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’.www.lightrail.nl 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
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 Ljubljana Luxembourg 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 Nantes AlicanteBremen Grenoble Liberec Orléans Nice Hanau Haarlem Munich Dunkerque Lille Nordhausen Bordeaux Marseille Manchester Coventry Liège Groningen Rostock Kaiserslautern Lyon/Villeurbane Helsinki/Espoo Cracow Besançon 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 (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
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