TRAMTRAIN: THE 2ND GENERATION

1. TRAMTRAIN: THE 2ND GENERATION NEW CRITERIA FOR THE ‘IDEAL TRAMTRAIN CITY’ Rob van der Bijl - Axel Kühn Independent Consultants

2. Working for Interreg HiTrans … Medium sized cities

3. During a workshop at… Stavanger

4. Expert work for… London (TfL)

5. Studying feasibility in… Coventry (CENTRO)

6. Delivering a survey for… Leiden

7. Doing our job in… Maastricht

8. When we worked in… Aarhus

9. Spending some time in… Sunderland

10. Study touring in… Heilbronn

11. When we stayed in… Kassel

12. On tour in… Nordhausen

13. Tour guiding in… Zwickau

14. Talking in… Mulhouse

15. 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.

16. Contents • Introduction • Definitions • State of the art • Checklist‘s criteria • Applied criteria – the 50 issues • Conclusion

17. 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

18. Definitions Classic light-rail/tramway operation • Conversion • Single-Mode Track-sharing TramTrain-operation • Dual-Mode Electric-Electric • Dual-Mode Diesel-Electric TrainTram-operation • Existing tramway network • No existing tramway network

19. State of the art • Karlsruhe: Success, Failure and Weaknesses • Saarbruecken: First Low-floor TramTrain • Other ‘First Wave’ Cities • ‘2nd Generation’ Cities • Our Question

20. 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

21. 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?

22. Portsmouth-Gosport-Fareham Nottingham Oslo Paderborn Heilbronn RijnGouweLijn Geneva Braunschweig Kiel Medway/Kent Aachen Maastricht-Heerlen-Kerkrade Bristol Salzburg Rostock Dresden Kassel Osnabrück Chemnitz Hamm Ljubljana Randstad Mulhouse Graz Luxembourg Ile-de-France St.Pölten Kempten Glasgow Sunderland Cardiff FIRST WAVE CITIES AFTER 1993 SKY FULL OF DREAMS

23. ‘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

24. Besançon ? Nice ? Belfort (Mulhouse) Marseille Hanau Cracow Palermo Haarlem Groningen ? Munich Lyon/Villeurbane Nancy Antwerp Helsingborg ? Grenoble Bayonne Lille Sassari Helsinki/Espoo ? Nantes ? Kaiserslautern Alicante Bremen Liberec ? Strasbourg ? ? Bordeaux Frankfurt am Main ? Manchester Nordhausen Dunkerque Coventry ? Tampere ? Liège ? Rostock ? Orléans 2nd GENERATION SKY FULL OF NEW DREAMS?

25. ‘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 …

26. 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?

27. Checklist‘s criteria • Generic Features • Institutional Context • Urban and Regional Characteristics • Urban and Regional Figures • Public Transport Characteristics • Technical Issues • Costs and Cost Comparisons

28. Generic features • State of society and economy • Existing public transport culture

29. 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

30. 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

31. Urban & regional characteristics (1) • Distance main station to city centre (km.; walking min.) • Other relevant distances (km.; walking min.)

32. Urban & regional characteristics (2) • Availability, profile and aesthetics of centre corridor

33. Urban & regional characteristics (3) • (New) uses of corridor

34. Urban & regional characteristics (4) • Possible (positive and negative) impacts

35. Urban & regional characteristics (5) • Conditions historic townscape

36. Urban & regional characteristics (6) • Centre locations of economic activity nodes and their regional meaning • Economic activity nodes inside or outside TramTrain’s catchment area

37. Urban & regional characteristics (7) • Regional meaning of central city • Degree of regional centre’s spread

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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

41. 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

42. Applied criteria – the 50 issues

43. Ratings

44. Ratings applied to existing TTs

45. Ratings applied to TT-examples

46. 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

47. 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”