Upload
lykiet
View
215
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Sintropher European Project – Results and Messages
Colin Osborne Project Manager Seminar, Brussels September 2015
Sintropher Project – Overall Aim
Improve connectivity to/from peripheral regions around medium-sized cities, through innovative cost-effective regional tram-based transport networks, integrated with national/international networks through high quality interchange hubs.
Sintropher - Objectives v Promote cost-effective innovative solutions (transport
links) to improve regional connectivity
v Investing in such links – economic feasibility; and strengthening case by wider approach to appraisal
v Connecting such links to national and transnational networks – promote quality interchange at rail/air hubs
v Realising territorial and economic benefits – marketing initiatives for passengers and investors/developers
v Realising territorial and economic benefits – promote integrated approach (corridors)
SINTROPHER: EU Interreg IVB Project
v 7 regions, 5 Member States, 16 partners v 2009-2014 plus extension 2015 v € 24.5m (€ 8m ERDF) v peripheral regions in NW
Europe: poorly served (bypassed) by rail/air links
v poor (slow/indirect) public transport to TEN-T (high speed rail)
SINTROPHER partner regions TEN High Speed Rail “peripheralises” some regions v Fylde Coast/Blackpool v West-Vlaanderen(west) v Valenciennes v Arnhem-Nijmegen v Nordhessen v Saar-Moselle v West-Vlaanderen (Zeebrugge - Bruges)
Fylde Coast (UK) >
West-Vlaanderen (BE) >
< Nordhessen (DE)
< Nijmegen (NL)
Valenciennes (FR) >
Nijmegen-Kleve
v technical and economic feasibility studies for innovative tram schemes
v European case studies (scheme implementation experiences; success factors; territorial impacts)
v European good practice and guidelines (transport interchanges, marketing)
Sintropher activities (1)
Nijmegen-Kleve
Investments in pilot and demonstration schemes eg: v Valenciennes single-track system €11m (20% ERDF) of €150m scheme v Fylde Coast tram system upgrade for tram/tram-train €4.5m (33% ERDF) of €140m scheme v West-Vlaanderen Kusttram extension and station interchanges €2.1m (45% ERDF)
v Invetsmnets in software for econimic appral of schemes, realetrd databasse eg finainacing
Sintropher activities (2)
Economic and financial dimensions v economic feasibility – do innovative systems like
tram-train (Kassel) or single-track tram (Valenciennes) offer viable low-cost solutions, especially in smaller cities and regions ?
v investment in tram-based schemes: national systems for appraising costs and benefits, and decision making? barrier? new approach ?
v wider economic and urban benefits – capturing these can strengthen case for investment; integration of transport and territorial planning
v territorial and economic impacts – European experiences ? help case for new schemes ?
v potential to trigger urban & economic regeneration ? key factors ?
v innovative financing of schemes: becoming essential . . . .
Nijmegen-Kleve
Results: feasibility of tram-trains • tram-trains – an attractive concept (urban penetration,
existing regional rail infrastructure) • but conventional tram link to rail hub often a preferred option
(in contrast, links to air hubs are a different story) • why? generally economic feasibility rather than technical
feasibility
Nijmegen-Kleve
v cost: generally central to preferred option & business case
v cost control strategies - Kusttram example
v tram-train cost issue: vehicle costs, operational costs, track charges
v benefits: recognising wider benefits can strengthen case, especially for weaker regions
v business cases - different agency priorities → reconcile
Economic feasibility – general pattern
Results: Kassel/Nordhessen – feasibility of RegioTram & Tram
Lessons for other cities: v extensions to major employment sites usually not feasible – but catalyst for mobility initiatives v RegioTram success story – regional access to University v connect to major rail hub (Wilhelmshöhe), accessing other European cities
Economic feasibility to regional air hubs v examples of Kassel,
Blackpool, Nijmegen v tram or tram-train not
economically feasible, perhaps fast bus links
v barriers: airport interests (car parking), dispersed passenger catchment area, infrastructure cost
v integrate airport access planning wider regional transport; protect route alignments into airport
Nijmegen-Kleve
Results: Valenciennes – single-track bidirectional system v innovative system,
first in Europe on this large scale (16km)
v cost-saving of 35% compared to double-track, key factor in case to proceed
v advantages in dense urban areas and streets
Nijmegen-Kleve
v case studies of similar schemes by French partner CETE in six European cities – Nottingham, Utrecht, Malaga, Saarbrucken, Bergamo, Valenciennes
v plus UCL Review of European experiences, 50 cases in last 20 years or so
v varied picture, strong and weak effects in different cases - rarely ‘cause and effect’, but often positive correlations
v can often trigger regeneration with proactive approach and integrated package of measures
Territorial and economic impacts of light rail/tram schemes
Nijmegen-Kleve
v tram integral to Scheme de Cohérence Territoriale
v Ligne 1 – University expansion and Technopole
v Ligne 2 – priority regeneration corridor, housing renewal schemes, Convention Centre
Regeneration Potential - Valenciennes
Nijmegen-Kleve
• French cities – tram systems used as positive force in the wider urban/regional plan
• and use “location marketing” for attracting developers, investment, tourism
• a symbol of “dynamisme”
Marketing – going beyond passenger marketing, to location/city marketing