UNDERGROUND SPACE
Marienplatz Station in Munich. The city of Munich opened its first subway (U-Bahn) line in 1977 and since that time has
expanded the underground - system, investing an average annual rate of DM200 million.
Costs and Benefits of
Underground Railway Constructiont
by Gunter Girnau*
ccording_to the results of a representative survey, m recent
years the image of local public
passenger transport in the Federal Republic of Germany has improved considerably. This is largely a result of the
A
tRevised and reprinted with permission from
Advances in Tunnelling Technology and Subsurface Use (Developpement des Travaux en
Souterrain), Volume 2, No.2, 1982. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
"'Professor Dr.-Ing. Gunter Girnau is president of the International Tunnelling Association (ITNAITES) and president of STUVA,
Cologne, Federal Republic of Germany.
Underground Space, Vol. 6, pp. 323-330, 1982
Printed in the U.S.A. All rights reserved.
massive financial support that has been
given to promote local public transport
in the past 15 years. Since 1967, when
federal funds first became available, a
30-year program of planning and investment in public transport has been
under way nationwide. It is now "halftime" in the 30-year program. A detailed breakdown of the funds as actually invested and of the construction
work already done is now available, and
equally important, the program has
advanced to the stage where preliminary conclusions can be drawn from
what has been achieved.
0362-0565/82/060323-08$03.00/0
Copyright © 1982 Pergamon Press Ltd.
The immediate benefits of this huge
investment program in terms of increased ridership and convenience to
the individual passenger can easily be
seen. What is not so obvious is that the
public interest has been served in a
number of other ways. Reduced noise,
improved air quality, fewer traffic accidents, and a positive economic effect
on the community can also be counted
among the benefits of this program.
Indeed, a cost-benefit analysis of public
transport that did not include these
benefits would be remiss. This brief
survey of Germany's revitalized public
323
transport system will consider both the
costs and the various benefits of this
huge undertaking.
West Germany's Investment
in Public Transport
Between 1967 and 1980, federal,
state, and local governments, German
Railways, and individual transport
companies spent a total of DM22 billion on extending the facilities of public passenger transport systems. Between 1967 and 1975, in particular,
there was a marked upturn in the level
of annual investment (Fig. 1). Since
1977, the annual yearly expenditure
has been in the range of DM2 billion
to DM2.3 billion.
The major sources of funds over the
years were the federal and state governments, which provided 52% and
20% respectively. (The chief basis for
financing today is the Municipal Finance
Transport
ActGemeinver- kehrsfinanzierungsgesetz.
The federal share is currently some
60%.)
The amount
provided by
local
govern- ment- 24%- is
much
higher than
is generally
assumed. However, as own- ers
of
local
transport
systems,
local
governments bear the cost of the rolling stock, which amounts to DM600
million annually.
The major portion of funds was invested in improving and extending
railway traffic; by far the largest amount,
DM13.4 billion (61%) went toward underground (U - Bahn), metropolitan
(light rail, or Stadtbahn) and tramway
systems. This was followed by the DM7.3
billion (33%) spent selectively on the
German Railways' rapid transit systems
(commuter railways, or S-Bahn). Most
of the remaining DM1.3 billion was used
to extend or construct service stations
and workshops, central bus stations, interchange stations, park-and- ride facilities, or grade separating structures.
The funds invested during the first
14 years of the development program
have genera ted a huge volume of con' struction work.
D
2.2
• All-out underground systems (UBahn) are now in operation or are
being extended in Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, and Nurembergcities, with the exception of Nuremberg, having populations exceeding one million.
• Metropolitan systems (light rail , or
Stadtbahn) are being built in 17
cities: Bielefeld, Bochum, Bonn,
Bremen, Cologne, Dortmund,
Dusseldorf, Duisberg, Essen,
Frankfurt/Main , Gelsenkirchen,
Hanover, Herne, Ludwigshafen,
PRIVATE PROJECTS
per km
50
45
40
25
(23% in tunnel) (78% in tunnel)
Figure 2. Cost comparison between subway (U -Bahn) and light rail (Stadtbahn) systems.
Mulheim/Ruhr, and Stuttgartcities whose populations vary widely
between 200,000 and 900,000.
• To finance extensions to their tram
networks, 11 cities have received investment assistance: Augsburg,
Brunswick, Darmstadt, Freiburg,
Karlsruhe, Kassel, Nuremberg, and
Wurzbergcities
having
popula- tions ranging between
100,000 and
200,000.
By the end of the construction period
(1967-1980), some 180 km of new nonintersecting routes (tunnel, cutting, elevated) as well as 250 km of on-grade
routes (special right-of-way) with a total of 720 stops were put into operation
in the municipal railway sector.
MUNI CIPA L PROJEC TS
1 .8
1 .6
German Railways'
rapid transit system (S -Bahn)
1.4
To open up the region by rapid transit
(S-Bahn), 100 km of new track with
145 stops were laid and 490 km of existing track with 164 stations were converted to commuter railways and
opened to traffic. Again as much construction work is planned for the near
future- an additional 125 km of
new track will be laid and 405 km of
existing track is to be converted.
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
o
U-
1967
1 970
UL
_L
a_
1971
• Munic ipal and pr ivate projects not sep ar a ted.
Figure 1. Investment in local public passenger transport during the first 12 years
of the Federal Republic's 30-year planning and investment program.
324
DM in mil l
The development program covers the
following projects:
(:::::::::::::1 FEDERA L RAILWAY PROJECTS
2.0
COST PE R KM
Facilities for
municipal railway systems
1 ,000 mill . DM
2.4
AVERAGE CONSTRUCTION
UNDERG ROU N D SPACE
The Costs
The
question of costs- and
espe- cially of costs for subsurface
construc- tion- is always difficult to
answer. There are so many factors
influencing costs that they may vary
between 30 million
to 80 million DM per kilometer of underground railway tunnel (with all installations including stations). In the
same city, costs vary considerably from
line to line and even from contract to
contract. It is virtually meaningless,
therefore, to talk about cost per kilometer in a general sense, for the cost
is never general. Having said that,
however, some figures indicative of costs
can be given.
The main factor influencing the cost
of railway construction is the relation
between the length of a line in tunnel
and at grade. This relation is markedly
different between the U-Bahn and the
S-Bahn. The results of the first eleven
years of construction are:
U-Bahn: 78% of track length in
nel;
overall costs 35 million
million DM/km
(tunnel and at grade)
S-Bahn: 23% of track length in
nel;
overall costs 20 million
million DM/km
(tunnel and at grade)
--?
--?
DM7.3 billion
33%
--?
DM1.3 billion
6%
--?
Metropolitan
(Light rail, or
Stadtbahn)
Tramway
(Strassenbahn)
Commuter railways
(S-Bahn)
tunto 40
--?
--?
tun-
--?
to 25
The figures show that the U-Bahn is
nearly twice as expensive as a light rail
system on separated track (Stadtbahn).
(See Fig. 2.)
Another important factor influencing the cost of underground construction is the tunneling method (which
depends on the ground conditions). For
example, a tunnel in water-bearing soft
ground may cost two to three times
more using the compressed-air shield
driven method than if the tunnel had
been excavated using the cut-and-cover
approach. However, the experience in
Germany has been that the technological developments between 1966 and
1979, as well as the very strong competition among contractors has markedly reduced the cost differential between the cut-and -cover approach and
the "underground" tunneling methods. In Munich today, the costs for the
New Austrian Tunnelling Method
(NATM), the shield
method, and the
open cut are very close together (Fig.
3). There are instances in Munich and
other German cities where the NATM
is already cheaper- especially when
the costs for environmental protection
are taken into consideration.
(To be sure, the cost of underground
construction is influenced by many factors, e.g., tunnel length, cross section,
type of lining. To deal with these in
detail, however, would fall outside of
the province of this paper.)
Finally, a factor not to be overlooked
when discussing cost is inflation. Since
1980, inflation has had an effect on the
May/june 1982
How the funds were invested
DM13.4 billion = 61% --? Underground
(U-Bahn)
--?
DM22 billion
180 km non-intersecting routes
250 km on-grade
routes
720 stations and
stops
100 km new track
145 new stations and
stops
490 km existing track
converted
164 existing stations
converted
Workshops
Central bus stations
Interchange stations
Park-and-ride
Grade separation
100%
cost
(OM per m track)
60,000
50,000
NATM
40,000 +---+----+--+----+=....-=+1-o---""""....._c----+'o"----_-+----fo'i---+---+---l
I
30,000
--'""-<:L
.
shield dr
',
----
-t-----,.!-+ --+---+----+---+---t---+---ll------t....o_-=\"""""";:l--+-
;if'
20,000t---r-
.......... o.....
··-··_··- op e_n cu t--t--r-. o7.-··4PO ·- ··· -- -· · ---- ---
..-o····
10,000 t---+---l--+---+---l--+---+---11--+---+--1---1
1966
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
Figure 3. The cost differential between the New Austrian Tunnelling Method, the
shield method, and the open cut has been markedly reduced.
Federal Republic's entire transportation development program . While construction prices could be kept on the
same level during the 1970's due to
technological advances and competitive bidding, these prices rose in 1980
and 1981 by 20% to 40%- which
means that we can now build less for
the same amount of money.
The Benefits
Besides being readily apparent, most
of the benefits of this investment activity are quantifiable. However, since a
period of approximately 30 years was
assumed for the implementation of the
total development plan, an interim survey cannot have complete data: construction on individual projects is still
under way, but more importantly, the
total railway network is not complete.
The full effect of an underground or
metropolitan railway in attracting passengers is only really felt when a full
route is in operation and, even more
so, when the full network has been
completed.
A statement of the results of invest-
UNDERGROUND SPACE
325
ment in local public transport would
be wanting, however, if it were confined to be the effects on traffic conditions, i.e., if the value of rapid transit
systems were assessed in terms of passenger loads alone. Besides the increased ridership resulting from improved services, it is important to note
that there are other results which are
in the public interest, both economically and socially.
Transport improvements
Regularity, punctuality, and speed
are the basic criteria determining how
attractive public transport is. Success is
very apparent where route separation
has permitted an unmix i ng of public
and private traffic. Compared with
former bus and tram serv ice, this has
cut travel time (Table 1), reduced delays to zero in most cases (Table 2), and
increased passenger loads (Table 3). To
demonstrate in detail the succe3s of the
investment policy in regard to increased ridership, data from the Mu nich U-Bahn and the Hanover Stadtbahn are presented in Tables 4 and 5.
What is particularly important is that
upgrading public transport makes it a
genuine alternative for those who still
travel by car. Again, the examples of
Munich and Hanover are representative:
• Since the opening of Hanover's
metropolitan Line A, public transport has accounted for 78% of all
trips into the city within the area
of influence of the new lineeven though 50% of the passengers
have a car at their disposal at all
times.
An interchange station in Hanover, where the metropolitan light rail system (SBahn) links up with the city's bus system.
• In Munich, the number of daily
car trips i n the urban area dropped
by 70,000 after underground and
rapid transit services began operation (reference period: 19701973).
These figures suggest that attractive
public transport systems are appreciated and used even by car drivers.
Stepping up safety
Compared with other modes of
Table 1. Reduction in travel time as a result of improvements in public
transport in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Transport Mode
Measure Taken
Result
Bus/Tram
Separate right-of-way
or bus lane
Cuts in travel time of
2 to 15 minutes
depending on length
of line.
Underground/
Metropolitan
(U-Bahn/Stadtbahn)
Bus line replaced by
rail system
Average travel time
cut by one-half
Table 2. Reduction in delays as a result of improvements in public transport.
Delays
After
Transport Mode
Measure Taken
Bus/Tram
Separate right-ofway or bus lane
Average
up to 10
minutes
Maximum
of 2
minutes
Underground/
Metropolitan
(U-Bahn/Stadtbahn)
Tunnel or separate
right-of-way
Average
up to 10
minutes
Virtually
none
326
UNDERGROUND SPACE
Before
transportation, bus, tram, and underground railway are the safest of all.
Pushing ahead with the construction of
separate lanes
and
routesresulting in a further unmixing of
traffic-could do even
more
to
improve safety.
The pedestrian, in particular, is a
beneficiary of these improvements in
the transportation system. The subsurface relocation of railway traffic has
permitted the creation of extensive pedestrian zones where pedestrian traffic
can move unimpeded by vehicles. Below-grade stops provide greater safety
not only for passengers, but for pedestrian traffic in general, whenever
these facilities have walkways permitting pedestrians to cross streets underground.
This separation of traffic accomplished by constructing separate mainly underground - routes and lanes
for public transport could not fail to
be reflected in accident statistics. In
Munich, for example, between 1970 and
1977, the road accident rate fell by
37.6%, the injury rate by 22.1%, and
the number of fatalities was reduced
by 40.7% (Table 6).
Environmental impact
Investment in improved underground transport, resulting in increased passenger loads, has a direct
effect on the environment. That underground transport places less strain
on the environment is demonstrated in
the following examples.
Over a three- year period, air poilu-
May/june 1982
tion from exhaust fumes was measured
at 50 points in the urban area of Munich. Comparing the data from 1970 and
1973, after the opening of the first rapid
transit (Schne ll bahn) routes, it was
found that the carbon monoxide concentration had dropped by 25%, the
hydrocarbon concentration by 35%, and
nitric oxide by as much as 44%. Th is
reduction in pollution is largely attributed to improved traffic flows, th e sh i ft
of some segments of traffic to underground and rapid transit systems, and
the use of park-and-ride systems (Fig.
4).
In addition, any investment t hat improves the routes and lanes for public
transport or improves the vehicles
themselves will lower noise levels. Rerouting vehicles via an open cutting or
trough, for example, yields a substantial noise reduction in the surrounding
built-up area (Fig. 5). Rerouting traffic
t hrough tunnels eliminates noise pollution altogether.
I n Hanover, the opening of metropolitan Lane A cut noise by more than
10 dB(A) in the urban area along the
route, meaning noise nuisance was
halved. Bu t this also means that no specific measures for protection against
traffic noise were needed in this area.
The costs, e.g., for noise protection
windows, which usually are between
DM2,300 and DM5,,400 per meter of
road (Table 7), were saved.
Table 3. Rise in passenger loads as result of the construction program.
Transport Mode
Measure Taken
Rise in Passenger Load
Tram
Separate right-ofway
+ 10% to 30%
Underground/
Metropolitan
(U-Bahn/
Stadtbahn)
Tunnel or separate
right-of-way
Commuter
Railway System
(S-Bahn)
Separate right-ofway
Line
Year
U-Bahn
U3/U6
S-Bahn
U-Bahn U8
(New)
May/june 1982
+ 100% to 250%
Passenger Load
1972
("Before")
124,000 passengers/day
1980
("After")
360,000 passengers/day
1971
("Before")
160,000 passengers/day
1980
("After")
550,000 passengers/day
Increase
+ 190%
+ 244%
Approx. 200,000 passengers/day without
any reduction of passenger loads on
other lines
1980
Table 5. Increased ridership on Hanover's Stadtbahn.
Year
Economic implications
• The
construction of underground, metropolitan, and rapid
transit systems is not the primary
Extreme:
+ 109% (Frankfurt)
to 190% (Munich)
Table 4. Rise in passenger loads as a result of subway expansion in Munich.
Line
It is a fact that improvements in public transport systems- especially by
use of the undergroundare
synonymous with
greater
capital
outlays. Higher maintenance costs of
sub-grade routes and stations, in
particular, m ust be taken in to account.
Also of crucial impor- tance are the
costs of energy and ser- v i cing the
systems . Nor is t hi s a ll . Adapting
vehicles to meet the specific needs of
rapid transit services and costly safety
engineering also entail h igher costs.
For these reasons, it was long feared
that these costs would be too great for
local transport systems to bear, that they
would gradually fall deeply i nto debt,
thereby placing an u nreasonable financial burden on local governments. The
whole point of the initial investment
would then have been called into question.
Thanks to the federal government's
Post-Construction Cost Report (Folgekostenbericht) t his issue has been
clarified. The report found that:
Normal:
+ 15% to 60%
A
B
(Only
half in
operation)
Passenger Load
1975
("Before")
Increase
70,000 passengers/day
+50%
1980
("After")
105,000 passengers/day
1978
("Before")
32,000 passengers/day
1980
("After")
43,000 passengers/day
+ 34%
Table 6. Declining road accident rates in Munich.
Road Traffic
Accidents
Year
Absol.
%
1970
1971*
1972**
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
45,946
44,085
37,855
31,902
29,470
30,367
29,748
28,676
100
95.5
82.4
69.4
64.1
66.1
64.7
62.4
Number
Fatalities
Injured
%
Absol.
%
Absol.
12,118
11,978
12,505
11,016
9,822
9,241
9,136
9,439
100
98.8
103.2
90.9
81.1
76.3
75.4
77.9
246
248
258
204
193
182
133
146
100
100.8
104.9
82.9
78.5
74.0
54.1
59.3
• Opening of the first underground line, October 19, 1971.
**Start-up of the commuter railway system on May 28, 1972, at the same time as the
introduction of integrated operations.
UNDERGROUND SPACE
327
a. Decline in pollution, 1970-1973.
b. Reasons for reduction in CO and CH pollutants.
smooth traffic
flows
12 °/o
metro
7%
II
pork
and
ride
4 o1c0
as f
exhaust- fum e
eo 1ng
•
•
1 eg•s 1at1on
11
3
%112%1
1-3%
1970
I
rise in car
population
1973
Figure 4. Reduction in air pollution from exhaust fumes according to a study conducted by the Bayerische Motorenwerke
(BMW) in conjunction with the Bavarian State Environment Office, Munich.
cause of the deficits incurred by
local transport systems;
about equal to the investment in the
underground system.
• Post-construction costs up to 1985,
even using purely commercial accounting, were responsible for only
about 5% of the deficit.
Post-construction costs are, therefore, far from reaching the level predicted by the critics of public investment in local transport. Moreover, the
purely commercial considerations underlying the calculations in the PostConstruction Cost Report ignore the
benefits for the economy as a wholeeven though local transport is promoted precisely because of the public
benefit.
In sum, this analysis of the investment in terms of its economic effects
on local transport systems demonstrates that the costs of running rapid
transit systems (Schnellbahn) are not
out of bounds, that they are indeed
affordable.
In Hanover, the opening of the metropolitan Line A yielded a 50% rise in
the passenger load, a major part of
which was genuinely new business. The
increased ridership yielded a higher fare
income which more than made up for
the higher operating costs (Table 8).
Admittedly, the Hanover system is not
representative of all rapid transit systems in that it receives a perk- the
City of Hanover foots the energy bill
and
maintains
the
tunnel
installations- which other systems
do
not
enjoy. Nevertheless, it
remains a fact that in- vestment in
local public passenger transport does
not necessarily produce bigger deficits.
And there is another aspect that
should be observed. Plans for public
328
UNDERGROUND SPACE
0
-7. 5
10
-10
20m
-15
Figure 5. Noise reduction (in decibels)
when traffic is rerouted through an open
cutting (top) or a trough.
and private transportation influence
each other, which is to say that big in vestments in underground railroads will
reduce investments in roads. The city
of Munich, for example, opened its first
underground railway line in 1977 and
since that time the underground system has been enlarged at the rate of
approximately DM200 million annually. In 1970 Munich invested DM160
million in road construction. By 1975
the investment in road construction had
dropped to approximately DMSS million, and since that time the figure has
ranged between DM60 to 70 million
per year (Table 9). In other words, the
reduction in road construction was
The overall economic impact
With respect to the economy as a
whole, investment in public transport
is important because it creates jobs in
many sectors. Between 20,000 to 25,000
construction workers are currently employed on underground, metropolitan
railway, and rapid transit projects. Since
this work force is concentrated in relatively few locations, the local importance of these jobs is great. With capital
spending totaling DM2 billion annually, approximately 40,000 workers
in West Germany are directly or indirectly dependent on the construction
of rapid transit systems.
A secondary effect on the economy
is that the construction firms working
on the rapid transit systems have been
able to apply the experience acquired
in handling domestic projects to open
up foreign markets as well.
The impact on urban development
This catalog of results will be concluded with what is perhaps the most
important consideration of all: construction of rapid transit systems is an
instrument of urban development and
renewal. That underground, metropolitan railway, and rapid transit systems have a substantial impact on the
urban infrastructure and improve the
quality of life for our citizens is demonstrated by the following examples,
of which many more could be cited:
• The function of city centers as
market, trading, and communication centers is restored.
• Below-grade routing of public
transport permits more intensive
May/june 1982
use of the surface for higher-density business and residential districts (Fig. 6).
• Locating rail traffic underground
makes it possible, in many instances, to save historically valuable buildings and thus preserve the
familiar townscape.
1&.1
U)
U)
<l
a:
1-
• The development of structurally
weak areas (old town districts, renewal areas) can be furthered by
public transport in conjunction with
supplementary urban replanning.
U)
<!)
a:
0
1&.1
<!)
• Motor vehicle traffic can be bundled on fast arterial roads, thus
creating areas that are largely free
of traffic in which pedestrian zones
can be built.
• Settlement along the right-of-way
of rapid transit systems is promoted and urban sprawl is checked.
• Public amenities (museums, zoos,
libraries, parks) and recreation and
sports facilities can be made more
accessible and used by larger sections of the population. In handling traffic peaks to and from
major events, public transport has
proved to be particularly valuable.
Finally, one scarcely noticed factor is
the large-scale renewal and modernization of utility supply lines and sewerage systems that goes hand in hand
with the construction of below-grade
transportation facilities. For example,
when the metropolitan railway was built
in Cologne (involving the construction
of II km of tunnel), 62 km of sewers
and piping as well as 233 km of cable
were laid or relaid. Much the same is
true of other cities. The new lines and
networks were designed to meet future
demands, thus obviating the need for
regular repairs and extensions to the
old system.
Costs Versus Benefits
The assessment of costs versus benefits is very popular today, but attention has to be drawn to the fact that
there are a lot of problems in this field
which are still unresolved. It is very
difficult to assign a money value to
everything. Some of the most important benefits of underground railways
are hard to quantify. What, for example, is the economic equivalent of
the growing prosperity of a city, of less
polluted air, lower traffic noise levels,
and lower accident rates?
In spite of these difficulties in quantification, in the mid 1970's the German
Minister of Transportation developed
May/june 1982
Figure 6. Routing public transport underground permits higher, more intensive
use of the surface in the central business district (example: Kropcke in Hanover).
Table 7. Costs of noise protection windows for three- to five-floor buildings
adjacent to highways.
Exceeding the acceptable noise
level
+
+
+
Approximate costs of noise
protection windows
(DM per meter of road length)
5 dB
2,300 to 3,300
10 dB
2,900 to 4,200
15 dB
3,700 to 5,400
Table 8. A comparison of operating costs of Stadtbahn (light rail) and tram
systems. (The costs used in this 1976 study were those of Hanover's Line A.)
Expenses
Stadtbahn
(million DM)
Tram
(million DM)
Operators1 , inspectors, station
staff
4,248
5,986
Propulsion energy2
1,846
1,575
Maintenance (vehicles, buildings,
equipment)
5,693
4,658
Capital cosP
6,846
5,578
Tunnel lease
4
-
200
5,229
4,423
Total cost
24,132
22,220
Revenues
18,000-18,500
15,000-15,500
6,100- 5,600
7,200- 6,700
Other
5
Total cost minus revenue
'The Stadtbahn requires 45 fewer operators.
More powerful engines in Stadtbahn rolling stock.
3
Stadtbahn rolling stock is more expensive.
•The City of Hanover maintains the tunnels.
5E.g., costs for tickets, ticket machines, taxes; proportional overhead costs for
administration, insurance, and social payments.
2
U N DERGRO UN D SPACE
329
a standardized cost-benefit analysis
which had to be completed by all cities
asking for financial support for their
projects. The method used was a comparison of the "with" and the "without"
situation, i.e. , the expected effects of
the i nvestment were compared with the
situation as it would be without the investment. The following effects were
evaluated and quantified in relation to
the three concerned groups:
• for the passengers
- costs for traveling time
- fares for public transport
-operating costs for private
automobile
• for
-
the transit authority
annualized capital cost
operating cost
fare-box revenue
• for the general public
- noise reduction costs
- costs for the reduction of exhaust fumes
- accident costs
Because of the great expense, this costbenefit analysis was limited to projects
involving an investment of more than
DM50 million. After a few years of experience, however, this analysis proved
unsuitable and was withdrawn. A new
cost-benefit analysis is now being worked
out, which tries to avoid the defects of
the first one. But even an improved
version can only be an aid to and not
a replacement of political and technical
judgment in the investment decision.
Conclusion
The examples cited in this paper show
not only that improvement of local
public passenger transport provides the
individual passenger with a direct personal benefit, but also that underground construction work in the field
of public transport produces other
positive effects that are in the public
interest, both socially and economically- benefits which make a big
con- tribution toward improving the
often- cited quality of life. Experience
in the Federal Republic of Germany
indi- cates, on the one hand, that
this re- quires a huge volume of capital
spend- ing and, in some cases, very long
periods of construction. On the other
hand, this seems to be the only way
we have of saving our deteriorating
cities.
Bibliography
Bayerische Motorenwerke (BMW), and Bavarian State Environment Office. 1973.
Auto, motor, sport, no. 76/1973, Munich.
Bundesminister fur Verkehr. 1976. Anleitung fur die Standardisierte Bewertung von
Frankenstrasse Station (open cut) in Nuremberg.
Table 9. Expenditures for the construction of roads, streets, and highways in
Munich, Federal Republic of Germany.
Year
Expenditure for
Road Construction
(million OM)
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
115.8
126.4
102.0
105.7
117.0
159.9
156.3
136.9
91.8
69.7
54.6
67.9
60.6
72.0
Total Investment Percentage of Total
in Transportation Investment Spent on
(million OM)
Road Construction
Verkehrswegeinvestitionen des OPNV, Heft
51. Bonn.
Federation of Public Transport Undertakings (VOV), and Association of Municipal
Corporations (Deutscher Stadtetag, DST).
1978. Offentlicher Personennahvehrkehr: Invesitionen- Bauleistungen- Erfolge 1967
bis
1976 (Local public passenger transport:
investment and construction, results 1967
to 1 976). An i nterim survey on the financial assistance programme of the Municipal Passenger Transport Finance Act, p.
100 ff. Cologne.
Federation. ot Pubhc Transport Undertakings (VOV). 1980. VOV-Statistik '80. Colonge: Verband Offentlicher Verkehrsbetriebe.
German Parliament. 1976. Report on postconstruction costs of local public passenger
transport (OPNV), publication VII/4556,
January 12, 1976.
370.4
360.0
403.7
366.6
398.8
484.0
531.5
491.7
600.8
554.7
554.9
644.9
734.3
835.3
31.3
35.1
25.3
28.8
29.3
33.0
29.4
27.8
15.3
12.6
9.8
10.5
8.3
8.6
Girnau, G., and Muller, K. W. 1980. Success
of investment in local public transport in
Germany, Transport policy and decision making, pp. 253-265, Jan uary 1980.
Meister, D., and Girnau, G. 1980. Statement
of the official delegation of the Federal
Republic of West Germany at Round Table Session I on Environmental Protection. In Subsurface Space (Rockstore '80),
ed. M. Bergman, pp. 1061-1071. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Scheelhasse, K. 1979. Einsatzbereich von
Stadtbahnsystemen, Vehrkehr und Technik:
October, 1979.
Society for Consumption, Market and Sales
Research (GfK-Nurnberg).
1978.
Offentlicher Personennahverkehr im Urteil der
Beviilkerung (Local passenger traffic as the
public sees it), a representative survey.
Cologne.
May/june 1982
330
UNDERGROUN D SPACE