Possibilities Inter Modality Passenger Transport
-
Upload
cherry-felicia -
Category
Documents
-
view
15 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Possibilities Inter Modality Passenger Transport
Tested Methodologies and Results from Europe
Possibilities of intermodality in passenger transport
2
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................... 4
TRANSPORT TRENDS IN EUROPE ............................... 5
TRANSPORT POLICY ................................................ 11
RESEARCH RESULTS ................................................ 15
CATCH-MR ................................................................. 15 Survey about good intermodal node ........................... 15 General requirements of intermodal nodes .................. 16
INTERCONNECT .......................................................... 19 Frankfurt airport ....................................................... 20 Port of Helsingborg ................................................... 25 Karlsruhe Dual-mode railway system .......................... 29
REFERENCES ............................................................ 37
3
This publication was produced by the PRESS4TRANSPORT consortium on behalf of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research. The European Union, the European Commission or any person acting on their behalf are not responsible for the accurateness, completeness, use of the information contained in this Fiche, nor shall they be liable for any loss, including consequential loss, that might derive from such use or from the findings of the Fiche themselves.
Although the authors exercised all reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy and the quality of the contents of this publication, the Consortium assumes no liability for any inadvertent error or omission that may appear in this publication. Additional information on the analyzed projects is available on the PRESS4TRANSPORT website at http://www.press4transport.eu/vpo/thematic_fiches.php
Created by: PRESS4TRANSPORT Consortium Coordinator: CYBION Srl Responsible Scientific Partner: Budapest University of Technology and Economics Author: Balazs Kozak, Gabor Szendro
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Europe’s transport is dominated
by road transport. This brought
for generation freedom and easy
mobility, due to its flexibility.
Due to ongoing traffic trends
shed light on the drawbacks of
individual motorized modes
which is a major source of
environmental pollution and
other problems originating from
this. The European Union is
aware of these problems,
promotes clean transport modes
and creates green transport
corridors which are optimised
from environmental and financial
point of view. This could be road
transport as well, but the recent
EU policies are leading European
transport towards versatile
transport modes instead of single
solution.
Our Fiche deals with intermodal
passenger transport putting
emphasis on intermodal nodes,
which are the places for
changing from one transport
mode to another. The Fiche
introduces two research
programmes: Catch-MR and
INTERCONNECT. The former
approaches interconnectivity by
examining good examples and
collecting experience and sharing
best practices and innovations of
7 metropolitan regions for
intermodal nodes. The latter has
also intermodal nodes in focus
with larger variety of scale and
transport modes concentrating
on experience from some typical
and successful projects The
outcome of the project is to give
wider use of analytical tools at
both European and local level.
5
Transport trends in Europe Transport is inseparable part of
our life, engine of our economy
and society. It has an effect on
our everyday life and provides
freedom, mobility, brings remote
places closer, but the seemingly
endless freedom in today’s form
is facing problems that must be
tackled. These challenges
sometimes need international
cooperation in finding solutions,
but above all, they need local
actions. The European transport
system is at a crossroads. It has
to find the right direction which
gives proper answers to
gathering challenges.
Before we go deeper into the
topic, we should define
intermodal and multimodal
transportation. These two
concepts are used often as
synonyms, but there is a slight
difference in meaning.
Multimodal transport is the
combination of two or more
modes of movement of goods or
passengers such as air, road, rail
or maritime. This does not
require interoperability between
the modes, they simply exist
parallel to each other. In the
case of intermodality,
transportation includes transfer
between the modes.
The purpose of transportation is
to move commodities and
people between origins and
destinations. Transfer and time
spent with it is part of the trips,
with no distance covered. One
may think that direct transport
with one mode is better, though
the reality is different. Although
it is much more complicated to
plan the complete system, which
is usually schedule-based, this
gives less flexibility to the user.
There are systems where there is
no option other than
intermodality, e.g. in the case of
intercontinental shipping or long
distance passenger air
transportation. Nevertheless,
6
there are cases where direct
transportation is among available
choices, such as car in
competition with public transport
in urban and intercity trips, as
well as long-haul trucking as a
competitor is intermodal rail
transportation. Though these two
have similar transportation
times, direct transport is
favoured.
There is an increasing demand
for transportation all around the
world. In passenger transport
growth is mostly absorbed by car
transportation, while other
modes such as bus, rail and air
are still lagging behind, though
air transport went through
significant market share growth
in the past few years.
In freight transport road (45.9%)
and waterborne (36.6%)
transport dominate, while the
other modes did not increase
market share in the past few
decades. In total, road
transportation accounted for
72.4% of passenger
transportation and only air
transport could increase market
share to 8.6% by 2008.
Figure 1: EU-27 Performance by Mode for Passenger Transport - 1995-2008 (billion passenger-kilometres) (Source: EU Energy and Transport in figures 2010)
“The motor car – because of
its flexibility – has brought
about real mass mobility, and
remains a symbol of personal
freedom in modern society”.
(White Paper, 2001)
7
Bearing in mind the figures and
trends, it is easy to understand
why congestion became a major
problem in the European Union.
Around 7500 km, or 10%, of the
trans-European road network is
affected by congestion daily,
which costs about 1% of the EU’s
GDP annually (~120 billion €).
That is the reason why the EU
would shift to other modes, and
change the modal split in a
favourable way.
Another decisive factor is
external costs, which are not
paid by the user, rather by
society even if the taxpayer has
nothing to do with some modes
of transportation. The European
Union therefore is making so-
called green transport corridors
that optimise transportation from
energy consumption and
environmental points of view to
minimise the harmful effects.
The European Union is interested
in rail transportation, to relieve
road congestion, although 20%
of European railway network is
also experiencing congestion,
and that is what the TEN-T
project intended to solve along
major routes. Changing to
railways could ease motorways
from heavy freight transport that
could lower maintenance costs,
cause less air pollution and
provide safer roads. In 2007,
transport was responsible for
19.5 % of all CO2 equivalent
greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. Oil dependence is
clearly a great issue in
transportation which is
dominated by road transport,
therefore the greatest fuel
consumer, and in total only 2.6
% of final energy transport
consumption is from biofuels, all
the rest is from conventional
fossil fuels. The White Paper
2011 set goals in
decarbonisation by 2050.
Waterborne and rail transport
are considered cleaner
8
transportation modes according
to the cost-benefit calculations of
the EU. According to these
calculations, in addition to paid
costs, the highest unpaid cost
belongs to road transportation
burdening society in different
ways transportation costs do. For
road freight and car
transportation it is 88€ per
tonne-km and 87€ per
passenger-km, respectively. In
contrast, for freight and
passenger rail transportation the
socio-economic cost is 19€ per
tonne-km and 20€ per
passenger-km, respectively. The
external cost of bus
transportation is less than half
that of car transportation (38€),
but still double the cost of rail
transportation. In freight
transportation the best choice for
society is waterborne, because
this mode has the least external
costs, 17€ per tonne-km.
Today’s transport system has to
face such issues, for instance
increasing fuel prices and future
scarcity of fossil fuel supplies,
therefore alternatives must be
found. More than 96% of
transport energy demand
depends on oil and oil products;
therefore we can say that oil is
the blood in the body of
economy. We pay a lot to keep it
alive, in 2010, the oil bill of the
EU was around €210 billion.
Climate change is another
challenge on the horizon needing
to be tackled. GHG emissions
must be curbed by 80-95%
below 1990 levels by 2050 to
limit climate change below 2oC.
One major emitter is transport
with gradually rising ratio of
emitted GHGs, even as other
sectors managed to reduce their
emissions. Between 1990 and
2008, the energy industries
reduced GHG emissions by 9%,
while over the same period
transport emissions increased by
around 34%.
9
There have been plenty of efforts
to reduce these emissions, but it
seems that in spite of the
technical progress, energy
efficiency investments, policy
efforts, these all proved to be
not effective enough to handle
these emissions to change the
transport system fundamentally.
There have been lots of results
since the 2001 White Paper on
Transport: market opening in
road, aviation and partly in rail
transport. Safety and security
increased for transport modes,
as well as passenger rights have
been adopted. The Trans-
European Transport networks
have contributed to faster
cohesion and strengthened
cooperation of Member States.
There have been actions to
enhance the environmental
performance of transport, but as
yet, the transport system is not
sustainable.
The EU has been working on the
issue that transport users pay for
the full cost of transport in
exchange for less congestion,
more information, better service
and more safety, therefore has
the following priorities for
future developments:
Improving the energy
efficiency performance of
vehicles across all modes.
Developing and deploying
sustainable fuels and
propulsion systems;
Optimising the performance
of multimodal logistic
chains, including by making
greater use of inherently more
resource-efficient modes,
where other technological
innovations may be
insufficient (e.g. long distance
freight);
Using transport and infrastructure more
efficiently through use of
improved traffic management
and information systems (e.g.
ITS, SESAR, ERTMS,
SafeSeaNet, RIS), advanced
10
logistic and market measures
such as full development of
an integrated European
railway market, removal of
restrictions on cabotage,
abolition of barriers to short
sea shipping, undistorted
pricing etc.
The actions to be taken may vary
on different scales, therefore the
European Commission considers
three segments:
Medium distances,
Long distances,
Urban transport.
PRESS4TRANSPORT details:
This fiche is produced within the
PRESS4TRANSPORT (Virtual
Press Office to improve EU
Sustainable Surface Transport
research media visibility on a
national and regional level)
project. The overall aim of the
project is to assists EU, National
and Regional funded projects
communicate their surface
transport research results to the
media.
PRESS4TRANSPORT is funded
by the European Commission's
Directorate-General for Research
under the Seventh Framework
Programme for Research and
Technological Development
(FP7).
11
TRANSPORT POLICY As early as in 1994, the Aalborg
Charter devoted particular
attention to sustainable urban
mobility patterns by giving
priority to ecologically sound
means of transport (in particular
walking, cycling, and public
transport) and making a
combination of these means the
centre of planning efforts.
Unnecessary use of motorised
individual transport modes shall
neither be supported, nor
promoted, but it has to find its
own place among the different
transport modes.
The Ministers’ of EU Member
States responsible for Urban
Development signed the Leipzig
Charter on Sustainable
European Cities in 2007. This
document set common
development policy points,
although the development of
urban areas at national
authorities, European Union can
only give recommendations or
set common development
directions such as in the Leipzig
Charter: Promotion of efficient
and affordable urban transport
which could contribute to the
long term social progress and
welfare of the population.
Efficient urban transport is
fundamental to citizens’ quality
of life and to economic
development. Today’s reliance on
the internal combustion engine is
a major source of pollution (air
and noise) and negative impacts
on health and the environment.
The EU’s Thematic Strategy on
the urban environment urges
cities to develop Sustainable
Urban Transport Plans. These
plans aim to improve traffic flows
in and around cities, harmonizing
urban planning and economic
interests and promoting the use
of public transport, cycling and
walking in cities and towns.
Every year, the European Union
12
organizes European Mobility
Week to raise public awareness
about the need to act against
pollution from motorised traffic
and to improve the quality of
urban life. Citizens are
encouraged to change their
travel behaviour and try
alternatives to the car such as
cycling, walking, and public
transport. European cities are
urged to promote these modes of
transport and to invest in
necessary infrastructure.
Urban environment and the
quality of life are largely
influenced by the transport
modes present in cities. The
European Commission in the 6th
European Environmental Action
Programme realised and put into
action the promotion of Local
Agenda 21 programme with
special attention to the
development of clean and low
emission transport modes (public
transport, rail, walking and
cycling), and the decoupling of
GDP growth from mobility
demand increase.
Already in the previous White
Paper in 2001, the balance
between modes of transport has
been an issue, especially linking
up the different modes, not
promoting “a single solution”,
rather offering a mix, by
combining the modes of
transport. On its own, each
transportation mode has its own
problems to be solved, but all
improvements are in favour of
swift, economically and
environmentally optimised
delivery of goods and transport
people.
It can be seen in the White
Paper in 2011 that the
European Union is devoted to
create an efficient, multimodal
13
core network and integrate these
modal solutions let it be airport,
ports, railway, metro and bus
stations so that passengers do
not feel inconvenient when
changing modes. Apart from the
physical infrastructure,
integrated ticketing systems,
innovative solutions and
technologies could help in these
problems.
The main goal is to make
multimodality attractive,
because transport corridors could
be optimised in terms of energy
use and emissions, minimising
environmental impact, making
shipping attractive due to
reliability, limited congestion and
lower costs.
The EU further promotes the
development of clean urban
transport and commuting.
Thereby the EU set 10 goals to
create a competitive and
resource-efficient transport
system, these include:
CO2-free city logistics in
major urban centres by
2030;
30% of road freight over
300 km should shift to other modes by 2030 and
more than 50 % by 2050,
facilitated by efficient and
green freight corridors;
Connect all core network
airports to the rail network, and ensure that
all core seaports are
sufficiently connected to the rail freight and where
possible, inland waterways
system by 2050;
Establish the framework
for a European multimodal
transport information, management and payment
system by 2020;
among others.
We make clear difference
between passenger and freight
when talking about intermodal
14
transportation. Commodities
have different requirements to
cost, time and safety among
many others, while passengers
are more time-sensitive and
price-sensitive, make their own
route-choice, make transit
operations themselves when
necessary, they can reroute their
trip. Although this seems a great
advantage, but sometimes still
problematic from the passenger’s
point of view, therefore more
and more convenient
connections are offered by
transport companies to minimise
physical effort and time wasted
at transfers.
On longer distances, where
options for road decarbonisation
are limited, the EU is
concentrating on intermodality.
Special attention is given to
Air/Rail intermodality due
projections claiming that by
2025, 60 airports will be heavily
congested. Improving access to
rail links from airports to major
metropolitan areas and high-
speed links with distant regions
is therefore a priority.
15
RESEARCH RESULTS
CATCH-MR
This project is funded by
INTERREG IVC programme is to
exchange experience among 7
metropolitan regions
(Oslo/Akerhus, Goteborg, Berlin,
Vienna, Budapest, Ljubljana,
Rome) and produce information
in the following topics:
Reducing transport demand
through better
coordination of land use
and transport planning;
Modal shift, in particular
by increasing attractiveness
of the local public transport
(laying emphasis on
intermodality;
Increased use of efficient
and low-emission
technologies in private
and public transport.
As a result of the project a
“Guide on efficient mobility and
sustainable growth in
Metropolitan Regions” will be
produced. This will incorporate
such general recommendations
(e.g. policy recommendations),
which can be easily transferred
to other Metropolitan Regions.
The CATCH-MR is still under
execution, but I will present
some partial result in the
following:
Survey about good
intermodal node1 Metropolitan regions could name
any mobility and non‐mobility
functions important for a good
intermodal node. From the
1 Intermodal nodes or terminals are sites or
structures where people transfer from one
mode of transportation to another.
16
survey it is clear, that there is a
broad need for integrated
intermodal nodes with shopping
and services, then good
connections between modes –
passenger information, ticket
machines or counters, short and
comfortable walking connections.
The general conditions of the
node (safety/security,
maintenance, cleanliness) are
also found important.
The other survey for the
metropolitan regions was about
listing the five most important
factors for a good intermodal
node. Good connections between
modes (including short and
barrier free walking connections,
passenger information), the
public transport services
themselves (high frequencies,
direct connections, coordinated
timetables, but also congestion
on roads), accessibility (by car,
by bike, on foot, barrier free)
and the general conditions of the
node (safety/security,
maintenance/cleanliness) are the
most important categories.
General requirements of intermodal nodes From previous experience, prior
to the project, the following
issues concern an intermodal
terminal in the planning phase:
Convenience: Intermodal
integration (physical,
operations, fare), clear
signs;
Safety and Comfort: Seating, lighting, visibility,
shelter;
Land Use: Compatible
land uses, street design,
pedestrian-friendly.
If any of the concerned issues is
planned badly which may
deteriorate any partial results of
the whole project, therefore good
planning is essential. Results of insufficient planning could be
the following:
17
Poor connections
between modes;
Suboptimal passenger
navigation;
Inadequate space for
operators to effectively
provide service (poor
circulation);
Increase in traffic
volumes on surrounding
streets leading to severe
congestion, particularly
during peak hours;
Makeshift use of
surrounding areas (e.g.
by unregulated bus
operators, informal markets,
etc.);
Incompatible land uses
adjacent to intermodal
terminals.
18
Figure 2: Some possibilities for intermodality (Source: Catch-MR)
The result of Catch-MR survey is in line with
requirements for intermodal
node, these are the following:
Planned at the right location,
and fits the structure of the city;
Meets the rules of nodal
planning (e.g. easy access for
the disabled and elderly
people);
Walking distance should not
exceed 200-300 m between
transport modes and lines;
Weather-proof stops to give
shelter to passengers (e.g.
heating, ventilation);
Common platforms;
Clean, regularly maintained and
safe walking paths;
Dust-proof P + R, B + R;
Developed, coordinated, real-
time and aesthetic passenger-
information systems;
Integrated (urban-suburban),
intelligent (e-ticket) ticketing
system;
Joint and easy tariff system;
Broad-range of complementary
information services.
For more information visit:
http://www.catch-mr.eu/
19
INTERCONNECT
Interregional passenger journeys
are growing within the European
Union. Poor interconnectivity of
different scales of modal
networks might compromise the
objectives of integration of the
TEN-T network investments and
policy measures.
The Seventh Framework
Programme funded
INTERCONNECT project provides
analytical approach to develop
effective recommendations to
national and European policy
makers. The project is building
on past research and policy
documents which identified
attributes of a well-connected
transport system and on the the
review of prooved problems
affecting local connectivity of
longer distance journeys.
The recommendations for
improving interconnectivity
among different scales and
modes of transport networks are
mainly from the detailed
investigation of selected case
studies. Range and applicability
of each case study will be
examined thoroughly. The case
studies are deliberately chosen
to investigate improving
interconnectivity between the
different network scales (local
and regional) and between road,
rail, maritime, and air passenger
modes of transport. The focus in
these case studies where
effective interconnection was
hindered by institutional barriers,
lack of investment, and lack of
appropriate infrastructure or
failure to innovate
INTERCONNECT will contribute to
wider use of analytical tools at
both European and local level.
20
In the following sections we are
going to introduce some case
studies of intermodal connections
from the INTERCONNECT
project.
Frankfurt airport
Frankfurt airport is the third
largest airport in Europe based
on annual number of passengers.
In 1972 (10 million passengers a
year) it was the first airport in
Germany to have its own train
station.
Figure 3: Frankfurt airport, railway station for regional trains (Source: INTERCONNECT)
The greatest improvement in air-
rail connection was when, in
1999, the long-distance train
station was opened, and in 2002
when the high-speed link was
opened reaching Cologne and
Bonn in an hour by
InterCityExpress (ICE).
Several ICE routes serve
Frankfurt airport and this
enabled Lufthansa to cease all
flights between Cologne and
Frankfurt and use the train as a
feeder, instead of feeder flights.
Instead, the airline could
concentrate on continental and
intercontinental flights which are
more viable for different
stakeholders due to:
Airport:
Enlarged catchment area
and more passengers;
Faster accessibility by high
speed trains and alternative
access mode to road;
Improve competition with
other gateway airports in
continental Europe;
21
More profitable use of
constraint slots by long haul
instead of short haul flights.
Railway companies:
Higher share on passengers
travelling to airport instead
of other feeder modes;
Improve loads on long
distance trains.
Airlines:
Strengthen market position
against competing airlines
by offering a seamless
transport chain to the
passenger;
Improve loads of their
flights.
Policy-makers
Sustainable growth of the
airport business in
Germany;
Improving accessibility of
regions not only in the
vicinity of the airport, but
making more remote
regions attractive for
investment, employment
and tourism.
Figure 4: Long-distance station Frankfurt airport (platform area) (Source: INTERCONNECT)
The long distance railway station
provides new interchange
between rail and air modes
connected to high speed railway
links in Germany. Moreover, the
integration of different services
from different actors could be
carried out e.g. special segment
of public trains is used strictly
with airline tickets and through
checking the passenger and their
22
luggage at the station. This co-
operation is known as a common
brand between airlines and
railways, the AirRail, which is
available through airline booking
engines (trains included with
flight numbers), although these
rail trips are the travellers own
responsibility between Frankfurt
airport and the destination. Apart
from travel services, the building
on the top of the railway station,
the ‘Frankfurt Air Center offers
two hotels, supermarket,
restaurants and office space.
Figure 5: Long-distance station Frankfurt airport with Frankfurt AirCentre on top (Source: INTERCONNECT)
Capacity constraints at the
airside of the airport and
regulations e.g. “use it or lose it”
principle made Lufthansa to
replace short-haul flights by train
services to be able to have more
intercontinental flights. Different
companies are operating
transport in different core
markets. For example, airlines
competing with Lufthansa and
not members of STAR-Alliance
car hardly benefit from
Lufthansa’s feeders, but
cooperation with German
Railways lets them feed their
flight at Frankfurt. The
competition of rail companies
and airlines on certain short-haul
routes complicated their
competition in fields where they
do not compete.
Frankfurt airport offers the
highest number of
intercontinental transport in Europe, and thus hub
functionality and that about 50%
of total passenger demand
comes from transfer passengers,
making it a perfect place to be
connected with long distance
trains and coaches taking the
traveller directly to the
23
hometown instead of a short-
haul feeder flight.
Figure 6: Lufthansa at Frankfurt Airport (Source: Bloomberg)
Today, about 23,000 travellers
use daily the intermodal train
station at Frankfurt airport. Door
to door travel costs drop by
using rail (cheaper ticket and no
extra charge for people with
physical disabilities). ICE lines
provide direct connection to
many parts of Germany like
Dresden, Hamburg, Stuttgart,
Munich, etc. When the station
was opened in 1999, 9000
travellers used it on workdays,
which rose to 22,500 by 2008.
Another 30,000 travellers use
the regional station on work
days. Safety of users is
significantly higher by train
according to the facts: in 2008,
82 were killed and 7,500 injured
in road accidents per billion
passenger trips by individual
road transport, while only 1.25
people were killed per billion
passenger trips by rail. Although
the number of passengers at the
airport is rising year by year, the
number of train users (who use
train instead of short-haul feeder
flights and car, which is less
polluting in term of greenhouse
gas emissions. In peak hours,
congestion is typical for
motorways, while this does not
apply to railways.
Almost every airport could be
linked with long-distance railway
services assuming there is a rail
network in the larger vicinity,
though some aspects must be
considered:
(1) Size of the airport
One-third of modal split is
assumed to be achievable
for rail and for the
24
economic viability of train
stops at the airport is at
least 50 people with a
minimum hourly level of
service for the acceptance
by potential users,
therefore minimum airport
size is about 1.5 million
annual passengers.
(2) Number of destinations
served compared to
competing airports
Long-distance services to
an airport are only sensible
if that serves destinations,
which are not offered at
other airports in its larger
region. Demand for those
exclusive flights shall be
above 1.5 million annually.
(3) Location of the airport
The Airport should be
reached by train along
existing or newly built lines
in a way that is demand-
independent from the
airport. So that rerouting of
trains does no cause
significantly longer travel-
times for non-airport
related passengers.
25
Port of Helsingborg
The port of Helsingborg is one of
the busiest ferry ports in the
world with more than 11 million
annual passengers. In the 1980s
a decision was made to create a
central terminal for all modes of
public transportation in
Helsingborg right at the port.
The ‘Knutpunkten’ (the
Junction) facilitates quick and
direct interchanges between
ferries and all other modes of
public transport. The
Knutpunkten is only 4 km away
from the town of Helsingør,
which is found on the other side
of Öresund Strait. Since the
opening of Öresund Bridge in
2000, ferry traffic dropped by 2
million passengers a year, and
this decline has continued with
the opening of Malmö CityTunnel
in 2010 December.
Figure 1: Knutpunkten from above (Source: INTERCONNECT)
Earlier, different ferry companies
used different docks near the
Knutpunkten which made it
harder for passengers to reach
these ferries. Railway traffic was
complicated, because there were
two railway stations in relatively
close to each other. The ferry
train station served the
interregional trains from
Stockholm and Gothenburg going
on to the ferries to Denmark and
the old train station that served
regional traffic in southern part
of Skåne Region.
26
Today’s central passenger hub of
Helsingborg was built in 1991
and it connects ferries, national
trains, regional trains and
national, regional and local buses
in the centre of Helsingborg
which offers a range of shops,
restaurants, offices and a hotel
attracting thousands of people
every day.
The ferry train station and the
ferry terminal for trains were
removed in 2000 after the
opening of the Öresund Bridge.
Figure 2: Ticket vending machines and timetable screens in the middle of Knutpunkten (Source: Mark Base)
The use of public transport
increased dramatically since the
opening of Knutpunkten, and it is
expected to double by 2020.
Train traffic has overtaken ferry
traffic, and since the opening of
Knutpunkten, train passenger
traffic increased threefold and
growing with about 200,000
passengers annually. Bus traffic
is estimated to have risen by
about 50% from 1995 to 2009,
when 15,000 passengers arrived
or departed with local and
regional buses, and with the
national bus lines 30,000.
Figure 9: Way up to the ferry departures with clear guidance (Source: Mark Base)
The central public transport of
Helsingborg is a complex. Trains
depart below the ground, at the
ground level local, regional and
national buses depart, and car
parks are located at level two
27
and three. Departure for
passengers is on the third floor.
Bicycle parking places are found
just in front of the main entrance
of Knutpunkten. Departure times
could be followed on screen
throughout the building. The
navigation in the building is easy
and logical thanks to the open
and visible places along the main
axis, and guidance system. The
elevators and escalators help
transfer between floors and
modes.
Figure 3: Inside Knutpunkten (Source: Jesper Olsson)
The realisation of the project
Knutpunkten intermodal terminal
was the result of co-operation among lots of stakeholders:
City of Helsingborg
Banverket (authority
responsible for rail traffic in
Sweden)
Region Skane (responsible
for regional development in
Skane Region)
Skanetrafiken (Regional
Public transport company in
Skane
The Port of Helsingborg AB
(manages the port)
Scandlines and HH Ferries
(ferry companies)
Nordic Land (owns and
manages commercial areas
and owns 8% of community
28
parking places in
Knutpunkten)
Wihlborgs Fastigheter AB
(owns properties and
remaining community
parking facilities, and two
third of the parking facility
in the bus terminal)
Fastighets AB Ankaret
(owns office building in
Terminal 3 and parking
places in bus terminal).
The Knutpunkten shows that by
progressive planning,
cooperation and continuous
attention changes prevailing
transport choices and
requirements for modern
facilities.
29
Karlsruhe Dual-mode railway system
The main goal of the Karlsruhe
project was to revitalise public
transport, keep cities liveable
and avoid confrontation with
individual road transport. The
case study shows how public
transport between medium sized
urban and rural areas could be
developed avoiding a regular
change from rural to urban
transport system.
Figure 41: TramTrain in Heilbronn (Source: Klaus Kahn)
Earlier travellers from regional
trains had to change to local
trams in Karlsruhe. Both systems
existed parallel with bad
connections to each other, which
were less convenient for
passengers (e.g. time lost at
transfer, different ticketing
systems). Unlike in other
German cities, in the 1960s local
authorities decided to keep the
existing tram network and
promote their development, old
lines were upgraded and
separated from car traffic. Up to
the middle of the 1980s the
usage of public transport
stagnated, though the market
share decreased and with the
fact that passenger numbers on
local trains declined too. Due to
quick motorisation process
individual motorised traffic
increased market share, as a
consequence to the
suburbanisation process as well.
30
Figure 5: Old diesel trains on old tracks (Source: INTERCONNECT)
Karlsruhe central railway station
is outside the city centre so the
arriving passenger had to change
to local transport means. At least
two tickets had to be used.
Railway lines were built more
than 100 years ago, the
maintaining of outdated services,
diesel locomotives meant high
costs for the operators.
Schedules were only fitted to the
needs of commuters and
therefore the information
brochures were poor in any other
pieces of information.
All abovementioned components
(need to change modes,
unattractive tariff systems,
inappropriate location of train
stops, poor schedules, poor
information service) contributed
the decline of public transport.
The situation was further
complicated due to the fact that
about 20 companies ran public
transport services as well as
following different legal and
technical issues and different
regulations applied to them.
Authorities responsible for
controlling track and trains on
German railways and non-federal
railways are different.
Figure 6: Tram (left) and TramTrain (right) in the centre of Karlsruhe (Source: Szűcs Viktor)
In first step, as a result of
upgraded Albtalbahn, trams
could reach the centre of
Karlsruhe on standard gauge
(1,435 mm). As a next step, the
local transport authority of
Karlsruhe was founded, which
could implement a common tariff
system for different public
transport modes. Newer and
newer lines were opened with
31
newer extensions, and shared
tracks with the German
Railways.
The upgrading of old lines with
electrification and use of trams
on heavy rail lines meant to be
the Karlsruhe model, in which
trams could run on both systems
without any compromise.
Figure 7: Basic scheme of a TramTrain (Source: INTERCONNECT)
Eliminating the need to change
between vehicles at interchange
points meant more comfort and
shorter travel times for
passengers, as well as technical
adaptation for track sharing of
the two systems was feasible
and the cost-benefit ratio was
much better than for newly built
lines.
Figure 8: Ramp at Albtalbahnhof with interchange from 750 V DC to 15kV AC (Source: www.karlsruher-modell.de)
Figure 9: Sign at Albtalbahnhof for interchange from 750 V DC to 15kV AC (Source: www.karlsruher-modell.de)
32
What necessary changes
made TramTrains popular?
Instead of passengers,
vehicles change system at
a defined point;
TramTrain vehicles are
equipped with additional
components to be able to
run on both systems;
TramTrains are longer and
more comfortable than
previous trams, have space
for bicycles/wheelchairs/
strollers, are equipped
with ticket vending
machines, stop request
buttons, and on longer
routes restrooms;
Electrification of railway
lines;
Innovative elements use
in upgrading to reduce
costs (e.g. Y-sleepers);
Centralised railway
control centre instead of
station control;
Old and new areas covered
due to new routes;
Continuous network
extension with newly
established stops due to
demand (24 km since 1992,
today more than 400 km
and further plans);
Figure 17: Standard layout of platforms for
TramTrains (Source: www.karlsruher-
modell.de)
Improved stations and
interchanges (platforms
with barrier-free access to
vehicles, level-crossing,
real-time timetable
information, waiting booth,
33
ticket vending machines
and tactile stripes);
Rearrangement of bus
stops for easier
interchange;
Figure 108: Standard layout for interchange points TramTrain <-> bus (Source: www.karlsruher-modell.de)
Service every day with
regular interval
schedule, 20-22 hours per
day (including night
service) with stopping-
trains, accelerated-trains
and express-trains;
Bus network and
schedules are adjusted to
TramTrains, and bus routes
avoid parallel lines, serve
as feeder;
Low demand public
transport during off-peak
hours;
Zoning system for
integrated ticketing;
Great variety of travel
information from printed
timetables with schedules
of all modes and lines,
pocket time-tables,
telephone service, online
information, SMS
information;
Involvement of a large
number of stakeholders
in ownership and financing
of the infrastructure, for the
regional transport
association;
Technical, organisational
and political feasibility;
Users’ acceptance and
system take-up (today
16,000 passengers per
working day, which is 8
times as high as in first
34
year), 40% of tram users
used to drive a car before;
Financial feasibility and
development of passenger
figures for public transport;
Reduced door to door
travel times and cost;
The Karlsruhe Model made
the region more attractive,
increased its prestige.
Figure 11: TramTrain and the German high speed train (ICE) in the same system (www.karlsruher-modell.de)
The successful Karlsruhe Model
made such fame for the city, that
it earned the nickname “The
Mecca of local public transport”.
For more information visit: http://www.interconnect-project.eu
35
Conclusions No matter how far passengers
travel, well-planned intermodal
nodes could help them in
changing modes of transport to
use the optimal mode of
transport for the next section of
their trip. Long-, medium-, and
short-distance trips may meet in
an intermodal station, but each
intermodal node is different,
therefore there is no “single
solution” for creating one. Each
case must be examined
separately and through best
practices, experience from other
projects could also be used.
Long distance rail and large
international airports with large
catchment areas can be
effectively connected and can be
financially feasible and such
improvement facilitates
multimodality. Linking Air and
Rail must be done with
minimizing travel time increase for other rail users with
non-airport related trips. To
small and medium sized airports
a new rail connection is not
always viable, only in case
positive network effects are
trailed in the rail network. This is
the case at medium-sized cities
(such as Karlsruhe) where trains
do not reach the town centre
directly and where separated
heavy rail and tramway
infrastructure is available and
dual-mode rail solution provides
excellent cost-benefit ratios. We
cannot neglect the
interconnection of long distance
and short distance, and that
transfer times at interchanges
and access times to terminal
from trip origin/destination
location are to be minimized
such as at Helsingborg ferry
terminal.
36
In general, the benefits of intermodal transport are the following:
Improves mobility/interchange;
Reduces congestion;
Provides modal diversity;
Shortens travel times;
Expands coverage;
Improved environmental conditions (reduce air and noise
pollution, and reduce energy consumption);
Expands land opportunities;
Expands economic opportunity and includes multiplier effects.
37
REFERENCES
COM(2001) 370 final – White
Paper (European transport policy
for 2010: time to decide),
Brussels, 12.9.2001
COM(2011) 144 final - White
Paper (Roadmap to a Single
European Transport Area –
Towards a competitive and
resource efficient transport
system), Brussels, 28.3.2011
EU Energy and Transport in
figures 2010, Luxenbourg 2010
Charter of European Cities &
Towns Towards Sustainability,
Aalborg, 27 May 1994
Leipzig Charter on Sustainable
European Cities, Leipzig, 24 May
2007
EU’s 6th Environmental Action
Programme, Official Journal of
the European Communities,
10.9.2002
COM(2005) 718 final: Thematic
Strategy on the Urban
Environment, Brussels,
11.1.2006
Optimization models and solution
methods for intermodal
transportation, PhD thesis,
Michael Berliner Pedersen
Technical University of Denmark
(DTU), REPORT 2005-3
INTERCONNECTion Between
Short- and Long-Distance
Transport Networks,
DELIVERABLE D4.1: FACTORS
AFFECTING INTERCONNECTIVITY
IN PASSENGER TRANSPORT,
INTERCONNECT PROJECT
(019746), 2010
European Commission Policies
for Intermodal Passenger Travel,
DG-TREN, Guido MÜLLER
presentation, 17/06/2008
Szűcs Viktor: A Karlsruhei model
– a városi és a regionális vasút
közlekedés összekapcsolása,
Debreceni Egyetem
38
Catch-MR Project,
Documentation of the Budapest
workshop: Encouraging more use
of public transport –
Intermodality and Park & Ride,
Budapest, 22-24 November 2010
Catch-MR Project, Inventory for
the Budapest workshop –
Summary and analysis,
Budapest, 22-24 November 2010
http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/hom
e_en.html
39
40
www.press4transport.eu