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

Regeneration Potential - West-Vlaanderen Kusttram

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

Nijmegen-Kleve

Financing of transport schemes – innovation at a time of austerity