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”