tramtrain: the 2nd generation new criteria for the ‘ideal tramtrain city’ rob van der bijl -...
TRANSCRIPT
TRAMTRAIN: THE 2ND GENERATION
NEW CRITERIA FOR THE ‘IDEAL TRAMTRAIN CITY’
Rob van der Bijl - Axel Kühn
Independent Consultants
Working for Interreg HiTrans …
Medium sized cities
During a workshop at…
Stavanger
Expert work for…
London (TfL)
Studying feasibility in…
Coventry (CENTRO)
Delivering a survey for…
Leiden
Doing our job in…
Maastricht
When we worked in…
Aarhus
Spending some time in…
Sunderland
Study touring in…
Heilbronn
When we stayed in…
Kassel
On tour in…
Nordhausen
Tour guiding in…
Zwickau
Talking in…
Mulhouse
Authors:Rob van der Bijl, Amsterdam, Netherlands:
Urban planner and founder of www.lightrail.nl. Involvement in TramTrain research and projects in Holland and other European countries. Documentation of TramTrain systems, projects and features on ‘Light Rail Atlas’.
Axel Kühn, Karlsruhe, Germany:Civil engineer and independent consultant.Participation in the Karlsruhe developments from the early stage. Involvement in a considerable number of TramTrain projects all over Europe.
Contents
• Introduction• Definitions• State of the art• Checklist‘s criteria• Applied criteria – the 50
issues• Conclusion
Introduction
• Tram-Train systems link urban tramway infrastructure with the regional heavy rail network around cities
• After first generation in Germany (Karlsruhe and Saarbruecken) new systems evolve now
• Mid-nineties boom period regarding TramTrain feasibility studies
• Most of projects have not proceeded or at least been heavily delayed and not given high priority
• Reasons?
• TramTrain characteristics • Urban context and economic viability of projects
Definitions
Classic light-rail/tramway operation
• Conversion• Single-Mode Track-sharing TramTrain-operation• Dual-Mode Electric-Electric• Dual-Mode Diesel-ElectricTrainTram-operation • Existing tramway network• No existing tramway
network
State of the art
• Karlsruhe: Success, Failure and Weaknesses • Saarbruecken: First Low-floor TramTrain • Other ‘First Wave’ Cities • ‘2nd Generation’ Cities • Our Question
Karlsruhe: Success, failure and weaknesses
• First TramTrain 1991• Huge network (500 km)• High-floor/Middle-floor• Not fully accessible• Capacity in city-centre
• Urban planning & design minor topics
• AC/DC
Saarbrücken: First Low-floor TramTrain
• Completely new scheme
• No compromises regarding accessibility
• Urban planning minor topic; high class urban design in city centre only
• Cross-border• Triple-mode?
Braunschweig
Bristol
Cardiff
Chemnitz
Aachen
Dresden
Glasgow
Ile-de-France
Kassel
Geneva
Graz Hamm
Heilbronn
Kempten
Kiel
LjubljanaLuxembourg
RijnGouweLijn
Mulhouse
Nottingham Oslo
Osnabrück
Paderborn
Rostock
Sunderland
Salzburg
Medway/Kent
St.Pölten
Randstad
Maastricht-Heerlen-Kerkrade
Portsmouth-Gosport-Fareham
FIRST WAVE CITIES AFTER 1993
SKY FULL OF DREAMS
‘First wave’
• Only few surviving cases• First derivates of classic TT• Many given up at early planning stages or are just
“sleeping projects”• Reasons:
un-supportive political and regulatory conditions
difficult technical conditions negative economical results
Antwerp
Bayonne
Palermo
NantesAlicante Bremen
Grenoble
Liberec
Orléans
NiceHanau
HaarlemMunich
Dunkerque
Lille
NordhausenBordeaux
Marseille
Manchester
CoventryLiège
Groningen
Rostock
Kaiserslautern
Lyon/Villeurbane
Helsinki/Espoo
CracowBesançon
Frankfurt am Main
Belfort (Mulhouse)
Nancy
SKY FULL OF NEW DREAMS?
Sassari
2nd GENERATION
Helsingborg
?
?
?
?
?
Tampere?
?
??
?
?
?
?
Strasbourg ?
‘2nd generation’
• Some cases ideas only• More tangential schemes• Regional projects for smaller corridors• More derivates• First “second try’s” • Too early to know the future of all …
Our question(s)?
• Why are there only a few implemented “classic” TramTrain projects today?
• Original Karlsruhe approach too narrow to be successful everywhere?
• TramTrain – the 2nd generation?• Features of projects which have been developed
further from the Karlsruhe origins? • Easy way to identify at the very beginning whether a
city may be suited for TramTrain or its derivates?
• What could be criteria to evaluate this?
Checklist‘s criteria
• Generic Features • Institutional Context • Urban and Regional
Characteristics • Urban and Regional
Figures• Public Transport
Characteristics • Technical Issues • Costs and Cost
Comparisons
Generic features• State of society and
economy• Existing public transport
culture
Institutional context (1)• Powerful regional and
local government• Existing regional and
local support• Approach to planning
process• Degree of integration of
land use and urban planning
• Step by step implementation
• Complementary to existing/adapted public transport network
Institutional context (2)• Quality and capability of
public transport authority • Distribution of
responsibilities • Methods to cover
construction and operating costs
• Local/regional financial balance and sources
• Necessary legal powers• Control/ownership of heavy
rail infrastructure• Local and regional
possibilities• Safety approach of
regulatory bodies
Urban & regional characteristics (1)• Distance main station to city
centre (km.; walking min.)• Other relevant distances
(km.; walking min.)
Urban & regional characteristics (2)• Availability, profile and
aesthetics of centre corridor
Urban & regional characteristics (3)• (New) uses of corridor
Urban & regional characteristics (4)• Possible (positive and
negative) impacts
Urban & regional characteristics (5)• Conditions historic
townscape
Urban & regional characteristics (6)• Centre locations of
economic activity nodes and their regional meaning
• Economic activity nodes inside or outside TramTrain’s catchment area
Urban & regional characteristics (7)• Regional meaning of
central city• Degree of regional centre’s
spread
Urban & regional figures• Minimum and maximum
sizes of city and region• Size of corridor’s
catchment area• Identification of the share
of city/city-centre oriented flows for all user groups
Public transport characteristics (1)• Competing rail modes into
the city-centre• Other targets then the city-
centre • Share of the total rail-
bound operation in a region for TramTrain
• Complete take over of operation versus remaining heavy rail passenger services
• Ratio of new-built infrastructure compared to accessible regional network
Public transport characteristics (2)• Tangential transport
demand • Street-running extensions
in sub-urban centres useful/feasible
• Additional catchment by using existing tangential infrastructure
• Existing/achievable interchange quality between railway and urban system
• Comparison of travel times
Technical issues• Existing tramway’s
technical parameters• Metro operation (tunnel) • Easy versus difficult
(cheap versus expensive) linking of tramway and railway
• Electrified/non-electrified regional railway infrastructure
• Track-sharing versus conversion
• Existing (urban) freight railway infrastructure Platform heights of (regional) railway routes
• Full accessibility
Applied criteria – the 50 issuesVan der Bijl-Kuehn's 50 TramTrain issues
Generic Features Urban and regional figures1 State of society and economy 27 Minimum and maximum sizes of city and region2 Existing public transport culture 28 Size of corridor's catchment area
Institutional context 29 Identification of share of city and city centre oriented flows (all user groups) 3 Powerful regional and local government Urban transport characteristics4 Existing regional and local support 30 Competing rail modes into the city-centre5 Approach to planning process 31 Other targets then the city-centre6 Degree of integration of land use and urban planning 32 Share of the total rail-bound operation in a region for TramTrain 7 Step by step implementation feasible 33 Complete take-over of operation versus remaining heavy rail passenger services 8 Complementary to the existing (or adapted) public transport network 34 Ratio of new-built infrastructure compared to accessible regional network9 Quality of public transport authority 35 Tangential transport demand
10 Distribution of responsibilities 36 Street-running extensions in sub-urban centres useful/feasible11 Methods to cover construction and operating costs 37 Additional catchment by using existing tangential infrastructure12 Local/regional financial balance and sources 38 Existing/achievable interchange quality between railway and urban system13 Necessary legal powers. 39 Comparison of travel times14 Control/ownership of heavy rail infrastructure Technical Issues15 Local and regional possibilities 40 Existing tramway's technical parameters16 Safety approach of regulatory bodies 41 Metro operation (tunnel)
Urban and regional characteristics 42 Easy versus difficult (cheap versus expensive) linking of tramway and railway 17 Distance main station to city centre (km.; walking min.) 43 Electrified/un-electrified regional railway infrastructure 18 Other relevant distances (km.; walking min.) 44 Track-sharing versus conversion19 Availability, profile and aesthetics of centre corridor 45 Use of existing (urban) freight railway infrastructure20 (New) uses of corridor 46 Platform heights of (regional) railway routes21 Possible (positive and negative) impacts 47 Full accessibility22 Conditions historic townscape Cost and cost comparisons23 Centre locations of economic activity nodes and their regional meaning 48 Comparisons with other modes24 Economic activity nodes inside or outside TramTrain’s catchment area 49 Political decision versus evaluation25 Regional meaning of central city 50 "Tenderability" of TramTrain-scheme26 Degree of regional centre’s spread
Ratings
RATINGS AAA AA A BBB BB B C DYes, sure! Yes! Yes, but.. Yes, perhaps.. Maybe No, but.. No, perhaps.. No
Calculation 0 AAA-3 AA-3 A-3 BBB-3 BB-3 B-2 C-2Generic features Excellent Excellent Good Good Average Average Bad Very bad
Institutional context Excellent Good Average Average Average Bad Bad Bad
Urban & regional characteristics Supporting Supporting Supporting Not restricting Not restricting Weak Weak Weak
Urban & regional figures Upper range Upper range Upper range Average range Average range Average range Average range Lower range
Public transport characteristics Good Good Satisfactory Satisfactory Weak Weak Weak Weak
Technical Issues (restrictions) Perfect Nearly Perfect Nearly Perfect Compromises Compromises Problems Problems Problems
Costs and cost comparisons Good Reasonable Reasonable Reasonable Average Average Bad Bad
All Tables - © Van der Bijl & Kuehn, Amsterdam/Karlsruhe 2004
Ratings applied to existing TTs
Reference Cities Karlsruhe Saarbruecken Kassel Heilbronn Chemnitz Nordhausen
Calculation AA+1-1+1 AA+1+1+1 AA+1+1 A+1-1-2+1 A-1+1-1+1 A-1+1-1-2+1+1
Generic features Excellent Excellent Excellent Good Average Average
Institutional context Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Good Good
Urban & regional characteristics Supporting Supporting Supporting Not restricting Not restricting Not restricting
Urban & regional figures Upper range Upper range Upper range Lower range Upper range Lower range
Public transport characteristics Good Good Good Good Good Good
Technical Issues (restrictions) Compromise Perfect Nearly Perfect Nearly perfect Nearly perfect Nearly perfect
Costs and cost comparisons Good Good Good Reasonable Reasonable GoodAssessment; category AA++ AAA AA++ BBB++ A BBB++
Ratings applied to TT-examples
Cases Antwerp Groningen Aidelaide Liège Szeged N. Novgorod
Calculation A+1-2?+0? A+1+1? A+1+0?+0?-2+0? A-1+1+1?+0? C+1+1-?? C-1-1-1?+1-??
Generic features Good Good Good Average Bad Very bad
Institutional context Average Average Good Average Bad Very bad
Urban & regional characteristics Supporting Supporting Supporting? Supporting Not restricting Weak
Urban & regional figures Upper range Upper range Upper range? Upper range Average range Lower range?
Public transport characteristics Good Good Satisfactory Good Weak Weak
Technical issues Problems? Perfect? Problems? Perfect? Compromises Compromises
Costs and cost comparisons Reasonable? Reasonable Reasonable? Reasonable? ?? ??Assessment; category (range) A…BBB A…AA A...BBB A…+ C…C+ D…-
Conclusion (1)
• TramTrain: no miraculous solution?
• Number of implemented cases is limited • Development often in other “directions”• No “single” explanation, but:
TramTrain neither cheap nor easy • “Master planning” is needed from the beginning• Serious acting with the compromises TT can involve • Increased dependence on supportive political/regulatory
structures as more complicated in it’s project structure • TramTrain’s regional radius?
• No dogmatic “avoid any interchange” policy • Dimensions and design of TramTrain rolling stock
Conclusion (2)
• TramTrain is more then the „Karlsruhe model“• 2nd generation projects like Kassel, Nordhausen,
Chemnitz or Zwickau have brought necessary innovation and adaptation
• The ideal TT-city?
© “Gigantis-City”