Light Rail Impact Study

Page 1

DRAFT REPORT

© Siemens AG / City of Turku 2012. All rights reserved.

Light Rail Impact StudyComplete Analysis


Page 2

DRAFT REPORT


Structure of the document

1 Executive Summary2 Background and goals

2.1 Background information2.2 Goals of the study

3 Evaluation framework3.1 Structure and scope of the evaluation3.2 Evaluated light rail system3.3 Major data sources

4 Impact assessment ecology 4.1 Methodology and modeling4.2 Data gathering for integrated light rail solution4.3 Results of ecology impact assessment

5 Impact assessment real estate values5.1 Methodology and research5.2 Data gathering and modeling 5.3 Results of real estate impact assessment

6 Evaluation of results6.1 Summary and recommendations6.2 Limitations of the evaluation6.3 Qualitative assessment6.4 Outlook

Page 3

DRAFT REPORT


Content

Executive Summary

Background and goals

Evaluation framework

Impact assessment ecology (CO2, NOx, PM)

1

2

3

4

Impact assessment real estate values5

Evaluation of results6

Page 4

DRAFT REPORT


An integrated light rail solution shows strongly beneficial impacts on the City of Turku

Executive Summary

The impact of the planned light rail system in Turku on CO2 emissions, air pollution and real estate prices has been evaluated with this study in comparison to a business-as-usual scenario

It is assumed that the light rail system is implemented in two phases: The blue line will be implemented until 2025 connecting Runosmäki and Nättinummi, Varissuo, Hirvensalo (ends behind the bridge), New Castle Town and Harbor side while the red line connecting Raisio, Kaarina and the rest of Hirvensalo will be implemented by 2035

The following effects can be realized with the integrated light rail solution in Turku:

The CO2 emissions can be reduced by 11% in 2035 (7% until 2025)

PM exhaust emissions can be lowered by 8% in 2035 (4% until 2025)

PM non exhaust emissions from winter street sanding and spike tires can be reduced by 7% in 2035 (3% in 2025)

NOx emissions, another harmful air pollutant, can be reduced by 12% in 2035 (8% until 2025)

In a conservative scenario the total value of real estate in the city is projected to increase by ~480 – 850 million € in 2035 (~335 - 595 million € in 2025)

A high impact scenario increases the real estate value uplift by factor 1.5 – 2.2 compared to the conservative scenario and sums up to a maximum total value uplift in 2035 of 1.69 billion €

1 Executive Summary

Page 5

DRAFT REPORT


Executive Summary

The impact evaluation was conducted against a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario without a light rail based on the development elaborated in Turku structural model (i.e population and work places growth) and with a public transport system consisting of buses. The BAU-scenario assumes that the normal course of events and activities will keep their past track, e.g. constant technology adoption for cars and buses leadings to ever more efficient vehicles in the future.

Two main data and information sources for this study are the Turku Structural Model 2035 by Pöyry from 2011 and the Turku Area Public Transport 2020 by WSP from 2009 which provided information on expected population growth, transport behavior and a preliminary light rail layout

As a result of the study key recommendations can be provided helping to make a light rail introduction a success: Ensure a balanced decision-making regarding the track routing and foster cooperation and communication between

all municipal departments as well as with all stakeholders: citizens, local business, public transport suppliers, associations, trade unions etc.

Optimize public transportation system, which may enable to go beyond the projected impact of the light rail integrated solution.

Ensure the sustainability of the project via stable project funding, including evaluation of alternative funding possibilities such as public private partnerships.

Optimize real estate value capture share from selling of building rights: e.g. conduct upfront investments, identify additional green and brown field spaces for development and densification.

Analyze further value capture methods regarding their regulatory and political applicability.

Create a convincing real estate development concept towards investors and improve negotiation position early in the process.

Take the opportunity of the open path towards green transportation to continue studying possibilities such as e-cars, hybrid cars, biodiesel/biogas buses, car sharing, carbon free electricity etc.

To realize the light rail potentials, some critical success factors need to be considered

1 Executive Summary

Page 6

DRAFT REPORT


Content

Executive Summary




1

2

3

4



Page 7

DRAFT REPORT


Two partners with strong track record for sustainable development teamed up

SiemensCity of Turku

Largest environmental portfolio in energy, infrastructure, industry and healthcare technologies

Strong commitment developing sustainable cities – sustainable urban infrastructure studies & participation in WBCSD & dedicated business vertical

Dow-Jones Sustainability Index in diversified industries

Using technological expertise to develop benchmark in sustainable mid-sized cities

Sustainability is our strength, technologies are needed to solve climate issues

Developing Turku is a business opportunity

Strong commitment to Sustainable Development – part of city vision, values, strategy and programs since 1990’s

Ambitious Program for Climate and Environment – 30% GHG reduction by 2020

Successful implementation of key actions and reduction of GHG emissions by 10%

Combining economic growth and ecological sustainability

Sustainable infrastructure projects –regional cooperation, town-planning, housing, mobility, energy, water,…

Vivid economy and proactive region –building a sustainable and attractive city

Networking and cooperation – learning from others and being an example and reference

2.1 Background information

Page 8

DRAFT REPORT


Impact study for light rail as the first step of a three year strategic partnership

Roadmap

2011Cooperation Agreement

2012Strategic collaboration

WBCSD Workshop as „door-opener“

Continuous dialogue between Siemens and the city about follow-up activities

Cooperation agreement between Siemens and Turku

Commitment of all internal stakeholders

Regular meetings between City Mayor and SAG FIN CEO to identify new topics

1st wave of collaborative projects: Impact study for light rail Innovation workshop for

planned new district Workshop for financing

options

2012+Strategic partnership

Continuation of regular meetings between the Mayor of Turku and the Siemens country CEO

Identification of additional topics for joint elaborationsuch as e.g. studies or pilot projects

1

2

3


Page 9

DRAFT REPORT


Turku has set ambitious targets to reduce environmental impacts and to increase quality of life

Turku Sustainability Objectives Transport Specific Objectives for 2030

Reduction of transport related CO2 emissions by 30%

1/3 of trips by car, 2/3 of trips by bike, walking or public transportation

Increase of population with access to high quality walking, cycling and public transport

Reduction of air pollutants Setting of noise standards in noise reduction plan

Reduction of injured and dead in traffic accidents by 50%

Increased daily trips (walking and cycling) for health benefits is increased

Equal transport opportunities for different age and population groups

Completion of bicycle network through downtown Turku by 2015

Source: Sustainable Urban Transport Plan 2008

Sustainable development

To financially, socially and ecologically protect future generations’ life opportunities through

balanced and continuous change

Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by -30% per inhabitant until 2020 (from 1990 levels) and at least -20% in total

Improve energy efficiency by 9% from 2005 until 2016

50% or more of district heating from renewables by 2020

Electricity purchased by the city 100% from renewables by 2013

Consideration of sustainability criteria in public tenders from 2013 on

Sustainable development in daycare centersand educational institutions

Source: Turku SEAP Portfolio


Page 10

DRAFT REPORT


Light rail fills the transport capacity gap between conventional buses and heavy rail

What is light rail?Transport Systems in Comparison

Rail-borne form of transport, electrically powered

Can be developed in stages from a street-bound tram to a Pre-Metrooperated fully on its own right-of-way

Role and performance lie between conventional bus service running on the street at one extreme and an urban heavy rail or under-ground metropolitan railway at the other

Light rail systems are thus flexible and expandable

Light rail acts as a backbone of transport networks especially in medium-sized cities

Adds capacity in transport corridorswhere more buses can no longer fulfill the transport demand


Page 11

DRAFT REPORT


Accessibility and a predictable and reliable service are key benefits of light rail

General advantages of light rail

Highly durable and visible infrastructure which is perceived as reliable and offers direct access to city center jobs and shopping facilities

Accessibility to all members of the society by providing low-floor trains which provide level boarding at stops as well as good visibility of stops and information about train schedules

High quality of journeys made with the light rail system with short journey times thanks to partially dedicated tracks but also multiple doors and ticket-purchasing off trains allow fast and efficient embarking and disembarking

Reliable train schedules with predictable and regular light rail service due to partially dedicated tracks and light rail prioritization at crossroads

Capable to carry high passenger volumes and to be adjusted to changing passenger numbers and therefore a transport mode which increases accessibility of the city center without increasing congestion

Additional transport capacity to the city center or other areas without building additional road lanes which would be hardly accepted by the citizens

Fast and reliable connection of living areas with commercial and shopping areas which helps to reduce peak-hour congestion and better balancing of traffic flows throughout the day

Integration into the public transportation system e.g. in intermodal transport hubs combining bus, light rail, trains and taxis of cities to enable smooth and seamless transport even across different transport modes

Permanence of physical infrastructure gives citizens and businesses confidence in long-term availability of the service and makes location decisions easier


Page 12

DRAFT REPORT


Light rail study evaluates additional effects as basis for further stakeholder discussions

Ecological Impact

Economical Impact

DeliverablesStudy objectives

Reduction of transport related CO2 footprint in districts along the tracks

Improvement of air quality in the city center

Increased real estate value related to the light rail in the districts along the tracks

Increased revenue of shop owners and local economy during construction (separate projects)

Detailed evaluation of ecological and economical

effects of a light rail compared to a business-as-

usual scenario

Quantification of indirect benefits from light rail to support further planning and funding discussions

Study as sound basis for further discussions about light rail with all stakeholder groups

Second opinion on planned light rail system from a technology provider perspective

+ Air Pollution

2.2 Goal of the study

Page 13

DRAFT REPORT


Content

Executive Summary




1

2

3

4



Page 14

DRAFT REPORT


The study will be elaborated over a timeframe of 14 - 17 weeks

Setup Conference preparation

Data evaluationModeling

Consolidation of

results

Data gathering

Project start Review 1 ReportDriver treeworkshop

Duration 1 weeks 1-2 weeks 3-4 weeks 3-4 weeks 3 weeks 3-4 weeks

Tasks Preparation of project kick-off meeting

General data availability

Alignment with city authorities on general project approach

Interviews with city stakeholders

Align with structural model 2035 and existing studies

Calculation of light rail impact on ecology and economy as defined

Workshop together with city authorities on results

Derivation of key messages

Final consolidation and review of project results

Documentation of project incl. data sources, methodology, assumptions, models

Finalization of report incl. layout, structure

Printing of report Invitation of

conference participants

Preparation of calculation models for ecological and economical evaluation

Workshops with city authorities to adapt models to specific Turku requirements and for overall alignment

Finalization of data requirements

Gathering and evaluation of data

Site visit and interviews

Align assumptions with city authorities for missing data

Definition of work-around in models for missing data

Verification of input parameters

Review 2 optional

3.1 Evaluation structure & scope

Page 15

DRAFT REPORT


The light rail will be introduced in two phases. The Blue line is planned in 2025 and the Red line in 2035


Page 16

DRAFT REPORT


The light rail aims to connect branches, to increase land density and to support new areas

The light rail will be introduced in two phases. The Blue line which is planned be introduced latest by 2025 and the Red line which is assumed to start operations in 2035

Blue line is connecting 2 major suburbs and 3 areas to be developedwith high density housing to the city center (CC) area – a further connection to Skanssi (SK) is in discussion

Varissuo (V) is the biggest suburb with about 9.000 people to be connected via LR system

Connection to the suburb Runosmäki (R) and Nättinummi (N) also will provide more than 10.000 people with direct access to LR system

The structural model is indicating New Castle Town (CT) and Harbour side (SD) to be developed with high rise housing in 2035

The river side of Hirvensalo (H) shall enlarge the city core with high rise housing

Additionally to the shopping mall already in place at Skanssi (SK) there is a residential area undergoing detailed planning to house 3.500 people in 2035

Red line is extending the blue line system with the connection of the suburbs Raisio (RA) and Kaarina (KA)

There are several intermodal transport nodes planned to connect LR system with bus and train in the city center and at the harbor side

N

VCTCC

SDH

SK

R

KA

RA

Overview on LR connectivity Description


DRAFT ROUTING

Page 17

DRAFT REPORT


For the impact study, the following system assumptions have been applied (1/2)

Detailed light rail system assumptions (1/2)

Rolling stock: Vehicles with a length between 32 - 36 meters, a width between 2400 and 2650 millimeters and 4 - 5 doors per side. The vehicles have to be conform with EN standards and the BO Strab regulations and they have to be 100% low-floor to ensure accessibility for all citizens. The passenger capacity per train is between 210 and 240 passengers with 4 passengers per square meter at maximum and a maximum operational speed of 70 km/h.

Electrification system: Power supply with 750 Volt DC with medium voltage in feed from local medium voltage connection to avoid own bulk substations. 12-pulse substations with 1 MVA each on local medium voltage feeders. Galvanized, mild steel H-poles which are centrally mounted and single or double contact wires and a Power SCADA system.

Signaling system: The system is assumed to be a drive-by-sight system with no cab signaling and point position indicators and separate traffic lights for trams. The operation control center has a dispositive control system but no operational control and no interlock functions while the depot has access control and driver self-managed operation in the depot. The wayside equipment allows vehicle identification, route pre-selection, trigger traffic light preemption and local point control as well as point heating. Each train will on-board be equipped for train-to-wayside communication, train detection, interfacing to onboard passenger information and an automated passenger announcement system.

Communication system: TETRA based radio system based upon existing TETRA infrastructure together with telephone system within the operation control center, depot and workshop facilities and a backbone communication system. The wayside and stations should be equipped with a passenger information system with clock, passenger help points, intercom and CCTV for security. Trains are equipped with radio, passenger information displays and passenger announcements, passenger intercom and CCTV with local storage.

3.2 Evaluated light rail system

Page 18

DRAFT REPORT


For the impact study, the following system assumptions have been applied (2/2)

Detailed light rail system assumptions (2/2)

Depot workshop equipment: The depot shall be equipped with tools and machinery for light and heavy maintenance of standard light rail vehicles and for recovery of failed vehicles. The maintenance strategy should be based on the requirements of the vehicle supplier but should be limited to the exchange of components with only a minimum of component repair to reduce maintenance costs. In that regard, general and bogie overhaul, infrastructure maintenance shall be purchased from external sources.

Track work: The track work should be a double track and the superstructures have to be adapted to the environment, e.g. the ballast track should be equipped with vignol rails on all segregated track sections while slab tracks with grooved rails embedded into the street surface on shared corridors should be considered.

Civil works: The depot should have a workshop compound with the workshop, storage, administrative office, social facilities and the operation control center. The vehicle storage shall be open with access from either side and the depot should also have a loop line including a test track. The substation buildings should have a standard layout to reduce costs while the light rail stations should be predominantly side platforms which are approximately 40 meters. The platform height has to be adapted to the floor height and has to be protected from the street by guardrails if possible. Each stations should be equipped with a shed with a standard layout and finish. The stations should have lighting limited to the shed.

Road slope: to avoid additional costs and technical issues a maximum gradient of 5-6% should be targeted. If higher gradient, it is advised to change the route of the LR

3.2 Evaluated light rail system

Page 19

DRAFT REPORT


The WSP study and the structural model 2035 provide the general base for the evaluation

Comparison of three alternative scenarios (0+, high-speed baseline busses (1), light rail system (2))

Benefit-cost effects including required investments have been estimated for 2020

Further impacts on traffic, land use, property values, noise and socio-economics have been analyzed

Results: Alternative (1) with highly positive benefit-cost ratio; traffic estimation model and land use vision to be refined based on light rail system

Sources Main content

Planning area is approximately 324 000 inhabitants, of whom about half live in urban Town Centre in Turku

Definition of city development areas until 2035, including residential and commercial areas (green- and brown-field)

Projected population increase of 60.000 until 2035 (+26%) in the urban area and 15.000 (+16%) in the other planning areas

Living space per person projected to grow by 10 m2/person until 2035from 40 m2/person

3.3 Major data sources

Page 20

DRAFT REPORT


Content

Executive Summary




1

2

3

4



Page 21

DRAFT REPORT


Full transparency on methodology, data and results is given on following slides

Light rail impact on greenhouse gases and air pollutants

Creation of driver trees for emission calculation

COPERT model and methodology (European Union tool)

Definition of main assumptions

Data gathering for BAU and isolated scenarios (city of Turku and regional traffic model)

Data input tool providing necessary input data for COPERT model

Calculation of traffic emissions with COPERT model

Results analysis of traffic CO2, NOx and PM emissions for 3 scenarios (BAU, isolated and integrated solution scenarios)

Calculation of light rail impact on overall emissions

Definition of integrated scenario input data

Most conservative values of case study analysis

Definition of accompanying policies fostering city development and public transport

Key policies recommendation

ResultsData gathering for integrated solution

Methodology& Modeling

Page 22

DRAFT REPORT


Two different calculation schemes are applied for calculating air pollution reduction from light rail

Calculation Scheme A

Calculation Scheme B

Key features

NOx and PM depend on consumed fuel and other factors like vehicle euro norm, driving pattern, temperature, engine capacity, trip length

Emissions vary drasticallydepending on the engine temperature (hot & cold)

Copert methodology and software is used for the calculations based on set of specific data gathered and extrapolated (1)

CO2 depends mainly on consumed fuel and kilometers driven

Driving pattern, distance and speed correlate with fuel consumption

Emissions will be calculated within the city of Turku boundaries

x

x x

(1) The name COPERT stands for COmputer Programme to calculate Emissions from Road Transport.This software incorporates results of several technology, research, and policy assessment projects at the European level. It is one of the main tools used for the assessment of traffic emissions for European countries, to fulfill the European Union requirement of publishing traffic emissions each year.

4.1 Methodology and modeling - ecology

Page 23

DRAFT REPORT


NOx and PM are calculated with Copert calculation tool

Driver tree – Air Pollution in the city

Air Pollution (t/a)

Hot emissions

Euro I Cars

Buses

2 wheels *

Gasoline

Cold start emissions

Driving pattern

Traveled kilometer (km)

Emission Factor (g/km) Engine capacity (l)

Speed (km/h)

Traveled kilometers (km)

E cold/ hot ratio **

% of kilometer traveled under cold start

Average monthly temperature (°C)

Average trip length (km)

Engine capacity (l)

Speed (km/h)

* Out of scope** Proportion of emissions above hot emissions

x

x

+Pre Euro I

Euro II

Euro III

Euro IV

Euro V

Euro VI

Electricity

Diesel

+++


Page 24

DRAFT REPORT


Cars

Buses

2 Wheels*

Traveled kilometers (km)

Emission Factor (g/km)

Specific con-sumption (l/km)

Specific emissions (g/l)

Fuel

Driving pattern

Regulation

Utilization

Size/Weight of cars

Age of fleet

Population growth

Behavior / Modal Split

Areas of city dev.

Driver tree – CO2 emissions within the city

CO2 Emissions(t/a)

x

x

* Out of scope

CO2 emissions are calculated within the city using Copert calculation tool

+


Page 25

DRAFT REPORT


Main assumptions underpinning data input

Ecology main assumptions

The blue and red lines are supposed to reach their full effect respectively in 2025 and 2035

The assessment is not a life cycle analysis: it does not take into account emissions from the production of the light rail system or for building the LR, but only emissions from the operation of the system

The share of passenger cars sorted by norms and type of fuel (2010-2030) is based on national data and applied to the car fleet in Turku (source: EU/Emisa database).

The bus population sorted by norms is provided by the city, 2025 and 2035 are assumptions on the development of the bus fleet

PM emissions due to spike tires are calculated based on an average emission per km driven (environmental department of city of Turku) on dry winter days (representing 50% of winter days). Studied tires are used approximately for 80% of private cars

Road gradient and load factor for buses are not taken into account in the calculation (data unavailable)

Mopeds, motorcycle as well as light duty vehicles and trucks are out of scope, the first ones being negligible, the second one would not be impacted by the light rail implementation

E-cars and biofuel buses are evaluated on a qualitative basis

The effect of global warming on Turku temperature is not taken into account (data unavailable)

LR energy consumption is considered to be ~ 100 Wh/pax/km based on Siemens expert evaluation


Page 26

DRAFT REPORT


















Page 27

DRAFT REPORT


Range of Public transport increase between 20% and 169% in LR implementation case studies analyzed

Case study main results

High

Low +20%

+163%

+111%

+93 %

+35%

+105 %

High

Low 43%

64%59%Increase of PT trips

Share of LR out of PT modal share

High

Low

Share of previous car users in LR passengers

10%

30%

20%

Key information

A list of case studies were analyzed in Ireland, USA, France, Belgium and United Kingdom on the impact of a light rail implementation

Out of this list, the average increase of PT trips is ~87% (over maximum 15 years)

The most conservative case study was used as a benchmark for the light rail integrated solution scenario applied in Turku:

• The lowest increase in the total number of public transportation trips was +20% within 8 years

• The lowest share of light rail trips out of public transportation trips was of 43% vs. 57% for buses

• The lowest share of previous car users in light rail passengers was 10%

A set of policies, accompanying the change in travel pattern, starting 6 years before LR implementation has also been identified from the most conservative case study

4.2 Data gathering - ecology

Page 28

DRAFT REPORT


Policy plan summary

The integrated solution requires to integrate altogether economic development, protection of the environment, social cohesion as well as control over urban expansion and car traffic

Economic development encompasses real estate but also income for local businesses

Social cohesion ask for interconnection of poor-income neighborhoods to the city center and wealthier areas, as well as for mobility for disable people and the elderly

Control over urban expansion and car traffic requires to densify the city and avoid urban sprawl as well as controlling car usage, remaining for the moment the main modes of transport

To build this ecosystem, and prepare the implementation of the light rail, policy implementation is necessary.

Based on the conservative case study, policies implementation should start in 2019 in Turku to reach their full potential in 2027. A second period of implementation is considered from 2027 to 2035

Social cohesion

Protection of the environment

Economic development

Control over urban expansion and car traffic

Integrated LR solution

An entire ecosystem relying on targeted policies is necessary to build an integrated LR solution

+ Air Pollution


Page 29

DRAFT REPORT


Pro-active policies to favor city development

Integrate land use planning and traffic planning. The plans are reviewed at the same time and are strongly interconnected to link transportation offer and transportation need

Create a strong real estate pro-active policy: align regional real estate development strategies, creation of an eco neighborhood, development of mix zone areas, favor population density. Vauban in Germany is connected by the light rail to Freiburg. In this eco neighborhood, transportation is primarily by foot or bicycle as all homes are within walking distance of a tram stop.

Transform the urban environment either in terms of architecture (design of the stations) or stations/tracks look with trees, grass covered platforms. For example in Grenoble (France), 2000 trees were planted during light rail construction

Foster urban requalification projects, 7 main projects were led in parallel to the LR implementation in Dijon (France) Favor social inclusion by favoring social housing along the tracks and serve low-income areas. For example

in London (Docklands), the connection of deprived areas through the tram network allowed a successful integration, which significantly improved the image of these areas

Closely integrate the population and take people concerns into account during all the phases of the LR implementation (dialogue, meetings and workshops), involve local media, and organize specific support/meetings for shop owners concerning LR works. For example in Nantes (France), before the opening of the 1st line in 1985 only ½ of inhabitants were in favor of the light rail. After the 2nd line was built in 1994, 95% favored it.

Set of policies from the conservative case study to reach the results of the LR integrated solution (1/2)


Page 30

DRAFT REPORT


Interrelated with policies favoring public transportation usage

Regulate car use by decreasing parking places & introducing pricing constraints for commuters, reducing speed in city center streets, implementing Park & Ride solutions but also by providing parking places near by the LR stations. In Seattle, the LR has been criticized by car users as the area near the LR is car-free living, no parking is available close to the stations

Create a real intermodality: train station as a hub between train, LR and bus, improvement of bus-LR interconnections. For example The West Valley Intermodal Hub is a transportation hub located in West Valley City, Utah, USA. It serves the Green Line of the Trax light rail system, the Max bus rapid transit line, and local buses. The redevelopment of the city is planed to be designed on the widen public transport offer enabled by this hub

Serve the core facilities: university, hospital, business areas, stadium… In Dijon, the LR goes directly through the campus and the hospital

Give priority to soft modes of transport in city center (cycling, walking) by building cycle lanes, developing friendly pedestrian areas, proposing secured crossing of roads and tracks for bikes and pedestrians, allowing bike transportation in the light rail. In Santa Monica (USA), a bike way was designed along the track and in connection to the station to enable passenger to go by bike to their work, nearby the tracks or to easily reach leisure areas such as the beach.

Have a high level of service, such as informing passengers in real time. In Sydney metro-light rail, a large team of Customer Service Officers on-board vehicles assist passengers, provide a sense of security during night services, deliver travel and sightseeing information.

Give priority to public transport via traffic management. Such systems as red light optimization can be designed to give priority to the light rail on other means of transportation on cross roads. This would also enable the light rail to be the faster mode of transportation and be competitive compared to cars.

Set of policies from the conservative case study to reach the results of the LR integrated solution (2/2)


Page 31

DRAFT REPORT


Some cities plan the LR according to special requirements

LR speed must be competitive to cars speed in order to attract car users The fares should be carefully studied for: social inclusion (prices for students, ex: in Brussels the tram 26 main

users are students), passenger flow regulation and cost management (ex. In Munich discount for elderly on season ticket usable from 9am to 3pm) – this measure also decreases the operation cost by reducing the number of unoccupied drivers between peak hours; finally to attract more users (ex: In Freiburg, the introduction of an integrated pass increased ridership by 12 to 23% in 1 year4 - Tallinn offering free transportation from 2013 on – Nice implemented a 1euro ticket for the entire regional public transport network and reached a 30% increase of trips within 1 semester)

Work in cooperation with all the stakeholders incl. organization of workshops (ex: Grenoble created a contract of formalized procedure of common work and negotiations between technical departments, public urbanism agencies, all companies related to LR management, engineering consulting firms, users associations, NGOs, neighboring cities )

Provide a high quality service (ex: in Nice biding quality process implemented with the companies operating the LR) and reliable information to the users (scheduled timetables easy to remember)

Adapt the operational schedule in order to reduce operational costs (ex: In Brussels line 26 does not operate during evenings and week ends)

Reduce car usage in order to avoid a counter effect of light rail implementation, as in Nantes, were the increase of public transport was accompanied by a rise in car trips, as traffic jams and congestion diminished.

4 Hass Klau C. et ale Bus or Light Rail making the right choice, Environmental and transport planning, Bergische Universität Gesamthochschule Wuppertal

Policies from other case studies can also inspire Turku´s policy plan (1/2)


Page 32

DRAFT REPORT


Policies from other cities can inspire Turku´s policy plan (2/2)

Some cities plan to use the LR as a tool 1

To favor city center attractiveness and avoid doughnut effect = wealthy people living in the outskirts. In Dublin the tram is a way to attract people in the city center

To reshape the city on a fixed ground: the LR, contrary to buses, is hardly movable. It is then a security factor for investors and owners

Some cities plan to use the LR as a solution

To remedy to old fashioned image of buses; the modern image of the LR may change the perception of public transportation. The refurbishment of bus fleet in seen as a way to reinforce the new look and attractiveness of public transport

To facilitate the access to public transport especially for disable people (creating bump on platforms/vocal service information for blind people, access to train and platform for wheel-chairs)

To share more equally public space between cars, public transportation, pedestrian and bikes

To reduce time losses in commuting: enable to decrease commuting time by avoiding traffic jams and peak hours and opportunity to devote time to other activities (reading, phone calls) during the trip

To simplify the use of public transportation compared to buses, for inhabitants but also tourists who easily find stations and understand the network map at the 1st glance

1 Additional budget for supporting measures has to be secured


Page 33

DRAFT REPORT


Details of Dijon case study

City Dijon

Inhabitants 260 000

Length of the tracks 20 km (2 lines)

Public transport

trips increase

+ 20% in 8 years

(2007-2015)

Public transport modal split

PT modal split: 57% bus, 43% LR

Source of LR passengers 10% of tram users would be former car users

Area Grand Dijon (3 cities of

together 174 000 inhabitants in 2008)

Why Dijon was chosen (1/2)

Similar to Turku in several aspects

Size: Slightly smaller city and population growth than Turku=> 2009: 152.000 inhabitants, 2030: 155.000 vs Turku 2009: 172.000, 2030 = 200.000

LR system: 2 lines, 20kms, equivalent to Turku´s blues line

Same share of the population captured by the LR: ~30%

3 cities served by the LR (Dijon, Chenove and Quetigny), as for the red line of Turku LR

A conservative scenario compared to other cities and Turku

Turku has a higher leverage capacity in public transportation modal split increase – as there is already a high utilization of PT in Dijon, in 2007 = ~44,5 millions of trips vs ~18 millions inTurku

Dijon is one of the lowest PT trips growth out of the case studies; + 20% over 8 years (equivalent to + 40% for Turku on 16 years) – still conservative as 20% increase for Dijon = 9 millions of trips vs Turku + 20% = 3 millions

It is also the most conservative city in the share of LR in public transport modal split: 43% for LR vs. 57% for buses

The share of LR passengers, which were previously car users is considered to be only 10%

The most conservative case, Dijon was chosen as a benchmark for Turku LR integrated solution (1/2)


Page 34

DRAFT REPORT


With the integrated solution, Turku would reach a ridership still conservative compared to other cities of the case study: ~ 30 000 trips/day

Dijon issued a comprehensive study in 2007, starting policies in 2008, the LR implementation is due in 2013 – Turku has thus much more time to start implementing accompanying policies

The city designed a detailed set of policies to foster both public transportation and city development in the context of the light rail implementation

City Inhabitants App Ridership/Year

App Ridership/Day

for the LRYear Year of

operation Length (km)

Turku 172 000 7.500.000 30.000 2035 2025 40

Sacramento 470 000 8.500.000 30.000 1999 1987 32

Hudson Bergen 600 000 9.600.000 40.000 2009 2000 34

Saint Louis 320 000 14.000.000 50.700 2000 1993 74

Manchester 500 000 14.000.000 54.000 2009 1992 37

Dublin 52 000 19.200.000 80.000 2009 2004 38

Dijon 152 000 20.880.000 80.000 2009 2013 20

Strasbourg 270 000 67.200.000 280.000 2010 1994 35

Bordeaux 240 000 69.600.000 290.000 2008 2003 44

Nantes 290 000 63.840.000 266.000 2008 1985 43

Turku : the lowest ridership within the case study

Sources: Wikipedia; LiRa: The International Network of Light Rail Cities. 2001. LiRa Pilot 4: Light Rail, Long term (modal split) impacts; Michael Sheedy, Director Light Rail, Railway Procurement Agency. 2007. Luas & Metro Plans for Dublin; Transit Cooperative Research Program, Research Results Digest 89. 2009. Public transportation's role in addressing global climate change; Irish Business and Employees Confederation.2007. IBEC's Vision for Dublin - A Better Place to Work and Live; R.Liu., V. Nichnadowicz. 2009. Hudson Bergen Light Rail Customer Impact and Retention Study; HTM Consultancy. 2003. Review of light rail systems in the world and analysis of comparable cities with Bergen; Veolia Transdev. 2011. Light rail; PTEG. 2009. Light Rail & Modern Trams; Growing Light Rail: A campaign from the Development Group of the Light Rail Transit Association. Take Action Now;

Why Dijon was chosen (1/2)

The most conservative case, Dijon was chosen as a benchmark for Turku LR integrated solution (2/2)


Page 35

DRAFT REPORT


















Page 36

DRAFT REPORT


Three different scenarios were studied to assess the potential impact of a light rail in Turku

4.3 Results - ecology

Cars + 26% PT + 35%

Cars + 26% PT + 40%

Cars + 17% PT + 9% due to increased use of

high LR capacity

No light rail Development based on

structural model (i.e population growth)

Light rail implementation No accompanying policies

Light rail implementation Set of tailored policies for city and

public transport development Development based on case study

kms growth 2010-20352 kms growth 2010-20352

Modal split Modal split

kms growth 2010-20352

Modal split 1

Key features

Input data

23%

77%

22%

78%

2010 2025 and 2035

5,5%

17,2%

77,3%

2025 2035

7,4%

15,8%

76,8%

6,2%

18,7%

75,1%

11,3%

71,7%

17,0%

Description

2025 2035

BAU scenario Isolated system Integrated solution

Sharp increase of total kms driven

Stable Bus modal split Cars prevail representing 77%

of the motorized trips made in Turku in 2035

Sharp increase of total kilometers driven

No increase PT modal split LR trips partly replace bus trips Cars still prevail: compared to

the BAU scenario, car trips decrease only by 0,2%

Decreased of total kms driven compared to BAU scenario

Bigger share of PT in modal split Reduced car share in modal split LR partially replaces buses and

attracts car users

Car Bus LRBusCar LRBusCar

1 Cycling and walking excluded – 2 Growth of total kilometers driven in the city area.

Page 37

DRAFT REPORT


The integrated solution was selected as the most efficient to take advantage of the light rail

Light rail implemented as a tool forcity development

Main policies to launch from 2019: Integrate land use and traffic planning Make inhabitants participate during all

the phases of the LR implementation Regulate car use by decreasing

parking places & introducing pricing constraints for commuters

Give priority to public transport via traffic management

Create a strong intermodality between bus, train, LR, cycling and walking:

Light rail implemented as a technical solution only

No accompanying policies intending to induce a shift from bus or cars towards LR

No major change in travel behaviors

No light rail Past trends continue i.e No technical breakthrough, no

dramatic improvements in consumption or travel patterns nor in efficiency

No tremendous economical/demographical overturning

Measures/policies

Results and evaluation

150

100

50

0

-7% -11%

203520252010

CO2 emissions Integrated

CO2 emissions BAU

Thousand tonsThousand tons

150

100

50

0203520252010

CO2 BAU

150

100

50

0

-0,99%-1,01%

203520252010

CO2 Isolated system

CO2 BAU

Thousand tons

BAU scenario Isolated system Integrated solution


Page 38

DRAFT REPORT


In the isolated scenario, the modal split is hardly influenced by the light rail introduction

22%

78%

23%

77%

2010 2025 and 2035

6%17%

77%

2025 2035

7%16%

77%

80

60

40

20

0

-25%

2025 Isolated2025 BAU

LRBusCars

Millions trips80

60

40

20

0

-32%

2035 Isolated2035 BAU

Change of trips in 2025 and 2035

Millions trips

BAU scenario Isolated system Car modal split is not affected by the LR (~78%)

Car trips increase by ~12.600 between BAU scenario and LR isolated system

No increase of public transport trips over 25 years even with light rail introduction

Only bus passengers shifting to the LR leading to a decrease of bus trips by 32%in 2035 compared to BAU scenario

LR represent only 7% of the modal split in 2035 with blue and red lines

All LR passengers coming from bus - none from car

Change in number of trips and modal shift BAU vs isolated system Key Information

BusCar LRBusCar


Page 39

DRAFT REPORT


A prevailing car usage for current and future Turku transport system in isolated scenario

2035 BAU2025 Isolated

2025 BAU2010 BAU

460

440

420

380

+0,3%

400

-11%

02035

Isolated

Light RailBusCars

Number of kilometers driven in Business-as-Usual (BAU) and isolated system scenario (Isolated)

Car kilometers are representing almost 98% of the total kilometers driven in both BAU and isolated scenarios

The total kilometers driven increase in the isolated scenario compared to BAU scenario (~ + 2 millions)

Most of this increase is due to a rise in car kilometers

Only bus kilometers decrease by 11% (in 2035)

LR kilometers represent only 0.37% of the total

The slight decrease of bus kilometers compared to bus trips would create a low bus occupancy

In terms of emissions the decrease of bus kilometers is almost offset by car kilometers increase

Millions kms

Kilometers driven BAU vs isolated system Key Information BAU vs. isolated scenario


Page 40

DRAFT REPORT


The light rail in the isolated scenario reduces CO2emissions only marginally (1%) in 2035

Thousands t

1% of CO2 reduction between BAU and isolated system scenario CO2

Car users do not shift to the light rail

Buses are running emptier Real reduction of CO2 most likely

higher since assumption seems very conservative

To achieve higher modal shift towards light rail, the introduction of light rail has to be accompanied by tailored supporting policies

Reduction of CO2 emissions compared to the BAU projection Key Information

Conclusion on the light rail isolated system

The light rail isolated system considers the light rail as a technical solution and not as a central tool around which reorganizing the city

The light rail needs to be closely integrated with its environment and to be actively promoted in order for the inhabitants to get use to using it

At the same time, bus lines, especially in the city center, should be replaced step by step where possible by the light rail

Turku is a city relying mainly on cars and needs a real impulse in order to move towards public and green transportation

Traffic CO2 emissions (car, bus and LR) BAU scenario vs isolated system

140120

100806040

200

-0,99%-1,01%

203520252010 CO2 BAU

CO2 Isolated system


Page 41

DRAFT REPORT


Number of PT trips stable over 25 years

Modal split in 2035: LR: 7%, car: 77%, bus: 16%

Car users do not switch to the light rail

Despite the decrease of bus trips by 1/3, bus kms decrease only by 11% => Buses run emptier

Increase of PT trips by 40% over 25 years thanks to incentive policies (2 times 20% increase as twice the time and the size in Dijon case study)

Modal split in 2035: LR: 11%, car: 72%, bus: 17%

10% of LR users are previous car users, 85% bus users and 5% non motorized vehicle

Bus km decrease proportionally to bus tripsaccording to bus capacity

Turku integrated solution

Underlying assumptions isolated system scenario Assumptions for integrated solution scenario

LR

6%Bus19%

Car75%

LR

11%Bus17%

Car72%

LR

0,3%

Bus

1,8%

Car97,9%

LR

0,6%

Bus

1,6%

Car97,8%

PT trips increase Overall Modal Split PT Modal Split Ridership LR Kms driven Source of LR users

20252019 – 2027

+20%~ 15700 / day

10% cars

85% bus

5% non-motorized1

20352027 – 2035

+20%~ 31400 / day

LR

25%

Bus75%

LR

40%

Bus

60%

1 Previous cycling and walking activities (pollution free), will emit more by using the LR

With the integrated solution, LR reaches 11% of Turku modal split in 2035 impacting both cars and buses


Page 42

DRAFT REPORT


Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Turku Overall evaluation

Effects on Turku and Finland

Temperatures are expected to rise faster than the global average with the mean temperature to rise by 2 - 6°C by the end of the century

Annual precipitation is expected to increase by 10%with an increase of heavy rains

Reduction of heating energy required and increase of crop yields and forest growth

In 1990, 18.3% of all greenhouse gas emissionscame from traffic and 19.7% in 2010

Target is set to reduce emissions per inhabitant by -30% until 2020 compared to 1990

Energy consumption for heating has been significantly reduced over the past decades

Emissions from transport have been slightly reduced from 1990 until 2010

Source: Turku environmental department and Turku Region Air Protection Co-Operative Group

0

500

1.000

1.500

2010

1.346

1990

1.475

AgricultureOther fuel & electricity consumptionTraffic

Heating Waste management

Thousand tons CO2

Traffic is responsible for 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions in Turku


Page 43

DRAFT REPORT


Integrated solution - Traffic CO2 emissions

[tCO2/yr]

CO2 emissions from transport are expected to increase by 25% by 2035 in a BAU scenario, reaching 130 000 tons

With LR implementation, CO2 emissions from transport are expected to decrease by 11% in 2035 in the integrated solution compared to the BAU projection

In 2035, car emissions account for 92%, buses for 7.7% and LR for 0.3% of traffic CO2 emissions

CO2 footprint of electricity for light rail system is taken from Nordpool electricity mix.

The additional reduction of CO2 emissions with free carbon electricity for the LR would amount to 0.2% (~ 250 tons of CO2 saved compared to Nordpool mix scenario)

The decrease of CO2 emissions starts in 2019 thanks to tailored policy implementation

The given reduction can be considerably reinforced if some other technologies such as e-cars and biogas buses are implemented in parallel

130.000

10.000

30.000

50.000

70.000

90.000

110.000

140.000

120.000

100.000

80.000

60.000

40.000

20.000

0

-7%

-11%

203520252010

CO2 emissions Integrated

CO2 emissions BAU

Key Information

CO2 emissions for cars and buses include combustion, air conditioning and lubricant oil emissions (A lubricant is a substance introduced to reduce friction between moving surfaces) Heavy duty vehicles are not taken into account

CO2 emissions decrease by ~ 11% with LR integrated solution compared to BAU scenario in 2035


Page 44

DRAFT REPORT


The increase of car kilometers diminish the positive effect of increased vehicle efficiency

Car and bus kilometers projection

Key information

Car kilometers will increase in all scenarios by 2035 reaching more than 400 million kilometers, mainly due to population growth. Cars kms growth rate in BAU rise from 0.6% in the period 2010-2025 to 1.3% in average in the period 2025-2035 (data from regional traffic model)

The integrated solution will allow lowering BAU car kilometers increase by 7% compared to BAU and bus kilometers will decrease by 42% due to the introduction of the LR

Million kms

Car and bus kilometers, BAU and LR integrated solution


250

+26%

Integrated car

100

0

+17%

BAU Car

450

350

150

50

500

300

400

200

2

12

10

4

8

6

Integrated bus

+36%

BAU Bus0

-21%

14

2010

20352025Million kms

Page 45

DRAFT REPORT


Light rail energy consumption Light rail system assumptions

105921

75

TotalOther Auxiliaries

HVACTraction

[Wh/Pax/km]

The light rail system in Turku will consume from 90 to 105 Wh per passenger per kilometer

20% average passenger load in light rail trains Each train to be equipped with two air conditioning

units with 32 kW heating and 30 kW cooling Utilization of HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and Air

Conditioning) ranges from 50% for 4 month during winter to 20% for 8 month during summer

All other auxiliary power adds to 22 kW with an average utilization of 40%

Average trains are considered to be between 30 and 42 meters long and carrying 190 - 220 passengers with up to 4 passengers per square meter

Dwelling time of 20 seconds and 90 seconds of reversing time at terminals

The light rail system in Turku will consume approximately 100 Wh per passenger per kilometer


Page 46

DRAFT REPORT


The overall air quality in Turku is satisfactory and limit values are rarely exceeded

Air Quality in Turku and Turku Region

Overall, the air quality in Turku is classified normally as satisfactory while air quality is classified as good in Raisio and Kaarina. The measured concentrations are in a range where negative health effects are unlikely and normally only occur during times with high concentrations of fine particles

Progress has been made over the last years in improving the air quality, e.g. sulphur dioxide emissions have been cut since the 1980´s. Currently, around 6.000 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx) are emitted per year of which 20-30 percent are from Traffic regional model. Particle emissions are between 300 to 500 tons per year with a good contribution from traffic especially from winter sanding and particles from braking and tires

In general emissions from other sources like energy production are higher than from traffic. Still, since emissions from cars are emitted at a lower level their effect on air quality is greater

In 2010 the numerical limit value (50 µg/m3) for inhalable particles (PM10) was exceeded during six days in Turkuwith 35 being allowed per year. The numerical limit value (200 µg/m3) for nitrogen dioxide was exceeded in Turku during one day with 18 being allowed per year

Air pollution can cause various health problems depending on the person. Most common health problems are respiratory passage inflammation, asthmatic symptoms and chronic bronchus inflammation

Environmental impacts of air pollution are:

Acidification of water bodies and soil by nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and ammonia (NH3)

Eutrophication of water bodies and soil by nitrogen and phosphorous leading to e.g. overgrowth of planktonic algae

Defoliation of trees close to local emission sources such as heavily used roads

Source: Turku Region Air Protection Co-Operative Group


Page 47

DRAFT REPORT


NO2 Emissions in the region Overall evaluation

Effects on health and environment0

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

6.000

7.000

8.000

2000

5.747

1990

7.021

5.485

2010

6.409

2005

Traffic (incl Raisio, Naantali and Kaarina) (t/a)

Fortum Power Plant (t/a)

Neste Oil Refinery (t/a)

Turku, subject to permit (t/a)

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) have considerable effects on health causing irritations of the skin, eyes and the respiratory system

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) causes acidification of water systems and soils

Nitrogen causes euthropication in land and water systems leading to an acceleration of forest growth and changes in the vegetation

Air quality in Turku generally classified as satisfactory were health effects are unlikely

The guideline value for nitrogen oxides (NOx) has been exceeded once in 2010 in Turku center and once in Raisio

Annual averages of nitrogen dioxide varied between 10 and 33 µg/m3. The limit for the annual average is set for 40 µg/m3 (1)

tons/year


NOx emissions are below the limit and the guideline value has only once been exceeded in 2010


Page 48

DRAFT REPORT


Further reduction of NOx emissions by 8% in 2025 and 12% in 2035 with the LR integrated solution

Evaluation of results

The increased efficiency due to prevailing Euro 5 and 6 vehicles reduce NOx emissions by 22% in 25 years (BAU) despite the increase of kilometers traveled by cars, from 340 tons in 2010 to 296 tons in 2035

NOx emissions from traffic can decrease by a further 8% in 2025 and 12% in 2035 with integrated solution compared to BAU scenario

Cars account for 89% and buses for 11% of traffic NOx emissions in 2035

The sharp decrease of NOx exhaust emissions in 2014 and 2024 are due to the upgrade of Euro norms of Turku car fleet

The decrease of NOx emissions starts in 2019 thanks to tailored policy implementation

Integrated solution - Traffic NOx emissions

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

-8%-12%

203520252010

NOx emissions Integrated

NOx emissions BAU

[tNOx/yr]


Page 49

DRAFT REPORT


The vehicle fleet will improve performances and reduce emissions per vehicle

Car and bus fleet projection

Source: Emisa/Copert Finland database

Source: City of Turku,

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Euro 6

Euro 5

Euro 4

Euro 3

Euro 2

Euro 1

Pre Euro

Turku car population sorted by Euro norm (%)%

0

20

40

60

80

100

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Euro 6

Euro 5

Euro 4

Euro 3

Euro 2

Euro 1

Conventional

Turku bus population sorted by Euro norm (%)

Euro 5 and 6 will be the norm in 2035 for both cars and buses

In 2025, Turku bus fleet will be 100% Euro 5 buses, to reach in 2035 half Euro 5 and half Euro 6 buses (City of Turku projection)

Car will remain in majority diesel cars (75% in 2035)

Pre Euro cars are representing ~ 15% of total car population in 2010, but will decrease to ~ 7% in 2024 to finally re-increase until 9% in 2035 (Emisa/Copert database)

Key information

%


Page 50

DRAFT REPORT


Particle Matter Emissions in the region Overall evaluation

Effects on health and environment

(t/a)

Can cause various health problems depending on the person

Most common symptoms are respiratory passage inflammation, asthmatic symptoms and chronic bronchus inflammation

Thoracic particles contain pollen and particles from exhaust gases including hydrocarbons and heavy metals

Air quality in Turku generally classified as satisfactory were health effects are unlikely

Highest values in spring due to winter sanding and re-emission of particles from road, tires and brakes

Annual average varies between 13 and 18 µ/m3

In 2010, the limit of 50 µ/m3 for inhalable particles was exceeded during six days with 35 days being allowed

504653

262

100114

352330

114142

76

782

7077

166

262

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2010200520001990

Turku, subject to permit (t/a)

Traffic (incl Raisio, Naantali and Kaarina) (t/a)

Neste Oil Refinery (t/a)

Fortum Power Plant (t/a)


The limit for inhalable particles was exceeded six times in 2010 with 35 times being allowed


Page 51

DRAFT REPORT


Further reduction of PM exhaust emissions by 4% in 2025 and 8% in 2035 with the LR integrated solution

Impact on PM exhaust emissions

[tPM/yr]

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

-4% -8%

203520252010

PM exhaust emissions Integrated

PM exhaust emissions BAU

The efficiency of cars due to the prevailing situation of Euro 5 and 6 cars and buses decrease PM exhaust emissions by 42% in 25 years (BAU) despite the increase of kilometers traveled by cars.

The light rail integrated solution reduces PM exhaust emissions by a further 4% in 2025 and 8% by 2035 compared to the BAU scenario.

PM exhaust emissions from cars represent ~98% of traffic PM exhaust emissions

The sharp decrease of PM exhaust emissions in 2014 and 2024 are due to the upgrade of Euro norms of Turku car fleet

The decrease of PM emissions starts in 2019 thanks to tailored policy implementation



Page 52

DRAFT REPORT


PM non exhaust emissions from sanding and spike tires can be reduced by 7% in 2025

PM non exhaust emissions results

[tPM/yr]

0

5

10

1520

25

30

35

40

4550

55

60

65

2010 2035

-3%

-7%

-3%

-7%

2025

Bus emissions are not presented as being negligible compared to car PM non exhaust emissions - PM emissions due to winter sanding are based on a Swedish model by Omstedt et ale (AtmosphericEnvironment 39 (2005) 6088–6097) and meteorological data in Turku 2005-2007

Sanding emissions come from tire-road interface. Road dust are kept into sand and on dry days, the movement of passing vehicles suspends particles contained within this materials and emits PM10

particles and dusts

Sanding emissions are the highest PM emissions, they reach 63 tons in 2035 compared to 12 tons for PM exhaust emissions and 5 tons for spike tire emissions

The reduction of 7% of both spike tires and sanding emissions thanks to light rail integrated solution is proportional to the reduction of car kilometers

Spike tires and sanding emissions are independent of car types, the emissions only rely on the number of kilometers driven. A further reduction will thus entirely rely on decreasing car kilometers



Car sanding integratedCar sanding BAU

Car spike tyre Integrated solutionCar spike tyre BAU

Page 53

DRAFT REPORT


A reduction of 8 to 13% of traffic emissions can be reached with the light rail integrated solution

Impact on NOx emissions of integrated solution

[tNOx/yr]

-11%

Integrated 2035

116

Delta Integrated

14

BAU 2035

130

Change

27

Baseline 2010

103

Impact on CO2 emissions of integrated solution (Integrated)

[1000tCO2/yr] Decrease of 11% between BAU scenario and integrated solution in 2035, leading to a saving of ~13 000 tons of CO2 in 2035

Decrease of 7% in 2025 between BAU and integrated solution

Limitation of CO2 emissions to 116 00 tons in 2035, compared to 103 00 tons in 2010 despite population growth

2593729651347

-12%

Integrated 2035

Delta Integrated

BAU 2035ChangeBaseline 2010

Impact on particle emissions (exhaust) of integrated solution

13114

20 -7%

Integrated 2035

Delta Integrated

BAU 2035Change

6

6

Baseline 2010

Decrease of 12% of NOx emissions between BAU scenario and integrated solution in 2035

Decrease of 8% of NOx emissions in 2025 between BAU scenario and integrated solution

NOx emissions of 259 tons in 2035 compared to 347 tons in 2010

Decrease of 7% between BAU scenario and integrated solution in 2035

Decrease of 4% in 2025 between BAU scenario and integrated solution

PM exhaust emissions of 13 tons in 2035 compared to 20 tons in 2010

[tPM/yr]


Page 54

DRAFT REPORT


Turku light rail project can also go further on the sustainable path

To improve the sustainability of the LR system- watering with recycled water

- photovoltaic panels on the roof of the depot

- use the LR works on the street to upgrade existing infrastructures (water pipes/district heating)

- use rain water to clean LR trains

- organize trainings for future employees if the local market is insufficient

To plan a carbon footprint analysis in order to minimize the most emitting phases of the LR implementation and optimize in advance the environmental impact

Further steps taken toward sustainability of the LR

Further steps under discussion in the city of Turku

Based on Helsinki Energia1 low estimation scenario, the e-car could represent a share of 18% of the vehicles in 2030 in Helsinki. Applied to Turku, this share would represent 16 500 vehicles. In the highest impact scenario (electricity carbon free and same utilization pattern as fuel vehicles), e-car implementation would allow a reduction of ~ 18 000 tons of CO2 in 2035

Biogas (or biomethane) busesIf Turku decides to run the remaining bus, after light rail introduction, on biogas it would represent in 2035 a saving of ~9 000 tons of CO2 , ~20 tons of NOx and 0.2 tons of PM exhaust2. In this case the total decrease of emissions would be: 18% for CO2 instead of 11% without biogas buses and 19% for NOx instead of 12% in 2035 for the light rail integrated solution.

1C�� H��

2

B�� CO2 �� 100�� NO

�

�� 78� �� PM

�� 98�� S�� O�� J�� J�� W�� E�� S�� O�� 2009


Page 55

DRAFT REPORT


City case studies – LR implementation

a City Inhabitants Length of tracks (km)

Number of stations Date of operation

Daily ridership

(tram)

Date of ridership Modal Split % Ridership and kilometers

driven Source of Modal shift Remarks Modal split evolutionsummary

Ireland Dublin 525.380 38 (2 lines) 56 2004 80 000 2009

2004 2007LR 0 17Car 53 47Bus 16 10 Other 32 26

In 2007, the system carried 28.4 million passengers, a growth of 10% since 2006

Tram network includes Dublin region

LR +169% (Over 3 years)

Bus -37.5%

USA Hudson Bergen 600.000 34 24 2000 40 000 200940% of LR passengers coming

from bus, 30% from cars and 14% from trains

- About 7% of riders started this trip because of the availability of

the LR. - nearly 17% of the riders moved to the area after the LR opened .

- 1/4 of tram riders would not have made the trip, nor would they have lived in their current location had the LR extension

not been constructed

USA Sacramento 470.000 32 31 1987 30 000 1999Public transport

1987 14 millions passengers1999 27 millions passengers

PT +93% (over 12 years)

France Nantes 290.000 43 (3 lines) 901985 (1st line) 1994 (2nd line)

2005 (extension)266 300 2008

-Public Transport (PT)-1984-1986 = +19%1992-1994= + 6.3%

1990-97=+21%- In 2009, 20% of the km are done by tram and

77% per bus

In 1985, 1994 and 2009, tram modal split with in PT

was respectively: 14%, 40% and 59%

After the opening of the 2nd line, the market share of cars has

been decreased.The modal split towards PT is

especially high along the tracks

+ 21% (7 years)

France Strasbourg 270.000 35 (6 lines) 67 1994 280 000 2010PT 1994-2010 +111%

Car use was reduced from 60% in 1988 to 46% in 2001.

In 2009, 64% of the trips are made by tram and 36% per

bus

The number of cars entering in the city center decreased by

28% from 1994PT +111% (16 years)

France Bordeaux (in process) 240.000 44 (3 lines) 86 2003

2008: 281 900

2014: 364 500

2016: 497 300

1998 2007 2013 2020Cars 66.3 62.8 55 47.1PT 7 9.1 14.4 19.12 wheels 4.2 5.1 6.9 10 Oth. 29.5 23 25 25

The network joins 3 cities: Bordeaux, Blanquefort and

BrugesPT +105 % (15 years)

France Dijon (forecast) 152.000 20 (2 lines) 37 2013 (construction 2010) 87 000 2009 PT 2007-2015 + 20% 2015 PT modal split:

57'% bus, 43% LR10% of tram users would be

former car users

The network joins 3 cities Dijon, Chenove and

Quetigny

PT + 20 % (8 years)

Belgium Brussels

pilot project of light rail

line 26 (loop line)

PT market share(simulation for a broader network)

1991: 38%1994-1997: 35-38%

2005: 45% (LR) 32% (without LR)

The line 26 is not operating in the evening neither in the weekends LR +35% (3 years)

Great Britain Manchester 500.000 37 (4 lines) 42 1992 54 000 2009

The tram system is currently undergoing major expansion with 4 new lines under construction

by 2016

General findings

A European survey on 14 cities shows that 11 % of new passenger of LR come from car users. In the UK LRT is considered to take on average 20% of former car users


ANNEX: Overview on city case studies regarding light rail implementation effects

Page 56

DRAFT REPORT


Content

Executive Summary




1

2

3

4



Page 57

DRAFT REPORT



Light rail impact on real estate values

Data requirements for real estate valuation

Real estate volume development

LR price impact factors from research

Study methodology Driver tree logics

Total real estate value uplift due to LR

Regional composition of value uplift

Value uplift per view (line, type, status, zone)

City view on value uplift Value capture

mechanisms Recommendations

Two step approach of urban property simulation

Real estate volume baseline and coverage

Real estate volume projection data

Expert panel approach to define LR price impacts

Main assumptions

ResultsData gathering & Modeling

Methodology& Research

Page 58

DRAFT REPORT


Floor space and price data is required to simulate real estate values in an urban environment

Real estate value calculation

€ / m2 €m2 =x

RE priceRE floor space Total RE value

Market dynamicsMaster planning

=

++

=

+ 2%

2011201020092008

Transportation impactTransportation impact

5.1 Methodology and research – real estate

Page 59

DRAFT REPORT


LR system can have an impact on the speed and amount of development in real estate floor space

Real estate value projection (Floor space impact)

Without LR, development of new urban areas will happen in slower speed (e.g. Hirvensalo, Castle Town)

Densification of existing areas will be partially at risk without LR (e.g. Runosmaki)

LR as a driver to revitalize areas with low reputation and thereby attracting further development (e.g. Varissuo)

LR system is providing reliable investment criteria and thereby attracting development for industrial and commercial use

Functioning of LR as a city development tool is strongly interlinked with other measures, policies and incentives

LR can be a a major measure to support structural model objectives but is strongly interlinked with a sound development concept

4


Page 60

DRAFT REPORT


The study model considers most relevant factors which moderate LR impact on real estate price

Rea

l est

ate

pric

e

Ligh

t rai

l sys

tem

LR Impact

Connect areas (existing / new)Property types Distance to

stations vs. tracks

“Zonal view”“Land use view” “District view”1 2 3

Real estate value projection (Price impact)

3: District variations in LR impact are integrated into analysis by calculation of a impact factor range rather then one punctual impact factor


Page 61

DRAFT REPORT


The economic impact will be evaluated for different property types along the track

MethodologyEvaluation model

Floor space volume is based on the structural model assumptions (e.g. increase of density, improved development of new areas), ( )

Along the light rail tracks impact zones will be defined, e.g. 0 – 400 m, 400 – 800 m ( ), no “noise zone” applied

Property types need to be specified due to different levels of impact, e.g. different sensitivity to change in accessibility ( )

Real estate price impact ranges will be provided for the relevant views via expert panel

Differences in districts structures ( ) need to be considered, e.g. distance to city center and need for public transportation, variance in construction types etc.

Turku region, LRT tracks

Blue LineRed LineRail track corridor District

S Station Track zone 1…

Station zone 1 Rail track

Station zone 2

Expl

anat

ions

:

SS SS

1

2

4

3

3

2

1

42

4

4

4

34


Page 62

DRAFT REPORT


The driver tree for real estate value might be structured by real estate type, district and zone

Value [Added] of Real Estate

Value of real estate in District 1




.

.

.

+

District 1Value of

Residential Real Estate (RRE)

District 1Value of

Commercial Real Estate (CRE)

District 1Value of

undeveloped landfor residential use

(UR)

400 m - ZoneValue of


800 m - ZoneValue of


+

Assumptions for calculation

Significant difference of LR impact between property types (Residential, commercial etc.)

Emphasize either on type of real estate (e.g. Commercial contains shops, offices, industrial) or on district level to be discussed

Distance to stops (and tracks) has significant influence on LR impact

Land use planning depends on city decisions (e.g. approval for new buildings, transfer of use)

District 1Value of

undeveloped land for commercial use

(UC)

+

Driver Tree – Real Estate (1)RESULT OF

DRIVER TREE WORKSHOP


Page 63

DRAFT REPORT


District 2 / Zone 1Value of




The driver tree for residential real estate includes a price premium and a space change view

Floor space for RRE

Average sqm price for RRE

Price change for RRE

due to LR

Add for RRE from transformation in

use due to land use planning

Additional growth in RRE due to land use

planning


due to yearly growth

Space change for RRE


Present average sqm price

for RRE

Existing floor space for RRE

[sqm]

[€ / sqm]

[%]

[sqm]

[€ / sqm]

[%]

[%]

[%]

[%]

[%]





..

.

x

x

x

+

+

[ € ]

Driver Tree – Real Estate (2)RESULT OF

DRIVER TREE WORKSHOP


Page 64

DRAFT REPORT



















Main assumptions

Page 65

DRAFT REPORT


The light rail impact study is based on the growth assumptions from the Structural Model 2035

The impact of the planned light rail system in Turku on real estate values has been evaluated in comparison to abusiness-as-usual scenario. Actual and planned real estate volumes in Turku, general desk research on real estateprice premiums and a city-specific expert panel are the methodological cornerstones of this study.

The expert panel was based on several questionnaires and interviews with experts (e.g. municipal real estatedepartment, real estate agency, University of Turku).

It is assumed that the light rail system is implemented in two phases: The blue line connects Runosmäki andNättinummi, Varissuo, Hirvensalo, New Castle Town and Harbor side until 2025. Additionally, the red line fullyconnects Raisio, Kaarina and the major part of Hirvensalo until 2035.

The Structural Model 20351 for the Turku Region is the basic input for the study and assumes a population growth of60.000 in the urban area until 2035 (~26 % increase).

In the same timeframe ~20.000 new working places are planned in the urban area (thereof approx. 15.000 or 75%of the working places are in the light rail scope).

Based on the draft track routing for the blue and the red line, the light rail captures approx. 8 Mio. m2 in existinggross floor space within the 800 m zone (~60% of the total existing real estate volume in the same area in 2011).Expected growth of approx. 3,7 Mio. m2 until 2035 lead to a total volume in scope of ~11,7 Mio. m2.

Coverage of existing residential gross floor space is approx. 60% and coverage of existing office gross floor spaceis slightly below 90% in the 800 m zone. The gross floor coverage of existing retail space is lower with~50% but with an increasing trend until 2035.

1 Structural Model 2035, Final Report, Pöyry, 2011

Executive Summary – Study approach

5.2 Data gathering and modeling – real estate

Page 66

DRAFT REPORT


First step of the urban property simulation is to de-fine a fixed volume baseline for further calculations

Step 2 – Apply price impact due to light railStep 1 – Fix floor space volume baseline

Objective of first step is to bring transparency into floor space volume distribution and development objectives of the city Additional growth target of Structural Model can only be met

with the application of comprehensive city development measures Light rail systems have proven to be a major tool for goal-

oriented development in several cities1

The full effect of light rail system can only be realized in combination with other development measures (e.g. policies, incentives) Additional growth scenario (Structural Model) is building the

volume baseline for the light rail price impact valuation

1 Source: International Regional Science Review, Vol 28, No. 2, pp. 146-167, 2005

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

10

9

8

7

12

11+ XY %

Additional growth (Structural Model)Linear projection (Statistics Fi)

m2

mill

ion

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

highlow

LR high impactLR low impactBAU scenario

Rea

l est

ate

valu

e in

€

Objective of the second step is to combine the fixed floor space volume baseline with various price simulations Price simulations consider specific price levels of the city and

development of real estate prices with and without a LR system All real estate valuation scenarios are based on the additional

growth volume projection (Structural Model) Business as usual (BAU) valuation scenario is the reference for a

calculation of low and high uplifts in real estate values if LR price impact ranges are applied Modeling approach allows to analyze value uplifts in different views

(e.g. per LR line, per impact zone, per real estate type, per region)


Page 67

DRAFT REPORT


High coverage of population and workplaces achieved with assumed light rail routing

Baseline of real estate volumes1 Total gross floor area

~60% of existing residential real estates2 are covered in the current track routing (~6,6 million m2 in 2011)

Very high coverage of office space with approx. 85% of total office space in Turku / Kaarina / Raisio (~760 thousand m2 from total of ~887 thousand m2 in 2011)

Retail space coverage is approx. 50% lower with currently ~694 thousand m2 of 1,3 million m2

Increasing future retail coverage due to Castle Town, Itäharjun and Travel Center1 City of Turku, municipal real estate department

2 Statistics Finland; in scope is City of Turku, Kaarina, Raisio, ∑ 11,3 million m2

Res

iden

tial s

pace

Com

mer

cial

spa

ce

Castle Town

TravelCenter

Itäharjun

Total gross floor area in Turku, Kaarina, Raisio 2010

Real estate type m2

Residential 11.300.474

Office 887.003

Retail 1.318.480

Total gross floor area in the LR impact zoning 2011

Real estate type m2

Residential 6.561.638

Office 760.468

Retail 694.120


Page 68

DRAFT REPORT


Turku, Kaarina and Raisio count for more than 20 million sqm of real estate total gross floor area

Source: Statistics Finland (http://pxweb2.stat.fi/database/StatFin/asu/ashi/ashi_en.asp)

Buildings 2010 by RegionTotal

Gross floor area*, m2

Kaarina - S:t KarinsDetached houses 1,046,334Attached houses 261,544Blocks of flats 315,297Commercial (Retail) buildings 122,132Office buildings 17,757Raisio - ResoDetached houses 617,353Attached houses 191,365Blocks of flats 401,989Commercial (Retail) buildings 348,128Office buildings 63,040Turku - ÅboDetached houses 1,838,100Attached houses 1,248,318Blocks of flats 5,380,174Commercial (Retail) buildings 848,220Office buildings 806,206

*Gross floor areaThe gross floor area of a building comprises the floor areas of the different storeys and the area of attic or basement storeys in which there are dwelling or working rooms or other space conforming to the principal intended use of the building.The gross floor area is the horizontal area enclosed by the outer surfaces of the walls of the storeys or their imagined continuation for openings and decorations on the surface of the outer walls.

Total gross floor area in Turku, Kaarina, RaisioReal estate type m2 Residential 11,300,474 Office 887,003Retail 1,318,480


Page 69

DRAFT REPORT


~60 % of the total gross floor area in Turku, Kaarina and Raisio are covered in the LR impact zoning

Source: Statistics Finland (http://pxweb2.stat.fi/database/StatFin/asu/ashi/ashi_en.asp), Real estate valuation model - Project team LR impact study Turku and Siemens

Total gross floor area in Turku, Kaarina, Raisio 2010Real estate type m2 Residential 11.300.474 Office 887.003Retail 1.318.480

Total gross floor area in the LR impact zoning 2011Real estate type m2 Residential 6.561.638Office 760.468Retail 694.120

58%

Covered by LR Covered by LR

86%

Covered by LR

53%

Residential real estate Office real estate Retail real estate

Covered by LR

~60%

Total real estate


Page 70

DRAFT REPORT


Due to Structural Model master planning real estate stock is assumed to increase by 46% along LR tracks

+46%

2035

11,7 Mio. m2

11%11%

79%

2011

8,0 Mio. m2

9% 9%

82%

RetailOfficeResidential

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

12

11

10

9

8

7

+26%


Volume projection of Structural ModelStructural Model growth target

Linear projection is assuming a conservative annual population growth rate of 0,18% (CAGR) for the City of Turku

More aggressive growth 0,51% assumed in Structural Model

Compared to linear projection based on historic data the Structural Model is targeting an additional growth of 26% until 2035

More than 80% of existing real estate stock in analysis 2011 is for residential use

Increased share of commercial real estate volumes in LR buffer zones due to disproportionate growth of office and retail real estate along the track

Based on structural model master planning real estate stock along LR track will grow approx. 46% until 2035

Rea

l est

ate

floor

spa

ce in

m2

mill

ion

Rea

l est

ate

floor

spa

ce in

m2

mill

ion


Page 71

DRAFT REPORT


Itäharjun is one of the dedicated commercial development areas considered separately

Planned LR routing – Blue line

400m impact zone

Assumptions

Red areas not owned by city Transformation in land use from

industrial to office buildings Existing industrial land regarded

as vacant land for office use in calculations Allocation of volumes to 400m

and 400m-800m zone manually Total volumes developed until

2035 – yearly development progress as in Castle Town 36 m2 per office workplace and

74 m2 per retail workplace applied to estimate potential workplaces in the area ID 1-2 mixed commercial area,

e.g. little gym ID 3 currently industrial ABB ID 4 Hypermarket in planning ID 8-12 e.g. car shops, bakery

X Building plot ID

Source: Working session with Dept. of Environmental and City planning and Real Estate Dept., March 7th 2012


Page 72

DRAFT REPORT


The Itäharjun area is fully covered in the 800m zone with a significant number of workplaces

Floor space volumes adjusted manually

ID Type Impact zone (m)

Floor space volumes (m2) Owned by city

1 Office 400 47.300 Yes

2 Retail 400 60.800 Yes

3 Office 400 42.600 No

4 Retail 400 44.400 No

5 Office 400 50.400 Yes

6 Retail 400 25.200 Yes

7 Retail 800 25.200 Yes

8 Retail 400 45.300 Yes

9 Retail 400 45.333 Yes

10 Retail 800 22.667 Yes

11 Retail 400 38.550 Yes

12 Retail 800 38.550 Yes

13 Retail 800 67.100 Yes

In million €

Type Impact zone (m)

Total volumes 2035 (m2)

Owned by city (%)

Potential Workplaces1

Office 400 140.300 70% 3.897Retail 400 259.583 83% 3.508Retail 800 153.517 100% 2.075

Total floor space volume of 553.400 m2 to be developed until 2035. Assumption of same timeline for construction progress as in Castle Town based on structural model.


1 3500 – 4000 of these workplaces exist already in 2011. Source realprojekti 08.02.2012


Page 73

DRAFT REPORT


Castle Town is a commercial development area in the 400m zone with additional 243.000 sqm in 2035

Additional information from discussion with City

90 % of the Castel Town area is owned by the City of Turku A new shopping mall is planned for Castle Town with 35.000 m2

36 m2 per office workplace and 74 m2 per retail workplace applied to estimate potential workplaces in the area

Area development is planned to be finalized until 2035 Construction progress of commercial area will follow residential

development (see structural model ID 89_2) All commercial buildings are located in the 400 m LR impact zone

Total floor space volumes for retail buildings: 35.000 m2

35.000 m2 / 74 m2 per retail workplace = 461 workplaces in retail buildings

Total number of workplaces in Caste Town area: 6250

6.250 – 461 = 5.789 workplaces in office buildings

5789 x 36 m2 per workplace = 208.404 m2

Total floor space volumes for office buildings: 208.404 m2



Owned by city (%)

Potential Workplaces

Retail 400 35.000 90% 461Office 400 208.404 90% 5.789

Planned LR routing – Blue line



Page 74

DRAFT REPORT


Travel Center project includes the movement of the main station and commercial development

Additional information from concept development1

Size of Travel Center (A) approx. 100.000 m2

56.000 m2 retailing (inc. entertainment) 21.000 m2 offices

Other parts of the plan (B-E) approx. 90.000 m2

32.000 m2 retailing 58.000 m2 offices

1 Source: Entrecon 27.01.2009, Turku Travel Center: Commercial requirements. Concept dev.

Assumptions



Owned by city (%)

Potential Workplaces

Retail 400 88.000 90% 1.189

Office 400 79.000 90% 2.194

All commercial buildings are located in the 400 m zone 90% of the area is owned by the city (currently owned by the

State of Finland but handover to City is intended) 36 m2 per office workplace and 74 m2 per retail workplace

applied to estimate potential workplaces in the area Plan to open Travel Center (A) in 2025 – linear development

progress 2012-2025 assumed for calculations Other parts (B-E) assumed to be finalized in 2035 – linear

development from 2025-2035 assumed for calculations


Page 75

DRAFT REPORT


Approximately 15.000 additional workplaces in 2035 in the three commercial development areas

Itäharjun

Castle

Town

Travel

Center

+ - =

Office Retail Existing Additional

3.897 2.0753.508

5.583

4.000 5.480

+ - =


5.789 461 6.250

+ - =


2.194 1.189 3.383


Page 76

DRAFT REPORT


In the second step of the model various price simulations are applied to the fixed volume baseline

Step 2 – Apply price impact due to light railStep 1 – Fix floor space volume baseline

Objective of first step is to bring transparency into floor space volume distribution and development objectives of the city Additional growth target of Structural Model can only be met

with the application of comprehensive city development measures Light rail systems have proven to be a major tool for goal-

oriented development in several cities1

The full effect of light rail system can only be realized in combination with other development measures (e.g. policies, incentives) Additional growth scenario (Structural Model) is building the

volume baseline for the light rail price impact valuation

1 Source: International Regional Science Review, Vol 28, No. 2, pp. 146-167, 2005

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

+ XY %

12

11

10

9

8

7


m2

mill

ion

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

highlow

LR high impactLR low impactBAU scenario

Rea

l est

ate

valu

e in

€

Objective of the second step is to combine the fixed floor space volume baseline with various price simulations Price simulations consider specific price levels of the city and

development of real estate prices with and without a LR system All real estate valuation scenarios are based on the additional

growth volume projection (Structural Model) Business as usual (BAU) valuation scenario is the reference for a

calculation of low and high uplifts in real estate values if LR price impact ranges are applied Modeling approach allows to analyze value uplifts in different views

(e.g. per LR line, per impact zone, per real estate type, per region)


Page 77

DRAFT REPORT


10 price level areas and projection of historic price development to calculate business-as-usual scenario

Real estate price levels Explanation …

Highest price baseline in the city center for each type of real estate

Price level areas assigned to respective real estate volumes to define the business-as-usual scenario

CAGR based on historic price development in Turku1

Average annual price increase to 2035:

3% for residential real estate

3% for commercial real estate

2% for undeveloped land

7 price level areas applied within the city center

3 price level areas applied outside the city center

10 price level areas considered to be a good proxy for the existing real estate prices in Turku

Major parts of suburbs Runosmäki, Varissuo and Kaarina, Raisio assumed to be in price level area C

Connecting branches to the suburbs mainly in price level area B

Explanation …

Price level Residential Office Retail Undev. LandOutside ctr. C 1.800 1.730 1.500 100Outside ctr. B 2.000 2.300 2.000 160Outside ctr. A 2.700 3.000 2.600 220City center 1 2.700 3.000 2.600 280City center 2 2.700 3.000 2.600 300City center 3 2.700 3.000 2.600 320City center 4 2.800 3.000 2.600 400City center 5 3.000 3.000 2.600 450City center 6 3.000 3.000 2.600 500City center 7 3.300 3.000 2.600 675

CAGR 3% 3% 3% 2%

Source: Statistics Finland


Page 78

DRAFT REPORT


Compound annual growth rate of residential real estate prices in Turku is 3%

Source: Statistics Finland (http://pxweb2.stat.fi/database/StatFin/asu/ashi/ashi_en.asp)

Prices of dwellings – TurkuYear Index (1983=100)1988 169,21989 210,71990 196,31991 174,21992 143,91993 134,21994 138,81995 135,41996 143,81997 162,31998 179,91999 188,82000 202,62001 200,62002 217,72003 234,72004 261,22005 281,32006 304,52007 314,82008 306,52009 308,12010 329,22011 335,7

CAGR ~ 3%

Indices of prices of dwellings in Turku (1983 = 100)


Page 79

DRAFT REPORT


Price impacts due to the planned light rail were validated incorporating various real estate experts

Factors for real estate price change were obtained from studies and validated in a structured process Experience values from 24

studies could be gathered Interviews with various real

estate experts to adjust range of reasonable real estate price change Iterative survey of specific

price impact ranges in detailed expert panel questionnaire Final alignment and

approval from municipal real estate corporation

Delphi approach for LR price premiums


Range of price premiums for simulation

Conservative scenario1 applied in simulation model Price impact in 400-800m zone range from 10-30%

of respective impact in 0-400m zone Price impact on undeveloped land (building rights)

could be calculated assuming 30% capture share of the total value uplift for developed real estate for the owner of the ground

Conservative scenario range1

High impact scenario

(sensitivity factor2

~1.5 – 2.2)

RangeLowest

feedback value

Average minimum

value

Average median value

Residential 400m 2,0% 2,9% 6,0%

Office 400m 3,0% 7,2% 11,0%

Retail 400m 2,5% 4,3% 9,8%

1 Conservative scenario calculated with lowest feedback and average minimum values from expert panel approach2 Sensitivity factor is considering median values from expert panel feedback

Desk research

Range

Qualitative interviews with real estate experts

Range

Iterative expert panel questionnaire

Range

Spread of price premiums per type

15,0%

23,0%

2,6%

10,0%9,4%

17,5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Residential Commercial

Change

in re

al estate value by

light rail [%

]

Maximum Minimum Median

Page 80

DRAFT REPORT


Spread of price premiums per type

15,0%

23,0%

2,6%

10,0%9,4%

17,5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Residential Commercial

Change

in re

al estate value by

light rail [%]

Maximum Minimum Median

Experience values from desk research used as input for expert panel and sensitivity analysis

Quantification base for LR price impact Spread of LR price premiums

Price range residential from 2,6 – 15%, Median 9,4% Price range commercial from 10 – 23%, Median 17,5% Price increase of introducing LRT / tram system is

generally accepted but transparency about mechanisms is still low

Price premium range in examples from UK and in the US generally broader compared to European examples (Germany, France)

Low number of useful experience values available ~ 400 light rail systems globally 20 examples for residential 7 examples for commercial real estate

Most methodologies focus on experimental methods (measuring after introduction)

High efforts and difficulty in comparability of cities, regions, time as well as applied methodologies

Distance in most cases approx. 400 - 900m In case of more categories average value used Value for residential real estates: selling prices,

rents

Sources: Project team estimates, light rail impact study, City of Turku / Siemens Mobility Consulting


Page 81

DRAFT REPORT


Expert panel input as input to reduce Turku specific range of expected light rail price premium

Expert panel questionnaire Spread of price premiums

Participants of the expert panel:

TVT social housing corporation

Municipal real estate corporation

Turku school of economics

Real estate agencies with knowledge of the local market

Detailed questions regarding price influencing factors of real estate for different property types

Query of light rail price premium factors for different property types and in different zones

Asking feedback for capture share approach regarding undeveloped land (selling of building rights)

Room to provide reasoning for specific estimates

On this basis further queries could be placed challenging outliers in the sample

Sources: Siemens Mobility Consulting / City of Turku


Page 82

DRAFT REPORT


As result of the expert panel approach a conservative scenario and its sensitivity will be evaluated

RangeLowest

feedback value

Average minimum

value

Average median value

Residential 400m 2,0 % 2,9 % 6,0%

Residential 800m 0,0 % 0,6 % 1,9 %

Office 400m 3,0 % 7,2 % 11,0 %

Office 800m 0,6 % 1,4 % 2,2 %

Retail 400m 2,5 % 4,3 % 9,8 %

Retail 800m 0,3 % 0,4 % 1,0 %

Methodology & confidence levels Presented %-uplift values are based on desk research

input and estimates from expert panel; %-uplifts on the sqm selling prices

A bandwidths of the real estate uplifts has been estimated for several reasons, e.g. different distances to the city center and prices levels and different types of real estate in same category (e.g. dwellings, row houses)

Confidence level for the residential real estate impact is high due to low deviations of the estimates

Level of confidence for office real estate is in the middle range; estimates for retail space are categorized as low to mid confidence level (high variance in feedback)

800 m-Zone uplifts for office is 20% of 400 m-Zone uplift and for retail space 10% of 400 m-Zone uplifts

Scenario & sensitivity “Lowest feedback” and “avg. MIN value” are the basis for

the most conservative scenario and represent the minimum range of expected value uplifts

Depending on the real estate type the avg. MEDIAN uplift values show a high sensitivity (factor ~1.5 – 2.2) and is set as the high impact scenario

Price premiums Remarks

Conservative scenario range




(sensitivity factor ~1.5 – 2.2)

Page 83

DRAFT REPORT


30% CaptureLowest

feedback value

Average Minimum

value

Average Median value

Undev. Res 400m 6,3 % 9,0 % 18,8 %

Undev. Res 800m 0,0 % 2,0 % 6,1 %

Undev. Office 400m 9,4 % 22,6 % 34,5 %

Undev. Office 800m 1,9 % 4,5 % 6,9 %

Undev. Retail 400m 6,8 % 11,7 % 26,6 %

Undev. Retail 800m 0,8 % 1,2 % 2,7 %

Methodology Undeveloped land uplifts are reverse calculated for the

lowest feedback, the average MIN and the average MEDIAN

%-uplift values higher since they are related to the ground values (e.g. 220 € per sqm living space on the ground)

The calculation is based on the theory that accessibility is increased also for undeveloped land by introduction a light rail

For reverse calculation the average sqm prices for real estates and for the ground values are used. In order to reflect a realistic view the variable “uplift capture rate” was introduced

A 30% capture rate assumes that the original holder of the building plot will receive 30% of the total uplift generated by increasing the accessibility with a light rail

The residual uplift will be generated after construction activities are finalized, i.e. 70% of the total uplift is assigned to the investor

Price premiums (Undeveloped land) Remarks

Conservative scenario range


As result of the expert panel approach a conservative scenario and its sensitivity will be evaluated



(sensitivity factor ~1.5 – 2.2)

Page 84

DRAFT REPORT


The real estate impact study is based on some core assumptions in the evaluation model

1. A stable economic environment and a stable real estate market is assumed. No bubbles and no radical changein economic conditions which would most probably influence the local real estate market.

2. Standard real estate price development is based on the forward projection of a linear growth trend.

3. The additional growth in the Structural Model planning is coming from outside of the Turku region. As aconsequence it is assumed that there will be no significant decrease of real estate value in areas not covered bythe track routing.

4. Presented price uplifts are calculated based on the assumption that the delta asset value of real estate can berealized in the years 2025 and / or 2035. Fair value calculation by discounting to the year 2012 by 3%.

5. Any negative impacts based due to changes of the overall transportation system are neglected (e.g.introduction of feeder bus systems with increased travel time).

6. Light rail impact zones are defined for 0 – 400 meter and 400 – 800 meter. It was assumed that the possiblechanges in traffic noise are insignificant (e.g. driving noise in curves vs. absolute reduction in car & bus traffic).

7. No double counting of light rail impacts on real estate in overlapping areas of blue and red line.

8. The zones are defined by linear distance along the tracks (not stations). Variances in the real walking distance tothe stations are neglected, e.g. longer walking distances due to physical barriers as rivers, bridges etc.

9. Price impacts are considered to be fully effective in the years 2025 and 2035. In reality price changes may occuralready before first year of operations or might fully occur later on in the operation phase.

Assumptions for real estate impact evaluation


Page 85

DRAFT REPORT


The real estate impact study is based on some core assumptions in the evaluation model

10. Any variances and errors in estimating the uplift ranges are covered by presenting the minimum, median andmaximum ranges and by defining scenarios. Reasons for variances are, e.g. differences in distance to city center,differences in property types within one property class.

11. The Undeveloped real estate owned by the City of Turku is transferred into developed real estate on (former) cityground. The city can participate on the value uplift to a certain amount when selling out to the developer.

12. Only undeveloped land in the impact zoning for which the development until 2035 is foreseen in StructuralModel master planning is included in the model. Additionally available undeveloped land is not included.

13. Growth of gross floor space for commercial real estate mainly happens in the three major development areasCastle Town, Itäharjun and Travel Center. Average sqm value 36 m2 per office workplace and 74 m2 per retailworkplace assumed.

14. All existing industrial real estates will move outside the 800 m zone of the track routing and will be replaced by amixture of office and retail properties.

15. Assignment to the category “city owned real estate” based on the proportional ownership share of the city onthe total area (e.g. if city has 33% of the area, it has been assumed that the built gross floor space belongs 33% tothe city)

16. Value capture share of city for value uplifts occurring on real estate developed on former city ground isassumed to be no more than 30% to give large incentives for investors to develop specific areas.

Assumptions for real estate impact evaluation


Page 86

DRAFT REPORT


It is a city decision to what extend light rail value uplifts will be captured from real estate developers

Ground value (based on related features)

Construction value (based on related

features)

Ground value (based on related features)

Undeveloped real estate owned by city

Developed real estate on (former) city ground

Development by an investor

Value e.g.: 300 € per sqm Value e.g.: 2.700 € per sqm

Value e.g.: 2.900 € per sqm

200 € LR uplift for investorValue capture share 30%

+66 € city share of LR uplift from real estate

development

In the development of real estate there is a first value flow from selling the ground to the investor and a second value flow from selling out or renting out the developed real estate. A light rail system will influence the sum of these two value streams. It is a decision of the city to which extent it wants to participate on the value uplift of real estate which is built on the ground formerly owned by the city. This monetary participation of the city will decrease the value capture of the investor and thereby reduce the incentive to develop areas in the LR impact zones. In general this is a very delicate decision since the investor incentive is a major tool for goal-oriented city development.


Page 87

DRAFT REPORT


A discount rate of 3% seems to be appropriate for discounting long-term cash flows in Finland

Return profile of finish government bonds Explanations

Actual long-term returns for government bonds are slightly below 3% for the year 2025 (~2,6% end of April 2012)

No actual long-term bonds for Finland identified on the market for 2035 but assumed to be above 3%

Recently government bond prices increased significantly (the long-term bond returns already decreased)

Government bonds in Finland have highest rating and lowest risk mark-ups (Moody’s)

A minimum discount rate of 3% or even higher seem to be appropriate for discounting long-term cash flows in Finland (AAA risk profile)

Sources: http://www.finanzen.net/anleihen/Finnland-Anleihen; 27th April 2012, Rating: Moody’s

Rating Bond price chart

Return profile of finish government bonds


Page 88

DRAFT REPORT

















Main assumptions



Page 89

DRAFT REPORT


Executive Summary – Study results

The real estate value along the track is expected to increase at least between ~480 – 850 Mio. € in 2035

Price uplifts due to the introduction of a light rail system have been evaluated for the categories minimum, medianand maximum uplift to be expected. The ranges serve as an approximation to handle uncertainties in the expertestimates (e.g. distance to the city center, differences in property types).

The lowest feedback in the panel process and the average minimum value from all feedbacks are used to definethe conservative scenario. For the 400 m zone residential a 2 – 2,9% uplift range was defined. Office real estateuplifts range from 3 – 7,2% and retail range from 2,5 – 4,3% in this scenario. The impacts in the 800 m zones varyfrom 10 – 30% of the 400 m zone impact.

Applying the most conservative estimates of price impact factors on the real estate volumes, the absolute realestate value is projected to increase by a fair value of ~480 – 850 Mio. €1 until 2035 (~335 - 595 Mio. € until 2025).This represents a weighted average increase of ~2,3% by the year 2025 and a ~2,9% increase by 2035.

About 95% of the increase occurs in the 400 m zone. 1/3 of the total uplift comes from real estate which wasdeveloped until 2035 and 2/3 from the uplift on already existing real estates in 2011.

>50% of the uplift is from residential property, approx. 30% from offices and around 10 – 20% from retail. In 2035half of the uplift occurred in the city center area and half in the suburbs.

Depending on the property type, a high impact scenario increases the positive results by factor 1.5 – 2.2 comparedto the conservative scenario (maximum of ~1.69 bn € in 2035 by using the average median feedback).

Assuming an initial investment of ~280 – 300 Mio. €2 for the blue line and ~490 – 520 Mio. €2 for the blue & red linesystem, it is very likely that the total asset value increase will exceed the initial investments.

1 Assumption: total delta uplift in 2035 realizable, fair value approach, discounted by 3 %2 Turku area public transportation 2020, WSP Finland OY, 2009

5.3 Results – real estate

Page 90

DRAFT REPORT


The real estate value uplift in the conservative scenario for 2035 ranges from ~480 – 850 m €


2025 total real estate asset value in currently planned light rail impact zones of ~38 billion €

Light rail impact range from ~335 - 595 m € in 20251

Application of sensitivity factor3 can increase total uplift to a maximum of ~1.15 bn € in 2025

Maximum weighted average light rail impact in conservative scenario is ~2,3%

Total real estate value uplift 20251 Total real estate value uplift 20351

2035 total real estate asset value in currently planned light rail impact zones of ~58 billion €

Light rail impact range from ~480 – 850 m € in 20351

Application of sensitivity factor3 can increase total uplift to a maximum of ~1.69 bn € in 2035

Maximum weighted average light rail impact in conservative scenario is ~2,9%

203520302025202020152011

Conservative scenario

range2

Rea

l est

ate

valu

e in

mill

ion

€

1 Value uplift discounted to the present with a discount factor of 3%2 Conservative scenario calculated with lowest feedback and average minimum values from expert panel approach3 Sensitivity factor is considering median values from expert panel feedback

335’ – 595’

Rea

l est

ate

valu

e in

mill

ion

€

480’ – 850’

Sensitivity factor ~1,5 – 2,2 3 Sensitivity factor ~1,5 – 2,2 3

203520302025202020152011

Page 91

DRAFT REPORT


More than 50% of the real estate value uplift considered to be in a wider city center area

Regional value uplift - low

71,5%

54,9%

13,7%

6,7%4,6%

8,4% 12,9%

12,2%

2,2%

3,1%

3,1%

4,4%

2,0%

0,4%

2025 2035

City Center Castle Town RunosmäkiVarissuo Hirvensalo KaarinaRaisio Others

Regional value uplift - high

72,0%

56,1%

14,8%

6,1%4,4%

8,2% 12,3%

13,0%2,7%

1,9%

3,7%

2,6%

0,5%

1,8%

2025 2035

City Center Castle Town RunosmäkiVarissuo Hirvensalo KaarinaRaisio Others

Definition of regions


Wider city center area defined for analysis including price level areas city center 1 - 7 and outside city center A

Runosmäki and Varissuo defined according to city planning boundaries

Other areas include all real estate located along the connecting branches to the suburbs

No significant difference in composition of value uplift between upper and lower boundary in conservative scenario range

Page 92

DRAFT REPORT


Major part of real estate value uplift for Blue line, 400m zone, residential and existing property

Line value uplift - high

100,0%80,7%

19,3%

2025 2035

Blue line Red line

Impact zone value uplift - high

95,2% 94,9%

4,8% 5,1%

2025 2035400m zone 800m zone

Dev. status value uplift - high

77,2% 65,5%

18,7% 34,5%4,1%

2025 2035Existing Developed Undeveloped

Property type value uplift - high

55,8% 57,3%

32,4% 30,0%12,8%11,8%

2025 2035Residential Office Retail

City real estate value uplift 2025 and 2035


Page 93

DRAFT REPORT


Executive Summary – City-specific impact

City of Turku directly benefits from the value increase of own land from ~32 – 58 Mio. € in 2035

Within the 400 and 800 m zone along the tracks, City of Turku controlled approx. 362 thousand m2 of existingreal estates in the year 2011 (TVT Lehtolaakso). This represents approx. 55% of the total city-controlled volume of~660 thousand m2 gross floor space.

Applying the most conservative scenario, a potential increase of the real estate value of ~20 – 36 Mio. € in 2025 and ~32 – 58 Mio. €1 in the year 2035 can be expected by the city administration. The uplift on city-controlled real estates represent 6 – 7% of the total real estate uplift.

The potential value increase will not fully cover the investments of the light rail, but 6 – 13% of the required investment of ~490 – 520 Mio. €2 in 2035 could be covered due to the value increase of city-owned real estate.

For real estate developed on former city ground it is assumed that the city can capture 30% of the total value upliftdue to light rail. The residual uplift is assumed to be stay with the developer.

In the year 2035, approx. 65 – 70% of city uplift is generated from developed real estate on (former) city ground. Only ~30% of the uplift is from impact on existing real estate (TVT Lehtolaakso).

Both the overall value increase as well as the value increase in city-controlled real estates can be a significant source for the financing of the light rail project. Several tax based or development based value capture methodologies can be applied.

1 Assumption: total delta uplift in 2035 realizable, fair value approach, discounted by 3 %2 Turku area public transportation 2020, WSP Finland OY, 2009


Page 94

DRAFT REPORT


City covers 6 - 7% of the total uplift. Thereof ~70% from developed real estate on (former) city ground

City real estate value uplift 2025 and 2035

2035 LR impact lower value 32 Mio. € 2035 LR impact upper value 58 Mio. €

Comment: Value uplift discounted to 2012 with 3% discount factor. City value capture share for real estate development calculated with 30% of total uplift in developed real estate on city ground.

2025 LR impact lower value 20 Mio. € 2025 LR impact upper value 36 Mio. €

Value uplift total vs. city - low

94,08% 93,30%

6,70%5,92%

2025 2035City Others

Value uplift total vs. city - high

94,00% 93,18%

6,00% 6,82%

2025 2035City Others

City value uplift - low

44,8% 36,1%

5,8%63,9%49,4%

2025 2035

Existing Development Undeveloped

City value uplift - high

39,2% 31,3%5,8%

68,7%54,9%

2025 2035

Existing Developed Undeveloped


Page 95

DRAFT REPORT


Value capture mechanisms require detailed analysis of regulatory and political applicability

1 Hurdles of implementation include political, regulatory and time constraintsSources: LiRa Pilot 3, Nijmegen/Amersfoort, December 2000; Unlocking Land Values to Finance Urban Infrastructure, 2009, The World Bank; Opportunities for value capture to fund public transport, Institute for Transportation & Development Policy

Mechanisms to capture value increase

Low High

Low

High

Hurdles of implementation1

Financial riskfor the city

Land sales & long term leasing

1

Impact / development fees

2

Claw-back construction

3

Area specific taxation

7

Total real estate tax increase

8

Pre-emption (law)„Public“

6Joint development

„PPP“

5Development Corp.

„Public“

4

= one time or continuous value flow= one time value flow


Page 96

DRAFT REPORT


Description of the value capture mechanisms

1. Land sales & long term leasing Negotiation of higher selling prices and leasing contracts for land in proximity

to the transportation project Large lump sums of money at one point in time

2. Impact / Development fees Applicable on real estate not owned by the local government Dependence of private real estate developers on actions/investments of

local government (e.g. building permissions) Private inventors have to pay a fee related to the future value gains

generated by the infrastructure provided by public (part of the permission)

3. Claw-back construction Subsidy from public parties to private investors Precondition: private parties pay back ‚excessive‘ value increase E.g. LRT in business location under precondition that a percentage of real

estate value increase or rent increase will be paid back

4. Development Corporation „Public“ Regional or provincial government does land development Public development corporation is taking over an active role Maximum control on the land market (financial means and expertise) Value capturing by selling the developed land or real estate

Examples / Country specifics: Applicable nearly everywhere E.g. Manchester UK, Netherlands

Examples / Country specifics: Legal arrangements in place in many

countries E.g. Impact fee (USA)

Examples / Country specifics: Many legal constructions can be vehicle

for this idea Precondition in subsidies or contracts

Examples / Country specifics: Applicable nearly everywhere E.g. public real estate developers in

Japan also own shopping malls, business estates etc.

Value capture method Examples


Page 97

DRAFT REPORT


Description of the value capture mechanisms

5. Joint development „Public-Private-Partnership“ Development of areas or specific real estate in joint ventures or concession models Public and private parties jointly use their expertise and means Risks are shared and commitment of both parties is high Reduces capital costs

6. Pre-emption (law) „Public” Advantaged position in the acquisition of real estate in vicinity of the planned public

transportation project before transport system is built Sale of higher-value land after system is in place Reduces land speculation to almost zero and public partners play an active role on

the land market

7. Area specific taxation Increase in local real estate tax in the direct surroundings of the planned project Revenues are guaranteed Special case: Location Benefit Levy (LBL) and Land Value Tax (LVT) – base for

taxation is land only ant not including the building

8. Total real estate tax increase Small increase in real estate taxation for inhabitants of a city region Tax increase can be justified but support will probably be low Special case: Tax Increment Financing (TIF) most commonly used in USA – any

increase in total property tax revenues is allocated towards public transport infrastructure in designated TIF district

Examples / Country specifics: Applicable nearly everywhere Co-operation is holding risks

Examples / Country specifics: Specific regulations/laws required E.g. French law – local govern-

ment has first right to buy land or property in 250m corridor on both sides of track for a frozen price

Examples / Country specifics: Only applicable in countries with

local real estate tax E.g. Tax versement transports in

France Very political decision

Examples / Country specifics: Applicable in most European

countries TIF is applied in USA Very political decision

Value capture method Examples


Page 98

DRAFT REPORT


Content

Executive Summary




1

2

3

4



Page 99

DRAFT REPORT


An integrated light rail solution shows strongly beneficial impacts on the City of Turku

Summary of results real estateSummary of results ecology

~60% of the real estate stock in the City of Turku, Raisio and Kaarina covered by LR track routing

Volume growth from 8,0 – 11,7 Mio. m2 for 2035 Conservative scenario:

Weighted average value impact of ~2 – 3% LR value impact 2025: ~ 335´– 595´€ LR value impact 2035: ~ 480´– 850´€

City capture of total value increase 6 - 7% 2025: ~ 20´– 36´€ 2035: ~ 32´– 58´€

High impact scenario: a maximum uplift of ~ 1,69 bn €in 2035 can be expected

Share of LR and PT Modal split (excludes walking and cycling):

In 2025: LR 6%; PT: 25% In 2035: LR 11%; PT: 28%

Reduction of emissions thanks to the integrated solution compared to BAU for the years 2025/2035

CO2 emissions: -7% / -11% NOx emissions: -8% / -12% PM exhaust emissions (PMex): -4% / -8% Non exhaust PM emissions: -3 / -7%

1161413027103[1000tCO2/yr]

2593729651347

1311420

Integrated 2035

Delta Integrated

BAU 2035Change

66

Baseline 2010

[tNOx/yr]

[tPM/yr]

CO2

NOx

PMex

6.1 Summary

20352025

850´€

595´€480´€

335´€

RE stock value

LR impact range

Page 100

DRAFT REPORT


Key recommendations for ecologic module

Ensure a stable and cooperative environment to secure a sustainable integrated light rail solution

Rethink the entire transport system in order to improve overall mobility efficiency

Optimize public transportation system, which may lead beyond the projected impact of the light rail integrated solution

Ensure a total cooperation and communication between all municipal departments as well as with all stakeholders: citizens, local business, public transport suppliers, associations, trade unions etc.

Ensure the sustainability of the project via stable project funding, including evaluation of alternative funding possibilities such as public private partnerships . A financial plan that has to be prepared together with fares level to enable both the access for low income people but also ensure a sustainable light rail usage and revenue.

+ Air Pollution

6.1 Recommendations

Page 101

DRAFT REPORT


Key recommendations for real estate module

Optimize value capture from selling building rights & actively manage the risk of real estate speculations

Ensure balanced decision-making regarding the track routing, i.e. track routing meets transport oriented and development oriented city targets.

From the current perspective the major lever for the City of Turku to participate in the expected light rail benefits is to capture value by selling the building rights to developers.

To optimize the value capture from selling the building rights, additional green and brown field spaces along the track routing owned by the city should be analyzed for additional development and densification.

Analyze upfront investment opportunities in currently undeveloped land along the track which does not belong to the city and sell the building rights to potential investors after introducing the light rail.

Other value capture methods require further and detailed analysis of regulatory and political applicability for the City of Turku.

Improve the starting position also for negotiations with investors early in the process (e.g. further study of market sensitivity in major development areas).

Define measures and develop convincing concept towards investors to ensure that expected growth in population and working places will take place.

Evaluate and define measures to manage the potential risk of real estate speculationsalong the light rail track routing.

6.1 Recommendations

Page 102

DRAFT REPORT


The models intend to reflect reality as accurate as possible but require some restrictions

6.2 Limitations of evaluation

Traffic emissions presented in this report are only cars and buses emissions. Heavy duty vehicles will not be impacted by a light rail implementation and were thus not integrated. Mopeds and taxis were considered negligible.

The ecologic impact assessment of the integrated solution being based on the most conservative projection of light rail impact on travel patterns in Turku, a specific traffic model calculation integrating the main features of the integrated solution may give different data on travel pattern.

The assessment is not a life cycle analysis: it does not take into account emissions from the production of the light rail system or for building the LR. It cannot replace a carbon footprint analysis.

No counteracting shifts of real estate values from areas outside the 800 m light rail impact zone considered since the growing demand of floor space is coming from out-side the Turku region.

No consideration of negative impacts on prices due to noise levels since the possible changes in traffic noise are assumed to be insignificant.

Structural changes of the assumed volume distribution pattern coming from city master planning can not be simulated in the model. New data gathering required in this case.

+ Air Pollution

Limitations of the evaluation models

Page 103

DRAFT REPORT


Besides quantified impact an integrated light rail solution can also benefit other areas of Turku

6.3 Qualitative assessment

Improved socio-economic climate Improved economic climate

Forward looking city image Accelerated city development

Social inclusion of minorities and immigrants can be supported

But pricing strategy will significantly influence acceptance of the light rail solution

Access to public transport especially for disabled people and the elderly

Meet the requirements for safe and convenient transportation due to demographic change

Light rail can be used as a tool to accelerate the development of the city

Fostering requalification projects in the city area Increasing the attractiveness of the city center Transforming the look and feel of the urban environment

(station design, trees, grass covered platforms etc.)

Light rail as the backbone of the public transport system Improve the perception of the public transportation in the

Turku Region Support the image of a modern, vibrant and attractive city

life

Light rail system is a long-term commitment of the city authorities

Strong positive signal to potential investors and neighboring communities

Potential to improve both the wealth of the citizens as well as local businesses

May have further positive indirect effects on public finances

Improved sustainability and security Improved quality of life

Decrease commuting time and enable people to spend more time on leisure activities

Improved commitment and satisfaction to live in a sustainable city environment with high level of service

Further activities can be intensified in order to improve the sustainability of the light rail system (e.g. watering with recycled water, photovoltaic panels on the roof of the depot)

Reduction of congestion and overall decrease in road traffic will reduce car accidents and therefore enlarge overall security

Page 104

DRAFT REPORT


A positive way forward for the City of Turku6.4 Outlook

The City of Turku shows strong commitment to sustainable development which is an important part of the city’s vision, values, strategy and programs since 1990’s.

An ambitious program for climate and environment aims to reduce GHG by 30% in 2020. Key actions have already been implemented successfully in Turku which led to a reduction of GHG emissions by 10% in 2012.

The City of Turku strives to combine economic growth with ecological sustainability. The overall goal is to strengthen City of Turku’s position with a vivid economy and a proactive region as well as building a sustainable and attractive city.

Main results of this study suggest that City of Turku’s idea to plan an integrated light rail solution is a very positive wayforward in terms of ecologic sustainability and economic prosperity of its citizens and businesses. There are many additional qualitative opportunities provided by such a strategic long-term project.

The available impact assessment for the planned light rail in Turku is one – but very important long-term project in the mobility arena in Turku Region. The positive momentum created by the City of Turku and accelerated during the course of the strategic cooperation with Siemens should be kept on a high level and exploited in order to make the light rail project a success and to support City of Turku’s overall goals. The city authorities, the interviewed partners and project participants throughout this study project and obviously the people of Turku Region are willing to positively contribute to a sound and future oriented decision.

Documents

Light Rail Impact Study