Technical considerations on rapid transit mode selection BRT / LRT potentialities in France François Rambaud - CERTU Washington September 2006 1
Certu s mission Statistics, observation Information letters Articles in the specialized press Web site Studies capitalizing knowledge disseminating knowledge and methodologies Technical expertise Training sessions, conferences Standardization Experimentation and innovation Publications 2
Contents 1. Influences of urban characteristics in any mobility system, 2. About the quality of service, the key issue to enhance a PT network 3. Some figures on PT networks performances in France 4. Conclusion / challenges for a better implementation process 3
Three sets of urban characteristics that can be classified by growing order Geographical characteristics, such as rivers, hills that can be unfavourable for cycling or walking, the climate Socio- economical characteristics, such as ageing distribution, tourist activities, income distribution (linked to the motorisation rate), the socio-professional distribution And 5 fundamental urban configuration characteristics : The urban size The urban space polarization The density The spatial distribution of the mobility generators The configuration and rate of mobility and parking space 4 Ref: Thesis of Ph Emangard, business and financial efficiency of urban PT - 1991
Diagnosis Potentialities and constraints Objectives Choice process Possible choices To conclude shortly this topic: The congestion or the car space-time overcost are the main advocate of public transport The PT system selection can be only specific ; It is necessary to have a «network» approach regarding all modes. Consequences Advantages inconveniences Faced with this urban configuration diversity, setting up selection rules is risky, and these new modes BRT are welcome 5
The quality of service : the fundamental key issue for improving any modal transfer - regularity, on time performances, the same run time whatever the hour, connecting services, - All kind of comfort and information needs before / during the trips (noise, cleanliness, pollution, accessibility, passengers /m 2, seats, safety, security etc ) - reliability and alternatives in case of service disruption or disturbances - other services in interchanges European standard June 2002 : EN 13816 6 It defines quality measures method and management for PT
Performance of quality management The virtuous quality circle or The willingness to pay circle Better service quality Increased financial Capacity to improve Service quality Higher attractiveness of the services Higher revenues Higher willingness to pay Higher fares Lost Customers New customers 7
Trips / Inhabit / year < 200 200-300 300-400 over 400 Low Athens Rotterdam Rome Up to 20% The Hague Amsterdam Budapest 20 25 % Brussels Mexico 25 30 % Rate Receipt / Operating cost Antwerp Turin Paris Stockholm 30 35 % 35 40 % Bonn ; Oslo Helsinki 40 50 % High Lyon Barcelona Copenhagen Hamburg Vienna New York Zurich Munich 50 60 % Dublin Lisbon Bern London + 60 % 8 Operating cost efficiency and PT using rate Quattro) (ref : European project
The French Metros trends Lille (2) Métro into service Val (driverless light metro) into service Val in project Rennes (1) Paris - IdF (14) Outside Paris, the main French Metros were buit in the 70ties. Lyon (4) Toulouse (1+1) Marseille (2) Now, 111 km and almost no more project. 9
French tramway re-birth, since the 80th Tramway into service Lille Tramway in project Brest Nantes Bordeaux Rouen St Denis Bobigny Val de Seine Angers Orléans Le Mans Clermont-Ferrand St Etienne Valenciennes Reims Lyon Grenoble Strasbourg Mulhouse Still a lot of tramway routes in project or in construction ( 14 green ) All these projects are not only a transport tool but also an urban enhancement tool, Expensive investment cost from 20 to 30 M / KM - 30 % to 40 % of urban enhancement. Toulouse Montpellier Marseille Nice Toulon The smallest tram cities are Orléans (270 000) Brest (220000) and Reims (210000), 10 The first Tram-train projects are appearing, such as in Paris, Lyon and Mulhouse.
On first line - 1985 On third line extension - 2003 11 Nantes, evolution of tram implementing process, more transparent, more flexible
1987 12 Grenoble, the first tram line in the main pedestrian street (in off peak hour!) Max 25 km/h, and could be 10 to 15 km/h Down town
Line 1 2000 Montpellier, the tramway leaving the main central pedestrian square Down town 13
French BRT trend : a Bus implemented like a Tram BRT into service Rouen Douai Maubeuge BRT in project Lorient Nantes Paris Dijon Lyon Besançon Grenoble Urban tramway projects tend to be too expensive below 50 000 trips /day Two bi-modal technologies appears, one with a rail, the other with a camera, which was implemented with success in Rouen Toulouse Nîmes Nice St Denis A lot of projects, not necessary guided, but often implemented as a tram, such as in Nantes, branded Busway as the fourth tram line (7 M / km) 14 La Réunion
15 Nantes the busway with articulated buses, implemented like the other tram lines, that will be opened the 6 th of November 7 M / km
Rouen : Station avenue Pasteur 16 Rouen : TEOR is guided only at stations, that are looking like a tramway station
17 Rouen : the alternative one-way axial bus lane in a narrow street **** in order the bus to be always the first at the junction
Business speed of main Routes (km/h) TOULOUSE RENNES MARSEILLE LILLE LYON ORLEANS 33 33 32 32 26 22 Metro systems Tramway MONTPELLIER NANTES ROUEN STRASBOURG LILLE GRENOBLE 20 20 20 19 18 17 A much better speed with the metro, due to his exclusive route A limited speed with our urban tramway. Our BRT projects will follow the same insertion objectives. SAINT-ETIENNE LYON MARSEILLE 18 16 15 16 Some Tram-train projects appear with a much higher speed and spacing (Lyon, spacing 1km, and then a higher speed 38 km/h).
Trips per an average day of autumn 2001 Lyon - Métro Ligne D Lyon - Métro Ligne A Lille - Métro Ligne 1 Toulouse - Métro Ligne 1 Lille - Métro Ligne 2 Lyon - Métro Ligne B Marseille - Métro Ligne 1 Marseille - Métro Ligne 2 Strasbourg - Tram Ligne AD Nantes - Tram Ligne 2 Strasbourg - Tram Ligne BC Paris - Tram Ligne T1 Montpellier - Tram Ligne 1 Nantes - Tram Ligne 1 Grenoble - Tram Ligne A St-Etienne - Tram Ligne 1 Paris - Tram Ligne T2 Rouen - Tram Grenoble - Tram Ligne B Paris - Trans Val de Marne Lyon - Tram Ligne 1 Lyon - Tram Ligne 2 Orléans - Tram Ligne 1 Lyon - Métro Ligne C Nantes - Tram Ligne 3 Marseille - Tram Rouen - Téor 130 000 130 000 126 000 118 000 108 500 101 200 100 000 100 000 90 000 82 770 82 000 77 000 72 000 64 750 55 010 55 000 49 000 45 140 44 000 43 000 30 000 28 500 23 000 19 100 15 000 242 000 227 000 Metro systems Tramway BRT Metro lines are in more heavy corridors A good urban tramway seems to be between 50 000 et 90 000 trips per day. Montpellier is now the most attractive : over 120000 trips / day and almost congested Lyon s tram line are now much better : between 55 000 et 60 000 trips per day. Our biggest BRT, the Trans Val de Marne (île de France), carried 23 000 in 1993 and now 45 000 trips/day, with articulated buses at maximum capacity. 19
Operating expenses per inhabitant in 2002 LYON 209 A good network is expensive! RENNES GRENOBLE CAEN MARSEILLE 186 185 175 174 and not totally linked with the main PT mode STRASBOURG NANCY BORDEAUX ROUEN DIJON ORLEANS NANTES TOULOUSE LILLE MONTPELLIER MANS (LE) MULHOUSE SAINT-ETIENNE CLERMONT-FERRAND LORIENT SAINT-DENIS DE LA REUNION NICE VALENCIENNES 147 146 144 140 137 136 131 126 113 112 108 107 105 103 96 96 90 170 Lyon, has the best offer in all modes, the best use (240 trips/inhabitant/year), but the heaviest charges. Dijon is expensive, but the best network with only buses (142 trips/inh/year), and also much more attractive than Lille and Toulouse (around 100 trips/inh/year) Lille and Toulouse should enhance its secondary network, as its use stay low 20 MAUBEUGE TOULON 75 83
Grenoble Urban area 382 000 Inhabitants 23 communities Number of trips 1992 1 250 000 2001 1 550 000 + 24 % Preservation of PT market 14 % 14 % Continuation of the cycling decrease 5 % 3 % Walking increase 27 % 30 % Small car decrease 54 % 53 % 21 Comparison between two household surveys in the urban area of Grenoble
Receipt per trip : 0.41 Euro Year 2003 Conventional buses 40 routes TEOR (Guided buses) 35 000 Trips/day Tramway 60 000 Trips/day Cost Vehicle X Km 3,88 4,88 5,90 Trips / Km 1,81 4,41 10,66 Cost of the trip 2,14 1,11 0,55 Cost coverage by fares 19,02% 36,84% 73,66% Rouen : marginal operating cost comparison between the different modes 22 With a driver cost of around 2,9 / km, i.e. : 75% for the bus, 60% for TEOR, 50 % for the tram
Some conclusions We need to highlight more the advantages of a strong local governance. These two technologies, BRT and LRT have intrinsically different technical potentialities, particularly in term of capacity within the same space. Over ground projects with high capacity tend to create strong and large cuts inside urban sectors, that could have a bad impact in cities with high touristy potentialities. Following our tram re-birth, the same success is expected with our BRT concept. 23
Challenges for a better implementation process To improve more the clean modes, and particularly cycling as we still use this mode too little, less than 4% (10 to 12% in Germany in average! ). To continue the capitalisation and evaluation of efficient running ways implementation and regulation measures for tram and buses The infrastructure is their fundamental sub-system. system. 24
www.bhns.fr Thank you for your attention François Rambaud CERTU France Certu publication : Urban transit modes Guidance for a system global approach) Certu publication : BHNS Concept and recommendations) 25 Certu publication : The urban mobility in France, the 90ties