Symposium on High-Speed Rail & Sustainability 30 November 2012, UC Berkeley, California High-Speed Rail development in the EU 27: Securing the potential Moshe Givoni 1,2 and David Banister 2 1 Department of Geography and the Human Environment, Tel-Aviv University, Israel. 2 Transport Studies Unit, School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford, UK.
Table of contents: Rail and HSR in Europe Travel time Accessibility The number of stations Station location Integration with the rest of the network Principles for Good HSR planning 2
Rail and HSR in Europe EU27 Performance by Mode (Thousand million pkm) Car Bus and Coach Rail Air Other 1995 2000 2005 2010 % increase 3,879 4,296 4,547 4,738 +22 497 516 524 510 +3 351 371 377 404 +15 346 457 527 524 +51 227 228 245 248 +9 Total 5,311 5,818 6,220 6,424 +21 Other includes sea, two wheelers, tram and metro; Air only includes travel within the EU27 Source: DG TREN (2012) 3
Rail and HSR in Europe HSR in EU 27 (Thousand million pkm) France Germany Spain Italy Sweden Belgium UK Others Total % of all rail 1995 2000 2005 2010 21.43 34.75 43.13 51.89 8.70 13.93 20.85 23.90 1.29 1.94 2.32 11.72 1.10 5.09 8.55 11.61 0.42 2.05 2.33 3.10-0.87 0.98 1.06 - - 0.45 1.01-0.17 1.50 1.75 32.94 9.4 58.80 15.9 80.11 21.2 106.04 26.3 Other includes Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Portugal, Finland and Slovenia. HSR includes trains able to travel at more than 200 km/h Source: DG TREN (2012) 4
Rail and HSR in Europe Growth in Rail Travel in the EU15 (Thousand million pkm) Countries not investing in HSR 1995 2010 % change Belgium 6.8 10.0 +47 Netherlands 16.4 15.4-6 Portugal 4.8 4.1-15 Denmark 4.9 6.3 +29 UK 30.3 55.8 +84 Ireland 1.3 1.7 +31 Greece 1.6 1.3-19 Austria 10.1 10.7 +6 Finland 3.2 4.0 +25 Luxembourg 0.3 0.3 - Countries investing in HSR 1995 2010 % change France 55.6 85.9 +54 Germany 71.0 83.0 +17 Spain 16.6 22.4 +35 Italy 46.7 47.3 +1 Sweden 6.8 11.2 +65 Total 79.7 109.6 +38 196.7 249.8 +27 Source: DG TREN (2012) 5
Travel Time The notion of High-Speed reinforces the conventional view on travel time as wasted time and underpins the arguments for HSR Maximum design speed (increasing) Travel time savings (central in justification of HSR) Focus on station to station travel Speed comes at a price (financial and environmental) HSR travel time is quality time Should be valued as productive time (work or leisure) Quality of the service important as its speed (convenience, reliability, comfort, cost) Getting to/from the HSR station is wasted time 6
Travel Time Maximum and average speeds on selected EU HSR lines 1 Current speed is 300 km/hr Source: BSL Management Consultants (2009) Comparison of High Speed Lines, Final Report for Lloyds Register, Hamburg, November. 7
Travel Time Door to door travel time and its quality should be the real concern HSR average speed (reasonable maximum operating speed) Seamless transfer to / from HSR (station access) Opportunities to use HSR travel time Travel time is no longer only about speed, it is about how travel time is used 8
Accessibility Improved accessibility is a prerequisite for any benefits from the development of HSR Benefits to users and to society (including non-users) Direct transport benefits and potential non-transport benefits (including wider economic benefits and environmental benefits) Accessibility needs to be the focus of attention to secure the potential of HSR (speed) The number of stations Station location Integration with the rest of the transport network 9
Accessibility The number of stations A simple model: Number of stops = f (Access cost, stopping cost ) Access cost = cost of the station + (cost of accessing the station X # passengers using the station) Stopping cost = (additional travel time X # passengers not using the stop) Characteristics of HSR suggest very low number of stations Stations are expensive/complicated Stopping a train is costly Improving access cheaper /easier A station can only be justified by very high demand HS1: 108 km, 4 stations (at 0, 9, 37 and 90 km from London) HS2: 2 stations in London (7.5m population) 2 stations in Birmingham (1m population) 10
Accessibility Station location Derived from the above model and a factor of mainly: Spatial concentration of demand Potential development around the station (potential future demand) City centre location: Where much of the economic activity is located (service sector) High density residential area Centre point of the urban (public) transport network (incl. rail stations) Potential for development around the station usually limited Difficult and costly to construct a station (Eurostar trains are 394m long) Difficult and costly to bring the line to/from the station Disruptive to the city during construction 11
Accessibility Station location (cont.) City outskirts location A mirror picture of the city centre location Airport location By locating the station in the city outskirts next to an airport the lack of demand is addressed London St. Pancreas station: an opportunity to regenerate the city centre (The Kings Cross Railway Lands - 25 ha of mixed development) HS2: airport stations Passengers Movements HSR station London Heathrow 65.8 mppa 454,883 Not Planned Birmingham airport 8.5 mppa 95,454 Planned 12
Accessibility Integration with the rest of the transport network Will determine the overall accessibility of the HSR service Three levels of integration: Integration with Urban (public) transport network Minimize number of transfers Integration with regional transport network (road and rail) Rail most important feeder for HSR Integration with the air transport network (airports) HSR can increase airports route network and catchment area 13
Conclusions The current way in which HSR is framed, envisaged, planned and constructed does not contribute as much as it should to sustainable development (but mainly to increased mobility and GHG emissions) HSR has an important role to play in meeting future mobility needs, and a key role in providing long-distance, inter-city surface transport replacing road and air transport and contributing to low carbon mobility To secure its potential, HSR must be planned differently. It must be planned as the strategic backbone of the transport system, an intermediate mode of transport and a network between urban public transport and long-haul air transport Principles for Good HSR planning 14
Principles for Good HSR planning 1. Where most travel distances are modest (under 500km), speed must be placed within a wider framework of reasonable travel times 2. Consideration needs to be given simultaneously to the number of stations on the route, their location and their integration with rest of the transport network 3. The potential for development around HSR stations must be assessed against other factors 4. There should be a much greater flexibility in the types of service being offered as the market is not homogeneous, but heterogeneous 5. Provision of a wide range of services and facilities for use en route is part of the modern view of travelling. Quality time can be spent in travel 6. There is a need to move from the view that all modes compete to a view of an integrated set of mobility services that meet the needs of all travellers and providing high quality door-to-door travel 15
16 Thank you! givonim@post.tau.ac.il