Francesca Pagliara_HIGH SPEED RAILWAY AND THE FORMATION OF MEGACITIES by GrupoUyOT_UCLM

HIGH SPEED RAILWAY AND THE FORMATION OF MEGACITIES

Francesca Pagliara Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering University of Naples Federico II fpagliar@unina.it

Introduction

REFERENCES

ď&#x192;ź Pagliara, F., de Abreu e Silva, J., Sussman, J. and Stein, N. (2011): Megacities and High Speed Rail systems: which comes first? ESD working paper series n. 7, MIT, March.

ď&#x192;ź Urena, J. M., Menerault, P. and Garmendia, M. (2009): The highspeed rail challange for big intermediate cities: A national, regional and local perspective, Cities, pp. 266-279.

Outline

 Introduction

 Megacities and HSR in US  Megacities and HSR in Europe  Further research perspectives

Introduction ACCESSIBILITY: THE BRIDGE BETWEEN THE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS SUPPLY TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES AND SERVICES

TRANSPORTATION SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS ACCESSIBILITY - active - passive

SUPPLY ELEMENTS CAPACITY

CONGESTION LEVEL AND LOCATION OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES

FLOWS ON MODAL NETWORKS

NUMBER AND LOCATION OF HOUSEHOLDS BY TIPOLOGY

10 11

TRAVEL DEMAND BY TRANSPORTATION MODE

SPACE AVAILABILITY BY AREA AND TYPE 7

ACTIVITY SYSTEM

LEVEL AND SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF TRAVEL DEMAND DEMAND

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

Introduction

Common Definitions of Accessibility  “the opportunity which an individual or type of person at given location possesses to take part in a particular activity or set of activities” Hansen (1959) “the accessibility of a point in a system is a function of its location in space with respect to all other points in the system” and “implies relative nearness either in the sense of a direct linkage or a minimum expenditure of travel cost or time” Hack (1976) and de Lannoy (1978)  “the average opportunity which the residents of the area possess to take part in a particular activity or set of activities” Wachs and Kumagai (1972) “the consumer surplus, or net benefit, that people achieve from using the transport and land-use system” Leonardi (1978)  “the ease and convenience of access to spatially distributed opportunities with a choice of travel” U.S. Department of Environment (1996)

Introduction

A Synthetic Definition of accessibility The ease in meeting one’s needs in locations distributed Over space for a subject located in a given area It depends on:  the zone where the subject is located (reference zone)  the spatial distribution of activities in the region  the transportation system that links the reference zone to the others

Introduction

Active and Passive Accessibility The concept of accessibility can be related to the needs of carrying out activities (to go shopping, to go to cinemas, to go working, etc.) by a subject located in a given zone (active or origin accessibility) or to the needs of being reached by potential users (clients,workers, providers, etc.) of an activity located in a certain zone (passive or destination accessibility) (Ben-Akiva and Lerman, 1979; Cascetta, 2009).

Introduction

 Many countries of the world are investing in HSR systems.

 HSR offers performance, safety, service, high energy efficiency and environmental friendliness.

 HSR has the potential to induce megaregional formation and thereby promote economic development at a large scale.

Introduction  HSR systems are a key application in the development of sustainable transport systems.

 Three different functional approaches in Europe:  high-speed: passenger-oriented, set on new 300km/h speed lines and non-stop connections between large metropolitan areas (e.g. France).  high-capacity: both for passengers and freight, serving also intermediate cities with up to 250 km/h train services, developed partly on renewed existing lines (e.g. Germany).  enhanced intercity network: speeding up the Intercity service till 225 km/h, combined with frequent coincidences in all the stations to other destination on the network (e.g. Switzerland and England).

Introduction

HS and accessibility impacts:  Long distance door-to-door links, i.e. train is a potential substitute for an air connection between two cities (Blum et al., 1997), like Paris-Lyon and Tokyo-Osaka.

 Shorter point-to-point links, i.e. train system links together many cities and creates a new type of “region” with a high intraregional accessibility and strong economic connections (e.g. Germany).

Introduction  Gottman (1961) defines a megapolis as a vast metropolitan area over 500 miles long stretching from Boston in the north to Washington, D.C. in the south.

 Megacities can be defined as large core cities linked by an industrial belt or a continuum of cities (Mory, 1997).

 A megacity is usually defined as a metropolitan area with a total population in excess of 10 million people (Kotter, 2004).

 Hall (2009) defines a mega city region as a series of cities physically separated but functionally networked clustered around one or more larger central cities and are connected with dense flows of people and information using important transport infrastructures. 11

Introduction

Spatial distribution of the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s megacities 2015 The number of megacities which have 10 millions or more residents is increasing: 1950: 2, 1975: 4, 2003: 21, 2015: 23. Source: Kotter (2004) 12

Introduction

ď ą Our cities are facing multiple crises, including economic recession, congestion, resource scarcity, social and public health concerns, and the consequences of climate change.

ď ą Large amount of money are about to be spent on repairing and building urban infrastructure.

ď ą The future: smart, green, integrated infrastructure. New models should be designed that result in a better environment, improved public health, a stronger economy, and a safer society.

Introduction

ď&#x192;ź This is consistent with the priorities and challenges for the society of the Horizon 2020 Programme. The objectives are:

- to improve the health and welfare of everybody during their life cycles; - to achieve the transition towards an energy, sustainable and competitive system, considering the increasing lack of resources and the climate change. - to develop a European transportation system efficient under the profile of resources, respecting the environment, which is safe and without interruption for the benefit of the citizens, economy and society.

Megacities and HSR in US

 HSR is a topic of considerable debate and discussion at

present within the US.

 At present, no HSR in the USA. One exception: some portions of the northeastern part of the country. Over the past fifty years, federal funding for transportation has disproportionately favored highways and aviation (Todorovich et al., 2011).

Megacities and HSR in US

Implementing HSR in the US poses considerable political challenges: ď ąCalifornia and the Northeast Corridor (NEC) (covering Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C.) are the two most promising corridors. ď ąCalifornia and in particular the NEC have high potential for megaregion formation as supported by HSR.

Megacities and HSR in US

Both corridors have the existing population density, transport network congestion and projected growth to support high-quality rail. The NEC represents 20% of the nation’s total GDP on just 2% of the land area with a population density approximately 12 times the national average (Amtrak, 2010).

Megacities and HSR in Asia

Megacities and HSR in Europe

HORIZON 2020

Megacities and HSR in Europe

The Trans-European corridors passing through Italy

• • • •

Priority Project n. 1: rail section Berlin – Verona – Milano –Bologna – Napoli – Palermo. Priority Project n.5 which, by linking Lisbon to Kiev, goes through the Po Valley; it corresponds to the V TenEuropean Corridor. Pan-European Corridor VIII: intermodal section Varna-Sofia-Bari. Priority Project n.24: rail link between the port of Genova and that of Rotterdam through the Gottardo tunnel.

Megacities and HSR in Europe

Operating and work-in-progress HSR lines

High Speed Railways

Total National Railways Network

1.355 km

24.179 km

Source: RFI

Megacities and HSR in Europe

Decrease of 40-50% in travel times thanks to the introduction of the HS/HC rail lines Link

Travel times without HS

Travel times with HS

Decrease of travel times %

Torino-Milano

1h-30'

50'

-44%

Milano-Venezia

2h-43‘

1h-25'

-48%

Milano-Bologna

1h-42'

60'

-41%

Milano-Roma

4h-30'

-33%

Torino-Napoli

8h-30’

-41%

Bologna-Firenze

59'

30'

-49%

Roma-Napoli

1h-45'

1h-05'

-38%

Roma-Bari

4h-30’

-33%

Napoli-Bari

3h-40’

-45% Source: TAV (2007)

Megacities and HSR in Europe

Current Scenario Modal shares in the study area Inter-province trips (%) Car Air Intercity Railways High Speed Railways

37 trains

HSR service

62 trains

18 trains

66.5 4.3 9.2

54 trains

23 trains

65 trains

20.0 65 trains

100,0%

42 trains 8 trains 14 trains

Megacities and HSR in Europe

A growing marketâ&#x20AC;Ś

train-km/year

seatskm/year

Pax Km/year*

2009 19 624 X 103 12 750 X 106

2010 27 327 X 103 15 029 X 106

Î&#x201D;%

39.25%

17.87%

45.3 %

*estimates from two surveys carried on in May 2009 and May 2010

Megacities and HSR in Europe

RAIL OPERATORS The national Italian network and operations are all owned by FS (Ferrovie dello Stato) (State Railway) Holdings, a fully government owned company. It has three key operating subsidiaries:

Trenitalia operates all freight and passenger trains, including the high-speed trains; RFI (Rete Ferroviaria Italiana) manages the infrastructure, and TAV (Treno Alta Velocità SpA) is responsible for the planning and construction of the new HS infrastructure.

Megacities and HSR in Europe

HSR operators TRENITALIA

NTV

Italian National Operator

April 2012

#runs

TrainKm

SeatKm Avg. Distance Avg. (mil.) per train TrainCapacity

Trenitalia

111

64.953

585

620

NTV

36.597

678

500

NTV partner

Holdings

Totale MDP Holding

33,5%

IMI Investimenti 20,0% VFE-P SA 20,0% Generali Financial Holdings FCP-FIS 15,0% Nuova Fourb 5,0% MaIS Spa 5,0% Reset 2000 1,5% Total

100,00%

Shareholders of NTV partner Della Valle - Montezemolo - Punzo (equal holding) Intesa SanPaolo SNCF Generali Bombassei Seragnoli Sciarrone

Megacities and HSR in Europe

195 km opened in 2005

18 km HS line completed HS line under construction RFI network 31

Megacities and HSR in Europe Metropolitan area of Roma: n. inh.: 4,145,822 Res. Dens.: 473,19 inh./km2

Metropolitan area of Napoli: n. inh.: 3,582,900 Res. Dens.: 1900,27 inh./km2

Megacities and HSR in Europe

Total systematic relationship In Italy, Census data comprises information concerning the places of work and study of the residents of each municipality (de Luca and Pagliara, 2005; 2007). n

j 1

Tot_syst_rel_muni   Genij   Destij i  j where: n: is the number of municipalities of the region to which municipality j belongs; Genij are the generated systematic relationships from municipality i to municipality j; Destij are the destinated systematic relationships to municipality i from municipality j.

Megacities and HSR in Europe

Intensity of total systematic relationship n

 Genij   Destij j 1 j 1 Intensity_ Tot_syst_rel_muni   1000 i  j Residents j This ratio is higher for the municipality with less demographic weight while a municipality which falls into the influence area of two municipalities is considered strictly linked to the municipality with which the intensity of total systematic relationships is higher.

From the analysis of the intensity of total systematic relationships, it has come out an urban polarised growth, i.e. a non-disperse growth which gives rise to new central places. The polarisation phenomenon creates Second Level Urban Systems (SLUS), i.e. sets of neighoubouring municipalities with a reference pole, all reciprocally integrated into a first level system.

Megacities and HSR in Europe

Intensity of total systematic relationships: city of Rome

ROME

(n. of relationshipsÂˇ1000)/Res

ROME

Megacities and HSR in Europe

Intensity of total systematic relationships: city of Naples

NAPLES

(n. of relationshipsÂˇ1000)/Res

NAPLES

Megacities and HSR in Europe

ď ą Polarisation is the phenomenon to count on in order to reorganise transportation system and recover space for public transport. ď ą If activities are aggreagated around the SLUS poles, there are also concentrations of travel demand both within each SLUS and among the municipalities themselves. ď ą Public transport becomes competitive with respect to the private system on these connections.

Megacities and HSR in Europe To this new travel demand configuration it should correspond a new transportation asset: ď&#x201A;§

Rail systems (from tram to light rail, from regional to fast rail) to link the poles.

ď&#x201A;§

Buses are suitable for satisfying a limited travel demand for minor urban systems and provide the conncetions within each SLUS.

ď&#x201A;§

Car should be reserved to all the cases in which the generalised cost is less than the cost of the public transport system with equal performances.

Megacities and HSR in Europe  RP survey carried out on the link Rome-Naples in March 2008  Reference universe made up of all users travelling on the link under study with:  HS trains  Eurostar (ES) trains  Intercity (IC) trains  Car (on the motorway route)

 Segmentation by type of day:  weekday (Monday to Friday)  Saturday  Sunday 39

Megacities and HSR in Europe

Demand on HS trains Weekday

Saturday

Sunday

Demand on HS trains N. Users

N. Users

Generated by new trips

568

13%

274

14%

164

Generated by an increase of trip frequency

10%

165

180

10%

from car

355

250

12%

269

14%

from plane + bus (link to Roma Fiumicino)

from IC and/or ES

3144

69%

1300

65%

1233

66%

TOTAL

4539

100%

2016

100%

1871

100%

Megacities and HSR in Europe

Reason for choosing HS Main reason for choosing HS

WEEKDAY

SATURDAY

SUNDAY

YEAR

USERS

3,303

1,223

1,143

985,515

307

233

113

97,765

4,257

More comfort

213

125

208

72,235

Agreement with the users' travel times

696

396

386

221,339

3,193

Less risky, safer than car

569

To try

4,539

100

2,016

100

1,871

100

1,384,872

100

Less travel time Respect of departure and arrival times More on board services

Get off at Mergellina/Campi Flegrei (ES)

TOTAL

Megacities and HSR in Europe

Trip purpose before and after HS Trip purpose Work Study Shopping Visiting parents/friends Tourism Other TOTAL

BEFORE HS IC ES 67% 51% 7% 5% 0% 8% 19% 16% 0% 17% 8% 3% 100% 100%

Motivo dello spostamento

IC 40% 10% 5% 26% 10% 9% 100%

AFTER HS ES 56% 7% 5% 21% 6% 5% 100%

PRIMA AV ES IC

HS 72% 5% 3% 12% 5% 4% 100%

ES 42

Megacities and HSR in Europe

O-D matrix between Naples and Rome (trips %)

CAR

NAPLES ROME NAPLES ROME NAPLES ROME DEST

NAPLES ROME NAPLES ROME NAPLES ROME NAPLES ROME

NAPLES

0 68 0 62 0 66 0 66

PROV. OF PROV. OF ROME ROME NAPLES

0 33 0 38 0 26 0 32

86 0 91 0 81 0 85 0

10 0 8 0 10 0 10 0

PROV. OF PROV. OF ROME ROME NAPLES

0 24 0 29 0 27 0 26

96 0 91 0 82 0 92 0

2 0 1 0 6 0 2 0

OTHER

3 14 1 7 9 13 5 11

DEST ORIG NAPLES

Weekday

ROME

Saturday IC

0 53 0 55 0 61 0 57

NAPLES ROME

ORIG

NAPLES

NAPLES ROME

Total

NAPLES ROME

OTHER

2 8 8 9 12 6 5 8

NAPLES ROME

Sunday

DEST ORIG NAPLES

Weekday Saturday

ROME

DEST ORIG

NAPLES ROME

Sunday

NAPLES ROME

Total

NAPLES ROME

NAPLES

PROV. OF NAPLES

ROME

PROV. OF ROME

OTHER

0 62 0 70 0 70 0 68

0 32 0 28 0 25 0 28

88 0 86 0 87 0 87 0

7 0 7 0 4 0 6 0

5 6 8 2 9 5 7 4

NAPLES

PROV. OF NAPLES

ROME

PROV. OF ROME

OTHER

0 85 0 73 0 80 0 78

0 15 0 22 0 20 0 19

92 0 91 0 88 0 90 0

3 0 2 0 3 0 3 0

5 0 7 5 9 0 7 3

Weekday Saturday Sunday Total

Further research perspectives

 A definition of Mega-region in terms of commuting based on a morphological approach is needed.  A theoretical model can be proposed:  to explain the mechanisms through which metro areas integrate into mega-regions and  to understand what is the concrete role of HSR systems in this model.  This construct should be tested and synthesized in mathematical terms.