 60
92 + 69 = 161
112 + 112 =
224
70
118 + 101=219
120+101 = 221
60
3+3
23 + 23 = 46
125 + 125 =
250
148 + 148 =
296
65
2 bogies + 3
axles
3+3
26 + 32 = 58
92 + 69 = 161
70
70
3
130
9
24
11
3
95
8
24
3
Year of first
manufacture
Country
of manufacture
Type
Maximum speed
(km/h)
Total vehicles
in fleet
Av. no. motor
units in service
Source: RATB (1998)
300
The Activity of RATB (1997), Technical Characteristics of RATB Vehicles and RATB Data
6.3.2 Vehicles
In November 1998 there were on average 519 tram units in daily service, out of a total fleet of
670 units. The characteristics of the fleet are shown in Table 6.3.2. The type of tram used on
each route is shown in Table 6.3.1.
6.3.3 Passenger Facilities
Across the whole tram network, facilities for passengers are generally of a very rudimentary
nature.
Stops are located either at the side of the road or in the centre of the road. When stops are
located at the side there is generally no particular problem of safety, since passengers alight
directly to or board directly from the pavement. However, when stops are located in the centre
of the road, passengers are exposed to danger from other road users.
At most centrally located stops, platforms provide space for waiting and ease boarding.
6-24
However, the platform is generally rather narrow (about 1.5m) and may not be sufficient
when large numbers of passengers are boarding or alighting. The platform also tends to be
rather low, at about 20 cm. Since the trams in use have very high floors, this makes boarding
and alighting difficult, especially for the old, infirm or passengers with children or shopping.
The platforms generally have no protection in the form of guard-rails to protect them from
other traffic. Some centrally located stops do not have pedestrian crossings or traffic signals
adjacent to them so that passenger must cross in front of other traffic unaided.
When no platform is provided, passengers must wait at the side of the road until a tram arrives,
then cross the area of the road used by other traffic. Although other traffic is legally obliged to
stop behind a stationary tram at a tram stop, the potential danger is increased. Furthermore,
the lack of platform increases the inconvenience of boarding and alighting for the old and
infirm.
Whatever the type of stop, the other facilities provided tend to be very basic or non-existent.
There is usually a sign indicating the stop and the tram routes which pass, but there is often no
further information about the routes such as route plans, timetables etc.. Few stops have
protection from the weather. Integration with other modes is often poor, with long distances to
bus stops or metro stations.
The conditions inside older vehicles are often very poor, with uncomfortable seating,
inefficient heating, poor lighting and a generally run-down atmosphere.
6.3.4 Ticketing System, Fares and Revenue Control
A common ticketing system operates for trams, urban buses (excluding express buses) and trolley
buses. Tickets are purchased from kiosks before boarding the tram. Inserting them in one of the ticket
punches located in the vehicle then validates on board single journey tickets. Multi-journey tickets and
season tickets (“abonaments”) are also available. Free travel passes are provided to RATB employees
and collaborators. The range of tickets applicable to trams and corresponding fares are shown in Table
6.3.3.
Table 6.3.3 RATB Ticket Types and Fares Applicable for Trams
Ticket type
Fare (Lei)
June 1998
1400
Nov 1998
1500
Single ticket
One route
Full fare season tickets
(valid one month)
One route
Two routes
All routes
34000
58000
84000
38000
60000
85000
Half-fare season tickets
for students, pensioners,
handicapped etc.
One route
Two routes
All routes
17000
29000
42000
19000
30000
42500
Source: RATB
A person caught without a valid ticket is fined a penalty of 75000 Lei. About 11000 persons
per month are caught and fined. This represents less than one person fined per controller per
day. However, evidence from surveys conducted by CIE Consult suggests that the incidence
of fare evasion may be 25 percent or more. There is an indication that either the productivity
of the controllers is very low, or that there is widespread collusion between passengers and
controllers.
If a person is caught without a valid ticket, he is obliged to pay the fine on the spot to the
controller or within 48 hours at one of several RATB offices. If the person fails to pay the
penalty, a civil charge may be brought against the offender for 150000 Lei. However, the
procedure is rather cumbersome and is not often pursued.
6-25
6.3.5 Operating Costs
Indicative costs have been taken from information provided by RATB supplemented by data
in “The Activity of RATB - Statistical data on the first half of 1998”. The data shows that the
cost per vehicle kilometre is 8525 Lei and per passenger place kilometre is 44 Lei. A
summary of the costs is shown in Table 6.3.4. It should be noted that the cost allocated to
energy is based on a theoretical division between trams and trolley buses and cannot actually
be measured.
Table 6.3.4 Summary of Operating Costs of Trams, 1998
Materials
Energy
Labour
Maintenance
Depreciation
Tax
total
56,858,000
34,430,000
74,993,000
22,800,000
10,079,000
947,000
Cost (thousand Lei)
per veh.km
per place.km*
2.421
0.0125
1.466
0.0076
3.188
0.0165
0.972
0.0050
0.426
0.0022
0.043
0.0002
Other
59,000
0.009
Total
200,166,000
8.525
Source: RATB (1998) The Activity of RATB Tables 1.8 & 7.3.3
* assuming 8.5 passengers per m2
0.0
0.0440
%
28.4
17.2
37.4
11.4
5.0
0.5
0.1
100.0
Total costs per depot and costs per tram kilometre for the first half of 1998 are shown in Table
6.3.5.
Table 6.3.5 Costs per Depot and Costs per Tram Kilometer, First Half 1998
Depot
Cost (Lei million)
Kilometres
Buc. Noi
Victoria
12,578.519
17,368.780
1,492,839
1,971,519
Cost per km
(Lei)
8425.91
8809.85
Dudesti
14,406.364
1,556,745
9254.16
Alexandria
28,246.478
3,104,924
9097.32
Colentina
20,215.213
2,207,549
9157.32
Vehicle type
EP/V3A
V3A
V3A-93
EP/V3A
V3A
VTF/VTM
V2A
V3A
V3A-93
V3A
V3A-93
T4R
V3A
V3A
Militari
22,227.693
3,177,280
6995.83
Giurgiului
12,408.642
1,593,407
7787.49
Titan
13,364.157
1,620,137
8248.79
Administration*
1,765.792
142,581.638
16,724,400
8525.37
TOTAL
Source: RATB
* The administration cost is for all trams and trolley buses in all depots and head office costs.
kms per type
1,492,839
362,492
20,911
1,588,116
895,678
661,067
1,222,519
844,724
1,037,681
49,980
2,157,569
3,177,280
1,593,407
1,620,137
A more detailed breakdown of costs has been provided by RATB for the Colentina tram depot.
This is shown in Table 6.3.6.
6-26
Table 6.3.6 Operating Costs of Trams at Colentina Depot, October 1998
I
Cost (million Lei)
811.131
Materials
- raw materials
- fuel
- electricity, water
- inventory items
- consumable items
II
Taxes
IV
Personnel
(1) salaries
of which:
- operations
- maintenance
- administration
(2) social security
V
Depreciation
VI
Exceptional charges
25.6
188.971
6.657
605.086
9.339
1.078
Services provided by third parties
- repairs
- servicing
- telephones etc.
- other
III
% of total
389.198
12.3
2.343
0
3.093
383.762
8.184
0.3
1107.113
34.9
803.317
498.546
277.812
26.959
303.796
855.069
27.0
0
TOTAL
3170.695
Kilometres
Cost per kilometre
Source: RATB
375147
8451.88
100.0
6.3.6 Route Operating Costs and Revenues
An analysis has been carried out of the operating costs and revenues of the tram network by
route. The analysis is based on information supplied by RATB, the route loading survey and
assumptions derived from the CIE Consult study.
The operating costs by type of tram and by depot were derived from information provided by
RATB (see section 6.3.5 above). For the purposes of this analysis, costs of administration
were excluded.
Multiplying the cost per tram kilometre derived the costs per route by the route length.
Revenues on each route were estimated by multiplying the average revenue per passenger by
the total number of passengers using each route.
The average revenue per passenger was estimated on the basis of the number of RATB
passengers and revenues. RATB estimate that in the first half of 1998, there were 388.7
million passengers. This number was based on the number of individual tickets and season
tickets sold, and on the number of free passes issued. It is assumed that 50 trips per month are
made by holders of single line season tickets, 100 trips by holders of two line season tickets
and 150 trips by holders of all line season tickets.
However, it is known that there is a certain level of fare evasion. CIE Consult estimate that
this may be as high as 25 percent (Fig. F.60). If this is so, then the total number of passengers
becomes 518.
6-27
The total revenue in the first half of 1998 was 513686.6 million Lei. However, this includes a
subsidy of 368599.7 million Lei. The revenue from ticket sales was, therefore, 145086.9
million Lei. Thus, the average revenue per RATB passenger was 280 lei.
The number of passengers boarding on each tram route was calculated from the tram
passenger loading survey. For each route and each direction, this was multiplied by the
number of trams per hour and the average fare per passenger to give an estimate of the
revenue per route in each direction in the peak hour.
The analysis of the above costs and revenues shows that the total estimated operating costs in
the peak hour are 56.784 million Lei, while the revenues are 39.607 million Lei. Thus, a
deficit of 17.2 million Lei is incurred per hour and revenues cover 70 percent of the operating
costs. Furthermore, it has been suggested by RATB that the level of fare evasion of 25 percent
may be too high. In this case, the revenue per passenger would be higher and revenues would
cover a greater percentage of operating costs. In fact, if fare evasion was non-existent (or
eradicated), revenues would cover 95 percent of operating costs.
(RATB assumes that 50 trips per month are made by 1 line season ticket holders, 100 trips by
2 line holders and 150 by all line holders. Check in the person trip survey whether this is
reasonable. If the number of trips is less, the revenue per trip should be increased.)
The above analysis has been validated against data for the whole of the first half of 1998.
During this period, the total revenue of RATB was 145087 million Lei (as explained above).
The number of passenger journeys made by tram was 167.1 million out of a total of 388.7
million, i.e. 43 percent (RATB Table 9.1). The estimated revenue for trams was, therefore, 43
percent of 145087 million Lei i.e. 62387 million Lei.
The calculated revenue per peak hour is 39.312 million Lei (albeit for the month of
November). If it is assumed that the daily profile of tram use is similar to the daily profile of
metro use, then the peak hour represents about 10 percent of the total number of passengers
carried during the day. If it is assumed that the passenger volumes at weekends are 66 percent
of the volumes on weekdays, then the total revenue for a six-month period in 1998 may be
estimated to be 65352 million Lei. This figure is remarkably close to the estimated revenue
derived from RATB data in the preceding paragraph.
Routes 2, 5, 12, 18, 19, 41, 45, 47 and 52 would appear to cover their operating costs in the
peak direction. Route 21 would appear to cover its operating costs in both directions (Figure
6.3.7).
It may be argued that revenues should include the amount received in subsidy to cover free or
half price passes. This is about 30 percent of the total subsidy i.e. 110580 million Lei. If this
is added to the total revenue from fares, the revenue per passenger becomes 493 Lei. In this
case revenues for the whole tram network become 1.08 times the operating cost.
6-28
6.4 Trolley Bus
6.4.1 Trolley Bus Network
Trolley buses are intended to provide a feeder network of short distance services. However,
they also provide a high-density service across the city center along an east - west axis and to
the Gara de Nord. The pattern of these services is typically from the inner suburbs, across the
city center to a point on the far side of the center, or simply across the city center. Trolley
buses have recently been used to replace tram services at the extremes of certain tram routes
within the inner ring road because vibrations were damaging old buildings. The current trolley
bus routes are shown in Figure 6.4.1.
The routes are operated from four depots, as identified in Tables 6.4.1 and 6.4.2. The location
of these depots is shown in Figure 6.4.1.
Prior to the mid-1970s, trolley bus routes also ran north-south, connecting the suburbs to the
centre via what is now Bd. Gh. Magheru. All that remains of these routes is the feeder
services to Piata Sudului and Clabucet. The pattern of the east-west routes was very similar to
that of today.
Two roads have sections which are bus only in one direction; on Bd. Dacia (150 m) and Bd.
Regina Elisabeta (1050 m). A section of Str. Iancu Cavaler de Flondor is trolley bus only in
both directions. However, this is not respected by drivers of other vehicles. These are the only
special facilities that exist for trolley buses.
Poor road conditions have an adverse effect on trolley bus speed, passenger comfort and
operating costs. Specific problems for trolley buses are that bad road surface conditions may
cause the contact to jump off the overhead cable.
6-30
Figure 6.4.1 Trolley Bus Route Network and Depots
6-31
Table 6.4.1 Trolley Bus Routes, June 1998
Route
61
62
66
69
70
71
73
74
76
79
85
86
87
90
91
92
93
96
97
From
Master SA
Gara de Nord
Spitalul Fundeni
Valea Argesului
Bd. Basarabia
Valea Argesului
Turnu Magurele
Bd. Alexandru Obregia
Piata Resita
Bd. Basarabia
Baicului
Stadionul Lia Manoliu
Dridu
Valea Ialomitei
Valea Ialomitei
Barajul Dunarii
Valea Ialomitei
Tacerii
Strandul Straulesti
To
Pta. Rosetti
Liceul Ind. Auto
Vasile Parvan
Baicului
Vasile Parvan
Gara de Nord
Piata Sudului
Piata Sudului
Piata Sudului
Gara de Nord
Gara de Nord
Gara de Nord
Carpati
Piata Rosetti
Vasile Parvan
Gara de Nord
Gara de Nord
Carpati
Depot
Bujoreni
Bujoreni
V. Luminoasa
Bujoreni
V. Luminoasa
Bujoreni
Berceni
Berceni
Berceni
V. Luminoasa
V. Luminoasa
V. Luminoasa
Buc. Noi
V. Luminoasa
Bujoreni
V. Luminoasa
Bujoreni
Bujoreni
Buc. Noi
1-way
length
(km)
9.8
9.3
7.8
12.4
8.9
7.8
2.0
2.2
2.8
9.7
7.6
7.0
2.1
12.7
8.2
8.6
7.4
6.5
4.2
137.0
Vehicle
type
SAURER
DAC 117E
Astra 415T
DAC 117E
ASTRA 415T
DAC 117E
DAC 117E
DAC 117E
DAC 117E
ASTRA 415T
ASTRA 415T
DAC 117E
DAC 117E
ASTRA 415T
DAC 117E
ASTRA 415T
DAC 117E
SAURER
DAC 117E
No. of
vehicles
Route
time
(mins)
9
12
21
18
11
9
5
6
14
14
11
9
6
9
9
9
9
9
10
200
38
31
34
55
38
33
10
12
13
48
34
37
11
57
40
38
31
26
18
604
Average
speed
(km/h)
15.5
18.0
13.8
13.5
14.1
14.2
12.0
11.0
12.9
12.1
13.4
11.4
11.5
13.4
12.3
13.6
14.3
15.0
14.0
13.6
Frequency
max
min
(veh/hr)
(veh/hr)
7.0
2.3
11.3
3.6
17.8
11.5
9.5
5.6
8.4
5.2
7.9
5.2
11.5
8.3
12.0
8.0
27.1
16.9
8.6
4.2
9.3
6.6
7.1
4.6
15.0
9.2
4.5
1.5
6.6
4.4
6.8
4.4
8.4
5.6
10.2
6.9
15.8
10.2
Capacity
(max
places/hr)
764
1226
2893
1544
936
1294
1881
1956
4417
960
1270
1158
2445
734
1073
766
1375
1661
2574
30927
Table 6.4.2 Trolley Bus Routes, October 1998
Route
61
62
66
69
70
71
73
74
76
79
85
86
87
90
91
92
93
96
97
From
Master SA
Gara de Nord
Spitalul Fundeni
Valea Argesului
Bd. Basarabia
Valea Argesului
Turnu Magurele
Bd. Alexandru Obregia
Piata Resita
Bd. Basarabia
Baicului
Dridu
Valea Ialomitei
Valea Ialomitei
Barajul Dunarii
Valea Ialomitei
Tacerii
Strandul Straulesti
To
Pta. Rosetti
Liceul Ind. Auto
Vasile Parvan
Baicului
Vasile Parvan
Gara de Nord
Piata Sudului
Piata Sudului
Piata Sudului
Gara de Nord
Gara de Nord
Calea Victoriei
Carpati
Piata Rosetti
Vasile Parvan
Gara de Nord
Gara de Nord
Carpati
Depot
Bujoreni
Bujoreni
V. Luminoasa
Bujoreni
V. Luminoasa
Bujoreni
Berceni
Berceni
Berceni
V. Luminoasa
V. Luminoasa
V. Luminoasa
Buc. Noi
V. Luminoasa
Bujoreni
V. Luminoasa
Bujoreni
Bujoreni
Buc. Noi
1-way
length
(km)
9.8
9.3
7.8
12.4
8.9
7.8
2.0
2.2
2.8
9.7
7.6
7.7
2.1
12.7
8.2
8.6
7.4
6.5
4.2
137.7
Vehicle
type
SAURER
DAC 117E
Astra 415T
DAC 117E
ASTRA 415T
DAC 117E
DAC 117E
DAC 117E
DAC 117E
ASTRA 415T
ASTRA 415T
DAC 117E
DAC 117E
ASTRA 415T
DAC 117E
ASTRA 415T
DAC 117E
SAURER
DAC 117E
6-32
No. of
vehicles
9
12
27
19
9
9
5
6
14
12
12
9
6
17
9
9
9
15
12
220.0
Route
time
(mins)
38
34
34
55
38
33
10
12
13
42
34
34
11
57
40
38
31
27
18
599.0
Average
speed
(km/h)
15.5
16.4
13.8
13.5
14.1
14.2
12.0
11.0
12.9
13.9
13.4
13.6
11.5
13.4
12.3
13.6
14.3
14.4
14.0
13.8
Frequency
max
min
(veh/hr)
(veh/hr)
7.0
2.3
10.3
6.1
22.8
14.8
10.0
6.1
6.8
4.4
7.9
5.2
11.5
8.3
12.0
8.0
27.1
16.9
8.4
4.1
10.1
6.6
7.7
5.0
15.0
9.2
8.5
2.9
6.6
4.4
6.8
4.4
8.4
5.6
16.4
9.8
19.0
10.2
Capacity
(max
places/hr)
764
1677
2555
1630
766
1294
1881
1956
4417
938
1136
1257
2445
952
1073
766
1375
1784
3088
31754
6.4.2 Vehicles
In November 1998 there were 249 trolley buses allocated to routes, out of a total fleet of 288
units. The characteristics of the fleet are shown in Table 6.4.3.
The types of vehicle are described in the following paragraphs. It should be noted that the
total passenger capacities quoted are as specified by RATB. However, the capacity in terms of
standing passengers is somewhat subjective, depending on what is regarded as an acceptable
crush-loading capacity. In general, RATB use a crush-loading capacity of 8.5 persons per
square metre.
The DAC 117E (and EA) is the old standard trolley bus of RATB. There are 111 of these
buses in the fleet, accounting for some 39 percent of the total. It is an articulated bus dating
from 1980 (and 1989 for the EA), with three axles and four doors. It was manufactured in
Romania. The vehicle has 34 seats and a total capacity of 162 passengers.
The Astra - Ikarus 415T is the new standard trolley bus of RATB and accounts for some 35
percent of the fleet. It is a rigid bus with two axles and three doors dating from 1997. The
body is manufactured by Ikarus in Hungary and the engine by Astra in Arad, Romania. The
vehicle has 26 seats and a total capacity of 100 passengers. There are 100 Astras in the fleet.
The price of a new Astra is of the order of USD 400,000 (including VAT at 22 percent).
The DAC 217E and 317E are more recent variants of the DAC 117E. There are thirty-eight
217s in the fleet and one 317. The 217s date from 1990, has 39 seats and a total capacity of
156 passengers. The 317 dates from 1993, has 38 seats and a total capacity of 155 passengers.
The DAC 212ECS is a rigid bus with two axles and three doors dating from 1989. The bus
was manufactured in Romania and there are 4 in the fleet. They have 24 seats and a total
capacity of 100 passengers.
The DAC 312E is a more recent variant dating from 1995. There are 2 of these vehicles in the
fleet. They have 22 seats and a total capacity of 95 passengers.
The ROCAR 412 dates from 1998 and the ROCAR 512 from 1997. There is one 412 in the
fleet and nine 512s. Each has 20 seats and a total capacity of 105 passengers. The price for a
new ROCAR is USD 220,000 (including VAT at 22 percent).
The rest of the trolley bus fleet is made up of 22 Saurers. They were manufactured in
Switzerland as diesel powered buses dating from 1968. They were used in Switzerland for 20
years, then imported to Romania. They were used initially in Bucharest as diesel powered
buses, then later modified as trolley buses. They have 30 seats and a total capacity of 104
passengers.
There is also one double articulated trolley bus with four axles in the fleet, operating on route
69. However, no reference is made to this in the inventory of vehicles.
As with the trams, the condition of vehicles is closely related to their age. Some of the oldest
trolley buses are in very poor condition. Conversely, the Astra trolley buses are in very good
condition, and are maintained so through the maintenance checks carried out each time the
vehicle returns to the depot.
6-33
Table 6.4.3 Trolley Bus Fleet Characteristics, November 1998
Type
Number of axles
Number of doors
Number of seats
Maximum capacity
Av.no.vehicles in service
DAC 117E / EA
1980 / 1989
Romania
Articulated
3
4
34
128
162
52.5
111
100
Astra Ikarus 415T
1997
Hungary/Romania
Rigid
2
3
26
74
100
60
100
94
DAC 217E
1990
Romania
Articulated
3
4
39
117
156
60
38
26
DAC 317E
1993
Romania
Articulated
3
4
38
117
155
60
1
1
DAC 212ECS
1989
Romania
Rigid
2
3
24
76
100
60
4
4
DAC 312E
ROCAR 412
ROCAR 512
SAURER
1995
1998
1997
1968
Romania
Romania
Romania
Switzerland/Romania
Type
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Rigid
Number of axles
2
2
2
2
Number of doors
3
3
3
3
Number of seats
22
20
20
30
73
85
85
74
Maximum capacity
95
105
105
104
60
60
60
50
2
1
9
22
Av. no. vehicles in service
2
1
5
16
Source: RATB (1998) The Activity of RATB, RATB (1997) Technical Characteristics of RATB Vehicles and RATB data
6.4.3 Passenger Facilities
Apart from the fact that buses always stop at the side of the road, the section on tram
passenger facilities described in section 6.3.3 above applies equally to trolley buses.
However, it should be noted that the Municipality is currently (January 1999) installing bus
shelters with lighting and seats at many city centre bus and trolley bus stops. They incorporate
panels for advertising to offset the cost, and may be considered to be of an appropriate design.
At major stops, route information panels are also being installed. If these facilities are
maintained in good repair and cleaned regularly, they will go a long way towards providing
the minimum necessary passenger facilities.
Nevertheless, a general attitude of disregard for passengers and other pedestrians has been
shown during the implementation phase. For several weeks before the shelters themselves
were installed, support posts were left protruding approximately 20 cm from the pavement,
providing a hazard to passengers and other pedestrians, particularly at night. Since the
installation of the shelters, the trenches to the electricity supply have so far only been
temporarily refilled, presenting a further hazard.
6.4.4 Ticketing System, Fares and Revenue Control
The ticketing system, fares and system of revenue control are the same as for trams, described in
section 6.3.4 above. However, the Astra buses are equipped with electronic ticket validation units
which print the time and date on each ticket.
6.4.5 Operating Costs
Indicative costs have been taken from information provided by RATB supplemented by data in “The
Activity of RATB - Statistical data on the first half of 1998”. The data shows that the cost per vehicle
6-34
kilometre is 7384 Lei and per passenger place kilometre is 84 Lei. A summary of the costs is shown in
Table 6.4.4. It should be noted that the cost allocated to energy is based on a theoretical division
between trams and trolley buses and cannot actually be measured.
Table 6.4.4 Summary of Operating Costs of Trolley Buses, 1998
Cost (thousand Lei)
per veh.km
1.492
1.019
3.434
0.731
0.665
0.037
0.007
7.384
total
Materials
16,693,000
Energy
11,341,000
Labour
38,315,000
Maintenance
8,203,000
Depreciation
7,414,000
Tax
417,000
Other
21,000
Total
82,404,000
Source: RATB (1998) The Activity of RATB Tables 1.8 & 7.3.3
* assuming 8.5 passengers per m2
per place.km*
0.0169
0.0115
0.0389
0.0083
0.0075
0.0004
0.0
0.0837
%
20.2
13.8
46.5
9.9
9.0
0.5
0.1
100.0
Total costs per depot and costs per trolley bus kilometre for the first half of 1998 are shown in
Table 6.4.5.
Table 6.4.5 Costs per Depot and Costs per Trolley Bus Kilometer, First Half 1998
Depot
V. Luminoasa
Cost (Lei million)
22,437.586
Kilometres
2,704,770
Cost per km (Lei)
8295.56
Buc. Noi
Berceni
3,875,618
5,574,423
504,978
613,973
7674.82
9079.26
Bujoreni
16,577,578
2,732,034
6045.89
48,405,205
6,555,755
7383.62
TOTAL
Source: RATB
Vehicle type
DAC 112E
DAC 117E
DAC 117EA
DAC 212ECS
DAC 217E
DAC 312E
512E
ASTRA
DAC 117E
DAC 117E
SAURER
DAC112E
DAC 117E
DAC 217E
SAURER
kms per type
12,696
80,081
1,412,387
119,757
232,978
36,598
118,546
691,727
504,978
893,605
20,368
125,627
1,255,767
770,385
580,255
A more detailed breakdown of costs has been provided by RATB for the V. Luminoasa trolley
bus depot. This is shown in Table 6.4.6.
6.4.6 Route Operating Costs and Revenues
An analysis has been carried out of the operating costs and revenues of the trolley bus
network by route. The analysis is based on information supplied by RATB, the route loading
survey and assumptions derived from the CIE Consult study.
The operating costs by depot were derived from information provided by RATB. For the
purposes of this analysis, costs of administration were excluded.
6-35
Table 6.4.6 Operating Costs of Trolley Buses at V. Luminoasa Depot, October 1998
I
II
Materials
- raw materials
- fuel
- electricity, water
- stocks
- consumables
Services provided by third parties
- repairs
- servicing
- telephones etc.
- other
Cost (million Lei)
598.887
186.178
4.5
0.400
0
2.536
183.242
Taxes
IV
Personnel
(1) salaries
of which:
- operations
- maintenance
- administration
(2) social security
1337.485
V
Depreciation
1978.544
VI
Exceptional charges
Kilometres
Cost per kilometre
Source: RATB
14.6
82.737
10.640
480.960
23.229
1.321
III
TOTAL
% of total
12.826
0.3
32.5
963.983
692.270
245.094
26.619
373.502
48.1
0
4113.920
100.0
481766
8539.25
Multiplying the cost per trolley bus kilometre derived the costs per route by the route length.
Revenues on each route were estimated by multiplying the average revenue per passenger by
the total number of passengers using each route.
The average revenue per passenger was estimated on the basis of the number of RATB
passengers and revenues. RATB estimate that in the first half of 1998, there were 388.7
million passengers. This number was based on the number of individual tickets and season
tickets sold, and on the number of free passes issued. It is assumed that 50 trips per month are
made by holders of single line season tickets, 100 trips by holders of two line season tickets
and 150 trips by holders of all line season tickets.
However, it is known that there is a certain level of fare evasion. CIE Consult estimate that
this may be as high as 25 percent (Fig. F.60). If this is so, then the total number of passengers
becomes 518.
The total revenue in the first half of 1998 was 513686.6 million Lei. However, this includes a
subsidy of 368599.7 million Lei. The revenue from ticket sales was, therefore, 145086.9
million Lei. Thus, the average revenue per RATB passenger was 280 lei.
The number of passengers boarding on each trolley bus route was calculated from the trolley
bus passenger loading survey. For each route and each direction, this was multiplied by the
number of trolley buses per hour and the average fare per passenger to give an estimate of the
revenue per route in each direction in the peak hour.
6-36
The analysis of the above costs and revenues shows that the total estimated operating costs in
the peak hour are 19.1 million Lei, while the revenues are 11.0 million Lei. Thus, a deficit of
8.1 million Lei is incurred per hour and revenues cover 58 percent of the operating costs. It
has been suggested by RATB that the level of fare evasion of 25 percent may be too high. In
this case, the revenue per passenger would be higher and revenues would cover a greater
percentage of operating costs.
(RATB assumes that 50 trips per month are made by 1 line season ticket holders, 100 trips by
2 line holders and 150 by all line holders. Check in the person trip survey whether this is
reasonable. If the number of trips is less, the revenue per trip should be increased.)
The above analysis has been validated against data for the whole of the first half of 1998.
During this period, the total revenue of RATB was 145087 million Lei (as explained above).
The number of passenger journeys made by trolley bus was 54.5 million out of a total of
388.7 million, ie. 14 percent (RATB Table 9.1). The estimated revenue for trolley buses was,
therefore, 14 percent of 145087 million Lei ie. 20312 million Lei.
The calculated revenue per peak hour is 11.0 million Lei (albeit for the month of November).
If it is assumed that the daily profile of trolley bus use is similar to the daily profile of metro
use, then the peak hour represents about 10 percent of the total number of passengers carried
during the day. If it is assumed that the passenger volumes at weekends are 66 percent of the
volumes on weekdays, then the total revenue for a six-month period in 1998 may be estimated
to be 18176 million Lei. This figure is close to the estimated revenue derived from RATB data
in the preceding paragraph.
Only routes 61, 62 and 66 would appear to cover their operating costs in the peak direction
(Figure 6.4.2).
6-37
6.5 Bus
6.5.1 RATB Bus
Hereafter representative meaning will be given to long distance bus including regional bus
other than RATB bus, international bus and inter-city buses. RATB is also providing services
to the nearby cities, towns, villages and communes from Bucharest. Those buses are to be
called RATB regional bus.
The naming of those types of buses are shown below:
a) Long distance bus
a1) Regional bus (operated by private company to serve the local area to/from Bucharest)
a2) Inter-city bus (operated by private company to serve between Bucharest and other
cities)
a3) International bus (operated by private company to serve between Bucharest and other
foreign cities)
b) RATB regional bus (operated by RATB to serve between Bucharest and neighboring
areas)
(1) Network
The bus network in the Bucharest Metropolitan area and its surroundings are composed of
RATB (Regia Autonoma de Transport Bucuresti) buses, regional buses, international buses
and maxi taxis. Other than international buses those buses are designed to accommodate to
the regional services, local services, and feeder services.
In 1998 the 122 RATB bus routes are served in Bucharest and its surrounding area with total
length of some 1,400 km.
The network is densely established in the urbanized area with some exceptions, for instance in
the eastern part of the inner ring road or in the area near Bucharest Basarab station. In those
areas the access to the bus route is beyond walking distance.
RATB bus network is largely in a radial pattern from the city center to the peripheral areas in
the Bucharest Municipality, and some routes reach to the Communas beyond the city
boundary. Each route is basically in a linear shape, and circular pattern routes are not adopted
(Figure 6.5.1 and 6.5.2). The route length mostly ranges from 3 km to 20 km averaging 11.4
km (one way). The average number of buses operated on the route varies 7 (summer season)
to 8 (winter season) (Table 6.5.1).
6-39
Table 6.5.1 Bus Routes and Number of Operated Buses in 1998
Line no
Route
Route Length
(one
direction)
(km)
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
41
42
100
101
102
104
105
110
112
116
117
122
123
125
126
131
133
135
136
137
139
141
143
144
146
147
150
152
153
154
155
163
164
167
168
171
173
178
180
181
182
200
201
203
43
204
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
205
206
214
220
221
226
232
233
241
242
244
246
252
253
254
261
268
275
Republica - CFR Bucuresti Sud
Doamna Ghica - FAUR
Bd. Basarabia - Giurgiului
Vatra Luminoasa - P-ta Operei
P-ta Presei- Valea Oltutui
Gara de Nord - CFR Pipera
Sos.Chitilei - CFR Pipera
Timpuri - Progresul
P-ta Unirii - Cart . Salaj
Universitate - Ghencea
Gara Basarab - CET Sud
REMAT - Metalurgiei
Lahovary - Cart. Ghencea
Aero Baneasa - P-ta Romana
Gara Basarab - Timpuri Noi
CET Sud - CFR Pipera
Pod Izvor - Militari
MASTER SA - Universitate
Zetarilor - P-ta Leul
IMGB Vulcan - Zetarilor
Baicului - Bucur Obor
Danubiana - sos. Viilor
Granitul - Com. Pantelimon
Granitul - Ferma Pantelimon
Militari - Comuna Chitila
Chiajna - Lujerului
Voluntari - Republica
GLINCARN - Piata Sudului
Pod Afumati - Inst. Oncologic
Magazile CFR - Giulesti Sarbi
Mezes - Chitila
CINESCOPE - Baneasa SA
Lahovary - Valea Argesului
Jilava - Progresul
Viilor - Valea Argesului
Apusului - Sala Palatului
P-ta Operei - CET Vest
I.N.M.B. - Camil Ressu
Inst. Oncologic - Gara Basarab
Dobroiesti - Republica
Bucur Obor - Pipera
Dumitrana
Cart.
T.
Vladimirescu
CFR Centura – Cart. T.
Vladimirescu
BIOTERRA – Gara de Nord
Ghencea - IFA Magurele
Darasti – Ghencea
P-ta Rahova – IMGB Vulcan
Ghencea - CET Vest
13 Septembrie - Foisor
P-ta Unirii - Alex. Obregia
Aurel Vlaicu - Baneasa SA
Metalurgiei - IMGB Vulcan
Metalurgiei - P-ta de Gros
Danubiana - P-ta Sudului
RATB Titan - Granitul
Lujerului - Com. Rosu
Spitalul Fundeni - FAUR
GLINCARN - RATB Titan
Vatra Noua - P-ta Presei
Universitate - Valea Argesului
PECO Jilava - Timpuri Noi
4.7
10.1
12.1
8.1
14.7
11.5
14.5
8.9
7.4
8.1
9.3
8.4
8.2
8.2
11.4
13.7
8.3
8.4
7.4
10.8
4.6
10.1
3.1
4.2
15.2
7.6
10.6
9
8.2
4.1
7.5
8.8
10
7.7
8.8
9.6
9.7
3.8
12.7
4.5
5.1
14.7
No. of Buses
(operated)
summer winter
8
9 Titan
20
21 Floreasca
30
32 Titan
21
24 Pipera
19
20 Militari
4
4 Pipera
5
6 Floreasca
9
12 Alexandria
13
15 Alexandria
6
6 Militari
13
15 Ferentari
3
3 Ferentari
5
6 Militari
14
15 Nordului
15
18 Nordului
21
21 Pipera
7
8 Militari
0
12 Militari
22
30 Ferentari
7
11 Ferentari
5
6 Titan
6
6 Titan
3
3 Titan
1
1 Titan
2
2 Alexandria
6
6 Alexandria
7
7 Titan
4
6 Ferentari
8
8 Floreasca
2
2 Alexandria
8
9 Alexandria
2
2 Floreasca
18
21 Floreasca
3
3 Ferentari
9
10 Alexandria
21
23 Militari
6
7 Militari
2
2 Titan
14
16 Nordului
1
1 Titan
2
2 Floreasca
2
2 Alexandria
15.2
2
9.2
10
15.6
10.7
6.1
7.8
9.3
8.6
3.5
2
7.5
7.5
7.6
8.7
4.9
5.2
9.1
10.4
7
3
2
7
2
14
8
1
4
1
4
5
1
7
1
3
7
3
6-40
Headway
(min.)
Depot
2 Alexandria
8
3
2
9
2
15
11
1
4
1
6
5
1
8
1
3
7
3
Nordului
Alexandria
Alexandria
Ferentari
Alexandria
Alexandria
Ferentari
Floreasca
Ferentari
Ferentari
Ferentari
Titan
Alexandria
Titan
Titan
Floreasca
Militari
Ferentari
V1
V2
Schedule
Speed
V3
(km./h)
4
3
2
3
4
20
17
5
3
10
4
20
10
3
4
4
7
7
3
7
6
11
10
30
60
8
10
10
7
15
5
30
3
14
6
2
8
15
5
30
18
45
5
4
4
3
6
20
20
6
4
12
6
20
13
4
6
5
9
8
2
8
8
13
10
30
60
10
13
10
8
15
6
30
4
14
8
3
10
15
7
30
18
45
6
7
7
5
7
26
27
11
6
15
6
0
17
6
8
10
11
10
5
14
9
17
30
50
60
12
15
15
9
15
9
60
5
14
13
5
26
30
9
60
39
90
17.7
16.8
19.1
14.8
19.4
18.2
17.3
16.2
18.5
16.8
15.9
20
16.9
18.1
16.3
17.1
17.7
16.8
17.1
19.6
16.1
18.3
18.3
19.2
22.8
18.9
18.2
19.3
18.2
18.8
20.5
21.1
17.7
23
17
19.1
20.8
16.1
17.7
20.5
17.6
22.1
46
46
92
21.2
7
18
45
12
20
5
8
60
6
15
8
9
51
8
60
20
9
24
9
20
45
12
20
6
7
60
6
15
10
13
51
10
60
20
11
24
12
28
90
18
23
8
10
0
15
0
10
26
50
12
0
30
12
36
17.3
23.1
23.4
18.9
19.3
16
18
20.6
21
20
18.8
20.5
22.7
18.6
18.2
21.6
18.1
17.7
Line no
Route
Route Length
(one
direction)
(km)
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
282
300
301
302
303
304
305
311
312
313
Gara de Nord - Doamna Ghica
Clabucet - N. Balcescu
Baneasa SA - P-ta Romana
Sos. Magurele - SOMIC
Varteju - Ghencea
Laromet - P-ta Presei
Gara de Nord - Valea Oltului
P-ta Rosetti - FAUR
P-ta Unirii - Metalurgiei
Bd.
Corneliu
Coposu
Metalurgiei
72 323 Timpuri Noi - Zetarilor
73 330 Barajul Dunarii - P-ta Presei
74 331 Damaroaia - Lahovary
75 335 Aeroport Baneasa - Barajul
Dunarii
76 336 P-ta Rosetti -Apusului
77 346 Granitul - Neferal
78 368 Laovary - Valea Oltului
79 385 Drumul Sarii - P-ta Unirii
80 401 Branesti - Granitul
81 407 Mihailesti - Tacerii
82 408 Domnesti - Ghencea
83 409 Afumati - Inst. Oncologic
84 410 Balaceanca - Granitul
85 412 Petrachioaia - Inst. Oncologic
86 415 Fierbinti Targ - Inst. Oncologic
87 416 Moara Vlasiei - Inst. Oncologic
88 417 Stefanesti - Inst. Oncologic
89 418 Berceni - P-ta Sudului
90 419 Vidra - P-ta Sudului
91 421 Zurbaua - Lujerului
92 428 Teghes - Ghencea
93 429 Granitul - Belciugatele
94 430 Islaz - Granitul
95 432 Sindrilita - Inst. Oncologic
96 438 Clinceni - Ghencea
97 439 Clinceni - Alexandria
98 444 Saftica - P-ta Presei
99 445 Tunari - Aurel Vlaicu
100 448 Sitaru - P-ta Presei
101 449 Corbeanca - P-ta Presei
102 450 Spit. Balotesti - P-ta Presei
103 451 Moara Vlasiei - P-ta Presei
104 452 Caldarusani - P-ta Presei
105 454 Ganeasa - Inst. Oncologic
106 456 Olteni - Ghencea
107 458 Ciorogarla - Lujerului
108 459 Tangnau - Granitul
109 460 Buftea - Laromet
110 466 Glina - RATB Titan
111 471 Copaceni - Progresul
112 472 Progresul - Adunati Copaceni
113 473 Progresul - Vidra
114 475 Tunari - Baneasa SA
115 601 Rosetti - Crangasi
116 605 Gara Basarab - Grivita
117 618 Zetarilor - sos. Giurgiului
118 781 P-ta Resita - P-ta Romana
119 782 P-ta Rosetti - Granitul
120 783 P-ta Unirii - Aero Otopeni
121 784 Platf. Metalurgiei - P-ta Romana
122 785 Bucur Obor - MASTER SA
Total
Average
Source: RATB
Note: Operation program is for weekdays.
11.1
6.2
12
6.1
13.5
14.5
9.6
9.8
7
8.4
No. of Buses
(operated)
Headway
(min.)
Depot
summer winter
18
20 Pipera
20
21 Pipera
13
12 Pipera
1
1 Alexandria
6
6 Alexandria
6
6 Floreasca
4
4 Militari
24
26 Titan
10
12 Ferentari
14
15 Ferentari
V1
V2
Schedule
Speed
V3
(km./h)
4
2
6
34
11
15
16
2
4
4
5
3
6
40
14
18
23
3
5
5
6
5
11
60
17
45
66
4
6
6
15.9
18.5
19.5
24.5
23.9
20.2
18
18.9
19.1
19.3
6
3
2
6
7
4
3
8
9
5
5
14
16.9
18
17.4
18.6
6.2
12.3
8.1
14.7
7
2
22
14
9
23
22
15
Ferentari
Pipera
Nordului
Pipera
8.5
5.4
10.5
7
12.9
17.5
13
13.7
14.8
20.7
42.9
28.9
13.2
13
15.4
15.2
16
21
18
17.7
14
10.5
18.3
9.6
40.5
14
23
30.5
35.5
17.2
9.3
16.9
17.5
11.8
5.7
12
15.3
18
6.5
6.5
5.5
1.8
10
6.5
18
9.3
11.5
1,391.40
11.4
24
5
27
14
3
6
4
3
3
1
1
2
2
4
3
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
4
12
5
5
1
1
1
4
4
12
2
2
3
3
2
3
5
25
6
30
15
4
6
4
3
4
1
2
2
2
4
3
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
4
12
5
5
1
1
1
4
4
12
2
2
3
3
2
4
6
Militari
Titan
Floreasca
Militari
Titan
Alexandria
Ferentari
Titan
Titan
Titan
Floreasca
Floreasca
Floreasca
Ferentari
Ferentari
Alexandria
Ferentari
Titan
2
6
2
3
30
13
17
26
22
101
100
70
40
15
28
15
131
100
3
7
3
4
30
13
17
26
22
117
100
70
40
17
46
18
131
110
5
7
6
7
45
20
35
83
45
117
200
140
40
32
42
28
131
110
17.3
22.9
17.5
16.8
18.4
29.2
26
24.2
23.3
29.6
28.6
26.7
22.6
26.9
24.3
20.3
10.1
24
9
4
8
7
7
839
7
11
4
8
7
8
953
8
Titan
Alexandria
Alexandria
Floreasca
Floreasca
Floreasca
Nordului
Floreasca
Floreasca
Floreasca
Titan
Alexandria
Alexandria
Titan
Alexandria
Titan
Ferentari
Ferentari
Ferentari
Floreasca
Militari
Nordului
Ferentari
Metalurgiei
Metalurgiei
Pipera
Metalurgiei
Metalurgiei
92
70
60
60
30
45
6
25
29
0
104
60
25
22
5
30
32
25
30
30
30
5
10
6
13
12
8
12
2,645
22
92
70
60
60
30
45
7
31
30
0
104
60
25
22
6
30
32
25
30
30
30
7
10
8
17
14
12
20
2,817
23
92
70
60
0
60
90
10
31
50
0
104
60
31
45
10
60
32
26
45
0
0
12
0
0
0
12
0
0
3,533
29
26.6
25.5
25.2
20
19.9
28.6
22.1
25.1
26.1
0
22.9
22.3
21.1
27.6
23.6
21.2
25.7
25.5
27
13.8
15.6
20.6
13.5
19.4
19.5
27
16.4
16.4
2,421.50
19.8
6-41
(2) Fleets
The inventory number of RATB buses is 1,281 in 1998 and out of those buses 1,232 buses are
in operation. A double-axle diesel-engine bus with three doors is typical among RATB buses.
Over 60 % of the buses are Romanian-made represented by ROCAR buses, and other buses
were made in Spain, Hungary, Holland, Greece and France (Table 6.5.2). According to the
data from the RATB, new buses are purchased every year and average vehicle age of RATB
buses is 6 to 8 years old. This figure makes quite a contrast to the ages of regional buses
operated by private companies, which can not afford to purchase new fleets. When operated
mileage has reached 500,000km, the buses are sent to the URAC for general overhaul and
renovation.
Table 6.5.2 Vehicle Fleet Characteristics of RATB Buses
Category
Vehicle Type
Production
ROMAN
112 UDM
IKARUS
260-50
Romania
Hungary
DAF
SB 220
ROCAR
UL70
Holland
Romania
ROCAR
ROCAR
ROCAR
U412-230 U412-220 U412-260
SAVIEM
Romania
France
Romania
Romania
DAC
117
IK-4
UD112
Spain
Greece
11,210(l) 110,000(l)
11,690(l)
12,000(l) 120,000(l) 120,000(l) 120,000(l) 120,000(l)
2,500(w)
2,500(w)
2,500(w)
2,500(w)
2,500(w)
2,500(w)
2,500(w)
2,200(w)
3,080(h)
3,040(h)
3,020(h)
2,960(h)
3075(h)
3,075(h)
3,075(h)
2,700(h)
Passenger capacity (seats)
32
22
30
24+1
24+1
24+1
25+1
42
Pasenger capacity (standees)
68
80
64
80
80
80
75
20
Cabin space (sq.m)
9.6
10.6
8.7
10.0
10.0
10.0
9.3
4.0
113
112
104
109
109
109
104
76
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
10,344
10,350
8,661
6,871
6,871
6,871
6,871
7,258
diesel
diesel
diesel
diesel
diesel
diesel
diesel
diesel
HP metric
192
192
217
230
230
220
260
156
Fuel consumption (l/km)
35,0
30,5
30,0
33,5
33,5
30,0
30,0
24,0
70
70
76
75
75
75
75
60
9,180
9,000
10,670
10,700
10,950
10,730
9,630
9,000
ESA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No. of axles
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Body size (mm)
Maximum
pers./sq.m
capacity
No. of doors
Engine capacity (cc)
Fuel type
Tare weight (kg)
(pers.)
8.5
Source: RATB
6-44
272
7,200
-
-
3
(3) Infrastructure
- Ticketing office
Three types of ticketing facility are provided for RATB transport. The first is called cabs,
located at the end of routes with RATB staffs to check the operation schedule and also to sell
the tickets and passes. There are 88 cabs in the RATB service area and 62 cabs are used for
buses. The others are called ticket sales boxes and fare card offices. 180 ticket boxes, 40
magnetic card offices and 63 seasonal ticket offices were distributed mainly along the RATB
routes in the RATB servicing area in 1998. Tickets are not basically available on the RATB
bus.
- Depot
There are 8 depots for RATB buses. Each depot has its own routes and buses to administer.
Therefore depots are considered as basic units of operations. The scale of depots is relatively
large having over 100 buses. These depots are exclusively used for buses and not used for
trams and trolleys (Table 6.5.3).
- Stops
There are 1476 bus stops in the RATB servicing area. Mostly these stops are not equipped
with shelters. Out of these stops, only 252 common stops for bus and trolley have shelters and
are used for advertisements.
- Traffic controll system
ATS (automatic transport assistance system) has been partly introduced since 1984 to adjust
the interval of bus service on the route. This system is composed of radio-controlled
transponder, remitter, and computers. The location of bus is detected by transponder and
displayed on the screen at the control center. And the command for the bus operation
adjustment is transmitted to the bus by radio. This ATS was only applied for the 11 bus routes
that belong to the Militari Depot and 6 trolley routes that belong to the Bujoreni Depot. This
system is monitored and operated at the central controll center. At the control center 33 staff
are engaged in the monitoring and operational work in three shifts.
Table 6.5.3 Number of Buses by Depot, 1998
Inventory number
Available number
ROMAN 112 UDM
IKARUS 260-50
Floreasca
Ferentari
Nordului
Alexandria
Militari
Titan
Pipera
Berceni 2
ETA Total
182
176
102
213
194
146
131
131
177
167
119
151
151
1
186
173
146
171
171
70
69
1281
1232
514
42
48
DAF SB 220
48
27
65
165
171
236
ROCAR UL70
5
5
ROCAR U412-230
15
15
ROCAR U412-220
ROCAR U412-260
32
65
20
20
110
207
SAVIEM
69
DAC 117
0
IK-4
1
1
UD112
Planned
number
for
operation
Engaged
number
in
operation
Engaged number on route
Source: RATB
69
0
136
148
112
128
132
124
148
30
958
145
153
114
132
132
142
149
51
1018
136
149
112
130
132
126
148
30
963
6-45
(4) Performance
RATB buses are operated quite frequently on the trunk routes. Average headway of buses on
these routes at peak period is less than 5 minutes.
According to the official data on the number of passengers, an increase in the number of
passengers from 1995 to 1996 is observed. However this increase is mainly due to the change
of the definition of passengers in the statistical data, namely, after 1995 legally granted free
ride passengers on RATB are included in the number of passengers in the statistical data.
Therefore it can be pointed out that the number of passengers of RATB bus has been
decreasing after 1992. RATB statistics from ticket sales indicate that 316 million passengers
were transported by RATB bus in 1997. This is translated into 867 thousands passengers per
day. In addition, approximately 5% of passengers who were considered as free riding children
till 5 years of age and illegal fare dodgers need to be counted as actual RATB bus passengers
(Table 6.5.4).
Regarding fare evasion the small survey results in the "Pre-investment Study for Bucharest Urban
Transport,” CIE CONSULT funded by EU Phare, 1998 revealed that about 25% to 30% of the
passengers evaded fares.
In this study, a passenger survey was conducted in November 1998 with the help of RATB.
This survey was designed to get more clear information on passengers getting on and off the
RATB buses in peak periods by each route. This survey revealed that the bus use by route
varies considerably and there are considerable RATB bus routes on which passengers are
scarce (Figure 6.5.3). The routes less than 5 passengers per km are mainly located in the outer
area of central districts and relatively low population density areas serving industrial areas.
On the contrary high passenger density RATB bus routes are the routes going to the central
area of Bucharest.
6-46
Table 6.5.4 Passengers of Public Surface Transport
Trams
Trolleys
Buses
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1,000pers./year
236,100
267,200
345,800
281,900
264,900
244,500
340,600
316,400
1,000pers./day
647
732
947
772
726
670
933
867
100
113
146
119
112
104
144
134
1,000pers./year
53,300
73,700
99,600
111,400
88,300
78,700
110,900
103,000
1,000pers./day
146
202
273
305
242
216
304
282
100
138
187
209
166
148
208
193
147,000
226,500
299,900
289,600
275,700
252,000
340,600
316,400
1,000pers./year
1,000pers./day
Total
1,000pers./year
1,000pers./day
Source:
Note:
403
621
822
793
755
690
933
867
100
154
204
197
188
171
232
215
436,400
567,400
745,300
682,900
628,900
575,200
792,100
735,800
1,196
1,555
2,042
1,871
1,723
1,576
2,170
2,016
100
130
171
156
144
132
182
169
Annual Report, RATB
Number of passengers in 1996 and 1997 includes those passengers free of charge.
Number of passengers excludes fare evaders.
(5) Fares, Revenues and Expenditures
- Fares
Flat fare system is basically applied to the RATB buses similarly to other RATB trams and
trolleys. For long distance RATB buses and express RATB buses, different flat fares are
applied (Table 6.5.5).
Long distance fares are applied for those routes with a length beyond 30 km. Six long
distance RATB buses are operated presently in the north and northeast direction to Saftica,
Balotesti, Moara Vlasiei, Stitaru, Fierbinti, and Manastirea Caldarusani. Five express buses
are operated to the north (Otopeni Airport), south (Piata Sudului), east (Granitul) and west
(MASTER SA).
Three types of tickets valid for one day are issued and various types of season tickets are also
available in terms of duration of validity, area of validity.
The fare for an one-day ticket valid for one route in urban and suburban areas is 1,500 lei. The
fare for long distance buses valid for one day and one route is 5,000 lei. Double fare is 2
fares? Adopted for express buses except the route between Otopeni Airport and Piata Unirii
that offers 4,000 lei for a ticket valid for one day and one trip.
Discount tickets are granted to students and aged passengers at half of normal ticket fares.
Tickets valid for one day are available at ticket booths and seasonal tickets are only available
at ticket offices. Those booths and offices are located in the RATB bus service area near the
routes and are not available on the RATB bus. The magnetic tickets are not used for RATB
buses except express buses. The passengers are obliged to punch their tickets on the RATB
bus to prove the use of the ticket and to invalidate the ticket for the next use. The free riders
without any privilege are to be taxed or penalized (Table 6.5.6).
- Operating cost
The operating cost of RATB bus was estimated at 6869.85 lei per vehicle-km in 1998, and this
was about half of those of trams and trolleys. Regarding the cost per trip, it was estimated at
1689.0 lei per trip in the case of RATB buses. Though this figure had a relative advantage
over trams and trolleys, much difference could not be identified.
6-48
The revenue, excluding subsidies, per passengers, showed that these were about 26 % of cost
in 1997 and much improvement was not observed in recent years (Table 6.5.7).
- Revenues and expenditures
Though the number of passengers of RATB bus is decreasing, the revenues are remarkably
increasing at current prices, and total expenditures in the bus sector are also increasing.
Consequently the financial condition of RATB bus operation is still suffering a large deficit.
Compared with tram and trolley, the financial condition of bus operation is seemingly inferior
to that of tram (Table 6.5.8 and 6.5.9).
Table 6.5.5 Fares of RATB Transportation
lei/person
Ticket type
Normal
Daily tickets
One way ticket (valid for one route in urban and suburban area)
Business entity employee ticket (valid for one route in suburban and
suburban area)
One day ticket (valid for all routes in urban area)
Season tickets
One week ticket (valid for all routes in urban area)
15 days ticket (valid for all routes in urban area)
One month ticket (valid for one route in urban area)
One month ticket (valid for two routes in urban area)
One month ticket (valid for all routes in urban area)
One month ticket (valid for one route in suburban area)
One month ticket (valid for two routes in urban and suburban area)
One month ticket (valid for all routes in urban and suburban area)
One month ticket for the employees of the business entities (not nominal)
(valid for all routes in urban and suburban area)
One month ticket
(valid for all routes including long distance routes in urban and suburban
area)
Source: RATB
Note: One month tickets are not available on special routes, express routes)
Discount
(students etc.)
1,500
2,500
7,000
28,000
58,000
38,000
60,000
85,000
40,000
70,000
90,000
230,000
140,000
Table 6.5.6 Tax and Penalty of Free Ridership of RATB Transportation
Type of free ridership
(lei/person)
Tax for free ridership (without valid ticket) in 48 hours
75,000
Penalty for free ridership (without valid ticket)
150,000
Source: RATB
6-49
19,000
30,000
42,000
20,000
35,000
45,000
70,000
Table 6.5.7 Accumulated Mileage, Cost and Income per Veh.-km
1990
44,500
1991
46,200
1992
54,100
1993
54,800
1994
61,200
1995
66,400
1996
65,900
1997
67,900
147
227
300
290
276
252
341
316
(a)
(mil .passenge
rs)
(mil.lei)
(mil.lei)
(lei/veh.-km.)
378
837
8
440
2,251
10
1,214
7,151
22
4,888
22,716
89
17,600
59,281
288
28,886
103,277
435
44,408
167,191
674
90,497
342,626
1,333
(b)
(lei/passenger)
3
2
4
17
64
115
130
286
(c)
(d)
(lei/veh.-km.)
(lei/passenger)
19
6
0.45
49
10
0.2
132
24
0.17
415
78
0.22
969
215
0.3
1,555
410
0.28
2,537
491
0.27
5,046
1,083
0.26
Accumulated mileage
(1,000.
veh.-km.)
Bus passengers
1)
Revenue
Expenditure
Revenue
per
veh.-km.
Revenue
per
passenger
Cost per veh.-km.
Cost per passenger
(b)/(d)
2)
Source: RATB
Note:
1) Number of passengers in 1996 and 1997 includes those passengers free of charge.
2) Subsidies are not included.
Table 6.5.8 Revenues and Expenditures of RATB
1998
(Jan.-Jun.)
Tram
Total expenditure
705
1,897
6,024
19,137
49,942
87,006
144,851
282,609
201,688
Revenue
375
436
1,205
4,854
17,478
28,685
44,099
88,999
65,144
Subsidies
421
1,670
5,476
16,388
38,130
67,837
113,572
227,900
158,498
Balance
91
209
657
2,105
5,666
9,516
12,821
34,289
21,953
Total expenditure
289
778
2,472
7,854
20,496
35,706
56,117
118,501
82,901
Revenue
122
141
391
1,573
5,663
9,294
14,289
28,975
21,209
Subsidies
137
544
1,783
5,336
12,414
22,086
36,977
74,200
51,604
Balance
-31
-93
-299
-945
-2,418
-4,326
-4,851
-15,326
-10,088
Total expenditure
837
2,251
7,151
22,716
59,281
103,277
167,191
342,626
239,379
Revenue
378
440
1,214
4,888
17,600
28,886
44,408
90,497
65,663
Subsidies
421
1,670
5,476
16,388
38,130
67,837
113,572
227,900
158,498
Balance
-38
-142
-461
-1,439
-3,551
-6,555
-9,211
-24,228
-15,218
1,831
4,926
15,647 49,707
129,718
225,990
368,159
743,736
523,968
Revenue
874
1,017
2,810
11,315
40,742
66,865
102,796
208,471
152,016
Subsidies
980
3,883
12,735 38,113
88,674
157,760
264,122
530,000
368,600
Balance
23
-26
-303
-1,365
-1,241
-5,265
-3,352
Trolley
Bus
RATB Total
Total expenditure
-103
-279
Source: RATB
6-50
Table 6.5.9 RATB Investment Achievement
(mil.lei)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Total Investment
255
1,891
2,305
20,783
54,504
75,811
120,101
340,287
Transport means
139
1,684
2,003
19,633
53,709
72,481
111,633
301,098
-
buses (veh,)
124
396
46
42
85
92
64
111
-
trolleys (veh,)
38
42
12
11
2
2
2
54
-
tb, SAURER
18
4
-
modern. t.w.
30
44
5
31
Source: RATB
(6) Plan
In 1997 RATB has published a report, “Ground public transport development strategy until
year 2000 and, in the future, until 2010”.
The announced main objective of RATB for the horizon of the next ten years in this report is
to satisfy the public transport demand of approximately 3 million trips/day with a crowding
rate of 6 passengers/sq.m.
To this end the following measures have been announced:
a) Improving the transport network
- the public transport network will consist mainly of a tram network, metro and, additionally,
a network of busses and trolley buses;
- the main network, which satisfies most of the transport demand, will extend only to large
residential areas;
- a secondary network will be considered on those routes where it is necessary.
b) Modernization of repairing facilities
- modernization of tram tracks;
- building of depot with 100 places capacity for trams;
- modernization of the trolleys contact network;
- building of 2 depots having a capacity of 150 places each.
c) reconfiguration of the vehicle fleet
- modernization of V3A vehicles;
- low floor tram launching;
- purchasing 300 trolleys;
- purchasing of 200-300 buses;
d) Modernization of the maintenance and repair technologies
- modernization and refurbishing the maintenance and repair facilities in all the depots;
- modernization of Repair Plant;
e) Traffic management improvement
- expansion of automated real time monitoring system for public transport vehicles;
- facilities for public transport means such as priority lighting, exclusive lanes, traffic
priorities;
- improving the passenger information system
6-51
RATB is a partner in two European projects, CAPTURE and DANTE undertaken as part of
the European Union DGVII Road Transport Research Program. In both projects RATB is the
only partner from the former communist countries and has an important disseminating role
within Central and Eastern European countries. RATB is performing the research work with
full support of the Bucharest Municipality.
The results of the research are periodically reported to the general coordinator of the project
(Transport and Travel Research Ltd.). The conclusions will be disseminated to other European
cities.
a) CAPTURE Project
This project is assessing the strategies and existing restrictions regarding the implementation
of physical measures designed to effect a modal shift from cars to public transport. The
CAPTURE evaluation is based on impact analysis and traffic, social, attitudinal indicators
before and after the implementation of the physical measures in 11 European cities (Brescia,
Bucharest, Copenhagen, Manchester, London, Madrid, Mytilini, Orvieto, Rome, Tampere,
Vitoria).
Taking into account the necessity of traffic improvement in Bucharest and considering the
increase of the motorization and urban pollution rates, RATB suggested the implementation of
some physical measures proved to be needed and feasible. The coordination process of the
implementation and financing these measures are performed by the Municipality, which has
the competency and the authority to collaborate with institutes, governmental bodies and
agencies involved in transport field.
For Bucharest, the measures are referring to traffic reorganization within "Unirii" square (an
area of 0.8 sq.km.), introducing an exclusive lane for public transport on "Unirii" Blvd. (a
corridor of 4.2 km), introducing a trolley bus line on "Iuliu Maniu" Blvd. and improving
inter-modal transfer between underground and surface public transport.
Before the implementation of the above mentioned physical measures, a set of measurements
were performed in order to measure the pollution and noise levels, the public transport
performances and to assess public opinion. The before survey was accomplished by RATB
and PROED SA.
Out of those projects, the rearrangement of the public transport at Piata Unirii is in progress
and partly implemented. The exclusive lane for Unirii Avenue between Mircea Blvd. and
Piata Unirii (direction Piata Unirii) was completed. The construction of round-about with
parking spaces was completed.
b) DANTE Project
DANTE is an eighteen months project with the aim of assessing strategies to avoid the need
to travel. The experiments will be conducted in seven European cities (Bristol, Brescia,
Enschede, Aalborg, Lesvos, Zurich and Bucharest) and two interurban corridors (Bristol-Bath,
Brescia, Verona).
The project will focus on six types of strategy, to be used individually or in combination:
switching strategies (modal, time and location switching) and substitution strategies (use of
technology to replace a trip, linking activities through multipurpose trips, and trip
modification).
The research program for Bucharest (together with CURS as subcontractor of RATB)
comprise: the causality, motivations and tendencies of changing the modal split as a result of
the change in the business activity of the industrial areas, increase of the semi-circle trips,
increase of the traffic demand due to the commercial, residential, industrial and leisure areas
development, correlation between public transport strategy and parking management.
6-52
Out of six autogaras, SC Autotrans Calatori Filaret SA manages four autogaras and Autogara
Rahova and Autogara Militari are managed by different private companies, respectively.
SC Autotrans Calatori Filaret SA administers about 185 routes, and Autogara Militari
administers 29 routes. Autogara Rahova serves the southern part of the region, to the Danube
and Autogara Militari serves the northwest part of the region.
Buses are usually operated from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. The frequency of bus operation on each
route is quite low due to the sparse transport demand.
Though the extension of routes into the central district of the city is preferable for the
passengers, bus operators are not positive about making the extension for fear of a strong
competitor, RATB, with respect to the fare and waiting time.
The terminals for the long distance buses other than RATB and autogaras are in direct liaison
with the Bucharest Municipality.
Company
Touring, Double T
Viego, Double T
Toros
Location
Calea Grivitei
Gara de Nord
Calea Victoriei-Piata OpereteiPiata Eroii Revolutiei
Sos. Berceni
Calea Dorobanti
Sos. Viilor-Antiaeriana
Destination
all around the country
Germany
Giurgiu
Oltenia
Germany
Istanbul
In Gara de Nord area following inter-city buses are operated:
Table 6.5.10
Northward of the country
Eastward of the country
Westward of the country
Long Distance Bus Operation in Gara de Nord Area
5:00
7:00
7:00
9:00
9:00
11:00
11:00
13:00
13:00
15:00
15:00
17:00
17:00
19:00
19:00
21:00
21:00
23:00
departure
arrival
3
4
3
8
6
7
3
4
4
4
9
2
2
4
1
departure
arrival
1
3
1
1
2
1
2
1
departure
arrival
1
2
8
5
4
6
2
9
8
1
6
2
3
4
4
Source: RATB
Hereafter the characteristics of regional buses connecting autogaras are stated.
(2) Fleets
The buses put in use for regional bus service based on autogaras are old and obsolescent large
buses and have many disadvantages in terms of comfort compared to RATB buses. On an
average, the buses are put out of service “put out of service” after 500.000 km which
represents a wear level of 80%.
6-54
On some routes the actual transport demand is not large enough to meet the transport capacity
of large buses. The bus companies are planning to replace large buses with microbuses with
15, 20 or 25 seats to permit many departures on a given route and at different time from the
same place. However budgetary constraints prevent them from realization of this idea.
(3) Infrastructure
There are 6 autogaras: Filaret, Obor, Grivita, Aeroport Baneasa, Militari, Rahova in
Bucharest.
As stated these autogaras are situated outside of the centre of the city with their own areas of
service due to the former strategy of regional bus service.
The areas of autogara are in general large enough for the function of terminals. The area of
Autogara Militari is 22,000 sq.m. The Autogara Filaret has more than enough space for
cleaning and maintaining buses and parking. However, the buildings and facilities have not
been modernized as yet. The bus berths are generally not well equipped with shelters.
Though the busses usually run from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. the public relations, ticket selling are a
24-hour operation at Autogara Filaret.
Opinion on the relocation of autogara differs by the respondents at each autogara. For the
increase of the regional bus passengers, the relocation of autogara to the transport nodal
points was protested, and on the other hand, negative opinion on the relocation of autogara to
the center of the city was protested because of the creation of more serious congestion
problems.
(4) Performance
No accurate data is available regarding the number of passengers due to lack of statistical
integration of transport performance of each bus company and partly, the accurate reporting of
the number of the passengers by the driver.
At the autogaras under the administration of the SC Autotrans Calatori Filaret SA, 10,000
passengers/day was roughly estimated, and 500 passengers/day at Autogara Militari. These
numbers of passengers are reported to be on the decrease every year.
The following reasons for the decrease of transported passengers were pointed out by the
personnel concerned in the regional bus companies.
- leveling of living standard
- decrease of commuters due to the rise of unemployment
- abolition of restrictions on weekend vehicle use
- change in former monopolistic transport market
- piracy of the transport companies without license (it was estimated 20-30 % of total
regional bus transport demand was encroached by transport companies without
license.)
- increase of the number of cars due to relaxation of the car purchase formalities
And it was stressed that private cars and private microbuses are recognized as strong
competitors to the regional buses. The increase of transport demand for regional bus was not
expected as long as the unemployment rate is still increasing in Bucharest. The following
ways for improving the situation were mentioned.
- replacement of autogara to inside the city (close to Gara de Nord station)
- comfort improvement (better vehicles)
- governmental or municipal subsidies
6-55
(5) Fares, Revenues and Expenditures
The fares depend on the distance determined by the bus companies. Each bus company can
set their own tariffs. In the case of the SC Autotrans Calatori Filaret SA, 140 lei/km for an
ordinary ride is adopted and it is gradually decreased according to the route length. For
charter rides, 4,850 lei/Km is adopted. The tickets are sold at each autogara, and on the bus
for passengers who take regional buses on the road. Bus companies for fear of losing
customers, are not thinking of raising fares.
6.6 Maxi Taxi
6.6.1 Network
A public transport means using microbuses called maxi taxi is being operated in Bucharest.
These maxi taxis were first introduced before 1989 to cope with the transport demand at night
to cover the RATB bus operation that was not served after 11 PM. After the introduction of
maxi taxi the advantages of this transport mode, that is, the ease of driving on congested roads
and the faster service compared with large buses became the main advantage of the operation
of maxi taxis. There are 12 maxi taxi routes with a length of 3 to 15 km. Out of these maxi
taxi routes, some routes serve the same section as others. In the sections Unirii - Lahovari, sos.
Mihai Bravu - com. Voluntari, sos. Alexandria - Dep. Alexandria and Bd. Alex. Obregia Piata Sudului, plural maxi taxi routes are provided (Figure 6.6.1).
Those maxi taxis are operated from 6 a.m. up to 11 p.m. with an interval of 20 to 30 minutes.
Other than the above, some maxi-taxis are operated as regional buses (ex.: Filaret – Vama
Giurgiu, Pacii – Bolintin Vale).
6-56
6.6.2 Fleets
The transport capacity of the microbuses for maxi taxis varies from 9 to 22 seats and the fleet
characteristics are the following:
a) 9 seat microbus:
length = 4,350 (mm)
width = 1,690 (mm)
height = 1,950 (mm)
power = 62 (kW)
b) 22 seat microbus:
length = 6,500 (mm)
width = 2,100 (mm)
height = 2,510 (mm)
power = 77.3 (kW)
Romanian made microbus, TV 35 and TM 35M have become superannuated. In recent years
imported second hand microbuses without air-conditioning were generally put to in use for
transport business by maxi taxi companies. Two hundred and three microbuses are operated in
the maxi taxi business today.
There are no facilities regarding the operating system such as central operating system, bus
location system, etc.
Regarding road use, there are no exclusive lanes or special parking permission. The taxi stops
are checked and approved by the Technical Traffic Committee of the Municipality of
Bucharest. The locations of taxi stops are generally different from those of RATB. However
the maxi taxis are operated more flexibly, in fact, usually passengers can take and get off the
maxi taxi anywhere along the route.
As for the parking, ALLEGRO maxi-taxi SA Company has its own depot at 4, Chitila-Triaj
St., Sector 6 and park their cars in this depot. All the other companies have approval for their
parking lots from the Technical and Traffic Safety Committee of Bucharest Municipality,
based on the contracts signed between the vehicle owner and other private companies that can
offer parking spaces.
6.6.4 Activities
The number of passengers using maxi taxi is compiled in each private maxi taxi company and
no statistical data is available at present.
6.6.5 Fares
The fare system is based on tickets sold by the maxi i.e. taxi driver. The price for one ticket
varies from 2,000 to 3,000 lei/trip and is established by each maxi taxi company. No seasonal
ticket is available for maxi taxi at present.
6.7 Taxi
6.7.1 Vehicles
All vehicles used for taxi business are required to have at least 2 doors on the right hand side
and sufficient power for transporting 5 persons in compliance with the stipulated standard in
the contract condition of HCGMB No.57/1993.
At present the most commonly used vehicle for taxi business is DACIA 1310, which has the
following technical characteristics:
L =4,388(mm)
6-58
W =1,616 (mm)
H = 1,435 (mm)
P= 46 (kW)
The number of vehicles belonging to each company and private person varies from 1 to 450
vehicles. In the case of companies with their own fleets, SC GETAX SA has the lowest
number of vehicles with 25 and SC CRISTAXI SRL has the largest number of vehicles with
131. In the case of companies with rented fleets, generally the number of vehicles is small.
75% of such companies manage vehicles in the range of between 1 and 5. The number of
individual owner-drivers, who own and drive cars amounts to a considerable number (Table
6.7.1).
From the data provided by the Transport Licenses Service under Bucharest Municipality,
8,004 vehicles are legally operated in the taxi business market.
Regarding the number of passengers transported by taxis, no accurate data or information is
available.
Table 6.7.1 Main Taxi Service Companies in Bucharest, 1998
Company Name
number of vehicles
(vehicles)
1
S.C. ASTRO CARGO SRL
280
2
S.C. TAXI CERCEL SRL
300
3
S.C. I-E TRANSCOM SRL
350
4
S.C. RO-DANA TRADING SRL
470
5
S.C. GINA COMIMPEX SRL
320
6
S.C. CONSTEL SRL
75
7
S.C. ILIRA SRL
105
8
S.C. SILCOS IMPEX SRL
80
9
S.C. RO-STEF TRADING SRL
270
10
S.C. DAMARIS COIMPEX SRL
40
11
S.C. TAXEL SERV SRL
180
12
S.C. TRANS VYL CAR SRL
150
S.C. D.G. COMTRANS SRL
Source: Bucharest Municipality
60
13
In order to carry out this activity in as effective and convenient a way as possible, the Street
Administration in Bucharest Municipality has arranged taxi stations at the places where a
large passenger flow is observed.
The setting up of taxi stations is implemented by the initiative of Bucharest Municipality or
by the passengers' or transport operator's requests. These stations should have the approval of
the Technical Traffic Committee of the Bucharest Municipality.
Within the Bucharest Municipality area, 75 taxi stations with a capacity of 1,800 taxis have
been arranged.
6.7.3 Fares
Distance related charging system is basically applied.
The charge of each route is measured by a taxi meter mounted on each vehicle that provides
the passenger transport service. The meters are checked and approved by the Bureau
responsible for inspection and checking the accuracy of meters, that issues a metrological
6-59
report to prove the result of official inspection with a validity of 1 year from the date of the
inspection. Determination of the tariffs depends on each business entity, varying from 2,500
lei/km to 10,000 lei/km. Other than distance related charge, users are charged between 1,000
to 5,000 lei irrespective of the distance as the basic fare.
Different tariffs for day/night or working day/holiday are permitted for each business entity,
and the charging meters are set to program for 1 to 8 types of tariffs.
6.7.4 Others
Supervision and observation of the activities for passenger transport by taxis are imposed on
the Bucharest Municipality, and Transport License Bureau belonging to the Public Transport
and Traffic Safety Department in collaboration with the officers and non-commissioned
officers of the Traffic Police Office, Protection Office and Financial Guard. They make
periodic checks on the road in order to apprehend and punish those who break the lows for
carrying out this activity
6.8 Railway
6.8.1 Network
The railways in Romania were designed to meet the demand for international, national and
regional traffic.
The greater Bucharest area has a dense rail network comprising a ring railway and several
radial railway lines. Four railway terminals, Gara de Nord, Bucharest Obor, Titan Sud and
Bucharest Progresul are established in the Bucharest Metropolitan area, and those railway
terminals are located at some distance from the central district of Bucharest as is often seen in
other European cities. Most of the trains to and from Bucharest start from or arrive at Gara de
Nord, the railway station nearest to the central district of Bucharest (Figure 6.8.1).
In the study area the number of railway stations amounts to 25 and the stations on the ring
railway are exclusively used for freight transport.
Though the railway network in Bucharest municipality is densely developed, connections
with other rail transit modes are not well arranged with the exception of Gara de Nord. At
Obor station, passengers transferring to metro are forced to walk a considerable distance.
Table 6.8.1 Railway Fares for Passengers, 1998
(lei/ticket)
Ticket fees
km
First class
Fees for rapid and express train
Second
class
km
First
class
Second
class
Fees for Inter city Inter city express
km
IC
ICE
Second class
Second class
33,400
1
10
3,200
2,300
1
25
10,100
8,500
1
25
19,700
11
20
5,100
3,100
26
50
10,600
9,500
26
50
19,700
33,400
21
30
7,900
4,600
51
75
14,100
11,500
51
75
22,900
38,000
31
40
9,400
5,400
76
100
15,900
13,800
76
100
22,900
38,000
41
50
12,400
6,900
51
60
13,800
7,900
61
70
15,900
9,500
71
80
17,900
11,500
81
90
20,000
12,700
91
100
22,200
13,800
6-60
The railways in Bucharest Metropolitan area are electrified with the exception of the ring
railway and the railway to the south. The voltage used is 25 kV AC (50 Hz).
Gauge size of track is 1,435 mm. This gauge size is also used by Metro in Bucharest.
6.8.3 Performance
The number of trains arrowing to and departing from Gara de Nord (Bucharest Nord)
amounted to 215 trains a day in 1998. Compared with Gara de Nord, other terminal stations in
the Bucharest municipality are less used for passenger trains. The number of trains to and
from Bucharest Obor, Titan Sud and Bucharest Progresul are 19 trains a day, 7 trains a day
and 11 trains a day respectively. Basically distance related fares are adopted for railway
passengers (Table 6.8.1).
As designed, the usage of railway stations in the Bucharest Metropolitan area is generally low
except from the four terminal stations. The number of railway passengers boarding and
alighting at Gara de Nord amounted to some 56.3 thousand passengers a day in 1998. At other
terminal stations the number of passengers is small. The number of passengers boarding and
alighting at the Bucharest Obor, Titan Sud and Bucharest Progresul stations are some 4.1
thousand a day, 1.3 thousand a day and 3.0 thousand a day respectively. At other stations in
the Bucharest Metropolitan area, only a small number of railway passengers ranging from 4 to
321 passengers a day utilize the railway (Table 6.8.2).
Table 6.8.2 Average Daily Railway Passengers by Station
in the Bucharest Metropolitan Area
(Dec.1997 - Nov.1998)
Station name
Bucharest Nord
Baneasa
Bucharest Obor
Pantelimon
Pasarea
Branesti Sat
Branesti Sat
Basarab h.
Carpati h.
Bucharest Noi
Chiajna
Domnestii de Sus
Bucharest Progresu
Jilava
Sintesti
Bucharest Sud Gr. Calatorii
Titan Sud
Cernica
Bucharest Triaj
Pajura Hm.
Dep. Bucharest Triaj
Chitila
Buftea
Sabareni
Mogosoaia
Odaile
Balotesti
Caciulati
Passengers boarding
(passengers/day)
28,145
0
2,642
32
12
9
20
71
21
54
25
20
1,475
7
7
2
635
9
0
24
78
162
164
26
8
4
10
9
Passengers alighing
(passengers/day)
28,165
0
1,457
22
22
9
21
73
30
50
16
13
1,515
157
18
2
639
10
8
21
56
159
96
38
7
0
4
6
6-62
Passengers
(passengers/day)
56,310
0
4,099
54
34
18
41
144
51
104
41
33
2,990
164
25
4
1,274
19
8
45
134
321
260
64
15
4
14
15
The JICA Study Team, in cooperation with to Ministry of Transport, conducted a railway
passenger survey in December 1998. In this survey all the trains crossing the Study Area
boundary were surveyed to get information on the number of passengers coming to and
learning the Study Area by train. The survey was conducted on a weekday for about two
weeks. The result showed that about 75 thousand passengers cross the boundary of the Study
Area (Table 6.8.3).
Table 6.8.3 Railway Passengers at Cordon Line
Inbound
Outbound
Total
Bucharest Nord
(Basarab)
Bucharest Obor
Bucharest Progresul
Titan Sud
Total
30,132
2,623
1,250
2,263
36,268
83.1%
7.2%
3.4%
6.2%
100.0%
33,810
3,165
1,018
812
38,805
87.1%
8.2%
2.6%
2.1%
100.0%
63,942
5,788
2,268
3,075
75,073
85.2%
7.7%
3.0%
4.1%
100.0%
Source: JICA Study Team
Note: Survey was conducted in December 1998.
6.8.4 Plan
A proposed railway improvement plan related to the Bucharest metropolitan area is shown in
the series of reports prepared by ISPCF (Railway Studies and Projects Institute).
In the report “Study for Integrated Circulation in Bucharest Municipality and its Metropolitan
Area”, ISPCF, 1997, modernization, systematization and integration of the railway into the
European railway network, and the future role of the railway for commuting in Bucharest
Municipality was pursued.
Main proposed projects in this report are as follows (Figure 6.8.2):
x Construction of railway between Bucharest Progresul and Gara de Nord. This new line is
proposed to improve the linkage between Gara de Nord and Giurgiu in the south and to
improve the international railway network. A partial underground line near Gara de Nord
was proposed.
x Construction of new central station “Bucharest Panduri” between Bucharest Progresul and
Gara de Nord. This new station is proposed to be an underground station. This station can
provide shorter linkage to 1st May line, better access to the city center and is expected to
share the role of Gara de Nord if necessary.
x Electrification and modernization of the railway line between Gara de Nord and Giurgiu.
This project is proposed to modernize the line that has not been electrified as yet.
x Modernization and systematization of existing Gara de Nord, Bucharest Obor, and
Bucharest Progresul stations. These projects are proposed to modernize the existing
stations but also to rearrange the roles of existing stations, that is, to solve the capacity
problem of Gara de Nord in future and to expand the role of other terminal stations.
x Construction of a new railway line between Panduri and 1st May line This line is expected
to shorten the distance to Craiova by over 6 km and serve the regional and urban transport
demand in future.
x Construction of a new railway line between Bucharest Pipera and Caciulati line. This line
is expected to shorten the distance to Galati and Iasi by over 10 km and serve the regional
and urban transport demand in future with the new construction of Bucharest Pipera
station.
6-63
6.9 Airport
There are two airports Otopeni international airport and Baneasa domestic airport in the north
of the study area.
6.9.1 Otopeni International Airport
pas s engers pe
The Otopeni International Airport is located about 15 km from the center of Bucharest. The
number of passengers in 1997 was 1,470,659 and it was estimated to be 1.6 million in 1998.
The average number of flights is about 30 per day in November 1998, covering the northern
globe including major European cities, the USA, Southest Asia and Beijing. Recently the
extension of the terminal building has been completed with passenger handling capacity of 3
million per year. The outline of the airport facility is as follows:
- 2 runways of 3,500m long and 45 wide
- 46 airplane parking space
- 5 boarding bridges
- departure passenger terminal with capacity of 1,000 per peak hour
- cargo handling capacity of 50,000 tons per year
- 1,500 car parking space
A business center with conference center, offices, exhibition halls etc. and a hotel is in the
course of construction to service commercial and business activities in the airport area.
Also there is a Phase 2 Investment Plan for further expansion and renovation.
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Figure 6.9.1 Average Number Daily of Passengers Using Otopeni Airport
(Otopeni International Airport, 1998)
6.9.2 Baneasa Airport
The Baneasa Airport is located about 10km from the center of Bucharest. The number of
passengers in 1998 was 186,366. The average number of flights was about 21 per day in 1998.
The major destinations are Timisoara, Cluji, Arad, Oradea and Kiev.
The outline of the airport facility is as follows:
- 21 aircraft parking spaces
- 400 car parking spaces
6-65
6.10 Intermodal Facilities
6.10.1 Transferring Facilities
PT survey results revealed that major transferring points are distributed in Bucharest
Municipality area. It was notied that there was no typical concentration of transfer points to
the city center but a dispersed pattern corresponding to the existing terminals.
6.10.2 Stops and Stations
(1) Stops / Islands
There are 555 tram stops in 1997, increasing slightly from 1996. The average distance
between stops is 538 m. There were 251 trolley bus stops and 1,443 bus stops in 1997,
increasing slightly from 1996. The number of shelters is 11 for trolley buses and 82 for buses
(Figure 6.10.1).
The average distance between stops is 488 m for trolley bus route and 494 m for bus route.
1,600
1,400
1,200
T ram
1,000
800
T rolley
600
Bus
400
200
0
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
Figure 6.10.1 Number of Tram, Trolley, Bus and Bus Stops, (RATB, 1998)
The tram islands are narrow (1.2 ~ 1.5 m wide, 32 m ~ 60 m length, 0.2 m high) and have no
conspicuous signs. There is no shelter even at plaza and end points. There are stops without
sign posts.
Standard of location of tram stop is given as follows:(Figure 6.10.2)
Average distance between stops: 500 m (150 m ~ 2000 m)
Before crossing or intersections, connected to pedestrian crossing
Guard rail or sign post for caution at the end of platform at the opposite side of the crossing
Standard of location of bus / trolley bus stop is given as follows: (Figure 6.10.2)
Average distance between stops: 500 m (150 m ~ 2000 m)
After crossing or intersection
Distance between sign post and pedestrian crossing:
- 20 m for low frequency
- 30 m for higher frequency
- more than 30 m for very high frequency
6-66
32~60 m
Bus
Trolley Bus
Tram
20m (low frequency)
30m (higher frequency)
Safe Guard Fence,
Sign
Figure 6.10.2 Standard of Location of Tram / Bus Stop of RATB
(2) Sign
The sign board is a rectangular steel board standing alone on a steel pole or attached to
electricity pole etc. The width is 53 cm and the height is variable according to the number of
routes indicated, but the standard is 32.5 cm for 1 route, with the name of the stop in the
center and the number of lines below. The older type sign board is 53 cm wide and 23 cm
high with the name of the stop in the center, logo of RATB in pentagon shape at the top and
number of lines near the bottom, which makes little impression.
Information on the starting and ending time and the operation interval is shown on an A4 size
plate attached to the sign board only at major stops.
Recently RATB is replacing the old signs with a new colorful and elongated design with
information on the route number, origin / destination and advertisement. Time schedule can be
attached however the existing ones do not have schedules. All bus stops should have clear
sign bearing the name, line number, route information (major stops), time schedule and
contact points (telephone number).
Other than the above, some maxi-taxis are operated as regional buses (ex.: Filaret – Vama
Giurgiu, Pacii – Bolintin Vale).
6-67
(4) Ticket Box
The ticket box is important for passenger service as tickets are not sold in the cars and cash is
not accepted except at the ticket box.
There are several types of ticket box. One is column shaped with plane selling window.
Another is rectangular attached to the shelter. Another sells magnetic cards for express bus.
Larger box offices sell seasonal passes or commuter tickets.
(5) Metro Stations
The layout and scale of metro station varies by location. Mainly speaking they are small and
simple. The access is minimal. On the concourse level, there are automatic entering / exit
barriers and office box. In busy stations, small shops are located.
The entrance of the metro is by simple stairs and has, square Metro sign. Roofs are not
provided at the entrances in the central area.
Several stations have escalators between platform and concourse level or between concourse
and surface, however some of them are out of order. (eg. platform – concourse : Piata Unirii,
Universitatii, Piata Victoriei, Gara de Nord; platform – surface : Piata Romana; concourse –
surface : Piata Unirii, Universitatii(out of order), Gara de Nord)
Even though the idea of countermeasures for use of the handicapped are new and not many
facilities have been completed worldwide, this has not been considered. There is no elevator,
no Braille and no facility for wheelchairs. At least handrails should be prepared at all stairs
and steps.
1)
Piata Unirii
Transfer between tram, bus and metro is not convenient because the plaza is too large and
underground pedestrian network has not been completed. Parking space is not sufficient.
There are many kiosks along the sidewalk, which shows the potential for commercial
development. There is no entrance to metro at the stop of Tram Line 32 or the southwest
corner. The usage of the plaza is not satisfactory. The public underground passage connects
northwest - southeast along Metro Line 1, and east – northeast of Line 2. Line 1 and 2 are
connected only inside the barriers and no public way is connecting. The bus stops are
located on the north, west, southwest, southeast and east. The transfer is inconvenient in terms
of distance and crossing roads. Transfer between Metro Line 1 and 2 is not convenient with
long walking distance and difference of levels. There is a plan to construct a so-called
People’s Cathedral or Orthodox Cathedral in Piata Unirii, which was generally approved,
however the decision is not firm and there are objections to the plan. The large central
fountain is not accessible surrounded by roadways and the plaza does not have good
environment for people.
2)
Universitate
It is good that the four corners of the Universitate intersection are connected by underground
passage leading to the metro, where small shops are located.
3)
Piata Romana
The entrance of the metro is only on the east side of B-dul Magheru and there is no entrance
on Piata Romana. The escalator goes directly from the platform to the surface only in the
north-bound direction. The width of platform is very narrow. The columns are located too
near to the edge of the platform.
6-69
4)
Piata Victoriei
The entrances of the metro are located only on B-dul Lascar Catargiu for both Line 1 and 2.
The transfer between Line 1 and south-bound Line 2 is convenient, but the north-bound
platform is not directly connected to Line 1. Although the tram runs along the underpass, there
is neither a stop under the plaza nor a connection.
5)
Obor
The concourse and the entrances of metro are located at both ends of the platform. The
entrances are located in the traffic islands and the underpass runs both sides of the metro
station. The underground parking is located on the outer sides of the underpass. There is no
direct connection between the metro station, underground shopping arcade and underground
parking. There is no underground pedestrian network crossing the metro or underpass. The
existing 2-tier underground parking is located on both sides of the underpass each with
capacity of 500 cars (total 1,000 cars). The trams along the ring road run on a side road and
the island makes the width narrow. The municipality has a plan to improve the intersection,
widening the B-dul Mihai Bravo and expanding the lanes.
6)
Gara de Nord
Gara de Nord area is expected to become the urban core in future. It is a vital issue to foster
the Gara de Nord area as an urban core to develop the transferring function among various
public transport modes.
In this study, rearrangement of bus routes comprising mainly RATB bus routes, by providing
bus terminal and improvement of bus information system are proposed to enhance the
convenience of bus passengers.
The regional buses and international buses arriving at and leaving the Autogaras which are
respect to sporadically located in the built up area of Bucharest are not well arranged with
other public transport modes. The Gara de Nord area is supposed to function as a terminal for
those buses in consideration of the role to be shared with other multi-modal points.
In addition the bus terminal need not necessarily be located just adjacent to the railway station
and there seem to exist candidate sites in the area if redevelopment is realized based on the
PUZ.
However maximum utilization of the limited space will be pursued for the construction of bus
terminal at Gara de Nord area because of the characteristics of the existing land use of that
area.
Generally space for the buses to adjust to scheduled operation is required for bus terminals.
Therefore it is necessary to examine the effectiveness of the information system for bus
operation and bus route arrangement to set the termini at places other than Gara de Nord.
Based on those examination required space for bus terminal shall be determined.
There is no proper loading / unloading space and taxi pool. The trolley bus stop and taxis
conflict with each other. Parking space is not sufficient. Parking along B-dul Dinicu Golescu
on the east disturbs traffic clearing only tram way. The concourse of the metro is located in
the center of the metro line and Calea Grivitei. The entrances lead to the railway station and
the opposite side of the road. Connection to the trolley bus stop and B-dul Dinicu Golescu is
not convenient. The Municipality has a plan to construct underground parking under the Piata
Gara de Nord and parking on the roof of the new station building to be reconstructed.
6-70
7)
Eroilor
The entrances of metro are located at both ends of the platform, facing B-dul Eroilor and Str.
SF. Elefterie. Signs for Line 1 or 3 in the west-bound direction are not clear.
8)
Dristor
The transfer between Line 1 and 2 is no problem, only that the width of the passage is narrow.
The transfer to the tram and bus is not convenient.
9)
Armata Poporului
The entrances of metro are located at both ends of the platform, but the entrances are located
only on the south side of B-dul Iuliu Maniu.
10) Piata Sudului
The entrances of metro are located only on Sos. Berceni and transfer to RATB is inconvenient.
The intersection is large and crossing of pedestrians is not easy and not safe.
6.11 Institutions and Administration
6.11.1 Institutions for Public Transport
Responsibilities for surface public transport and metro lie with different organizations and
operations for surface public transport and metro also are devolved to different entities.
Within the Bucharest Municipality, the responsibility for surface transport modes falls under
the Department of Public Transport and the Means of Communication which is taken care of
by one of the Deputy Mayors. Among surface public transport modes, operation of tram,
trolley bus and bus are devolved to RATB. Responsibility of metro transport falls under the
Ministry of Transport, and operation of metro was given to an enterprise established for this
purpose, Metrorex.
Although the proposal was made in the "Pre-investment Study for Bucharest Urban
Transport" in 1998, funded by EU Phare Program to establish an organization to coordinate
strategies and planning for urban public transport among relevant organizations, such an
institutional entity which is actually functioning, does not exist as yet.
(1) Financing
As operators of urban public transport in Bucharest, RATB and Metrorex have been allowed
to operate each traffic mode with blanket subsidy paid by the Municipality and the Ministry of
Transport respectively. Not only operating loss but also travel concessions are paid to them.
Investment capital is also provided to them. More precisely, the subsidy fund for RATB does
not solely consist of taxes collected by the Municipality itself (real estate tax, taxi/maxi-taxi
tax, etc.): the fund depends heavily on the Ministry's support, since local income tax is levied
by the government. As for investment capital for RATB, the Municipality receives around
30 % of local income tax collected by the government, though the ratio fluctuates every year.
The following figure shows financial flow for RATB and Metrorex.
6-71
0HWURUH[
,QFRPHWD[
Operation cost
Central
Government's
general account
General
tax
Capital expenditure
Real estate tax
payer
Income tax
collected by
central
government in
Bucharest
Taxi tax, etc.. in
Bucharest
5$7%
Operation cost
Municipality's
general account
&DSLWDOH[SHQGLWXUH
3DVVHQJHUIDUH
Public
transport user
Figure 6.11.1 Financial Flow for RATB and Metrorex
Table 6.11.1 Revenues and Expenditures of Public Transport
(mil.lei)
1990
Metro
Total expenditure
Revenue
725
469
Subsidies
192
Balance
-64
Tram
Total expenditure
705
Revenue
375
Subsidies
421
Balance
91
Trolley
Total expenditure
289
Revenue
122
Subsidies
137
Balance
-31
Bus
Total expenditure
837
Revenue
378
Subsidies
421
Balance
-38
RATB total
Total expenditure
1,831
Revenue
874
Subsidies
980
Balance
23
Source: Metrorex and RATB
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
2,560
495
9,029
1,841
28,411
5,229
60,980
16,646
87,289
29,396
122,595
43,732
282,028
107,814
403,243
157,852
2,055
-10
6,427
-762
20,684
-2,499
42,103
-2,232
51,500
-6,394
73,225
-5,638
160,613
-13,601
245,391
0
1,897
436
1,670
209
6,024
1,205
5,476
657
19,137
4,854
16,388
2,105
49,942
17,478
38,130
5,666
87,006
28,685
67,837
9,516
144,851
44,099
113,572
12,821
282,609
88,999
227,900
34,289
445,191
-
778
141
544
-93
2,472
391
1,783
-299
7,854
1,573
5,336
-945
20,496
5,663
12,414
-2,418
35,706
9,294
22,086
-4,326
56,117
14,289
36,977
-4,851
118,501
28,975
74,200
-15,326
186,229
-
2,251
440
1,670
-142
7,151
1,214
5,476
-461
22,716
4,888
16,388
-1,439
59,281
17,600
38,130
-3,551
103,277
28,886
67,837
-6,555
167,191
44,408
113,572
-9,211
342,626
90,497
227,900
-24,228
512,625
-
4,926
1,017
3,883
-26
15,647
2,810
12,735
-103
49,707
11,315
38,113
-279
129,718
40,742
88,674
-303
225,990
66,865
157,760
-1,365
368,159
102,796
264,122
-1,241
743,736
208,471
530,000
-5,265
1,144,045
314,430
802,618
26,997
6-72
(2) Subsidy
As noted previously, operating losses brought about by the two organizations are repaid on an
annual basis. According to the Government Decision 179/1993 a subsidy of 60 % can be
provided for Bucharest Municipality.
The Ministry of Transport subsidized Metrorex for the deficit of 60% of managerial
expenditures and for 100% of the investment cost. RATB receives about 70% of managerial
expenditure as subvention and also receives a subvention for all investment expenditures.
However the new law 189/14 named "The law of local public finances" was introduced in
January 1999 and budgets are set in advance each year to determine the amount of subsidy
which will be paid, but there are no direct adverse impacts on both organizations for
exceeding their budgets. This fact means that both organizations have not been exposed to
fiscal constraint. Actually a private bus operating company has once tried to get into the
market, but it had to abandon the attempt because RATB could offer lower fares based on
subsidy assistance. Under such circumstances, incentives for cost awareness has not been
rooted well and user satisfaction has been given much lower priority in both organizations.
6.11.2 Metrorex
Many Romanian state-owned companies are now in the process of privatization. In the case of
Metrorex, the Government Ordinance No.482 issued on July 17,1999 proclaims that it should
be transformed from a “regie autonomie” into a commercial company, with the majority of
shares is held by the state. Based on the Ordinance, Metrorex became a commercial company
as of August 1. Though privatized, it performs activities of public importance and works
under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transport.
According to Article 5 of the Ordinance, Metrorex has to accept present regulations for setting
passenger fares. On the other hand, Metrorex is allowed to receive state budget transfers that
can cover the difference between its revenues from transport activities and the total
expenditure. The discount of passenger fares for certain categories of people stipulated in the
law will be compensated (Article 6). The amounts of investment for infrastructure are
financed from the state budget or from the loans guaranteed and paid from state budget
(Article 7). Though the financial sources of its activities are clearly described in the
Ordinance, it goes without saying that further efforts are needed to improve the profitability of
its operation.
As for its investment, Metrorex has been financed 6.8 million USD by European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to construct a new line and to purchase new rolling
stocks. Metrorex will be able to avoid employing a large number of maintenance staff by
introducing new rolling stocks (Table 6.11.2).
The income statements of Metrorex as of 1997 and 1998 are displayed in Table 6.11.3 The
latest organizational chart is shown in Figure 6.11.2.
Table 6.11.2 Operational Personnel of Metrorex
1994
Administration
Station staff
Operation
Crew
Maintenance - Rolling stock
- Infrastructure
Total
*The data of 1999 is as of August
6,558
1995
6,532
6-73
1996
6,338
1997
6,381
1998
203
1,017
247
764
1,754
2,277
6,292
1999*
6,200
6-74
Work
Technical
and
Department of Financial
Control
Healthcare
General Director
Department of Price
Negotiations
Department of Judicial Affairs
Department of Accounting
Administration Council
Department of
i
of
Supervising
Director
Investments
Offi
Director of Infrastructure
Programs, Investment,
Development Office
External
Information
Department of Traffic Safety,, Quality
Controls, Labor Protection, and
Working Environment
Supply Office
Technical Office
General Shareholders’ Meeting
U.R.M.R.M.
Station Management,
Special Buildings
Lines,
Tunnels,
Station
Administration
Special
Construction Administration
Department of Patrimony,
Cadaster, Building Survey
Department of Management, staff
Employment, and relationships to
Trade-unions
Section of Trucks, Tunnels
and
Department of Forecasting,
Planning, Statistics and Tariffs
Section of Trucks.
Section of Automation
Communication
Director of Operation
Section of Signal Control
Department of Installations
Department of Rolling Stock
and Traffic Operation
Department of Commercial
Service
Department
of
Financial Relations
Section
Electromagnetics
Section
Electromechanics
Depot of Line II
Depot of Lines I and III
Commercial Section
Dispatcher Center-PSI
Ambulance
Figure 6.11.2 Organization Chart of Metrorex (as of August 1999)
Audito
Department of Special Problems,
Civil Protection, and Fire Safety
Department for Administration, Public
Relations, Protocol
Director of
Table 6.11.3 Metrorex's Operating Income / Costs for 1997 and 1998
Income
- Transportation
- Subsidy
- Others
1997
Lei(million)
US$(million)
256,383
31.99
100,275
12.51
148,569
18.54
7,539
0.94
Expense (1+2+3)
1. Nonpersonnel
Fuels/energy
Power supply
Materials/spare parts
Repair consignment
Depreciation
Others (inventory,etc.)
2. Personnel
Wages
Taxes
Social Aid
Unemployment fund
Others
3.Financial expense
269,984
125,308
1,040
65,411
30,032
13,608
8,910
6,307
143,163
102,768
0
33,848
5,135
1,412
1,513
33.68
15.63
0.13
8.16
3.75
1.70
1.11
0.78
17.86
12.82
0
4.22
0.64
0.18
0.19
1998
Lei(million)
US$(million)
403,243
36.72
149,877
13.65
245,391
22.34
7,975
0.73
403,243
160,193
1,290
71,160
59,230
18,035
8,123
2,355
231,233
162,468
0
58,590
8,126
2,049
11,817
36.72
14.59
0.12
6.48
5.39
1.64
0.74
0.22
21.05
14.79
0
5.33
0.74
0.19
1.08
6.11.3 RATB
(1) Institutional Arrangement
Urban public transport service is covered in the Local Public Administration Law No.
69/1993. Surface transport modes with the exception of regional and international buses have
been devolved to RATB. Within the Bucharest Municipality the responsibility for public
transport falls under the Public Transport and Communication Department, headed by the one
of the Deputy Mayors, and a specific Public Transport Section has been established for this
purpose. RATB can propose alteration of operation that the section must ratify. Traffic
Management Committee assists in this process.
Monitoring of public transport service and co-ordination between the various bodies charged
with the planning are achieved at four levels:
- Commission for Integrated Transport
- General Council Municipality Transport Commission
- Public Transport Department of Bucharest Municipality
- Traffic Committee
Commission for Integrated Transport that is chaired by the Vice-General Mayor makes
recommendations to the General Council of Municipality. RATB can propose all items to the
Traffic Committee.
In 1998 approximately half of the RATB operational staff, namely 4,026 staff out of over
8,242 staff were engaged in the bus operation sector. Though from 1990 to 1995 the number
of staff in the bus operation sector continuously increased, no large change in number of staff
was observed after 1995 (Table 6.11.5).
6-75
Table 6.11.4 Comparison of Public Transport Operation, 1995 (Metro)
Service provider
Bucharest
Helsinki
London
Milan
Munich
Oslo
Vienna
Metrorex
Helsinki
London
Azienda
Stadtwerke
AS Oslo
Wiener
City
Transport
Transporti
Munchen
Sporveier
Linien
City owned
City owned
City owned
1.3
0.47
1.59
Transport
Organization type
Population (million)*
Total staff (persons)
Gov. owned
City owned
Gov. owned
2.06
0.5
6.9
1.31
6,301
234
16,680
2,901
1,221
1,080
1,711
59.2
17
408
69
71
108
39
0.4
0.131
2.5
1.102
0.9
0.15
4.5
7
8.1
4.7
4.5
5.3
5.3
110..91
38.8
784
341
278.7
56
277.97
499.10
278.5
6,337.00
1,593.00
1,242.20
293.8
1,469.09
16.6
8.6
57.2
51.1
46
15.5
18.5
106.4
13.8
40.9
42
17.2
10
43.9
Staff / 1000 passenger trips
15.8
1.8
6.7
2.6
1.4
7.2
Annual passenger distance / staff
(thousand)
Annual vehicle distance / staff
(thousand)
79.2
1,190.20
379.9
549.1
1,017.40
272
858.6
2.6
36.8
3.4
17.6
37.7
14.4
10.8
Total route length (km)
Single passenger trips per day
(million)
Average single trip distance (km)
Annual single passenger trips
(million)
Annual passenger distance (million
km)
Annual vehicle distance (million
km)
Staff / km
Source: 1997 edition of the UITP Book of Urban Transport Statistics, *Imidas 97
* The data of Metrorex (Bucharest) are as of 1998
6-76
Table 6.11.5 Operational Personnel of the Department
of Electric Cars Operation/Bus Operation, RATB
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
RATB
Total
6,609 7,041 7,371 7,612 7,929 8,127 8,068 8,083 8,242
Driver
2,722 2,966 3,162 3,355 3,728 3,992 4,016 4,060 4,236
Mechanics, Electrician,
Revision man
Engineer, Economist,
Technician
Other
1,736 1,762 1,821 1,878 1,912 1,900 1,893 1,854 2,333
177
169
178
176
177
183
184
194
99
1,974 2,144 2,210 2,203 2,112 2,052 1,975 1,975 1,574
Tram
Total
2,370 2,488 2,549 2,622 2,704 2,804 2,819 2,810 2,906
Driver
774
851
904
987
1,057 1,141 1,169 1,175 1,178
Revision man
Technician
Other
761
763
780
825
835
837
866
876
1,090
87
78
79
80
81
85
83
90
36
748
796
786
730
731
741
701
669
602
Trolley bus
Total
1,150 1,226 1,256 1,291 1,332 1,381 1,389 1,384 1,310
Driver
449
483
470
495
508
562
585
590
590
Revision man
Technician
Other
323
338
342
348
351
363
357
333
417
41
35
36
34
35
35
36
41
23
337
370
408
414
438
421
411
420
280
Total
3,089 3,327 3,566 3,699 3,893 3,942 3,860 3,889 4,026
Driver
1,499 1,632 1,788 1,873 2,163 2,289 2,262 2,295 2,468
Revision man
Technician
Other
652
661
699
705
726
700
670
645
826
49
56
63
62
61
63
65
63
40
889
978
1,016 1,059 943
890
863
886
692
Bus
Source: RATB
Note: Data are those at 31 Dec. of each year.
Early in 1999 RATB was re-organised to cope with the changes in the socio–economic and
political condition (Figure 6.11.3).
RATB also suffers from low productivity due to the redundancy of the institutional frame and
insufficient technological supporting system.
RATB has already launched a reorganizing program in order to improve the activity of
6-77
coordination and management of the restructuring. When the reorganization is completed, the
system will become simpler and depots will be linked directly to division chiefs at
headquarters.
Main contents of the program are the following:
- the separation Section Auto Ciclop” from RATB, resulting the decrease of 537 RATB staffs
- the setting up of the Consulting department at the level of a “service”
- the setting up of the environmental department within the technical direction
- the re-organizing of the patrimony administration
- the setting up of the position deputy civil protection inspector
- the abolition of the section designing workshops and workshop terminals and depots
Other than the abolishing 537 staff resulting from the separate in of CICLOP, 420 positions
were eliminated from the organization chart in 1998.
(2) Operational Management
Route planning and scheduling are centralised functions of RATB. The Operations and Traffic
Department of RATB carry them out for trams, trolley buses and buses. There is no separate
team for trams.
6-78
Repair Factories
f URAC
Processing Center
Section of Traffic Control
Office of Environment
Working Group of
Equipment
Printing House
Department of
Commercial Service
Section
Buildings
of
Department of Personnel
Hotels
Cultural Center
Restaurants
Department
of
Human
Resource
Department of Social
Service
Office of Public Relations
Welfare Facilities
Director, Department of Human
Resources and Social Assistance
Security Units
Department of Internal
Fi
i C t l
Department of Asset
Management
Department of Judicial
Aff i
S
t i t
Department of Payment
Office of Work Protection
Department of Budget, Economic
Analysis, Price and Tariff
Director, Department
of
Finance
Department of
Administration
Council
Department of Marketing
Director, Department of
C
i lS i
Construct
ion site
6-79
Department of Supply
Figure 6.11.3 Organization Chart of RATB (as of November 1999)
of
and
General Director
Operating Section of
Power, Maintenance,
Lines and Buildings
Department
Electronics
Department of OrganizationStandardization
of
Department of
Mechanics Energy
Director,
Department
of
Techniques and Mechanical-Power
D
t
t
Operating
Section
Department of
Technical Service
Department of
Plan-Development
Working Group of
Infrastructure
Department of Consulting and
Reorganization
Operating
Section of
Department of
Operation Movement
Director, Department of
O
ti
Department
of
Quality
Checking
The Department is divided into four sections: network planning, operations analysis, survey
section and projects.
The network section is responsible for producing the details of routes to be operated and
frequencies of service.
The operations section produces analyses of operations. The section receives technical
information from depots such as damage to vehicles, number of vehicles used, number of trips
made etc. The section may make technical proposals and recommendations
The survey section is responsible for carrying out simple passenger counts at stops or in
vehicles. It also produces tables of frequencies for each route and each vehicle.
The projects section is responsible for studying particular proposals for route changes.
The Departmental Chief or General Manager must ultimately approve all decisions.
The routes and schedules are provided to the tram depots which are then responsible for
operating the specified services.
Each depot has a chief, an assistant chief, a traffic manager and a maintenance manager.
The traffic manager is responsible for allocating drivers to vehicles and vehicles to routes. In
general, two drivers are permanently allocated to each vehicle, although there are certain
exceptions. The drivers alternate between early, late, split and reserve shifts
The general operational procedure is set out below.
A driver is required to report to the dispatcher 15 minutes before he is due to leave the depot.
This allows the dispatcher time to allocate a reserve driver if necessary. There is usually one
dispatcher on duty at a time, although this may be increased to two at particular times and
certain locations.
The driver is handed a dispatch sheet and goes to his allocated vehicle. The dispatch sheet
includes the name and code of the driver, the number plate and code of the vehicle, the code
of the route and the scheduled time of departure. On exiting the depot, the gate man signs the
dispatch form and records the time.
The vehicle is then driwen to the start of its allocated route if this is not the depot itself, and a
route dispatcher records the departure time of the vehicle from the start of the route. At the
end of the route, the route dispatcher records the arrival time and the procedure is repeated for
each trip. A route dispatcher may be responsible for recording the arrivals and departures of
several lines if these share a common terminus. The driver himself may record any incidents
along the route on the dispatch form, including traffic congestion that delays the vehicle, and
accidents.
On completion of the working period, the driver returns the vehicle to the depot. The gate man notes
the time of arrival, vehicle code, driver code and route, and notes any technical problems reported by
the driver. A mechanic makes a visual inspection of the vehicle.
The vehicle is taken by the driver to be washed, cleaned inside and checked in the workshop.
If the vehicle requires no maintenance, it is taken to the parking area. Otherwise, it is left in
the workshop. The traffic manager or maintenance manager is informed of any problems. The
driver leaves the vehicle and returns the dispatch sheet to the dispatcher.
In certain situations a driver may be changed at the route terminus or mid-way along a route,
rather than at the depot.
The assistant chief heads the technical service in the depot. The service is responsible for the
preparation of the maintenance programme and for traffic analysis on the basis of the dispatch
forms. A traffic analysis is made for each route, including the number of trips made,
percentage of scheduled trips operated, timekeeping and any incidents encountered.
6-80
Table 6.11.6 RATB's Assets Balance Sheet for 1997 and 1998
Current assets
(Inventories)
(Accounts receivable)
(Cash and bank account)
(Others)
Account for regulation
Fixed assets
Totalassets
1997
Lei (million)
US$ (million)
217,004.8
27.1
(118,901.1)
(14.8)
(80,674.0)
(10.1)
(3,611.5)
( 0.5)
(13,818.2)
( 1.7)
9,447.1
1.2
670,948.4
83.7
897,400.3
112.0
1998
Lei (million)
US$ (million)
323,513.8
29.5
(112,358.8)
(10.2)
(196,537.2)
(17.9)
( 12,568.5)
( 1.2)
( 2,049.3)
( 0.2)
2,829.3
0.3
1,444,664.2
131.5
1,771,007.3
161.3
Table 6.11.7 RATB's Liabilities and Equities Balance Sheet for 1997 and 1998
Accounts payable and loans
Others
Total liabilities
Account for regulation
Capital
Reserves
Total equity
Total
1997
Lei (million)
US$ (million)
26,642.1
3.3
41,169.1
5.2
67,811.2
8.5
16,130.7
2.0
806,748.4
100.7
6,710.0
0.8
813,458.4
101.5
897,400.3
112.0
1998
Lei (million)
US$ (million)
87,634.2
8.0
65,127.5
5.9
152,761.7
13.9
15,428.9
1.4
1,602,816.7
146.0
0
0
1,602,816.7
146.0
1,771,007.3
161.3
Table 6.11.8 RATB's Operating Incomes / Costs for 1997 and 1998
Public transport
(Revenue from main activities)
(Subsidy)
(Others)
Investment Income
Total Incomes
Materials
Maintenance
Fares
Salaries wages
expenses
Depreciation
Other expenses
Total costs
1997
Lei (million)
US$ (million)
742,807
92.7
(208,471)
(26.0)
(530,000)
(66.1)
( 4,336)
( 0.6)
113,595
14.2
856,802
106.9
263,838
145,879
4,087
197,679
70,292
50,553
11,408
743,736
32.9
18.2
0.5
24.7
8.8
6.3
1.4
92.8
1998
Lei (million)
US$ (million)
1,141,103
103.9
(314,430)
(28.6)
(802,618)
(73.1)
( 24,055)
( 2.2)
155,831
14.2
1,296,934
118.1
401,634
183,784
6,082
321,911
125,003
94,432
11,199
1,144,045
36.6
16.7
0.6
29.3
11.4
8.6
1.0
104.2
Comparison of the levels of operational efficiency in each public transport mode in Bucharest with
those of other European cities revealed that the performance of trolley, and tram in Bucharest leaves
much to be desired.
6-81
Table 6.11.9 Comparison of Public Transport Operation, 1995 (Tram/LRT)
Service provider
Organization type
Bucharest
Belgrade
Helsinki
Milan
Munich
Oslo
Vienna
RATB
GSP
Helsinki City
Transport
Transport
Azienda
Stadtwerke
AS Oslo
Wiener
Transporti
Munchen
Sporveier
Linien
City owned
City owned
City owned
City owned
City owned
City owned
2.06
1.09
0.5
1.31
1.3
0.47
1.59
5,022
1,540
588
2,045
1,144
356
4,251
400
118
75
203
65
128
181
0.486
0.38
0.183
0.578
0.235
0.101
•|
4.4
6.9
2.1
3.3
2.8
2.8
3.5
Annual single passenger trips (million)
177.4
153
51.6
179
72.9
31.5
217.2
Annual passenger distance (million km)
780.36
1,270.00
109.1
588
203.4
86.6
754.33
Annual vehicle distance (million km)
33.0
8.3
5.2
23.1
11.7
5
44.4
Staff / km
12.6
13.1
7.8
10.1
17.6
2.8
23.5
10.3
4.1
3.2
3.5
4.9
3.5
155.4
824.7
185.5
287.5
177.8
243.3
177.4
6.6
5.4
8.8
11.3
10.2
14
10.4
Single passenger trips per day (million)
Annual passenger distance / staff (thousand)
Annual vehicle distance / staff (thousand)
Source: 1997 edition of the UITP Book of Urban Transport Statistics, *Imidas 97 (1997)
*The data of RATB (Bucharest) are as of 1998
*Administrative staffs of RATB are allocated to each mode based on the ratio of number of drivers in each mode
*The data of “single passenger trips per day” and “arrival single passenger trips” in RATB Annual Report (1998) are modified by JICA Study Team
*”Average single trip distance” is calculated by JICA Study Team
6-82
Table 6.11.10 Urban Public Transport Statistics, 1995 (Trolley)
Service provider
Bucharest
RATB
Belgrade
GSP
Geneva
TPG
Organization type
City owned
City owned
Private
2.06
1.09
0.18
2.509
988
307
138
62
31
0.291
0.243
0.111
4.4
5.1
1.9
106.2
78.4
36
467.3
478.2
68
12.9
6.1
3.3
Staff / km
18.2
15.9
9.9
8.6
4.1
2.8
186.2
484
221.5
5.1
6.2
10.7
*The data of RATB (Bucharest) are as of 1998
*Administrarive staffs of RATBare allocated to each mode based on the ratio of number of drivers in each mode
*”Average single trip distance” is calculated by JICA Study Team
6-83
Milan
Azienda
Transporti
1.31
580
40
0.154
2.6
47
124
4.57
14.5
3.8
213.8
7.9
Riga
Riga TramTrolley Bus
City owned
0.89
1,574
364
0.31
4.1
98.7
404.6
18.082
4.3
5.1
257.1
11.5
Table 6.11.11 Urban Public Transport Statistics, 1995 (Bus)
Bucharest
Service provider
Organization type
Belgrade
RATB
Helsinki
GSP
City owned
City owned
London
Helsinki City
Transport
City
Centrewest
London Buses
London
Transport
Buses
City owned
Milan
Munchen
Oslo
Azienda
Stadtwerke
AS Oslo
Transporti
Munchen
Sporveier
Private
City owned
City owned
2.06
1.09
0.5
6.9
1.31
1.3
0.47
10,444
6,006
850
1,587
4,180
1,637
830
1,414
1,227
433
811
1,056
444
904
1.3
1.904
0.255
0.288
0.972
0.517
0.11
3.8
7.7
4.2
2.2
3.7
2.9
3.5
474.45
619.7
70.7
96.56
301
160.4
34.5
1,802.89
3,860.70
294.9
339.89
1,117.00
458.4
121
66.4
62.3
18.8
28.63
52.3
31.1
9.89
Staff / km
7.4
4.9
2
2
4
3.7
0.9
8.0
3.2
3.3
5.5
4.3
3.2
7.5
172.6
642.8
346.9
214.2
267.2
280
145.8
6.4
10.4
22.1
18
12.5
19
11.9
*The data of RATB are as of 1998
*Administrative staffs of RATB are allocated to each mode based on the ratio of numbers of drivers in each mode
*The data of “single passenger trip per day” and “annual single passenger trips” in RATB Annual Report (1998) are modified by JICA Study Team
*Average single trip distance” is calculated by JICA Study Team
6-84
6.11.4 CFRs
The privatization of railway operation was required because of the background of huge
deficits in recent years, which amounted to 900 bil. lei in 1996 and 600 bil. lei in 1997. The
former Romanian Railway National Society (SNCFR) did not receive any governmental
subsidies.
In 1998 the railway operation was in the process of privatization in Romania by the
announcement of series of a decrees and orders, which include;
- Emergency order No.12/1998
- Governmental Decree No. 581/1998 regarding the setting up of the National Company for
Railways, CFR SA
- Governmental Decree No. 584/1998 regarding the setting up of the National Society for
Railway Passenger Traffic, CFR Calatori
- Governmental Decree No. 582/1998 regarding the setting up of the National Society for
Railway Freight Traffic, CFR Marfa SA
- Governmental Decree No.95/1998 regarding the setting up of the public institutions under
the Ministry of Transport
- Governmental Decree No.626/1998 regarding the Romanian Railway Authority.
Emergency Order No.12/1998 stipulated the principal direction of reorganizing the SNCFR. It
also stipulates that the public railway transport will be organized to provide the unified,
balanced, functional system according to conditions concerning the compatibility and
inter-operability with the European rail transport system. SNCFR has been reorganized as 5
private companies.
Stepwise privatization of the CFR National Company capital is expected.
6.11.5 Others
(1) Regional Bus
Private companies operate long distance regional buses. Several or more bus companies are
commonly using the same autogara and the companies, which administer the autogara also
provide regional bus service. Those bus companies also provide chartered buses for schools,
asylums, and tourism for groups of passengers at weekends.
There were two major organizations RATB and ITA (Road Transport Enterprise) that carried
out the public bus transport in Bucharest before 1989.
Autogaras belonged to the former ITA, which had more than 2,000 buses. After 1991, 4
autogara: Filaret, Obor, Grivita, Aeroport Baneasa were managed by SC Autotrans Calatori
Filaret SA. Militari and Rahova came under respective independent management, because the
law allowed the independence of such companies and they thought that they could manage
better by being independent.
The companies that administer autogara are privatized. However the composition of the
shareholders of companies differs from one to another. The large majority of the capital is
owned by individual shareholders in the case of the Autogara Militari.
Those autogara companies own their own fleets and operate the regional bus service.
SC Autotrans Calatori Filaret SA owns 120 buses and partly operates by itself and partly lease
the buses to other bus companies for regional bus service with license under the contract. The
Autogara Militari operates 28 buses by itself.
The companies managing the autogaras are also selling the tickets for regional buses served
by other companies and they are receiving commission fees of 10% of the ticket price
(Militari).
The charge for using the autogara depends on the contract between the Bus Company and the
company administering autogara. In the case of the Autogara Militari bus companies are
6-85
charged 150.000 lei/month/bus.
Before 1997 the charge for operating regional busses without license was 3.000 lei.
The number of staff and busses belonging to each company are as follows;
a) SC Autotrans Calatori Filaret SA
- 210 staff (administration 20, exploitation 20, maintenance 50, driver 120)
- 120 buses
b) Autogara Rahova
- 13 staff
- 46 buses
c) Autogara Militari
- 100 staff (driver 30, other department 17)
- 37 buses (28 buses in operation now)
The RRA, the Romanian Road Authority (the former Department of Road Transport) of
Ministry of Transport only supervises implementation and observance of the law.
To obtain an approval for a new route, bus companies should send the files including the
operation hours, days, and route etc. to the Road Office of Ministry of Transport. If there is no
other route identical with the proposed one, the Road Office gives approval after obtaining
agreement of branch offices of Road Office located in the region where the new route will
pass.
For international routes, approval has to be obtained from the Central Road Office, Ministry
of Transport and the applicant has to obtain approval from the countries along the
international route and find a corresponding transport company in the destination country.
In order to avoid a fraud, Autogara Militari leases the vehicles to the drivers that have to pay a
certain amount of money monthly.
Though the potential of autogara is high, all of the autogaras are not fully functioning to the
extent of their potential because of relatively small transport demand. A bus can cover,
during one month, 2.000 km. This value could be doubled, but it is limited by the poor
conditions of the roads reducing the operating speed. At Autogara Militari they are covering,
with the whole fleet, 75.000 km.
(2) Maxi Taxi
The maxi taxis used in Bucharest can only operate with a transport and execution license
issued by the Transport Permit Release Division of the Public Transport and Traffic Safety
Department of the Bucharest Municipality.
Relevant laws and regulations for maxi taxi transport business are the following:
- HCGMB No. 163/ 1998
- The Order of the Ministry of Transport No. 527/1997
- The Governmental Order No. 44/1997
For entering the maxi taxi transport business, the applicant has to follow the regulated official
procedure. At first the applicant must get approval from the Technical and Traffic Safety
Committee of Bucharest Municipality for the following items:
- the termini of the route
- location of the route on the map
- the parking possibility for his own vehicles or for the rented ones
After getting the approval the applicant has to hand in a file containing the following
documents to the Transport Licenses Issuing Division:
- the documents of the company that show the objective is passenger transport;
- the documents of the vehicle condition including proof of the technical inspection of
6-86
vehicles;
- the documents on the drivers;
- the documents of the person in charge of the passenger transport activity management.
In order to create a company in the maxi taxi business it is necessary for the appropriate
documentation to be handed to the Romanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Until now 35 commercial companies and 10 private owners are already registered in the maxi
taxi business. Their document are kept in the Transport Licenses Issuing Division.
Almost all of the companies obtained their fleets under a leasing contract, and their depots
keep such fleets ranging from 1 to 41 (the GRILL IMPEX SRL has 41 microbuses). There is
only one exception, ALLEGRO maxi taxi SA, which separated from RATB after 1989, owns
98 microbuses.
The Municipality of Bucharest carries out periodical inspections in order to check whether the
maxi taxi operators are following the regulations stipulated in HCGMB No. 163/1998 or not
and also to stop the operation by anyone without a maxi taxi business permission, with the
help of the Traffic Police belonging to Bucharest Police.
(3) Taxi
In Bucharest Municipality area, the passenger transport service by taxi can only be performed
based on transport and execution license issued by Transport Licenses Services under the
Public Transport and Traffic Safety Department belonging to Bucharest Municipality.
6.12 Problems in Public Transport
The following problems are identified in the public transport sector.
6.12.1 Problems of Demand and Supply
(1) Lack of Planned Public Transport Network
Due to the lack of statistical data, the public transport routes and networks are generally
established without traffic demand forecast. Therefore the network is following the existing
transport demand and is not able to induce the future urban structure. As has been observed by
the missing link in the central area in case of tram network, the public transport network has
not been rationally set up.
(2) Inappropriate Service to Demand
Due to historical reasons it can be pointed out that some tram or trolley routes are operated in
areas where transport demand is scarce. On the other hand, in the areas where large public
transport demand exists, several public transport means such as tram, bus, and metro are
mobilized to cope with the transport demand, leading to long strings of buses and trams being
held up at peak hours.
(3) Underdeveloped Utilization of Public Transport Modes
The roles of public transport modes including metro, tram, bus etc. corresponding to the
functional characteristics of each transport mode are not well developed. The network is not
easily understandable for users due to an insufficient formation on the integrated and
systemized public transport network. Regarding trams an arterial network has not been
formed due to the deterioration of tracks and mixed use of road space with vehicles.
6-87
(4) Inconvenient Transferring
In general, transferring between transport modes supplied by different organization is
inconvenient in terms of route coordination. It is especially it is evident in the case of
transferring from metro to surface public transport, and between public transport by RATB
and other surface public transport.
No alleviation measures have been taken for the transfer of passengers between metro and
surface public transport in the existing fare system. These circumstances lead to lowering the
convenience of transferring, and to a decrease of public transport passengers, and unrestricted
use of public transport means.
In addition, transferring facilities are generally poor.
6.12.2 Operational, Managerial and Institutional Problems
(1) Inconsistency of Introduction of Transport Market and Subsidy Policy
The low fare levels of Metrorex and RATB are somewhat determined from the viewpoint of
social welfare and rather far from the reflecting of benefit to users. In addition the percentage
of free riders including ex-serviceman, family members of personnel working for public
transport entities is quite high in both the cases of RATB and Metrorex. The policy can be
regarded as an additional payment or social welfare, however it is also depressing the
management of public transport.
On the other hand, some public transport companies are forced to manage their business
independently without any subsidy. Operational conflicts between RATB busses and regional
buses from autogara, or between RATB buses and maxi taxis are perceptible. The necessary
behind the demarcation between public transport service entrusted to the primate transport
market and that subsidized by the government, is not clear.
(2) Low Productivity of the Public Transport Management
Although both entities are on the way to privatization, and the situation is changing now,
Metrorex and RATB were not strongly motivated to improve their productivity and rationalize
their management until recently due to the subsidy policy. For instance, regarding the average
operated veh.-km per staff, in the case of Metrorex in 1995, performance was about one
fourth of that of Wiener Linien in Vienna. In the case of tram, the performance of RATB in
1995 was 63% of that of Wiener Linien. In the cases of trolley bus and bus, the performance
by RATB in 1995 was 64% and 50% of that of Azienda Transporti in Milan, respectively. This
low productivity has distressed the public transport management.
(3) High Fare Evader Rate
The rate of fare evaders is extremely high in the case of RATB in spite of the mobilization of
inspectors and taxation on illegal rider ship. The survey revealed that about 25% of RATB
passengers are fare evaders. In the case of Metrorex it was estimated that some 6% of the
passengers are fare evaders. Those high rates of fare evaders worsen the financial situation of
public transport entities.
(4) Lack of Incentive for Managerial Rationalization
Metrorex has already been transformed to a private company and RATB is also on the way to
becoming an autonomous private company. However operating loss was to be supplemented
by governmental resources to an extent to be officially determined, so no apparent incentives
for the rationalization of management exist. This lead to the delay or neglect of management
reform.
6-88
(5) Lack of Financing Resource
Public transport service requires large amounts of investment funds for the improvement of
infrastructure and facilities. For such items like the purchase of new rolling stocks or
rehabilitation of tracks Metrorex and RATB are forced to depend on funds financed by the
international organization or the fund provided by the governmental organization in charge of
administration. However such funds are sometimes insufficient and not always available.
Although the beneficiary pay principle is not only a matter of passengers but also applicable
to other beneficiaries including land users near the public transport, no clear legal frame work
has been established.
The lack of institutional and legal frame works for fund procurement is a problem.
(6) Lack of Institutional Arrangement for the Integrated Public Transport System
Well coordination of the transport master plan and land use master plan is not well geared
because of the timing of the process. For the integrated public transport system, the
institutional frame work for coordinating public transport service suppliers and integrating
public transport, is lacking.
6.12.3 Problems by Mode
The problems identified by public transport mode are the following.
a) Metro
- There is a route having its terminus in an industrial estate and which doesn't cover the nearly
residential area which has a large transport demand
- The interval of stations is rather long (1.463km on average) which detracts from the
availability of the metro
- Due to the lack of funds modernization of rolling stocks has been delayed.
- Due to the lack of funds, abandonment project plans and suspension of construction work
has occurred.
b) Tram
- There are some routes which pass through idle industrial land and do not correspond to the
transport demand.
- The connection of tram routes in the central area is lacking.
-Old tram cars and deteriorated tram tracks lower the operating speed and comfort of
passengers.
- Due to the lack of funds, the purchase of new rolling stocks for the modernization has been
delayed.
- Common use of road space by traffic lights disturb effective tram operation.
- Deterioration of infrastructure is proceeding due to it’s insufficient maintenance work.
- Insufficient power supply system curbs the modernization of operation.
- Chain operation with less than one-minute interval is made in some sections at peak periods.
- Total cost per passenger-km is high due to high fleet cost.
c) Trolley bus
- Operating speed is low except for trolley exclusive lane.
- Incomplete trolley routes to access the central area exist in the peripheral area.
- Operation cost is high in terms of place-km and revenue cost ratio is low compared with
other public transport modes due to unprofitable routes.
6-89
d) Bus
- Duplication of bus routes by RATB bus and other bus routes to/from autogara.
- Passenger facilities are poor.
- The roles of RATB bus, Maxi Taxi and other long distance busses are not well demarcated.
e) Maxi taxi
- The role as an area service public transport is not well performed.
f) Taxi
- Taxi meter is not always used and users are then compelled to negotiate the fare.
- The vehicles are usually old.
6-90