NEW METROPOLITAN PROCESSES ENCOURAGED BY HIGH-SPEED RAIL: THE CASES OF LONDON AND MADRID
V I C E NTE R O ME RO D E ÁV I L A S E R R ANO
UNIVERSITY OF CASTILLA -LA MANCHA APRIL 7, 2016
INTRODUCTION Initially: •HSR is an alternative to air transport between metropolises (400-600km)
Progressively: •More and more intermediate HSR stations (≈200km) Lately:
•HSR stations at the periphery of metropolitan areas (<100km): “Impossible” to isolate HSR-related consequences from others in big cities (i.e. Madrid) or small cities (i.e. CR)
AIM: OPPORTUNITIES OF HSR IN SMALL CITIES LESS THAN 100 KM OF METROPOLITAN AREAS
HYPOTHESIS Reinforce the metropolitan integration of the small city Connect the metropolitan periphery with far away places
Metropolitan sub-center? SAME HSR SERVICE AVAILABLE FROM CENTER AND PERIPHERY
• City location and metropolitan accessibility • Distance to Metropolitan Area Territorial & infrastructural factors: • Activities along metropolitan corridor • City characteristics • Station typology HSR services / frequencies (!!!) • Station location and accessibility
THE MADRID AND LONDON CITY-REGIONS SEGOVIA GUADALAJARA
STRATFORD EBBSFLEET
TOLEDO
≈6mill
Polarized and segregated metropolis: -N/NW high-income pop & offices -NE/E medium income pop & tech-logistics -S low-income pop & small low-tech manuf. Commuting ≈50km 3 HSR stations in 3 HSR lines at 60-80km
≈14mill
ASHFORD
High density and polycentric metropolis: - High population density - W (Heathrow) high-tech employment - E low-medium-income pop & manuf. Commuting ≈100-150km 3 HSR stations in 1 HSR line at 10/40/90km
TERRITORIAL & INFRASTRUCTURAL FACTORS GUADALAJARA
SEGOVIA
TOLEDO
83.000
53.000
83.000
City transportation location
•On NE strong metro & national corridor •Very good suburban rail and buses
•30 km of NW national & metropolitan corridor •Bad suburban rail and good buses
•50 km west of S strong national corridor & on SW corridor •No suburban rail since HSR, good buses
Distance to metropolitan centre
•60 km
•90 km by motorway •63 km by HSR
•80 km
Corridor lodged activities & pop.
•Industry, storage and distribution firms, of big size and good tech. •Intermediate socioprofessional groups
•Tertiary, university and office activities •Qualified socioprofessional groups
•Industry of small and low tech firms •Low socioprofessional groups
City characteristics
•No research university •No quality image •Provincial capital
•Private small univ. •World Heritage •Provincial capital
•Public university •High quality services •World Heritage •Regional capital
Station characteristics
•Through station
•Through station
•Terminus station
Station location
•8 km from city centre •Not connected to suburban/reg. rail/bus
•6 km from the city •Not connected to suburban/reg. rail/bus
•By the edge of the city centre but distant from offices •Near bus station
Population
MADRID Strong contradictions between the most appropriate corridors, cities, type and location of HSR stations for office decentralization
Each has a mixture of positive and negative characteristics to produce synergies with HSR
TERRITORIAL & INFRASTRUCTURAL FACTORS STRATFORD
EBBSFLEET
ASHFORD
250.000
155.000
74.000
Population City transportation location
•Just NE of the CBD •Near regional trains, underground and bus
•To the E, just outside the Green belt •No suburban rail/bus
•Important metro & international corridor •Traditional rail junction for the Southeast
Distance to metropolitan centre
•9 km
•37 km
•88 km
Corridor lodged activities & pop.
•No office activities •Intermediate socioprofessional groups
•High-tech activities to the W, not to the E •Intermediate socioprofessional groups
•Low density and rural •Other relevant cities nearby (Canterbury)
City characteristics
•Suburban area •Redevelopment area •2012 Olympics •No administration role
•Mixed suburban area of industry and quarries and housing •No quality services •No administration role
•Growth Area in South East Plan (2009) •No university •No quality services •No administration role
Station characteristics
•Through station
•Through station
•Through station
Station location
•Good urban transport connections planned
•Good transport connections •Large car park
•By the edge of the city centre •Connected to rail/bus
LONDON Greater need of office decentralization and reduction of inward commuting 3 HSR stations in 1 sole HSR line which may facilitate office decentralization… …but would have to change the existing office location tendencies (W)
HIGH-SPEED RAIL SERVICES *Outward daily services (January 2010)
MADRID
Northeast Corridor
Northern Corridor
Southern Corridor
LONDON
Southeast Corridor
Long distance
Metropolitan
MAD-Northeast
26
0
MAD-Guadalajara
6
0
Guadalajara-Northeast
6
0
MAD-North
12
5
MAD-Segovia
5
7
Segovia-North
5
5
MAD-South
0
0
MAD-Toledo
0
8
Toledo-South
0
0
LON-Continent
30
0
LON-Stratford
0
78
Stratford-Continent
0
0
Stratford-Ebbsfleet
0
67
LON-Ebbsfleet
0
67
Ebbsfleet-Continent
10
0
Ebbsfleet-Ashford
0
31
LON-Ashford
0
38
Ashford-Continent
5
0
HSR services available in these 6 HSR stations are substantially less numerous than those existing in the central HSR stations
The 6 HSR stations are much more linked with HSR services towards the metropolitan centre than to other distant cities
USE OF HSR METRO SERVICES *Source: >10,000 on-board surveys (2008/2009)
GUADALAJARA
SEGOVIA
TOLEDO
(Alternative to central station for long distance trips)
(Increase metropolitan integration by inwards commuting)
(Increase metropolitan integration by outwards commuting)
27% business (No AVANT) 82% Guadalajara-Northeast 18% users are from NE Madrid
TRAVEL PURPOSE
HSR PASSENGERS PROFILE
22% commuters 44% Toledo-Madrid (more balanced) 24% Madrid-Toledo
15% tourism 13% business
37% tourism 20% business
69% graduates (Mad-Bcn)
72% graduates
66% graduates
66% transferred
47% transferred
―
INDUCED TRAFFIC
―
CONNECT METRO PERIPHERY WITH FAR AWAY PLACES
95% Segovia-Madrid (inwards) 5% Madrid-Segovia (no congestion & live in corridor)
55% family
MODAL TRANSFER
METROPOLITAN INTEGRATION
49% commuters
33% from car 60km vs 90km 61% from bus & no congestion 6% from train (25’ vs. 2h)
47% from car 39% from bus 14% from train (25’ vs 90’)
34% induced
53% induced
Many alternative transport means for commuting (frequent, cheaper)
Improvement of metropolitan accessibility (esp. Segovia MAD): Segovia’s station is far from city center & limited high-level jobs
Great improvement of metropolitan accessibility (both ways): useful HSR configuration & high socioprofessional jobs in Toledo
Excellent HSR connection to Barcelona and Zaragoza
Northwest HSR line not finished
No farther HSR connection
CONCLUSIONS 1.
New metro transport mean & alternative HSR stations
2.
Opportunities for metropolitan peripheries • Territorial & infrastructural factors: cities, corridors, station configuration (connection to city, metropolitan center & HSR line) • HSR services (long distance vs. metropolitan) • Inward commuting to limited places in metro core (metro reinforcement) • Outward commuting to high-level professional jobs’ places
3.
Madrid vs. London • Madrid:
- HSR stations are too far to attract offices - Cities and corridors with office attraction potential are not consistent - Small number of HSR metropolitan services
• London:
- HSR stations at distances with office decentralization, but towards West - Redevelopment plans and feasible metropolitan planning
- High number of HSR metropolitan services similar to traditional services
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION Garmendia, M., Romero, V., Ureña, J.M., Coronado, J.M., and Vickerman, R. (2012): High-Speed Rail opportunities around metropolitan regions: the cases of Madrid and London. Journal of Infrastructure Systems (ASCE), 18:4, 305-313.
V I C E NTE R O ME RO D E ÁV I L A S E R R ANO
UNIVERSITY OF CASTILLA -LA MANCHA APRIL 7, 2016