Complete Streets: From Policy to Implementation

Report
COMPLETE STREETS: FROM
POLICY TO IMPLEMENTATION
How the French Blend Light Rail and
Complete Streets for Total Accessibility
Presented at Rail~Volution Minneapolis, 22 September
2014
Greg Thompson . Tom Larwin . Tom Parkinson
Transportation Research Board Subcommittee on International Light Rail
Development
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Total accessibility
Implementing Green Transit/Complete
Streets on an Unprecedented Scale
Defining the French Approach: the
Macro View
 MACRO Design Principle 1: Develop a a concept of how




public transport should tie the urban agglomeration
together: a small number of light rail (nouveau tram) lines is
key
MACRO Design Principle 2: High-performance and -capacity
vehicles designed to blend with the urban fabric and
facilitate accessibility between lines and modes
MACRO Design Principle 3: Fully accessible stops widely
spaced
MACRO Design Principle 4: Stops adjacent to ,and
integrated with major destinations; including in suburbs
MACRO Design Principle 5: Bus lines reconfigured around
nouveau tram stations
The Micro Design Side of the French
Approach: the Art of Insertion
 Almost 100% use of public rights-of-way
 At the expense of the auto, which are kept off tracks
 Examples: Roads, alleys, plazas, university campuses,
hospital campuses
 All rights-of-way rebuilt from building façade to
building façade to facilitate transit performance,
pedestrian and bicycle flow, safety, aesthetics
 The Art of Insertion is a political process wherein
stakeholder groups figure out how to design high
performance transit that is compatible with their
lifestyles
MACRO Design Principle 1: A Regional
Core of Light Rail Lines
Mall
University
Big box
district
Industrial district
High rise
offices
Malls and big
box stores
University hospital
complex
Medical
complex
Intercity rail
Center
City
Macro Design Principle 2: Long vehicles with lots of
doors and a fare system that allows passengers to use all
doors, bright, cheery, airy
Macro Design Principle 3: Fully accessible
stops spaced widely to enable faster service
Macro Design Principle 4: Stops adjacent to
major destinations; many in suburbs
Macro Design Principle 5: Bus system
reconfigured around light rail stops
Center City insertion where two lines cross
Insertion into an alley
Insertion of station into alley
Center city insertion
Insertion in Angers: Edge of center
city
Insertion: Edge of historic center
Insertion: Stop shoe-horned into tight spot
12 Oct 2012 - GLT
17
Insertion: Stopping trains delay autos; not vice
versa
12 Oct 2012 - GLT
18
Insertion: Inner suburb
Insertion: Outer suburb of single
family homes
Insertion: Suburban university campus
(Nantes)
Insertion: Suburban university
campus (Orleans)
Insertion in Plaza: 1
Insertion in Plaza: 2
Insertion in Plaza: 3
Summary: Macro concepts of quality transit
combined with The Art of Insertion result in
complete streets that truly change travel
behavior
Insertion of high quality transit into urban
and suburban fabric: an art combining:
•
•
•
•
•
Transit planning and engineering
Traffic engineering
Safety analysis
Aesthetics and urban design
Politics
•To achieve the results you have seen
26
Thank you — Merci!
Waiting for the tram, Strasbourg 2011
TP
27 of 14
Growth of French Tramways—kilometres
of
route
Prior French practice was
rubber-tired metro for
large cities: Paris, Lyon,
Marseille. Rubber-tired
light metro (Siemens VAL)
for medium cities: Lille,
Base chart from The Transport Politic, Yonah Freemark
Rennes,
Toulouse. Then the
2012
lower cost tramway
appeared.
Remarkable
growth,
particularly
from
2000;2015there is no
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
distinction between tramways (streetcars) and light rail
in France, more a combination of features. Tram-trains are
not covered here but are gaining ground with dual-system vehicles
capable of over 100km/h— 750 volts plus 1.5V DC or 25kV AC or
diesel
28 of 14
Some results
Nice
Bordeaux
Montpellier
Grenoble
Strasbourg
Average
Rouen
Le Mans
.
St-Etienne
Angers
Reims
Orléans
Rides per day per kilometre of route
Valenciennes
FTA 2010 data—probable underestimate due to double count of some route miles
US average
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
Buses and trams are closely integrated with free transfers.
Ridership increase is typically 30–60%. Montpellier went
from 28.8m/year on the all bus system in1999, to 62.2m in
2010 with 5 routes, an 150% increase.
29 of 14
LRT Farebox Recovery as percent of Direct Operating costs
Strasbourg
St.Etienne
Lille
Lyon
Grenoble
Average
Toulouse
Orleans
Marseille
Paris
Nantes
US Average
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Despite moderate fares and frequent service with union (syndicat) drivers,
average farebox recovery at 48% is good, particularly given that on some
systems heavily discounted students make up over half the riders. Alignments
may often seem convoluted but ensure that universities, schools and other
major generators—hospitals and railway stations—are well connected.
30 of 14
Bordeaux with APS
Capital Costs
Despite the economies of scale from city to city: joint orders for
vehicles, use of public land and easements, and minimising line poles
(25% of spans in Brest are attached to buildings), French tramways are
comparable or slightly more expensive than other European systems—
although allowance should be made for the 15-25% of project costs that
are spent on the urban environment—and any APS.
The average of eleven recent French systems is US$ 29m/km, range $20.4–
$51.2
The average of seven recent US systems is US$ 35m/km, range $28.6– $43.5
Excludes systems, such as Seattle, with tunnels or other high
infrastructure costs; €=US$1.3
31 of 14
US light rail vs bus performance
2011
Circulator Streetcar vs bus
performance 2011
France like U.S. in auto
ownership and big box
retailing
The following table is copied from David W. Jones, Mass Motorization + Mass Transit , Indiana
University Press, 2008, p. 4.
.
Table 1.1 Intensity of motorization in G-7 nations in 2000
Motor vehicles
per 1000
population (a)
Motor vehicles
per worker (b)
Vehicle km. per Motor vehicle CO2
capita ( c )
per capita (d)
United States
784
1.58
15,618
5,202
Canada
676
1.43
10,831
3,741
Japan
651
1.30
5,976
1,762
Italy
626
1.73
6,274
1,917
Germany
576
1.29
7,126
2,067
France
574
1.44
8,778
2,153
United Kingdom
511
1.10
7,662
1,933
G-7 average
625
1.41
8,895
2,682
Source: (a) Vehicle registrations: Ward's Motor Vehicles Facts and Figures, 2002; population data
for all series: Maddison, World Economy: Historical Statistics; (b) Statistical Abstract of the
United States, 2002, "Comparative Labor Force Statistics, Ten Countries, 1959-2001"; (c) Highway
Statistics 2002, table IN-4, "Vehicle Travel for Selected Countries"; (d) International Energy
Agency, CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion, 1971-2000, country tables, II.143ff.
34
SUMMARY OF FRENCH TRAMWAYS
Lines in service/under construction– all modes¹
Urban area
Tram
Tram- Tram- Tram TrolleyCity/Region
Population Open Km Miles Cars Pax/Day* Metro VAL way Train w/ Tires bus
BRT
Angers
216,000 2011
12.3 7.4
17 35,000
1²/1
Aubagne
100,000 2014
9.0 5.4
8
new
-/2
Avignon
180,000 2016
12.6 7.6
24
new
-/2
Besancon
140,000 2015
14.5 8.7
19
new
-/1
Bordeaux
835,000 2003
43.4 26.0
74 192,000
3²/1
0/1
Brest
201,000 2012
14.3 8.6
20 33,000
1-Jan
Caen
198,000 2002
15.7 9.4
24 45,000
0/3
2
Clermont-Ferrand
260,000 2006
16.3 9.8
26 48,000
1
Dijon
250,000 2012
20.0 12.0
33 70,000
2
Grenoble
530,000 1987
36.4 36.4
89 210,000
4/1
Le Havre
244,000 2012
13.0 7.8
22
new
2
Le Mans
208,000 2007
15.4 9.2
26 48,000
1/1
Lille
1,100,000 1909
22.4 13.4
24 34,000
2
2
Limoges
139,000 1942
32.5 19.5
40
n/a
5
Lyon
1,760,000 2000
72.1 43.3 103 250,000
4
4
2
8
Marseille
1,530,000 2007
11.5 6.9
26 50,000
2
2
Montpellier
384,000 2000
54.4 32.6
83 282,000
4/1
Mulhouse
250,000 2006
19.0 11.4
39 60,000
3
1
Nancy
105,000 2001
11.4 6.8
25
n/a
1
Nantes
585,000 1985
42.1 25.3
91 274,000
3
'0/1
1
Nice
350,000 2007
8.7 5.2
28 90,000
1²/1
Nîmes
2012
6.0 3.6
7,000
0/1
1
Orléans
269,000 2000
29.2 17.5
43 67,000
2²
Paris (region)
11,800,000 1992
71.0 42.6 205 450,000 14
1
5/1
1/1 41640
2
Reims
210,000 2011
11.2 6.7
18 45,000
2
Rennes
220,000 2002
9.4 5.6
38
n/a
1/1
Rouen
530,000 1994
15.1 9.1
28 65,000
2
3
St. Etienne
370,000 1981
18.9 11.3
35 82,000
3
1
Strasbourg
450,000 1994
57.2 34.3
94 243,000
6
Toulouse
1,100,000 2010
10.9 6.5
24 20,000
2
1/1
Tours
300,000 2013
15.3 9.2
21
new
1
Valenciennes
334,000 2006
18.3 11.0
21 28,000
1/1
33 cities; 29 tramway systems; 57 tramway lines
Totals 20 1/6 29/57 5/2
41644
14
7
¹ Many lines cross through the city centre and could be categorised as two lines
²Has section(s) without overhead using APS 3rd rail alimentation par le sol (batteries in Nice)
³11.2 km Line T7 (Villejuif-Loius Aragon) opened Nov 16, 2013; not included in totals
*Patronage figures do not reflect line openings after 2011
Population and line length data from various sources is not always consistent
Main reference--Les tramways francais en 2012, Connaissance du rail
Tom Parkinson Dec 2013, modif STRMTG-Certu Jan 2014
NOTES
Line B opens 2020
Line 1 opens 2014, line 2 in 2019
line opens 2016
lowest capital cost/km
extensions and tram/train planned
Cross city line with two branches
Converting to steel wheel tramway + a new line
Translohr system
2nd line opens in 2015
Retains original metre gauge
TT = Rhônexpress tram-train to airport + rapid tram (on same tracks)
project : extension, not a new line
41km with TT
Bombardier GLT with double wire overhead
TT opens 2014
2nd line to open in 2016
line tramway opens 2018
Lines 3a and 3b counted separately³
Cross city line with two branches
optically guided busway TEOR, 69 cars, 55,3 km
Retains original metre gauge
Tram now feeder to VAL--will extend to CBD

similar documents