COMPLETE  STREETS:  FROM  POLICY  TO  IMPLEMENTATION  

How  the  French  Blend  Light  Rail  and  Complete  Streets  for  Total  Accessibility    Greg  Thompson  .  Tom  Larwin  .  Tom  Parkinson    Transportation  Research  Board  Subcommittee    on  International  Light  Rail  Development  

Total  accessibility  

Implementing  Green  Transit/Complete  Streets  on  an  Unprecedented  Scale  

Defining  the  French  Approach:  the  Macro  View  

§  MACRO  Design  Principle  1:    Develop  a  a  concept  of  how  public  transport  should  tie  the  urban  agglomeration  together:    a  small  number  of  light  rail  (nouveau  tram)  lines  is  key  

§  MACRO  Design  Principle  2:    High-­‐performance  and  -­‐capacity  vehicles  designed  to  blend  with  the  urban  fabric  and  facilitate  accessibility  between  lines  and  modes  

§  MACRO  Design  Principle  3:  Fully  accessible  stops  widely  spaced  

§  MACRO  Design  Principle  4:    Stops  adjacent  to  ,and  integrated  with  major  destinations;  including  in  suburbs  

§  MACRO  Design  Principle  5:    Bus  lines  reconfigured  around  nouveau  tram  stations  

 

 

The  Micro  Design  Side  of  the  French  Approach:    the  Art  of  Insertion  

§  Almost  100%  use  of  public  rights-­‐of-­‐way  ú  At  the  expense  of  the  auto,  which  are  kept  off  tracks  ú  Examples:    Roads,  alleys,  plazas,  university  campuses,  

hospital  campuses  

§  All  rights-­‐of-­‐way  rebuilt  from  building  façade  to  building  façade  to  facilitate  transit  performance,  pedestrian  and  bicycle  flow,  safety,  aesthetics  

§  The  Art  of  Insertion  is    a  political  process  wherein  stakeholder  groups  figure  out  how  to  design  high  performance  transit  that  is  compatible  with  their  lifestyles  

MACRO  Design  Principle  1:  A  Regional  Core  of  Light  Rail  Lines  

Big  box  district  

University  Mall  

Center  City  

High  rise  offices  

Industrial  district  

University  hospital  complex  

Intercity  rail  

Medical  complex  

Malls  and  big  box  stores  

Macro  Design  Principle  2:    Long  vehicles  with  lots  of  doors  and  a  fare  system  that  allows  passengers  to  use  all  doors,  bright,  cheery,  airy

Macro  Design  Principle  3:    Fully  accessible  stops  spaced  widely  to  enable  faster  service

Macro  Design  Principle  4:    Stops  adjacent  to  major  destinations;  many  in  suburbs  

Macro  Design  Principle  5:  Bus  system  reconfigured  around  light  rail  stops  

Center  City  insertion  where  two  lines  cross    

Insertion  into  an  alley  

Insertion  of  station  into  alley  

Center  city  insertion  

Insertion:    Edge  of  center  city  

Insertion:  Edge  of  historic  center  

Insertion:    Stop  shoe-­‐horned  into  tight  spot  

12  Oct  2012  -­‐  GLT   17  

Insertion:  Stopping  trains  delay  autos;  not  vice  versa  

12  Oct  2012  -­‐  GLT   18  

Insertion:    Inner  suburb  

Insertion:  Outer  suburb  of  single  family  homes  

Insertion:  Suburban  university  campus  (Nantes)  

Insertion:    Suburban  university  campus  (Orleans)  

Insertion  in  Plaza:    1  

Insertion  in  Plaza:    2  

Insertion  in  Plaza:    3  

Insertion  of  high  quality  transit  into  urban  and  suburban  fabric:  an  art  combining:  

•  Transit  planning  and  engineering  •  Traffic  engineering  •  Safety  analysis  •  Aesthetics  and  urban  design  •  Politics  

• To  achieve  the  results  you  have  seen  26  

Summary:    Macro  concepts  of  quality  transit  combined  with  The  Art  of  Insertion  result  in  complete  streets  that  truly  change  travel  behavior  

Thank  you  —  Merci!    Waiting  for  the  tram,  Strasbourg  2011    

TP  

27  of  14  

Remarkable  growth,  particularly  from    2000;  there  is  no  distinction  between  tramways  (streetcars)  and  light  rail  in  France,  more  a  combination  of  features.  Tram-­‐trains  are  not  covered  here  but  are  gaining  ground  with  dual-­‐system  vehicles  capable  of  over  100km/h—  750  volts  plus  1.5V  DC  or  25kV  AC  or  diesel  

Growth  of  French  Tramways—kilometres  of  route  

     Base  chart  from  The  Transport  Politic,  Yonah  Freemark  2012  

Prior  French  practice  was  rubber-­‐tired  metro  for  large  cities:  Paris,  Lyon,  Marseille.  Rubber-­‐tired  light  metro  (Siemens  VAL)  for  medium  cities:  Lille,  Rennes,  Toulouse.  Then  the  lower  cost  tramway  appeared.  

1990                                              1995                                              2000                                                2005                                                    2010                          2015  

28  of  14  

29  of  14  

Despite  the  economies  of  scale  from  city  to  city:  joint  orders  for  vehicles,  use  of  public  land  and  easements,  and  minimising  line  poles  (25%  of  spans  in  Brest  are  attached  to  buildings),  French  tramways  are  comparable  or  slightly  more  expensive  than  other  European  systems—although    allowance  should  be  made  for  the  15-­‐25%  of  project  costs  that  are  spent  on  the  urban  environment—and  any  APS.    The  average  of  eleven  recent  French  systems  is  US$  29m/km,  range    $20.4–  $51.2  The  average  of  seven  recent  US  systems  is  US$  35m/km,  range    $28.6–  $43.5  Excludes  systems,  such  as  Seattle,  with  tunnels  or  other  high  infrastructure  costs;  €=US$1.3  

Bordeaux  with  APS  

Capital  Costs  

     

               .    

Some  results  

30  of  14  

Buses  and  trams  are  closely  integrated  with  free  transfers.  Ridership  increase  is  typically  30–60%.  Montpellier  went  from  28.8m/year  on  the  all  bus  system  in1999,  to  62.2m  in  2010  with  5  routes,  an  150%  increase.  

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

US average

Valenciennes

Orléans

Reims

Angers

St-Etienne

Le Mans

Rouen

Average

Strasbourg

Grenoble

Montpellier

Bordeaux

Nice

Rides per day per kilometre of route FTA 2010 data—probable underestimate due to double count of some route miles

Despite  moderate  fares  and  frequent  service  with  union  (syndicat)  drivers,  average  farebox  recovery  at  48%  is  good,  particularly  given  that  on  some  systems  heavily  discounted  students  make  up  over  half  the  riders.  Alignments    may  often  seem  convoluted  but  ensure  that  universities,  schools  and  other  major  generators—hospitals  and  railway  stations—are  well  connected.  

31  of  14  

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

US Average

Nantes

Paris

Marseille

Orleans

Toulouse

Average

Grenoble

Lyon

Lille

St.Etienne

Strasbourg

LRT  Farebox  Recovery  as  percent  of  Direct  Operating  costs  

US  light  rail  vs  bus  performance  2011  

Circulator  Streetcar  vs  bus  performance  2011  

France  like  U.S.  in  auto  ownership  and  big  box  retailing  

34  

.

Table  1.1  Intensity  of  motorization  in  G-­‐7  nations  in  2000

Motor  vehicles  per  1000  

population  (a)Motor  vehicles  per  worker  (b)

Vehicle    km.  per  capita  (  c  )  

Motor  vehicle  CO2  per  capita  (d)

United  States 784 1.58 15,618 5,202Canada 676 1.43 10,831 3,741Japan 651 1.30 5,976 1,762Italy 626 1.73 6,274 1,917Germany 576 1.29 7,126 2,067France 574 1.44 8,778 2,153United  Kingdom 511 1.10 7,662 1,933G-­‐7  average 625 1.41 8,895 2,682Source:  (a)  Vehicle  registrations:  Ward's  Motor  Vehicles  Facts  and  Figures,  2002;  population  data  for  all  series:  Maddison,  World  Economy:  Historical  Statistics;  (b)  Statistical  Abstract  of  the  United  States,  2002,  "Comparative  Labor  Force  Statistics,  Ten  Countries,  1959-­‐2001";  (c)  Highway  Statistics  2002,  table  IN-­‐4,  "Vehicle  Travel  for  Selected  Countries";  (d)  International  Energy  Agency,  CO2  Emissions  from  Fuel  Combustion,  1971-­‐2000,  country  tables,  II.143ff.

The  following  table  is  copied  from  David  W.  Jones,  Mass  Motorization  +  Mass  Transit ,  Indiana  University  Press,  2008,  p.  4.

SUMMARY  OF  FRENCH  TRAMWAYS Lines  in  service/under  construction–  all  modes¹ Tom  Parkinson  Dec  2013,  modif  STRMTG-­‐Certu  Jan  2014

City/Region  Urban  area  Population   Open Km Miles Cars

 Tram  Pax/Day*  Metro VAL

Tram-­‐  way

Tram-­‐Train

Tram  w/  Tires

Trolley-­‐bus BRT NOTES

Angers 216,000               2011 12.3 7.4 17 35,000         1²/1 Line  B  opens  2020Aubagne 100,000               2014 9.0 5.4 8 new -­‐/2 Line  1  opens  2014,  line  2  in  2019Avignon 180,000               2016 12.6 7.6 24 new -­‐/2 line  opens  2016Besancon 140,000               2015 14.5 8.7 19 new -­‐/1  lowest  capital  cost/kmBordeaux 835,000               2003 43.4 26.0 74 192,000   3²/1  0/1 extensions  and  tram/train  plannedBrest 201,000               2012 14.3 8.6 20 33,000         1-­‐Jan Cross  city  line  with  two  branchesCaen 198,000               2002 15.7 9.4 24 45,000          0/3   2 Converting  to  steel  wheel  tramway  +  a  new  lineClermont-­‐Ferrand 260,000               2006 16.3 9.8 26 48,000         1 Translohr  systemDijon 250,000               2012 20.0 12.0 33 70,000         2Grenoble 530,000               1987 36.4 36.4 89 210,000   4/1Le  Havre 244,000               2012 13.0 7.8 22 new 2Le  Mans 208,000               2007 15.4 9.2 26 48,000         1/1 2nd  line  opens  in  2015Lille 1,100,000         1909 22.4 13.4 24 34,000           2 2 Retains  original  metre  gaugeLimoges 139,000               1942 32.5 19.5 40 n/a 5Lyon 1,760,000         2000 72.1 43.3 103 250,000   4 4 2 8 TT  =  Rhônexpress  tram-­‐train  to  airport  +  rapid  tram  (on  same  tracks)Marseille 1,530,000         2007 11.5 6.9 26 50,000         2 2 project  :  extension,  not  a  new  lineMontpellier 384,000               2000 54.4 32.6 83 282,000   4/1Mulhouse 250,000               2006 19.0 11.4 39 60,000         3 1 41km  with  TTNancy 105,000               2001 11.4 6.8 25 n/a 1 Bombardier  GLT  with  double  wire  overheadNantes 585,000               1985 42.1 25.3 91 274,000   3 '0/1   1 TT  opens  2014Nice 350,000               2007 8.7 5.2 28 90,000         1²/1 2nd  line  to  open  in  2016Nîmes 2012 6.0 3.6 7,000             0/1 1 line  tramway  opens  2018Orléans 269,000               2000 29.2 17.5 43 67,000         2²Paris  (region) 11,800,000   1992 71.0 42.6 205 450,000   14 1 5/1  1/1 41640 2 Lines  3a  and  3b  counted  separately³Reims 210,000               2011 11.2 6.7 18 45,000         2 Cross  city  line  with  two  branchesRennes 220,000               2002 9.4 5.6 38 n/a 1/1Rouen 530,000               1994 15.1 9.1 28 65,000         2 3 optically  guided  busway  TEOR,  69  cars,  55,3  kmSt.  Etienne 370,000               1981 18.9 11.3 35 82,000         3 1 Retains  original  metre  gaugeStrasbourg 450,000               1994 57.2 34.3 94 243,000   6Toulouse 1,100,000         2010 10.9 6.5 24 20,000         2 1/1 Tram  now  feeder  to  VAL-­‐-­‐will  extend  to  CBDTours 300,000               2013 15.3 9.2 21 new 1Valenciennes 334,000               2006 18.3 11.0 21 28,000         1/133  cities;  29  tramway  systems;  57  tramway  lines   Totals 20 1/6 29/57 5/2 41644 14 7

¹  Many  lines  cross  through  the  city  centre  and  could  be  categorised  as  two  lines  ²Has  section(s)  without  overhead  using  APS  3rd  rail    alimentation  par  le  sol  (batteries  in  Nice)³11.2  km  Line  T7  (Villejuif-­‐Loius  Aragon)  opened  Nov  16,  2013;  not  included  in  totals*Patronage  figures  do  not  reflect  line  openings  after  2011Population  and  line  length  data  from  various  sources  is  not  always  consistentMain  reference-­‐-­‐Les  tramways  francais  en  2012,  Connaissance  du  rail