Page 1

Conference Proceedings London, 25 May 2011

Using innovative transport technologies to stimulate regional development

Sustainable, cost-effective solutions to improve accessibility to, from and within peripheral regions in North-West Europe


Sintropher (Sustainable Integrated Tram-based Transport Options for Peripheral European Regions)

Sintropher is a transnational cooperation project bringing together five regions in North-West Europe. The project is due to last five years, with 14 partner agencies in five EU Member States. With a budget of €23m, it is part-financed by the EU INTERREG IVB programme, and involves a series of 36 feasibility evaluations, pilot investment and demonstration projects, as well as comparative analysis of EU best practice.

The Lead Partner is University College London, in partnership with:


The INTERREG IVB North-West Europe (NWE) Programme is a financial instrument of the European Unionʼs Cohesion Policy. The programme is investing money from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) into the economic, environmental, social and territorial future of North-West Europe (NWE).

The fund is used to co-finance projects that maximise the diversity of NWEʼs territorial assets by tackling common challenges through transnational cooperation. To this end, the Programme seeks organisations that are resolute in their ambition to contribute to a cohesive and sustainable territorial development of North-West Europe. Other transport-related projects in the programme include: Tramstore21, BAPTS and RoCK.

Further details about the INTERREG IVB programme for NorthWest Europe can be found at:

Using innovative transport technologies to stimulate regional development: 25 May, 2011

Improved transport links underpin jobs and growth, as reflected in the EUʼs 2020 Strategy, the European Commissionʼs review of Trans-European Networks, and a new transport White Paper. Meanwhile, a major debate on future EU Cohesion Policy and funding streams post-2013 continues, all within the framework of a new European Territorial Agenda. The Sintropher conference explored: • how innovative transport technologies can enhance regional connectivity; • the barriers and opportunities across the EU; • making things happen – in particular financing of investments and capturing development benefits.


Session one: Transport and Regional Development – a North-West European Perspective 2 Introduction: the wider policy framework 3





Keynote address: EU transport policy framework to 2020 Sandro Santamato, Head of Unit, DG MOVE, European Commission An insight into forthcoming EU transport policy and what it means for European Regions in terms of a Single European Transport Area

Session three: Innovation for development case studies 22 Tram-train technologies: concepts and comparisons Nils Jänig, Transport Technologie-Consult Karlsruhe Karlsruhe pioneered tram-train back in 1992. The technology has since been developed and taken on by other cities and regions. What is meant by tram-train today? Where can tram-train provide a cost-effective solution, and how far does available experience support the investment case?

European Territorial Cohesion – transport in the context of future regional policy Wolfgang Munch, Forward Studies, DG REGIO How does transport relate to regional policy in the EU? Viewing transport as an effective means to enhance economic development in the regions; how development opportunities are ʻcatalysedʼ by better transport


Keynote address: Connecting European regions through innovative transport technologies Professor Sir Peter Hall, University College London, UK New ways of addressing the challenges of accessibility and peripherality by considering innovations such as tram-train


The demonstration regions: the story so far Five demonstration regions in five EU member states are participating in the Sintropher project: Valenciennes (France); the Fylde Coast (UK); West Flanders (Belgium); North Hesse (Germany); and Nijmegen-Kleve (the Netherlands)

Session two: Masterclasses 14 Challenges and solutions: lessons learned 16 Financing regional transport in challenging economic times: providing more for less Alexander Jan, Head of Transport, Transaction Advice, Arup Why reduced budgets and spending cuts are likely to be felt most keenly in the regions. How to provide ʻmore for lessʼ. Examples of good practice and ʻsmarterʼ working when drawing up financial plans 18

Successful transport hubs: Creating transport hubs and economic development opportunities Michèle Dix, Managing Director of Planning, Transport for London Exploring how key nodes can be further developed, and best practice adapted to benefit a wide range of stations

Faster trains and the new railway age Pierre Laconte, former Director, UITP There is a key potential market for tilting trains on lines complementing the HS network, particularly at national borders which are less well served by national operators. A case in point is the forthcoming link between Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg Looking to the future with seamless travel and superhubs Dominik Brühwiler, Deputy Director and Head of Transportation Planning, Zürcher Verkehrsverbund Zürich main station is perhaps the pre-eminent example of a well-functioning superhub: passengers arrive at the long-distance station, cross the platform to a waiting light rail vehicle and travel seamlessly through the city centre to the suburbs and outlying regions

Session four: The way forward – targeting policy and investment to maximise development potential 28 Ticketing strategies to encourage development Tony Depledge, Policy Development Director, Arriva A successful ticketing policy is a key aspect of regional public transport, both in terms of ease of use and as a tool for growth

30 31

Making the case for trams and regional trams Marc Le Tourneur, Innovation and Development Directorate, Veolia Transdev The case for public transport development, particularly light rail/tram systems, in the context of climate change, peak oil and the economic crisis


Conclusions and next steps Conference programme

Speaker biographies

Additional conference resources, including video presentations, audio recordings and slide presentations, can be found on the Sintropher conference website: and clicking on downloads 1

Introduction: the wider policy framework

Improved transport links support jobs and growth, and help those economies coming out of recession. Yet paradoxically, improved access between highly-developed European regions may lead to increasing ʻperipheralisation of the peripheryʼ, says Sir Peter Hall, Sintropher project director and conference chair, Bartlett Professor of Planning and Regeneration, University College London Improved transport links are essential to underpin jobs and growth in a competitive EU and global environment, and to help those economies coming out of recession. This is important everywhere in the EU, but is vital in more remote regions where, paradoxically, improved access between the more central highlydeveloped regions may lead to increasing ʻperipheralisation of the peripheryʼ.

Europe, as well as highlighting particular technical, operational, and financial issues which motivate our work.

So this was the starting point for our conference, which presented a unique opportunity to hear case studies of sustainable, costeffective transport solutions that improve accessibility to, from and within peripheral regions in North-West Europe.

At European level, this is reflected in the EUʼs 2020 Strategy, the European Commissionʼs review of Trans-European Networks, and a new transport White Paper. Concurrently, there is a major debate on future EU Cohesion Policy and funding streams post2013, all of which fall under the framework of a new European Territorial Agenda.

The following pages present a summary of the day. Session one set the scene in policy terms, as well as outlining the Sintropher project. Expert-led masterclasses provided a framework for session two, with sessions three and four examining key aspects in encouraging regional development.

For those who took part, we hope that this report will provide a permanent memento of a very productive and exciting day. For the much wider audience of policy-makers, project developers and operators, we equally hope that it stimulates your own ideas.

Meanwhile, and more immediately, we all recognise that public expenditure across Europe is reduced, so what is available to us to enhance the connectivity of cities and regions across the EU, especially in those more peripheral regions? Can we use other approaches such as innovative transport technologies?

Sintropher itself is a project that aims to exploit the potential of new transport technologies. But the focus of our conference on 25 May 2011 was to place our work in a wider context. We wanted to look beyond specific project experience and explore how project results are fitting in with evolving EU and national policy across


EU transport policy: the framework to 2020

Sandro Santamato, Head of Unit, DG MOVE, European Commission, briefed delegates on forthcoming EU transport policy, focusing specifically on what such policy means in terms of a Single European Transport Area in which all residual barriers – between modes and between borders – are eliminated The key 2011 White Paper, one of a series of strategy documents issued every 10 years, presents a vision for the future. Each White Paper has a focus, explained Mr Santamato: in 1992 it was opening the transport market; in 2001, on rebalancing modes to fight capacity constraints, so influencing modal shift. In 2011, we see a further step forward to full modal integration. This will place transport in the wider ʻEU 2020ʼ perspective of climate change and economic growth, and provide a clear vision for the transport system of 2050, creating an agenda for promoting growth and jobs through greater resource efficiency and self sufficiency.

By 2050, key goals will include: • No more conventionally-fuelled cars in cities; • Forty per cent use of sustainable low carbon fuels in aviation; • At least 40 per cent cut in shipping emissions; • A 50 per cent shift of medium distance intercity; passenger and freight journeys from road to rail and waterborne transport. Each of the above will contribute to a 60 per cent cut in transport emissions by the middle of the century.

Policy guidelines include the adoption of a roadmap taking in 40 concrete initiatives for the next decade in order to build a competitive transport system that will increase mobility, remove major barriers in key areas and fuel growth and employment. The proposals aim to dramatically reduce Europeʼs dependence on imported oil: today, transport systems depend on oil for about nine per cent of the projected increase in global oil use.

greater use of more energy-efficient modes; and increasing the efficiency of transport and of infrastructure use with information systems and market-based incentives.

1. There will be no ban on cars, said Mr Santamato. We will aim to halve the use of ʻconventionally-fuelledʼ cars in urban transport by 2030; phase them out in cities by 2050; and achieve essentially CO2-free city logistics by 2030 by supporting walking, cycling and public transport.

Importantly for Sintropher, the White Paper aims to deal with growing congestion and poorer accessibility, along with a growing infrastructure gap in the enlarged EU.

2. Use 40 per cent of low-carbon sustainable fuels in aviation and 40 per cent (if feasible 50 per cent) less emissions in the maritime sector by 2050.

Facing increasing competitive pressure in the global economy, the White Paper places the transport industry as central to a healthy economy: in the EU it directly employs around 10 million people and accounts for about five per cent of GDP.

3. Consolidate volumes in terms of both freight and passengers; moving 30 per cent of road freight over 300 km to other modes by 2030, and more than 50 per cent by 2050.

Transport is a business, stated Mr Santamato, and the future prosperity of our continent will depend on the ability of all of its regions to remain part of an integrated world economy. This is especially true of the more peripheral regions, where prices are rising fastest.

4. Triple the length of the high-speed rail network. By 2050 the majority of medium-distance passenger transport should go by rail. 5. Build a fully functional and EU-wide multimodal TEN-T ʻcore networkʼ by 2030.

We also face growing congestion and poorer accessibility, and fuel costs and congestion levels are expected to rise significantly by 2030, leading to further divergences in accessibility. The depletion of reserves and growing global demand would lead to ever higher oil prices. The number of cars in the world is projected to increase from around 750 million today to more than 2.2 billion by 2050. Transport accounts for about one-quarter of greenhouse gas emissions: 60 per cent comes from passenger transport, one- quarter is urban, less than one-quarter is inter-continental and over half is medium-distance. The White Paper outlines a tight carbon budget for the transport sector: using less energy, using cleaner energy, and efficiently exploiting a multimodal, integrated and ʻintelligentʼ network. Ten key goals for competitive and resource efficient transport have been identified, across three areas: the use of new and sustainable fuels and propulsion systems; optimisation of the performance of multimodal logistic chains, including making

6. By 2050, connect all core network airports to the rail network; all seaports to rail freight and, where possible, to the inland waterway system.

7. Deployment of SESAR by 2020 and completion of the European Common Aviation Area. Deployment of ERTMS, ITS, SSN and LRI, RIS and Galileo.

8. Develop ICT capability, exploiting the wealth of data and data produced by transport systems to move towards seamless information and ticketing solutions. By 2020, establish the framework for a European multimodal transport information, management and payment system. 9. By 2050, move close to zero fatalities in road transport.


10. Move towards full application of ʻuser paysʼ and ʻpolluter paysʼ principles.

The White Paper outlines a tight carbon budget for the transport sector: using less energy, using cleaner energy, and efficiently exploiting a multimodal, integrated and ʻintelligentʼ network

Long-distance travel and intercontinental freight



Adequate capacity and improved overall travel experience (efficient links between airports and rail, minimum hassle for personal security screening)

High global maritime standards and more efficient hinterland connections for ports

demonstration projects, in an integrated way. An EU Strategic Transport Technology Plan (2011) will bring together infrastructure and regulatory requirements, coordination of a range of actors and research, and consolidate innovation initiatives.

A Clean Transport Systems Strategy (2012) will introduce specific measures to facilitate the introduction of Clean Vehicles (rules on interoperability of charging infrastructure, guidelines and standards for refuelling infrastructure). We will see procedures and financial assistance for urban mobility plans, on a voluntary basis, alongside common EU standards for carbon footprint ʻcalculatorsʼ.

Modern vessels and cleaner fuels for shipping

Intercity travel Seamless multimodal travel Paperless logistics and transport (online multimodal info and ticketing, multimodal hubs) Multimodal long-distance freight corridors Quality service and enforced passengersʼ rights No barriers to maritime transport Near-zero casualties for Cleaner trucks on shorter road distances

Urban transport and commuting

Non-fossil mobility (clean and efficient cars; higher share of public transport)

Alternative propulsion for urban buses and taxis; better infrastructure for walking and cycling)

Infrastructure EU transport infrastructure policy needs a common vision and sufficient resource. The costs of transport should be reflected in an undistorted way. Revision of TEN-T (2011) is based on the creation of a ʻcore networkʼ and on a ʻcorridorsʼ approach. Over €1.5 trillion investment is mooted for 2010-2030.

A single framework for the coherent use of TEN-T cohesion and structural funds is needed. The conditionality of funding will ensure focus on EU priorities and the adoption of new technologies (2011). There will be single management structures for rail freight corridors, and guidelines for the application of infrastructure costs to passenger cars (2012). In a second stage we will see a framework for the internalisation of costs to all road vehicles.

Better interface between long distance and lastmile Freight consolidation centres and delivery points

ITS for better logistics, and low-noise and lowemission trucks for deliveries

International The opening up of third country markets in transport services, products and investments will continue to have a high priority. We will aim for the completion of the European Common Aviation Area of 58 countries and 1 billion inhabitants by 2020. Internal market rules will be extended through international organisations (ICAO, IMO, OTIF, OSJD, UNECE and the international river commissions, etc) and, where relevant, attain full EU membership.

These goals can be achieved, says Mr Santamato, with a focus on four key areas: the internal market; innovation, infrastructure and international markets.

The internal market We should aim to create a genuine Single European Transport Area by eliminating all residual barriers between modes and national systems. A Single European Railway Area would see the domestic passenger market open to competition; competitive tendering for public service contracts; and structural separation between infrastructure management and service provision. An e-Maritime initiative should support paperless and intelligent shipping. There should be a social code for mobile road transport workers, and fewer restrictions to road cabotage. Access to real time travel and traffic information will facilitate multi-modal travel planning and integrated ticketing and, finally, we need further consolidation of passengersʼ rights legislation.

Innovation EU research needs to address the full cycle of research, innovation and deployment holistically, for example private data use and

We will aim to extend our transport and infrastructure policy to our immediate neighbours, including the preparation of mobility continuity plans. We will promote our approach globally: opening up transport markets to free and undistorted competition and environmentally sustainable solutions.

To conclude, Mr Santamato suggested that we need a transport system similar to that of the telecoms network: we do not need to worry too much about the technology that delivers the service, and should be happy to use different technology in different contexts, but we do care that the service be provided efficiently and cost-effectively, down to the last mile if possible. I


European territorial cohesion: transport in the context of future regional policy

There is an exciting possibility in the future to relate transport investments and policy much more coherently to regional, and especially territorial, cohesion. Wolfgang Munch, European Commission DG REGIO, explained how the promotion of territorial cohesion will address areas of peripherality The 2011 White Paper is a vision of what European transport should be, said Mr Munch. But in focusing on how to make this reality in the current financial situation, there is a need to look long term. Work is done within a seven-year frame, and we plan to spend €350 billion on cohesion in the period 2007-2013. The focus is on regional growth and learning the lessons of the past.

The territorial cooperation objective receives €8.7 billion (2.5 per cent of the fund). Cohesion Policy (2007-2013) focuses on Lisbon priorities (innovation and the knowledge society, employment, environment/risk prevention and accessibility). Enhancing accessibility is of key importance to strengthening regional economies and achieving cohesion and competitiveness.

The regional competitiveness and employment objective targets regions that are facing difficulties such as changes in key sectors, decline of traditional activities, economic/social crisis, deterioration in urban areas and depopulation of rural areas. Around € 55 billion (16 per cent of the fund) will be aimed at these 168 regions, taking in 314 million people.

About half our spending goes to big infrastructure projects, says Mr Munch, but we also invest in secondary connectivity and the urban environment, to the tune of €82 billion: a significant share of public investments. Major transport infrastructure has been financed by our fund to more than 60 percent in the red regions (see map below). But our focus is not only on transport. In analysing why regions grow, we also look at developments such as the capital

Transport is included in development strategies, receiving €84.8 billion in the 2007-2013 period, or 24.1 per cent of the cohesion budget, up 69 per cent compared with 2000-2006. Investment in TEN-T (trans-European transport network) is estimated at €43 billion, with the Cohesion Fund for less wealthy countries contributing in the region of €35 billion to TEN-T.

Our future cohesion policy has three objectives: the convergence and solidarity objective is a key item, with €283 billion (81.5 per cent of the convergence fund), aimed at supporting less developed regions to ʻcatch upʼ. The ʻconvergenceʼ policy looks at regions in which GDP per head does not reach 75 per cent of the EU average, around 84 regions taking in more than 154 million people.

0-1 1-2 2-5


10-20 > 20

no data

Cohesion Policy is an important factor in public investments in less developed regions: share of ERDF Cohesion Fund in total public investment 2002-2006. Map shows percentage figures 5

Transport infrastructure: highest speeds on railway sections according to timetables, 2010


ʻEnhancing accessibility is of key importance to strengthening regional economies and achieving cohesion and competitivenessʼ Wolfgang Munch, European Commission DG REGIO

stock dimension: essentially the level of past and present investment in a regionʼs infrastructure (transport as well as ICT); the labour market dimension, which includes policies relating to both the labour market and human capital development, so avoiding dormitory settlements; and the business environment dimension, which covers a range of policies designed to support firms, such as cluster policies, policies to promote links between research and industry, and, in particular, the promotion of innovation in regions.

coordination between member states needs to be enhanced through transnational links. It is also apparent that, as complex projects require lengthy preparation, there is a need for a project pipeline ahead of time. We need to mobilise national and regional implementation capacities and develop better coordination between TEN-T and Cohesion Policy, which will result in better identification of priority axes and define and select better priority projects. Future policy will align to European objectives as set out in EU 2020, agreed by member states. There will be a reinforced strategic framework: where funds are available we need to think harder on where to invest, and to target real priorities. Our role is merely advisory, although we are powerful in strategic terms, but member states choose and implement objectives of investment. A common strategic framework will serve to coordinate many policies and funds, and translate policy objectives into reality, so defining investment priorities. Partnership contracts between parties will feature new, more binding targets and resources, along with conditions for targets and success. Operational programmes will help to define investment policies on national or regional levels, enabling us to see more closely where challenges are occurring .We will encourage thematic concentration in that wealthier regions will concentrate on fewer priorities than in the past. We are aiming for increased effectiveness through simplification and the use of conditions. Our support is aimed at solidarity with the less-developed regions and member states, with a focus on improved cohesion policy for all regions. Transitional regions or ʻinbetweeniesʼ may be eligible for extra aid.

Future cohesion policy for transport There are several elements for discussion. We plan to match TENT investments more closely with European priorities; and our conditions will favour the urban environment. There will be more binding TEN-T guidelines, more conditions aimed at cohesion policy, for example making connectivity more binding. There will be better coordination between TEN-T programmes and cohesion policy (reporting, rules, management, assessment), making funds easier to access for end users such as Sintropher. Importantly, we will prioritise investments according to their contribution to mobility and sustainability – a new approach for us. We will also make use of the potential for leverage: there is now more scope for the use of financial instruments such as loans and rotating funds.

There have been many achievements. The contribution of cohesion policy to TEN-T in 2000-2006, via the ERDF in the transport sector, has been significant: 100,000 km of roads and 4,000 km of rail were built or reconstructed, accounting for 24 per cent of motorway expansion and 13 per cent of high speed rail expansion respectively in the EU. The concept of filling missing links was fundamental to the development of strategy and co-financed investments in many member states. There is much to learn from the lessons of the past. Infrastructure is an essential element for regional development (connection, congestion, modes, nodes), and will remain a prime investment area. But it needs to be embedded in an integrated development strategy in order to avoid ʻleaking by linkingʼ; and member states need to work at linking with other states too.To this end,


From the draft regulations that will be put together in the coming months, we expect early conclusions of the negotiations in parliament and council towards the middle or end of 2012, followed by preparation for implementation in 2013 and beyond. Cohesion policy continues to address all aspects of regional development. Member states and regions will have the chance to embed their transport investments in complementary initiatives. I

Connecting European regions through innovative transport technologies

Sintropher is, says project director Professor Sir Peter Hall, UCL, beginning to produce significant and interesting results.The May 2011 conference looked beyond specific project experience to explore how project results are fitting in with an evolving picture of changing EU and national policy. The following pages outline Sintropherʼs place in the wider policy framework context new transport technologies. ʻWe specifically need to look at ways of using these technologies to develop seamless networks of public transport to compete with the attractions of the private car.ʼ

In outlining the aims and objectives of Sintropher to date, Professor Sir Peter Hall stressed the relationship of territorial cohesion policy to transport policy: ʻThe possibility of relating transport investments much more coherently to regional, in particular territorial, cohesion investments is at the heart of our entire project.ʼ

The projectʼs work to date is beginning to deliver results on key issues: namely inter-operational track sharing with heavy rail motive power; alternatives to the DC/AC hybrid developed in Kassel (DE); the relation to a main hub connecting regions to the wider world, the potential of new public transport links to trigger either regeneration or new development and, finally, the viability of servicing regional airports.

His conference presentation summarised project status and outcomes to date, highlighting the highly peripheral nature of the regions with which Sintropher is concerned in the context of wider EU policy, and set against the backdrop of the 2011 White Paper which places transport policy in the wider ʻEU 2020ʼ perspective.

Inter-operational track sharing: Kassel pioneered interoperation with high speed ICE trains. But Nijmegen (NL) has rejected interoperation as too complex. In West Flanders and Valenciennes (FR), for technical reasons, it is not even an option: in West Flanders (BE), the issue is gauge; in Valenciennes the authorities have deemed that running trams over the railway is not an allowable option. On the Fylde Coast (UK), although the consultantʼs final report is eagerly anticipated, the possibilities for interoperation look limited, although it does appear that interoperation in this case will be essential if the tram extension is to connect with the regional hub at Preston.

ʻOur definition of peripheral is slightly different from that used by the EU,ʼ stressed Sir Peter. ʻOur regions in North-West Europe are poorly served by rail and air links, in particular rail, and have slow and indirect public transport connections to key national networks, especially those evolving high-speed rail systems.ʼ

Given the technical advances and economic and social changes that impinge on transport policy, he said, especially in North-West Europe, we need to understand how these impact on the parameters, possibilities, potential and restraints of developing

North Hesse (DE)

Interoperation (track share)?


Relation to hub?

Yes: except Lossetalbahn

AC/DC & diesel hybrid

Directly served: KS-Wilhelmshöhe – Frankfurt

Development / regeneration trigger?

Airport link?

Multiple opportunities

(awaiting consultant report)

Three VINEX sites on northern extension

No: airport link rejected, demand lacking

Nijmegen (NL)

No: rejected


No: existing rail / future tram to Arnhem hub > Düsseldorf

Valenciennes (FR)

No: parallel but separate


Yes: Quiévrain – Brussels

West Flanders (BE)

No: parallel but separate


Yes; but slow link compared with Ostend hub > Brussels

Three major opportunities

Not examined so far

Fylde Coast (UK)

(consultantsʼ report is underway)

(awaiting consultant report)

(awaiting consultant report)

Future housing areas

(awaiting consultant report)



ʻThe possibility of relating transport investments much more coherently to regional, in particular territorial, cohesion investments is at the heart of our entire projectʼ Professor Sir Peter Hall

Motive power: the unique North Hesse (DE) diesel vehicle is a success, yet other partners have rejected hybrid technology, finding it too complex. The current EU standard is for electrified railways, so why consider hybrids – particularly as the diesel variant no longer corresponds to the sustainability objectives now set out in EU transport policy.

Preliminary conclusions indicate that:

• interoperation – very mixed views and no huge enthusiasm;

• motive power – little enthusiasm for the diesel

hybrid – is it on the way out, and will an alternative be found; • the relationship to the regional hub is absolutely crucial, but context and geography varies from region to region; • development and regeneration – again the geography varies but tram-train links offer considerable potential for regeneration; • regional airport links – at present these seem to be poor prospects.

Creating prototypes for diesel hybrids that do conform to regulation is likely to prove economically unviable, yet the challenge remains for many tracks, such as the South Fylde Line in Blackpool, which will remain non-electrified even after the main line in the north station is electrified. In the context of the UK governmentʼs commitment to the very radical target of an 80 per cent carbon reduction target by 2050, the most radical of any European member state, the question is whether any other technology out there – and the technology is evolving very rapidly – could take the place of the diesel hybrid.

One interesting technology, suggested Sir Peter, is the Chinesedeveloped supercapacitor bus that picks electricity up from feeder stations above the vehicle at bus stops – relatively easy when there are frequent stops, yet in the context of tram-train technology, travelling across open countryside will obviously be a limitation. Could a technology like this be developed here in Europe to serve the needs of non-electrified rail lines?

current aim is to support and trigger new regeneration around the slightly sleepier towns inland.

On the Fylde Coast, an extension of the new tram along tramtrain principles should generate development in newly accessible areas, plus regeneration of run-down areas in the existing resort.

Relationship to the regional hub: The next interesting finding is the nature of the relationship with the key regional hub in each of our demonstration systems, and in this each region faces a specific set of challenges. In Kassel, the hub station is central to the tram-train network – no problem there.

Extending connectivity to regional airports: Our exploration of the potential for extending connectivity to regional airports has revealed the most surprising findings. In Nijmegen, for example, the airports concerned are regional operations depending very much on low-cost traffic.

Yet Nijmegen may well find itself better connected through the Kleve hub; for interregional connections, for instance to Dusseldorf, the fast German ICE runs rapidly to Dusseldorf and beyond from Arnhem station, which many passengers might consider a better alternative.

Their passengers come from a wide area, mainly by car, and public transport doesnʼt suit them. And finally, the airport operators themselves, being tightly squeezed by the deals theyʼve made with airline operators, are frequently heavily dependent on parking revenues and have no wish to see the tram arrive at all. In addition, stated Sir Peter, rising fuel costs are likely to impact negatively on low cost operations, with the possible closure of many flight routes.

In Nijmegen, thereʼs also a need to connect with an educational campus about 4 km south of the city centre, and to serve large new housing developments between Nijmegen which are effectively bypassed by the existing heavy rail link.

We will develop, said Sir Peter, these emerging themes as ongoing project reports, and we hope that these will provide important outputs and guidance for policy makers and decisiontakers across the EU.

In West Flanders, the proposed hub will continue to offer – unless thereʼs a radical change – a relatively slow connection to metropolitan central Brussels, compared with the existing Ostend hub on the existing coast tram system.

Potential for development and regeneration varies hugely in West Flanders, where the coastline has been successfully regenerated and developed. This is a model for any coastal region looking for regeneration – Blackpool, for example. But our


The conclusions of our work will be reported in two yearsʼ time at the end of the project, including the outcomes of additional analysis being taken forward in Sintropherʼs complementary areas of work (for more on these, see page 30). I

The demonstration regions: the story so far

Five demonstration regions in five EU member states are participating in the Sintropher project: North Hesse (Germany); the Fylde Coast (UK); Valenciennes (France); West Flanders (Belgium); and Nijmegen-Kleve (the Netherlands). Each region is implementing a programme of technical and economic feasibility evaluations for new systems, pilot investment projects and demonstration projects. The overall project will complement this by a set of comparative analyses of EU best practice

NW Europe is in itself a core region, but has peripheral areas within it


North Hesse (DE): tram-train ʻmentor regionʼ

Sintropher aims to demonstrate the potential of new transport technologies, in particular, although not exclusively, the tram-train concept first developed in Karlsruhe, Germany, 20 years ago. Our ʻmentorʼ partner region North Hesse, focusing on the city of Kassel, is key to Sintropher, lying at the crossroads of many national road and rail links. The importance of maintaining and growing the economic competitiveness of the northern part of the state cannot be underestimated. Good transport links, for example with Frankfurt in the southern Hesse region, are key.

In response, the city and the region have, over the years, built an integrated network of tram-trains based the Karlsruhe tram-train model – trams that can run off city street tracks on to the main line railway. Importantly for Sintropher, this solution involved the development of diesel-hybrid tram technology. Key areas of exploration for Sintropher, along with an assessment of tram-train technologies, are strategies supporting passenger use and takeup: for example ticketing and customer service, effective public transport interchanges, and marketing. A feasibility study into extending the RegioTram network to further centres of employment in the Kassel region has been running since 2007, with special focus on its impact on the local and regional economy to date.

In Kassel, regional trams are integrated in the city centre: most of these trams change power from city tram electricity at 750 volts DC to main line electricity. The system is based on the principle of interoperation with regular trains on the heavy rail system. This principle of interoperation, developed in Karlsruhe and elaborated in Kassel, is at the heart of the German tram-train concept, and Sintropher is exploring ways in which this system could be emulated in other EU member states. A further innovation here is the electro-diesel hybrid tram, which can operate on non-electrified routes by virtue of its onboard diesel engine

Our Kassel partners are continuing to work within Sintropher on fine-tuning aspects of the system, in particular on marketing the system both to potential passengers and to developers in order to stimulate the integration of stations with local development plans, so boosting development potential around key stations.

Theyʼre also working on seamless web information systems, particularly the integration of on-vehicle and off-vehicle systems that would enable users to access, via a smartphone, a constant stream of real-time information about network flows and travel options. Such usability is a terribly important aspect of Sintropher and many other key transport projects: a crucial key to the provision of a viable model for local regional development.


The demonstration regions: the story so far...

Fylde Coast (UK): light rail technology improves accessibility to support economic growth in a tourism-led economy

Valenciennes (FR): pioneering passing loop and signalling technology

At Valenciennes, close to the north-eastern border of France and the Belgian border, one tram line already operates and work is underway on a second. The new, relatively inexpensive line will utilise novel passing loop and signalling technology on 30 km of single track tramway planned to cross the border into Belgium, using a currently abandoned line.

Sintropher has enabled appraisal of the potential for light rail technology to improve this peripheral economyʼs accessibility, including the potential use of tram-train. Work has focused on the routes between Blackpool, Lytham and St Annes and, in the longer term, Preston.

Importantly, because of Valenciennesʼ peripheral position in France, a potentially good connection through French-speaking Belgium into Brussels could provide additional economic opportunities, as well as old industrial town as well as servicing opportunities in the Brussels region via a connection to the Belgian national railways.

Blackpool has two railway stations. The North Fylde Line services run into North station, adjacent to Blackpool town centre. The South Fylde Line service runs into the smaller South station. The North Fylde Line will be electrified from May 2015, after which electric trains will increase rail capacity and quality. Fylde Coast residents can change at Preston for fast trains travelling between London and Scotland.

Blackpoolʼs famous tramway is undergoing a £10 million upgrade, which underpins Sintropherʼs appraisal work. The refurbished system will re-open in April 2012. Business cases to extend the current system to Blackpool North railway station, Blackpool Airport and connections to the South Fylde Line, using the Flexity 2 tram fleet constructed for the refurbished Tramway, are being prepared. Tram-train operation over routes to Preston is identified as a longterm objective, eventually providing seamless Fylde Coast rail access with tram-train inter-running with heavy rail vehicles. The North Fylde Line electrification makes future tram-train/heavy rail operation opportunities available, although these are only possible in the long-term. In addition to the current four trains per hour service, Blackpool Council hopes that the Inter City West Coast refranchising process will enable a direct London rail link, withdrawn in 2003, to be restored and this is a corporate priority.

The new Valenciennes tramway will use a single track infrastructure for 30 km; the first time in Europe that the single track system will be used on such a long distance. Passing loop and signalling technology is being pioneered

An extension of the new tram along tram-train principles should generate development in newly accessible areas


West Flanders (BE): creating two new interchange stations (tram, rail and bus), so stimulating regeneration opportunities

Nijmegen (NL) to Kleve (DE): new connections to serve regions with increasingly close economic ties

In the Nijmegen-Kleve region, we are exploring the potential for the creation of a cross-boundary line connecting Nijmegen at the far eastern side of the Netherlands to the German city of Kleve. The project involves restoring a disused rail line across the border.

West Flanders, on the Belgian coast near the French border, boasts a modernised 70 km narrow gauge coastal tram that operates as a commercial success.

The initial project plan involves building an inland extension, running through the open countryside, to join an existing branch railway line with connections to Brussels. The focus is on creating two new interchange stations (tram, rail and bus), so stimulating regeneration opportunities.

The line from Nijmegen to Kleve was closed in 1991, and, as a result of demographic changes and altered mobility needs, the reopening of the rail connection is being investigated. All of this brings the Ruhr metropolitan area within closer range.

The study will develop three transport options (tram, with the possibility of integration with the proposed tram network to be developed in Nijmegen; tram-trains that can use the 驶heavy rail始 infrastructure under certain conditions; and Regional Express). Some German stakeholders have already indicated that they are interested in extending the heavy rail D眉sseldorf-Kleve Regional Express to Nijmegen.

The focus in Belgium is on improving accessibility between three towns and municipalities in the Westhoek area in the western part of West Flanders. The coast itself is served by the 68km coast tram (Kusttram) and by a parallel branch of SNCB, the Belgian national railway, to de Panne near the French border where it connects with the tram. Tourism is important for the region, and would benefit from enhanced transport links

Nijmegen, Kleve and the surrounding municipalities have increasing involvement, thanks partly to closer economic ties and the migration of Dutch citizens to Germany. The large educational establishments at Nijmegen始s Heijendaal campus are attracting a growing number of German students. In addition, the former military air base at Weeze in Germany has developed over a short period into a regional airport, which is also important for the Netherlands. The number of destinations and passengers is increasing constantly, and approximately half of the passengers are Dutch 13

Challenges and solutions: learning the lessons

Alongside the demonstration projects, Sintropher is pioneering analysis of crosscutting themes in four complementary areas of work: how decisions on investments are made and evaluated; how to best develop accessible interchanges; how to facilitate regeneration and how to support the marketing of trams and tram-train systems. These issues were explored in three conference masterclasses and during an active discussion session Three particular themes were discussed with particular interest: the changing nature of funding structures and the potential rise of incremental, small-scale development rooted in regionally-based initiatives; the potential for capturing the uplift in land values that improved regional accessibility would deliver; and the need for integrated urban and transport planning systems, ideally rooted in regional authorities based on ʻfunctionalʼ areas. ʻA huge amount of work has been carried out over the past 40 years in trying to define ʻfunctionalʼ or natural regions,ʼ says Sir Peter Hall: in effect regions around cities or towns that try to describe the commuting and travel patterns into and around those towns. Sintropher, being primarily concerned with the interrelationship between transport policy and spatial policy, aims to translate these rather academic views into political and administrative reality.

Operating at the appropriate scale is also key to success. ʻIf we invest in creating a small-scale regional transport system, we increase access across the region and bring real advantages for everyone living in there: for those involved in commerce, retail, education and leisure.ʼ

In Germany, says Professor Holzapfel, transport planners have traditionally had a great deal of influence across planning issues, with the result that urban designers and planners have found themselves trying to mitigate the impact of the impact of large scale transport scheme rather than being involved from the outset as strategic partners. ʻWe need to step back and consider smallscale solutions instead of looking at the large scale,ʼ he says. ʻSmall-scale matters may demand more planning skills and more time and resource, but the results of small-scale interventions can frequently be very positive.ʼ

In the UK, for example, Sir Peter suggests, the recently formed Local Enterprise Partnerships, (LEPs), are a ʻweird bunchʼ in terms of geography. Although the UK Government began with a definition of LEPs as functional regions, in fact many of them are not, says Sir Peter.

Few countries have achieved such effective functional systems. Sir Peter cites the Île-de-Franceʼs single public transport system as a positive example. It works well, he states, simply because itʼs covering the right geographical, social and economic area.

The UKʼs Transport for London network, operational across greater London, is another example of a transport authority operating across a functional region. But outside of the greater London area, for example at our demonstration site in NW England, there is no single regional agency, which makes planning and implementation much more difficult, says Sir Peter.

In Kassel, he explains, the integrated tram-rail system was planned very carefully, making sure that all the interests of the region, from city centre to small communities outside the region, were taken into account.

ʻA large-scale system may improve one connection, but improved accessibility in the whole region has the boosted economy and improved the urban situation in Kassel and around.ʼ

Stressing the regionality and integration of Kasselʼs tram-train service was also key to encouraging public buy-in and ownership. ʻIn Kassel, we approached this as a regional system, and so people adopted it and owned it as their system. Being able to relate to the system in this way, rather than options brought in from remote national operators, can lead to high levels of behavioural change. In effect, people must perceive the system as their system.ʼ In Kassel, they did.

ʻOne has to proceed ad hoc as best one can, short of a major political rethink. Transport planners and regional planners need to work together to design suitable systems because we need to focus on both the technical and operational characteristics of transport networks, and also the basic geography of the region that transport must serve.ʼ He looks to recent developments in Manchester, northern England, which has seen The Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) established in partnership with the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA), which acts as the voice of the 10 local authorities of Greater Manchester, complete with a new Transport for Greater Manchester Committee to support the GMCA in setting transport policy.

Professor Helmut Holzapfel from The University of Kassel (Universität Kassel) focuses on integrated transport planning. He is a member of the Sintropher research team, and coordinator of work package four: innovative marketing initiatives. ʻWe need to focus on travel planning that is part of a comprehensive regional urban plan,ʼ he stresses. ʻThis can be complex because, frequently, different local authorities and departments do not understand each other. New, and better, systems of public

transport can only be successful if all disciplines work together, and the advantages of a better system is visible to all sectors, including the public.ʼ

ʻWe gave each train a name related to a local theme, for example the local Brothers Grimm tales. We made the trains relate to these local stories and fairy tales, encouraging the public to get involved with helping to name the trams and trains. This kind of initiative is only possible with a regionally-rooted project, run by a regional authority.ʼ

ʻIt is the regionalisation of public transport that has led to the success of public transport developments in Germany,ʼ says Professor Holzapfel, ʻas regions can now access funds from central government to autonomously manage their own public transport schedules and systems. With the regions now in a position of responsibility, they can also invest more, and this regionalisation has been a very decisive factor in Germany for the success of this type of project.ʼ


ʻMarketing can, and does, change behaviour massively in the private sector. I believe that the same can be done to promote public transport. Itʼs a case of finding out what motivates people, and making public transport as sexy as the private car is today. We need a new kind of marketing agency working within a regional transport agency, as the job must be done over a whole regionʼ Sir Peter Hall Masterclass 1: Financing regional transport in challenging times, with Alexander Jan, Head of Transaction Advice, Arup; and Marc Le Tourneur, Veolia TransDev. Summarised by Chair Ron Dixon, consultant financial advisor

Mr Valk also gave a short supplementary presentation about the national tram-train trial in Sheffield. He thought that this was a positive experience of cooperation between bodies; but that one of the main challenges, paralleled by those working in other member states on similar schemes, is the difficulty of aligning the very different regimes – technical, legal, everything – between heavy rail and light rail.

In respect of ways in which we will fund projects in the future, one of the key things discussed was the need to be more imaginative about ʻfunding cocktailsʼ: the creative mix of funding that comes together to take a project forward. The group recognised that even though such ʻcocktailsʼ are necessary, such a system favoured the richer rather than the more peripheral areas. Creative funding is not a perfect solution, but is nevertheless part a package that may help to get schemes funded.

Running light rail vehicles on heavy rail tracks is not easy in any country. Mr Valk felt that the tram-train needed an improved appraisal method – a question which is currently engaging policy makers in the UKʼs Department for Transport (DfT), and which Sintropherʼs complementary work areas are aiming to investigate.

Secondly, the group suggested that the regions look at less ambitious projects rather than large, expansive schemes. The third and final point was to take a coordinated and comprehensive approach, as with the French experience of tram development, where a coordinated tram scheme was supported by related measures such as increasing the cost of parking in the town – measures which may, of course, be political dynamite in many areas (for more detail on funding options, see page 16).

A final point is the challenge of capturing land value uplift stemming from light rail development, because the UKʼs newly formed Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) have no powers in this respect – they have, in effect, no powers whatsoever – and this does remain a critical issue if transport schemes of any kind are raising land values inside or outside major urban areas.

This groupʼs first points were very UK-related – is the north really a poor relation of London and the south of the country? Secondly, as a senior Dutch transport professional working in the UK, Mr Valk explained that he had found a lack of integration of transport modes, for instance rail and bus – with the exception of London. Surprisingly, Mr Valk also found surprisingly little conversion of light rail to heavy rail in the UK. Maybe the tram-train trial, or what comes afterwards, will change that, he suggested.

Michèle Dix covered three areas. One was how to create effective, seamless interchanges – and Transport for London (TfL) has some very good published guidelines for that, which are available on its website. The second was how to use urban development to help finance new interchanges, which is a key issue in the UK, where private sector money is heavily relied on. The third dimension was how to use interchanges to stimulate urban development.

Masterclass 3: Creating transport hubs and economic development opportunities, with Michèle Dix, managing Director of Planning, Transport for London (TfL). Summarised by Chair Colin Osborne, Project Manager, Sintropher

Masterclass 2: The keys to successful transport investment – European case studies, with Anton Valk, Chief Executive, Abellio. Summarised by Chair Professor Peter Hall

Another UK problem in the north of the country is the lack of an overall regional agency to coordinate transport – which was also true in the time of the Regional Development Agencies (there were three of them in this particular area) – and a lack of political influence in the south.

The discussion focused on the need to exploit new mechanisms to attract developersʼ money. In the UK planning system, there agreements in place that can be negotiated with developers, including a new instrument called the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), which TfL is planning to make good use of.

Another major point for the UK, with our privatised system of transport, is that franchises are given to the transport operating companies for typically only around five to seven years. There was a general feeling that these franchises need to be longer, although, again perhaps surprisingly, Mr Valk thought that this was not significant because the rolling stock is leased. Yet the main point is that a longer franchise allowed an easier relationship to develop with Network Rail, the rail infrastructure provider. Mr Valk also felt – and this is perhaps his most important point – that the critically important thing was to develop cooperation between the transport operating companies, in his case Northern Rail, Network Rail as the infrastructure provider and, in the bigger urban areas, with the Passenger Transport Executives, the PTEs. He suggested that, in the seven years in which his team had been working in the Northern Rail franchise, this had begun to work well.

TfL is also developing the concept of strategic interchanges, especially in the outer London areas, by creating a more effective network of interchanges that will create both a better system of trips and new opportunities for trips. Creating good interchanges inevitably involves partnership working between different agencies, which can be challenging. The best advice is to create a win-win situation where ʻthe sum is greater than the partsʼ and all partners can benefit from the development.


The final point was the stimulation of urban development. There is a balance to be struck between funding transport and relating that to urban development. Before investing, TfL requires a density and a scale of urban development which sometimes is greater than local people want. There needs to be a balance in negotiation, illustrating how closely transport planning and investment needs to be integrated with wider spatial planning. I

Financing regional transport in challenging economic times: doing more with less

In terms of transport, says Alexander Jan, Head of Transport, Transaction Advice, Arup, transport issues are perceived by many business leaders as the main barrier to growth*. Should we be looking at more modest, incremental, value-engineered projects because they are more viable in the current climate?

Alexander Jan interpreted his masterclass theme as being about seeking funding from a range of sources. ʻWhen people say “more for less”, what they mean is: can we attract finance from another party in order to build our scheme? This equates to more for less in the sense that can we put less public money into the project, plus changing some of the structures may also have the effect of increasing the efficiency with which the money is spent.ʼ

The UKʼs recent change in GDP is one of the most dramatic over the last 20 years, and many other economies in North-West Europe have performed at similar levels of retrenchment. Within the context of UK regions, and taking unemployment climate as measure of economic performance, the cities which are outside of the core regions suffer disproportionately – the 10 cities that have had the highest increases in employment rate tend to be in the regions.

The UK Crossrail project (above) is using a range of funding components, with core funding (c£15bn) comprising:DfT grant (£5bn); London Business Rate Supplement (£4.1bn); other TfL (£3.2bn); NR RAB) (guaranteed) (£2.3bn); plus additional funding as shown

UK regions have already experienced higher than average decreases in private sector activity and employment. And, as we know, the public sector in the UK is also in the process of retrenchment. There a disproportionate level of retrenchment for the regions because the sort of activities that they undertake in the public sector are more ʻback officeʼ and lower value-added, unlike London which has a high public sector exposure but that tends to be more in the higher echelons of government decisionmaking. London and the South-East has historically outstripped the level of economic growth in what we call the regions. The regions are also more vulnerable to planned reductions in public sector expenditure because of the size of the public sector in their economies and the impact of changes in local authority funding settlements.

The diagram below represents the ʻvirtuous circleʼ that we should be aiming for to get ʻmore for lessʼ and get projects off the ground. It will require choices. Projects that maximize economic benefits to the region should be prioritised – growth, employment and competitiveness in the private sector. We need clear linkages between projects and the benefits that flow to the people that are paying for them – the accountability issue

There are several potential methods of funding available in the regions to help fund infrastructure (see chart). The big issue here is that a number of these have been talked about for a long time, theyʼve been put on the legislative books, but they havenʼt been used: for example fare supplements or workplace charging where one pays in order to park a vehicle in the centre of the town – although we may be just about to see its first use in the UK.

ʻI think a key tension is the fact that,ʼ said Jan, ʻpolitically, a number of these approaches are quite high risk, even though they are attractive from a financial point of view. Similarly, when youʼre looking at recycling local assets – local authorities putting in land or other assets into a project – it tends to be very cyclical in terms of the economy. The economy has to be growing in order to unlock the value associated with those types of projects.ʼ

There are also more interesting ways of funding infrastructure, for example borrowing against the future revenue associated


*Source: a study by the Core Cities Group, PwC: Unlocking City Growth Interim Findings on New Funding Mechanisms, 2008

In terms of transport, says Jan, transport issues are perceived as the main barrier to growth, with around 65 per cent of business leaders indicating that theyʼre not satisfied with how funding is secured for infrastructure projects.

with new buildings/new development. But in the UK context thatʼs yet untested and, again, economic growth is needed in order to help get started.

Doing more with less: key points

We need to be clear as to what the money is for. We need to focus on schemes that will increase employment and tax-raising activity. Local authorities need the ability to raise funds locally in whatever form. And there must be accountability. If this sort of virtuous circle can be achieved, then we might make some real progress in getting projects off the ground.

Regions (in the UK) have suffered disproportionately in the latest recession and are likely to continue to do so

Structural issues around local government finance core to unlocking resources (more for less ~ funding from elsewhere) – constant change in non – central govt structure

Debating which project to fund will be challenging in the UK, particularly in the regions, because there are a number of cities competing against each other for projects. This touches a very politically sensitive issue: the economic viability of a number of the UKʼs regional cities.

Need for continued serious debate around which projects to fund – raises the fundamental issue of long term economic viability

Who will make difficult choices at a regional level about which projects to pursue (abolition of RDAs, arrival of LEPs)

The evolving range of possible means to finance infrastructure is possibly only matched by the change in the local government structure in the UK. This has taken place over the last 50 years or so, and the subsequent lack of stability makes it very difficult for the private sector to trust mature, well-tried funding structures that have been tested and proven durable, and therefore attractive from the private finance point of view. The latest change in the UK is the abolition of the RDAs, which had some transport responsibility, and the arrival of the Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs).

In the UK many of the funding mechanisms identified have taken many years to arrive on statute and even more to be used A need for almost ʻastrologicalʼ alignment of: • the economic cycle • planning permission and consents • political support • agreement on funding structures

Timing is also important. Crossrail was first proposed in the 1970s. In reality it was first talked about in the 1940s in the Greater London development plan. So when we talk about success, a big factor in the equation is the length of time taken for a project to come to fruition. Does this mean that more modest, incremental projects (value-engineered, descoped, less ambitious) are more likely to succeed? Along with long lead times, many projects seem to require an almost astrological alignment of stars and planets in order for anything to move forward. The UK is a crowded island, with a very articulate electorate in many parts of the country. To catch


the economic ʻwaveʼ, especially when looking for property development contributions, to get planning permissions and consents in order, to secure political support – which needs to override a political cycle, either locally or nationally – and to get consensus on all these funding structures, all means that it takes an extremely long time to get projects into creation mode.In this context, it seems likely that more modest, incremental, value-engineered projects will be viable than larger schemes in the current climate. I

Making the case for trams and regional trams

Marc Le Tourneur, Direction de lʼInnovation et du Développement, Veolia TransDev, outlined the case for public transport development, particularly light rail/tram systems, in the context of climate change, peak oil and the economic crisis. He focused on the potential of regional trams in delivering an efficient network with less funding, and operating with reduced costs, and explored options for lower density areas where it is more difficult to make the investment case Public transport, Le Tourneur suggested, typically has high operation costs and low incomes. The choice of system – BRT, surface light rail or underground metro – is key, especially as the growth of energy costs is likely to absorb part of the finance. But due to the ratio of capacity to cost, light rail is set play an important role in public transportʼs future.

BRT or BHNS (in French) is an interesting solution, efficient and with limited investment cost, specially where wages are low. But in many European countries, BRT operation cost per passenger is higher than typical tramway operation costs, for these reasons: • limited capacity of the vehicles: (150 people for the longer vehicles, 24 metres in length); • driver wages can mean high operation costs; • energy consumption per passenger is higher (x 2.5 times ) than light rail; • noise, pollution and safety are less acceptable for residents. The modern tramway, says Le Tourneur, is the answer. Vehicle capacity places the tram between buses and metros, with an articulated bus offering 105 places (18m long) to 150 places (24m long). A tramway typically offers 200 places (30m long) to 350 places (45m long). The total investment cost, per kilometre, for a complete tram line also places the tram between BRT and metro: • BRT with new infrastructure: €5 to 15 million/km; • tramway: €15 to 40 million/km; • metro: €80 to 200 million/km.

The operating cost per kilometre travelled within the same country places the tramway between bus and metro.

The key lessons

The BRT costs three times less in investment than TRAM, but, per passenger kilometre operated (PKO), investment cost is the same because of the low capacity of buses Per PKO, BRT operation cost is much more expensive than tramway

Montpellier lines are colour-coded. Tram length can be increased progressively. The higher the capacity is the cheaper the system is per passenger The Montpellier system The Montpellier tram system carries 130,000 daily passengers, is 40 metres long and offers 300 places. A 4-line tram network has been created in 15 years, covering 55 kms, at a cost of €1.5 billion, and carrying 70 million passengers per year. Line 3, at 21 km and opening in 2012, is intended to reach the coast and beaches. Line 4, at 9 km, also opening in 2012, will service the large town centre. Importantly, the tram, buses, park and ride, car-sharing and bicycle self-service options will all share a single ticket.

For mobility policy, Montpellier Agglomération has defined an approach that addresses all mobility-related programmes, such as: • Limiting car traffic in the city with a strong parking policy and a systematic use of paid parking; • Developing public transport with a large tram network; • Coordinating moderate public transport fares with higher parking fees; • Transforming the historical city centre into a pedestrian area; • Developing ʻactive modesʼ of transport such as cycling and walking.

A controlled investment The tramway was delivered using an infrastructure that was four times less expensive than a metro, although transporting as many travellers as a line of the nearby Marseille metro. Surface transport is an attractive option and improves the look of roadways and the public realm, ensuring that non-passengers also share the benefit of the investment. Finally, the operating cost savings offset the investment cost, and put the total cost per passenger transported on the same level as that of a bus passenger.

Tram system has a total annual cost per PKO better than BRT

In Europe the choice between BRT and a modern tramway is mainly related to the potential customer base: less than 3,000 passengers per hour indicates BRT, more than 3,000 passengers per hour indicates tram

It is better to have large trams (40m plus ).We can even consider huge trams (60-70 m), because additional investment cost is low and additional operating cost is even lower Per PKO, a traditional urban bus network does not cost less than tram. In order to develop the use of public transport, it is better to invest in mass transport


Investment in low density areas: which transport mode? BRT is easy to operate, but offers low capacity and commercial speed. It has a low modal split: between three per cent to eight per cent, and a high operational cost per passenger – €2.50 per person in Montpellier, 2010. A possible alternative is regional bus rapid transit (RBRT) on highways or other direct routes, with few stops.

ʻBy 2050, the cities that managed to create a transport infrastructure network not running on oil will have a decisive advantageʼ Georges Frêche, President of Montpellier Agglomération, at the launch of work on Line 3 (April 2009)

In Montpellier, the line 2 extension to Poussan will use existing railway track between Montpellier and Bedarieux, with 18 km of new single track built for regional tram use between the L2 terminal and Poussan. The system will use a 2.5 km ʻby-passʼ between L2 and the city centre


Regional trains, at least in Europe, are a relatively expensive mass transport option due to the complexity of the heavy rail network, safety rules, mixed freight and the integration of regional and high speed traffic. France is one of the worst cases, with €20 per train kilometre. Regional rail is efficient on routes with a high level of ridership and high capacity trains.

which is easier to integrate into the urban fabric, and supports greater distances between stations. The appropriate structuring of surface networks is also necessary to take advantage of the efficiency of a ʻsurface metroʼ.

Tram-trains are an interesting solution in many cases, but can be expensive due to technical complexity and the need for integration with heavy trains and urban trams.

Such a project is being undertaken in Montpellier: the line 2 extension to Poussan. Unused railway track between Montpellier and Bedarieux is being re-used, and 18 km of new single track built for regional tram use between the L2 terminal and Poussan. The system will use a 2.5 km ʻby-passʼ between L2 and the city centre, and there will be five new tram stations.

The case for the regional tram: a ʻsurface metroʼ With the economic issues posed by the high cost of regional heavy rail (or tram-train), regional trams offer the potential to deliver an efficient network with less funding; operating with reduced costs – reducing the cost by half, or by a quarter in France, compared with regional rail or tram-train.

There will be 50,000 residents in a three-kilometre area around new tram stations. Six regional tram vehicles (commercial speed up to 90km/h) will operate on single track, with double track in the new stations. There will be a dedicated regional tram service, with mixed use of L2 (25 kms) to the city centre. The time between city centre railway stations and Poussan will be 32 mins for a 25 km journey. The frequency of service will be every 30 minutes. Investment cost is €125 million, which equates to €6.2 million per kilometre. Operating costs will be around €4.5/km. I

The regional tram would resemble a regional version of American light rail, for example the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authorityʼs popular Boston system. For the same positive reasons that urban trams have been reintroduced or modernised, shouldnʼt we be now looking to re-invent the regional tram system? North Americans have achieved this, and we could learn from their example, introducing cost savings such as single track,



Urban buses

Suburban buses

Ridership per year Passengers per km

Operating cost per km

Operating cost per passenger

Public subsidy per passenger

18 million




45 million


3 million




€3.00 19

€0.70 €2.50

€0.27 €2.23

Successful transport hubs: creating transport hubs and economic development opportunities

We heard from the European Commission White Paper that the idea of connecting modes, particularly through hubs, is seen as increasingly important in the achievement of seamless travel, says Michèle Dix, Managing Director of Planning, Transport for London

Transport hubs, or interchanges, are the purview of the TfL interchange group, whose job is specifically to look at the development of interchanges across TfL, to work with partners in developing those interchanges but, importantly, also to work with external partners such as funders and developers. Increasingly, TfL works with developers, rather than against them.

In creating interchanges, TfL seeks to create more trips, to create more accessible journeys and to provide new public transport capacity. The aim is to get more out of existing networks; to encourage more people to use public transport or to walk and cycle – and, importantly – to create greater opportunities for people to travel to jobs and places of work, which ultimately leads to increased economic activity. Our aim is to ensure that new trips are made by sustainable modes; discouraging car and road freight traffic where possible.

When talking about transport and promoting economic development, a major step forward is to develop ʻjoined upʼ strategies. Much of what is done in London is guided by three key strategies – transport strategy, spatial planning strategy and economic development strategy, all of which are integrated. Looking at the key policy areas, particularly mass transport strategy, all have similar goals: promoting economic development whilst improving quality of life, improving the opportunities that people have to access jobs, making it more secure and save to travel and, finally, ensuring that transport contributions to CO2 emissions are reduced.

The key is the integration of land use, development and transport policies, and re-visiting problems created by land-use and transport strategy that has developed separately. In a constrained environment as far as funding is concerned, TfL needs to make the most of existing systems, encouraging people to travel at different times of the day. Where necessary, we must look at providing further public transport capacity.

A remarkable impact has been made over the past 10 years, with a mode shift from car to public transport, a seven per cent decrease in car mode share and a seven per cent increase in public transport mode share. Weʼve now set ourselves a challenge to do more for bicycles. Currently two per cent of mode share is by bicycling. What we want to see over the next 20 years is a five per cent mode share by bicycling, which is a marked increase for London. To meet these challenges, TfL will concentrate on development, and good public transport provision helps us do this. London is very dense in the middle, with some 30 per cent of employment occupying just two per cent of the space, which is very well served by public transport. There are 1.2 million people working in central London, compared with about 100,000 in Los Angeles, so itʼs easy to see why these cities have different patterns of public transport and car usage. London is one of the most economically active areas in the UK, and it is a net exporter of tax GDP, so if dense development can be achieved around good public transport hubs, we can help to stimulate economic development. Central London is very accessible, which is why people tend to want to develop there. But


Local and strategic development control processes should seek to ensure a number of conditions are satisfied, including: • High trip generating developments to be located in areas of high public transport accessibility, connectivity and capacity; • The design and layout of sites maximise access on foot, cycle and to public transport facilities; • Maximum opportunities for sustainable freight distribution where possible; • Land for transport use is safeguarded in line with London Plan policy and Supplementary Planning Guidance; • Planning contributions are sought for transport improvements, where appropriate. there are also pockets of good accessibility spread across greater London. We need to make more of these pockets and consider what improvements can make these areas better and more attractive for development. Some 50 per cent of Londonʼs population growth will be in east London, so development and better accessibility in the east must be assured in order that the generation of more, and longer, trips by people in the east trying to get to work in the centre or the west. Provision of public transport capacity enables development density to be increased. Development in the vicinity of interchanges enables more sustainable trips to be made on the radial and orbital public transport networks, and provides local and sub regionally-significant centres for shopping, employment, entertainment and other amenities.

In order to ensure that development is encouraged around these areas of good public transport, we need to make sure that our development control processes work well, making sure that development is located in areas of high public transport accessibility, connectivity and capacity. Sometimes improvements need to happen and, if so, those improvements should be paid for by the developer. TfL also wants to make sure that developments are designed and laid out to maximise the use of walking, cycling and public transport.

TfL also wishes to make provision for sustainable freight, and to ensure that land is safeguarded for transport use in future London plans. In working with developers, we aim to understand what impact the development might have on a particular location – and to encourage the choice of a location that makes the most of existing transport capacity. Where this doesnʼt quite match, we make sure that we get Section 106 (or Community Infrastructure Levy) contributions (Planning Obligations used following the granting of planning permission to secure community and/or to mitigate the impact of new developments upon existing community facilities) from the developer to pay for any necessary public transport improvements and, increasingly, to ensure that they pay for more than just access to a station. If a development needs a new

If London grows at the expected rate, the central interchanges will not cope volume of people coming into London, so we are taking the opportunity to introduce additional strategic interchanges that provide better opportunities for movements being made in outer London to other parts of outer London. By introducing these new strategic hubs, we create new opportunities for development around these newly accessible areas. These strategic interchanges will also make better use of the extensive bus network across outer London; making sure that there is improved integration between bus access and the strategic interchanges so that we have a comprehensive network in outer London underground line to support its viability, then we need to ensure that developers are part of the funding solution. By looking at all the interested developers as a package, because they will all benefit from underground line extension, we envisage that they will all pay a contribution.

Interchanges are critical to the promotion of sustainable development. They not only enable different channel choices to be made, but actually provide new opportunities for people to live, work and access facilities. The key to interchange is making sure that they are high quality, simple, and accessible. This cannot as yet be said about all our interchanges, and not about Network Railʼs interchanges, but TfL is seeking to improve standards.

Ticketing is also important. At TfL, weʼve made a great stride forward by encouraging the use of a smartcard across all trains, buses, and national rail suburban lines in London. Physical accessibility is also key: there are parts of London where travel times is considerably lengthened because of lack of step-free access at local stations. Over the next 20 years, TfL plans to identify the interchanges across the network that need to become step free in order to speed up journey times.

Interchanges can be catalysts for socio-economic development. We can make interchange more attractive, improve the accessibility and attract development. Simply through a developer being on board in a specific location, the need for more connections is generated, helping to make that interchange more attractive in itself. Making interchange as smooth and attractive as possible is important in promoting more accessible journeys. Interchanges must be efficient – make sure that timetables are coordinated; that there is a high enough frequency of services passing through the interchange; that station layouts are clear and that passenger circulation and physical accessibility is catered for.

TfL is also making more of existing networks: the Orbital Overground is taking poorly-used overground lines and improving the service and frequency of trains, smartening up stations, upgrading lights and information services, staffing stations – all basic things – and suddenly a whole new set of movements is possible in London. As a result of these improvements, more people are using these lines to go around London, rather than travelling into the centre and out again, as they have done historically. I

Interchanges must also be integrated with other modes: working with partners such as rail companies is really important. Ideally, passengers will not notice the ʻjoinʼ: they will pass through an interchange and feel that the system is operated by the same organisation to the same standard, with the same level of information throughout.

What makes a good interchange?

Adding an interchange at E increases opportunities. Many more journeys can be made and the accessibility of each of those points is advanced. E in itself suddenly becomes a much more attractive place perhaps to locate development because itʼs connected to A, C, B and D


Opportunities before (two possible return journeys) A-B / B-A C-D / D-C


Extra opportunities after (eight possible return journeys) A-E / E-A E-B / B-E C-E / E-C D-E / E-D B-E-C / C-E-B B-E-D / D-E-B A-E-C / C-E-A A-E-B / B-E-A




Timetable co-ordination / good frequencies Good station layouts for passenger circulation – physical accessibility improvements Integration with other modes / partners; Bus stops, cycle parking and footpaths Physical accessibility Way-finding / signage and real-time passenger information within stations Coordinated management

Maintenance (particularly lighting) and security measures Comfortable waiting areas Staff presence and high quality training

Tram-train technologies: the investment case

Karlsruhe pioneered tram-train back in 1992, and the technology has since been developed and taken on by other cities and regions. But although tram-train can contribute to change in model shift, can help with achieving environmental targets and with stimulating regional development, it isnʼt a universal solution. Nils Jänig, Transport Technologie-Consult Karlsruhe considers where tram-train can provide a cost-effective solution, and how far experience to date supports the investment case Tram-train can contribute to a change in modal shift, can help with achieving environmental targets and with stimulating regional development. But when considering the role of tram-train today, says Nils Jänig, we must remember is that key our aim is simply to serve the passenger.

Karlsruhe is close to the French border in central Germany, with a population in the transportation catchment area of 1.3 million. More than 200 tram and bus lines have been integrated in the Karlsruhe region, across 20 public transport companies. The region encompasses 120 cities and municipalities, with seven cities and districts acting as shareholders. The network supports 175 million passengers and earns €115 million in fare revenues; equating to €85.50 revenue per inhabitant.

One key reason for Karlsruheʼs success has been the use of project champions. Every project needs drivers and stakeholders who are ready to invest and stick with projects over a long period. A vision is also needed, as is demonstrable transportation need. Before the tram-train system improvements in Karlsruhe,for example, there was no direct interchange between the tram station and the rail station. Today there is a direct route to the city centre using the tramway infrastructure, complete with several new stops. The system operates for long hours of continuous, scheduled services at fixed intervals. Interconnected timetables keep the system moving, with the support of a network of interchanges and buses as feeder services. The vehicles are comfortable, offering A/C, a bistro and panorama windows. There is one integrated fare system. The passenger simply gets into the tram-train car in the city and goes home – a key reason why the system is so popular.

690 km network: 311 km DB-tracks, 154 km leased tracks, and 224 km own tracks

Applying the railway regulations and technical rules to tramway operation can be very challenging, but in Karlsruheʼs case the issues have been overcome. Legally, the system operates as a tram in the city and a train in the regions – but as long as they travel smoothly, the passengers are not concerned with such details.

Other regions in Europe have aimed to adapt the Karlsruhe model, although development becomes more and more difficult. Where can tram-train provide a cost-effective solution? Tram-train is not a cheap solution. The vehicles can be expensive, and system changeovers between the tram network and heavy rail network are complex, as are adaptations to the tram network or the heavy rail system. Lines may need to be electrified or, as in Kassel, Germany, an underground main station tunnel had to be built.

The network in 2011 (above) has expanded considerably, building on the existing 1970 tram system, below

To be cost-effective, tram-train needs to be based on an existing tram network. Using tram-train as replacement for rail is not usually a good idea: ideally, there should regional railway infrastructure to upgrade. And potential passengers are needed to use the system. Under these conditions, tram-train can be cost- effective.

In France, several tram-train projects are going ahead, as they are in Germany, the Netherlands and Spain. But unfortunately, there are also many stalled projects: after the success in Karlsruhe, many other cities began feasibility studies, but fulfilling


There are ways to reduce costs: in some areas, because demand is low or there is a lack of space, we have built short platforms, bringing a major cost saving. At (very) low demand stops, the solution was a 20 m ʻshortʼ platform which delivered 60 per cent cost savings

Railway regulation is demanding: yet there are cost effective and easy solutions which can help to keep costs down: for example level crossings, secured by signals if necessary, which are standard on AVG tracks

the necessary conditions for the development of a successful system is not easy, and it is by no means simple to transfer a successful model from one city to another.

The investment case...

Tram-train in itself is not cheap! Details matter: at Kassel, for example, there were challenges of system accessibility due to inconsistent floor and platform heights, especially with crossborder services

One of the main arguments against tram-trains is complexity on the railway side. In Germany, Deutsche Bahn is the main stakeholder; with control of infrastructure, and its support is critical. In France, SNCF runs the state-owned network: to operate tram-train in France, SNCF will be your partner. It may not be the cheapest solution, but it is viable.

Tram-train should be based on an existing tram system Use ʻunderperformingʼ regional railway infrastructure

More and more projects are moving ahead in France, which is interesting. Several tram-train projects, according to the press,

Need density of population

Tram-train cannot simply replace heavy rail services

Should not be overloaded with high track access fees (railway side)

are killed by high vehicle costs. This is only partly true: the large size of the SNCF fleet has led to considerable savings due to economies of scale.

Interchange-free and regular connections until late at night with regular stops are the pre-condition to motivate car-users to change to public transport. Before 1992, trains stopped at the to station, with the tram interchange around 2km away. From 1992 onwards, tram-train ran directly to the city at 20ʼ (peak) 30ʼ (off peak) intervals. Ridership increased by 18 per cent

Finally, an example of land and property uplift also demonstrates how tram-train can support the investment case. In Bretten, a small city 30 km west of Karlsruhe, land prices have traditionally been low. Yet thanks to the introduction of tram-train services, property prices in Bretten rose from €160 per m in 1988 to €230 per m in 2004. It can be argued that, as other cities and villages in the region have not seen such increases, the tram-train has significantly contributed to the uplift in land prices – even though it was not part of the original funding proposition. I 2



Faster trains and the new railway age

There is a key potential market for tilting trains on lines complementing the HS network, says Pierre Laconte, former Director, UITP, particularly at national borders which are less well served by national operators. A case in point is the forthcoming link between Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg

A study by the International Association of Public Transport (UITP) suggests that the relationship between density, transport and land use is critical. Urban density is the key to modal split, and rail has a brighter future in regions with dense human settlements. Mr Laconte outlined the traditional relationship between railways, the economy and the ways in which transport modes have influenced development patterns.

In the railway age, he suggested, the railway was connected with, and supported by, the industrial world through private investment in infrastructure, rolling stock and operations; all well rewarded, at the time, by the market. Conditions changed in the US when the automobile was allowed to use the growing road network mostly free of charge, while the railroadsʼ infrastructure did not get the same public support. Railways had tended to produce high density development around the stations, whereas roads and car parks could be developed anywhere, and their land use and space consumption was much higher than that required by a railoriented city.

travelling around curves. The pioneering UK technology was abandoned, but similar continental technology developed by Fiat Ferroviaria (Pendolino) was introduced nearly 20 years later, and the well-known UK ʻtilting trainsʼ designed in Italy were successfully adopted by Virgin for the West Coast main line.

The system allows Virginʼs trains to handle sharp curves much faster than before, increasing their commercial speed by some 30 per cent. Passenger comfort has been shown to be greater than in conventional trains when traversing curves. In addition, in the event of a crash, passenger safety is higher – as was shown by a spectacular accident that resulted in only one fatality. The carriages remain intact in the event of an incident, and shock absorption is concentrated at the front. About 500 tilting train sets have been sold and their supply is becoming ever more diversified. Delivery is notoriously slow, which in the UK slows down their expansion to other trunk lines.

The operating experience in Italy, Switzerland and Germany indicates that the relative complexity of the tilting system suggests that it is best managed by a single operator as opposed to a combination of players.

As a result, unbridled US urban sprawl has become common and, as sprawl cannot be served effectively by rail, rail use has declined. Over time, a similar urban dispersal model also gradually became dominant across much of Europe.

Yet there is a key potential market for tilting trains on lines complementing the HS network, particularly at national borders, which are less well served by national operators. A case in point is the potential link between Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg, presently served by three national operators with a combination of traditional rolling stock, and with the trip taking more than five hours for a distance of 450 km.

Yet, says Mr Laconte, economic and environmental pressures are finally seeing a reversal in this trend, and he continued to outline the many benefits that fast rail services – aside from high speed rail – have to offer.

A revolution in rail transport started in Japan in 1962: the Shinkansen (220 km/h), followed in 1976 by the European high speed (HS) train: in France, the TGV PSE (270 Km/h), followed in 1991 by the German ICE (300 km/h) and the new ICX (250 km/h). The latest models allow a speed of up to 350 km/hour on dedicated straight track. Double-deck rolling stock allows the capacity of trains to be adapted to meet traffic growth on existing HS lines. The network is constantly expanding, with the main equipment suppliers being Alstom, Ansaldo/Bombardier, Bombardier/Talgo and Siemens.

Currently, passengers for the Strasbourg parliament take the HS train via Lille and Paris, which takes four hours. The line has finally won support despite SNCF lobbyists, because the four

The number of train sets and the length of track is also expanding, mainly in Europe and Asia, but also in Morocco, Turkey and Argentina. Yet in the US and UK, lack of political support has prevented HS rail from finding the right conditions for development.

The Birmingham-London supertrain is being proclaimed as the totem of a new golden age in British transport. Already, however, many experts suggest that the reality will fail to match the rhetoric. ʻ “High-speed” rail will, in fact, almost certainly slow down the journeys of more rail users than it speeds up,ʼ proclaimed an article in the UK daily newspaper The Daily Telegraph.

The Advanced Passenger Train Back in the 1980s, the UK developed a medium speed rail system (the Advanced Passenger Train) based on increasing speed on existing tracks, thanks to a system allowing the trains to tilt when


ʻThe operating experience in Italy, Switzerland and Germany indicates that the relative complexity of the tilting system suggests that it is best managed by a single operator as opposed to a combination of playersʼ Pierre Laconte

Tilting train technology developed by Fiat Ferroviaria (Pendolino) was successfully adopted by Virgin for the UK West Coast main line

operators involved – Swiss, Belgian, Luxembourg and French – having jointly commissioned a study by McKinsey, were convinced by the the studyʼs surprising and persuasive results.

The liberalisation of passenger rail services in Europe is also opening the door for transnational private operators to use existing track. There is a strong movement in France towards the privatisation of rapid regional express services (TER). The Alsace region is strongly in favour of becoming independent from the SNCF, making it quite possible that we would have a combination of different public transport authorities, or a new private operator, that could play a key operational role.

The study indicated that the use of a tilting train was set to make an operating profit of €5 million per annum, as opposed to the current heavy losses, because of the huge attraction of shorter traveling times. The plan is to provide three trains per day from Brussels to Zurich, and additional onward trains to Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg. The agreement has been made, and the project looks set to move ahead. The Swiss operator will oversee the call for tenders, in effect acting as a single operator across three EU countries. The final Memorandum of Understanding will be signed next year, and the service should be operational by 2016 if all goes to plan. It makes economic and environmental sense to have a much more direct, tilting link via Namur and Luxembourg, which are bypassed on the HS route.

The choice was between using French Railwaysʼ HS services via Lille and Paris airport and developing a tilting train service run as a single operation, responsible for the whole link (and its continuation to Basel, Zurich and the successful Swiss tilting rail network). On 20 May 2011, an agreement between all parties involved was announced in the press in favour of a tilting train.

Future steps: technology Another technical innovation still has to fully materialise on the market: bogies combining the rigidity needed for HS on straight dedicated track and the light flexibility and tilting capacity needed where the service continues on conventional track. In France, the TGV travels at 300 km per hour on the straight tracks, and then suddenly falls back to 150 km per hour when on normal track, and it has no tilting capacity.


There seems to be great potential for a seamless travelling future future that is partly TGV, partly tilting and partly using diesel train if needed. Such a system could certainly have great potential relevance in the UK for the planning of HS2, where some ʻclassic compatibleʼ trains will continue to Scotland on conventional track. I

Looking to the future with seamless travel and superhubs

The Zurich Transport Authority has integrated its network and interchanges – considering the whole transport chain, from bus stop to timetable to fares to tickets and routes and comfort and safety – as one entity. Dominik Brühwiler, Deputy Director and Head of Transport Planning, Zürcher Verkehrsverbund, explains that if you want to encourage the public to use public transport, then simply make it easy…

Mr Brühwilerʼs presentation outlined the ways in which the Zurich Transport Authority has integrated its network and interchanges – considering the whole transport chain, from bus stop to timetable to fares to tickets and routes and comfort and safety – as one entity. His key point is that if you want to encourage the public to use public transport, then simply make it easy for them to do so.

The networkʼs key success factors are: Easy access (regular interval timetable / fare structure)

Excellent frequency and duration of services across the whole transport chain

Zurich, a city of around 1.5m inhabitants and 1m jobs, is served by the ZVV network which brings together eight transport companies, and in which the timetables of the buses, trams and trains are coordinated to provide passengers with seamless onward transport options and connections. In all, 51 operators, and 1,800 vehicles (buses, tramway, light rail, commuter train, cable cars and boats) make up the network.

Reliable timetable and excellent and reliable connections from home to office, not station to station Network density is high: no-one is expected to walk too far Cost of trips is reasonable

All main cities in Switzerland have hub timings at 0 and 30 mins each hour, with interval families of 60min – 30min – 15min – 7.5min in order to coordinate the hierarchy of intercity, accelerated and accelerated commuter services. It isnʼt the fastest network, but total trip times are good. The network offers very frequent services, with bus connections serving stations at the appropriate times to make the network seamless.

Total journey time is good Network is secure and comfortable

International train connections and services are integrated in the system, but can cause problems as their reliability is nowhere as good as that of the Swiss trains: international services often miss their ʻslotʼ and have to wait at the border for the next one.

The punctuality and capacity of international trains (Swiss trains have been double-deckers for many years) leaves much to be desired. The average arrival delay for Swiss federal railways is 70 seconds, and operational stability is ʻguaranteedʼ until delays reach 180 seconds. In comparison, Japan Rail East has an average arrival delay of 7 seconds – but the Italian Trenitaliaʼs north-south sleepers indicate the challenge of international integration, with an average arrival delay of 82 minutes.

With 210-400,000 passengers per day, 120 million per annum and 1,200 departures each day, Zurich hub is busier than Euston, Kingʼs Cross St Panras and Liverpool Street combined – and all in a city of less than 400,000 inhabitants.The network relies on extensive and expensive station infrastructure, especially in the city centre, to accommodate all trains simultaneously. Network extensions are urgently needed, as there is currently little time for maintenance as the network is always in use.

One key to the take-up of the Swiss public transport offer its easy access: the ticket system is 100 per cent integrated regionally, and full national integration is the aim for the future, although is still many years away. The system is 100 per cent open: there are no reservations, no supplements, no access gates and no time restrictions. Consequently, as many as 37 per cent of the population over 16 years old own a ʻhalf priceʼ card, with seven per cent owning a general public transport card. Thirty per cent of the population in Zurich own monthly or yearly passes.

Superhub Zurich main station: 95 departures per hour in an empty station? Due to the controlled timings, the platforms are empty at 8.15, but 15 minutes later all 16 tracks are full


Zurich area

Modal-split in Switzerland 1990 vs 2000: blue shows public transport take-up improving; red shows public transport take-up decreasing

Kilometre per person each year (railways)

Network density is high in Switzerland, including in many rural areas. In terms of a road system, a 14-lane motorway would be needed to transport same number of people: a scenario that would be impossible in Switzerland due to shortage of space.

Planning process Planning is carried out with close cooperation between operators and the railway infrastructure company. The outlook is long-term: the Zurich Area timetable for 2019 was fixed to the minute in 2007. The infrastructure for such a tightly controlled system is tailor-made, expensive, heavily used and offers low flexibility – the network is saturated.

There is mixed traffic on almost all routes, with freight, international and regional services running on the same tracks. Political and public acceptance for public transport investment is high across the country: all railway and tramway projects have been accepted in public referendums since 1982, whereas all new roads were rejected.

Looking to the future Despite the positive punctuality record of Swiss trains, punctuality across the network, especially with international trains, has to improve further. Interestingly, Mr Brühwiler suggests that – since the reliability of bus connections is critical for the network, and is under pressure due to growing road traffic – segregated bus tracks are missing from the picture. This comes at a time when many European countries are pioneering, with political support, major shared space schemes that see all traffic, including pedestrians and cyclists, given equal priority on certain highways. I


Ticketing strategies to encourage development

Our aim is to make public transport the mode of choice for the increasingly large number of journeys that people want to make. Ticketing is a key part of the mix and everyone is keen to see a multi-modal approach. But Tony Depledge, Policy Development Director, Arriva, counsels caution and consideration of what is achievable, desirable and affordable... ʻWhen talking about ticketing and ticketing strategies, I may pose more questions than Iʼm going to answer; especially when it comes to technology and how people use tickets in both the regional and urban contexts,ʼ said Mr Depledge. Our challenge is to improve choice for the increasingly large number of journeys that people want to make, and ticketing obviously is an important part of the mix. ʻEveryone is keen to see a multi-modal approach, but I counsel caution: we have to consider what is achievable, desirable and affordable.ʼ

Of course there is an important role for information technology in public transport, but my question remains: what is desirable? What is feasible, and what is affordable? Considering the related topic of journey planning – the European Commission is consulting at present about European journey planning – itʼs clear that we need to provide more, and better, information about the trips that people want to make.

In the ticketing sector, technology moves very quickly. New technology is extremely seductive, and this is an important part of the problem. Transport for Londonʼs (TfL) Oyster card system, for example, has been suggested as an ideal to which one should aspire elsewhere. There are 30 million Oyster cards on issue in a city of eight million people. Thatʼs an enormous quantity of information to maintain in a database. Paris and Brussels have their own systems, as does the Netherlands, although the latter has not been fully rolled out yet. Every politician across Europe and in the European Union has a vision, which they are very happy to articulate, of having a single ticket that allows travel by all modes all the way across Europe; door-to-door. The chairman of the Transport and Tourism Committee of the European Union Parliament, Brian Simpson, has such a vision: of travelling on a single ticket from Wigan in NW England to Milan. I think that this may be a very challengeable argument, as the key issue is that public transport has to be about what people want, and about the benefits for individuals and communities from the improvements made in the services.

A key question to consider is scale. Nobody knows for certain how many trips are made by urban, suburban and regional public transport every year in the European Union: and nobody knows for certain because we count trips in different ways. Itʼs easy if everybody has a ticket; itʼs not so easy if people have cards. When I leave here and go to my flat in Islington, says Depledge, Iʼll take the bus for two stops, and although thatʼs hardly a trip, it will probably register in the statistics. Around 60 billion journeys are made every year by regional or local public transport in the European Union; around 170 million each day. There are about 1 billion by long-distance trains every year in the European Union, and many more by air.

We have to be prepared to cope with vast amounts of data everyday – accurately, reliably and quickly. Speed and accuracy is an important part of any ticketing process and itʼs not always that easy to achieve – if users have to slow down to use an Oyster card, the processing of people through the ticket barrier at Kingʼs Cross station could be slowed, creating added congestion.

We also need to be able to record with absolute accuracy the financial impact on passengers and the operators of ticketing arrangements, and to adapt ourselves to very different transport markets. For example, there may be different requirements in a large metropolitan areas such as London, Paris, Leeds or Manchester compared, say, to rural Scotland where fewer people are travelling, and possibly much less often.


In this way we can be more informed about our travel choices, about when to travel, and have access to information about problems happening in real-time on our networks. Some of this can be very difficult. The railways in the UK, for example, cannot upload information about timetable changes for the following day after 2pm: itʼs technically impossible at present to get such data loaded onto the system in the timeframe. Itʼs also clear that we need to focus on ticket price information in journey planning. But there we run into a huge issue across Europe: the so-called yield management concept where tickets are priced based on the capacity of networks, particularly at peak or shoulder times. ʻGiven the cost of increasing capacity on public transport,ʼ says Depledge, ʻI believe that itʼs likely that yield management will become increasingly important across the European Union.ʼ

In this, he adds, he would also include Switzerland: Swiss Federal Railways, SBB, does have some measure of yield management because you can buy advance purchase tickets on particular trains. Yield management systems obviously impact on journey planning information: do we show the maximum price you might pay, the minimum price you might pay, or the range of prices you might pay? Do we include the impact of social tariffs? Do I need to tell the system that I am over 60, so it can work out my ticket price? These are key questions that need to be resolved. Travel planning that doesnʼt look at ticket pricing is not giving a complete picture. But is it better to have an incomplete picture rather than one thatʼs too complex or out of date? ʻI must be absolutely clear about this – in my opinion, we mustnʼt be required to simplify ticketing policies simply in order to provide information more easily. We have to be able to make the best ticketing offer to our passenger that we can.ʼ So what is the role of integrated ticketing? At its simplest itʼs about reducing barriers to travel by reducing the penalty for changing modes or changing services. Any change of mode brings with it a time penalty and a risk penalty. Clearly integrated ticketing can reduce the inconvenience, even if it doesnʼt actually affect the overall price of the journey.

In fact, we could ask, do we need a ticket at all, or is ticketing potentially set to become an outmoded model? Integration, in my opinion, depends on the complexity of a public transport network. Clearly travel-to-work areas are very important. Much depends on ticket price policy: if these are set by the state or a single body taking the revenue risk, then of course the options are very much easier. But in these times of great pressure on public finances, the

ʻTo an extent I might suggest that integration isnʼt about having a single ticket. Itʼs more likely to be about having a payment system that is integrated into the ways we all pay for other goods and services, and a system that will reduce the barriers that have arisen from the complex ways in which we have been trying to move away from cash over the last few yearsʼ Tony Depledge

So if integration and integrated ticketing is the goal, then you may tell me that itʼs all a lot easier with smart cards and smart ticketing. Of course it is – up to a point; and that point is where we have to make the fundamental decision: what is the process by which a passenger buys a ticket or loads money onto a smart ticket, and how is that ticket going to be used? Is the system going to be like the Oyster card in London, where you get a travel credit or cash value which is deducted from your card as you make journeys?

This works in London, because buses have a single ticket price irrespective of the length of the journey. If ticket price varies by length of journey, which inevitably it will across a regional area, then that simple process of putting a card on a reader doesnʼt work. The system would require passengers to ʻtouch in and outʼ, as on the London underground. ʻMy personal view is that this model will not work on buses, as the process may seriously slow down the journey and would radically increase the risk – that exists already on the London underground – that passengers forget to “touch out” and end up paying the maximum price for the journey on that network.ʼ There clearly is a role for smart ticketing, but again we must look at passengers. Many part-time workers, for example, are currently getting a raw deal when buying ʻyield-managedʼ multi-journey tickets. These passengers are not well catered for, but they are important in the context of regional development. Employers are looking for greater flexibility in work patterns and the operators and public authorities involved in ticketing need to respond by rethinking our entire pricing strategies. Smart ticketing need not be about smart cards. We should be more open to mobile phone-based near-field communication type technology – NFC technology – and the new credit cards, the Europay, Mastercard and Visa cards that most of us will use fairly soon. These can facilitate micropayments and low value transactions such as buying a newspaper, or a bus or underground ticket. Soon all credit cards or debit cards will offer this sort of technology. It will identify the cardholder to the reader on the bus, the back office in the system can then calculate what the price would be and that actually would then be charged back to the holderʼs bank account in some magical way. A completely free-standing Oyster card-type system will not be required, and I do believe thatʼs the direction that we will see Transport for London moving in.

We clearly need to reduce uncertainty and lack of knowledge about how to pay for a journey on a bus or tram. Clear options are an important way of improving the attractiveness of the public transport offer. Mobile phones and contactless bank cards are likely to be the way forward, and not a dedicated transport product

New technology is very challenging. Bus operators and local authorities need to rethink our pricing strategies to take account of the options that new technology will bring. We must not let technology dictate what offers we can make to our passengers. We have to deliver ticketing offers that are right for the communities we serve, not ticketing options that are specified because of technology.

state, I believe, may be less willing to take on such revenue and pricing risks and will wish to pass these on to operators, whether theyʼre state-owned operators or private-sector operators.

In reality, whenever there is more than one organisation involved in a pricing and ticketing integration process, things inevitably become more complicated. It doesnʼt matter whether the parties are public sector or private sector; every organisation needs to know that itʼs getting its share of the revenue contributed by its residents, and voters, and to know that it is targeting benefits to those people rather than voters in a neighbouring area.


ʻIn many places it remains extraordinarily hard to know how you should pay for a ticket, and Iʼm hopeful that there are going to be some exciting new opportunities coming from new ticketing technology in the next couple of years.ʼ I

Conclusions and next steps

What key lessons can be learned from the wider European experience? Operating at the appropriate scale is also key to success, suggests Sintropher project member Professor Holzapfel of Kassel University – Kassel being one region that developed the use of tram-train, originally pioneered in Karlsruhe – several years ago. ʻIf we invest in creating a small-scale regional transport system, we increase access across the region and bring real advantages for everyone living in there: for those involved in commerce, retail, education and leisure.ʼ

Within the Sintropher context, the aim of this conference has been to look beyond specific project experience at the ways in which developing project results are fitting in with evolving EU and national policy across Europe. The conclusions of the Sintropher project itself will be reported in two yearsʼ time at a final conference. Our approach is to focus on five in-depth regional demonstration projects involving 27 actions and nine investments – economic and technical feasibility studies, pilot projects, demonstration projects, marketing trials, and comparative analysis of EU best practice. These are configured into four cross-cutting work areas designed to promote knowledge transfer, cooperation between partners, and exchange of experience and best practice.

In Germany, adds Professor Holzapfel, transport planners have traditionally had a great deal of influence across planning issues, with the result that urban designers and planners have found themselves trying to mitigate the impact of the impact of large-scale transport scheme rather than being involved from the outset as strategic partners. We need to step back and consider small-scale solutions instead of looking at the large scale,ʼ he says. ʻSmall-scale matters may demand more planning skills and more time and resource, but the results of small-scale interventions can frequently be very positive.ʼ

In both the strategic, economic and technical areas of our work, it is clear that several interesting areas of concern are emerging that may trigger closer study. We have heard that 2011 and beyond will see an EU policy move towards modal integration that will place transport in the wider ʻEU 2020ʼ perspective of climate change and economic growth.

Michèle Dix from Transport from London agrees: ʻThe key is the integration of land-use, development and transport policies, and revisiting problems created by land-use and transport strategy that has developed separately.ʼ

Within this context, Sintropher aims to deal with growing congestion and poor accessibility, along with a growing infrastructure gap in the enlarged EU. In this way, we will help to provide a clear vision for a transport system which supports the promotion of growth and jobs through greater resource efficiency and self-sufficiency.

Marc Le Tourneurʼs (Veolia TransDev) experience of Franceʼs Montpellier tram system has convinced him that trams are a costeffective solution to regional transport. With a ʻjoined-upʼ strategic approach being taken, Montpellier Agglomération has supported positive take-up of tram use, for example by limiting urban car parking, coordinating moderate public transport fares with higher parking fees, transforming the historical city centre into a pedestrian

A key challenge is the alignment of transport policy in the long term with spatial policies across ʻfunctional areasʼ, especially, as in the case of the UK, new forms of sub-regional governance are emerging in the shape of Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs); many of which are, in Sir Peter Hallʼs words, geographically a ʻweird bunchʼ.


area and developing ʻactive modesʼ of transport such as cycling and walking. Several more specialist issues may also trigger closer study, including technical and engineering solutions, with Sintropherʼs aim being to highlight the key operational and financial issues that motivate our work.

SYNAPTIC (Synergy of New Advanced Public Transport Solutions Improving Connectivity in North-West Europe) is a cluster of four EU-funded INTERREG IVB NWE mobility projects: Sintropher plus RoCK (Regions of Connected Knowledge), BAPTS (Boosting Advanced Public Transport Systems) and ICMA (Improving Connectivity and Mobility Access).

Poor accessibility and connectivity issues are perceived by many business leaders as a key barrier to growth. Yet in a difficult economic climate, will regional adminstrations across Europe be open to the use of potentially risky and non-standard financial instruments and wide-ranging partnerships in order to fund schemes in difficult economic times?

Launched in June 2011, the clusterʼs focus is on enhancing the conditions for seamless door-to-door journeys and intermodal transfer. Particular attention will be given to interchanges and innovative customer services, such as integrated multi-modal ticketing and future-oriented passenger information systems.

How can uplift in land values generated by successful development, well served by public transport, be captured and fed into scheme funding options? And in terms of economic stresses, should transport and urban planners be looking at smaller, incrementally developing schemes to take forward as opposed to major projects? How can we develop outreach and engagement processes rooted in grass-roots networks that engender support and community buyin for local and regional transport solutions?

By sharing knowledge and experience from among our individual projects, we want to develop a best practice inventory of ways with which to develop public transport services through better coordination, and creating exemplar seamless European journeys. Students from a number of universities across the North-West Europe area will work with SYNAPTIC to produce a European ʻSeamless Mobility Masterplanʼ and highlight North-West European excellence in seamless door-to-door travel with the SYNAPTIC Award.

It is also becoming clear that securing public perception and support for local and regional transport solutions is key. Will the need for speedy, accurate neighbourhood and local services to feed regional trams – and cover the difficult ʻlast mileʼ connection to many homes – see more buses operating in dedicated lanes to maintain punctuality?

sustainable transport solutions that are fully integrated with both the ʻlinkʼ and ʻplaceʼ function of urban streets and the need for enhanced regional accessibility? Many of these issues will be explored in the related project SYNAPTIC, financed through the European Regional Development Fundʼs (ERDF) North-West Europe programme. SYNAPTICʼs focus is on enhancing the conditions for seamless door-to-door journeys and intermodal transfer (see the box above for more information). I

It is in these areas that Sintropher, along with related EU-funded projects, is focusing its explorations. What other solutions might there be for covering the last mile? How can current public interest in quality place-making be harnessed to extend to supporting


Conference programme

Session one: Transport and Regional Development – a NorthWest European Perspective

Session three: Innovation for development case studies

Tram-train technologies: concepts and comparisons Nils Jänig, Transport Technologie-Consult Karlsruhe Karlsruhe pioneered tram-train back in 1992. The technology has since been developed and taken on by other cities and regions. What is meant by tram-train today? We will consider where tramtrain can provide a cost effective solution and how far available experience supports the investment case

Keynote address: EU transport policy: the framework to 2020 Sandro Santamato, Head of Unit, DG MOVE, European Commission An insight into forthcoming EU transport policy and the role for lighter rail solutions. What this policy means for European Regions

European Territorial Cohesion: transport in the context of future regional policy Wolfgang Munch, Forward Studies, DG REGIO How does transport relate to regional policy in the EU? Viewing transport as an effective means to enhance economic development in the regions How development opportunities are ʻcatalysedʼ by better transport

Faster trains and the new railway age Pierre Laconte, former Director, UITP There is a key potential market for tilting trains on lines complementing the HS network, particularly at national borders which are less well served by national operators. A case in point is the forthcoming link between Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg Looking to the future with seamless travel and superhubs Dominik Brühwiler, Deputy Director and Head of Transportation Planning, Zürcher Verkehrsverbund Zurich Haupt Bahnhof is perhaps the pre-eminent example of a well-functioning superhub. We will examine how Zurich achieved the vision of being able to arrive at a long-distance railway station, cross the platform to a waiting light rail vehicle and travel seamlessly through the city centre to the suburbs and outlying region

Keynote address: Connecting European regions through innovative transport technologies Professor Sir Peter Hall, University College London, UK New ways of addressing the challenges of accessibility and peripherality by considering innovations such as tram-train

Session two: Masterclasses

Masterclass one: Financing transport Financing regional transport in challenging economic times: providing more for less Marc Le Tourneur, Innovation and Development Directorate, Veolia Transdev, and Alexander Jan, Head of Transport, Transaction Advice, Arup. Chaired by Ron Dixon, Consultant Financial Adviser Why reduced budgets and spending cuts in spending are likely to felt most keenly in the regions. How to provide ʻmore for lessʼ. Examples of good practice and ʻsmarterʼ working when drawing up financial plans for a scheme

Session four: The way forward -targeting policy and investment to maximise development potential Ticketing strategies to encourage development Tony Depledge, Policy Development Director, Arriva A successful ticketing policy is a key aspect of regional public transport, both in terms of ease of use and as a tool for growth

Round-table discussion with selected speakers

Masterclass two: The keys to successful transport investment: Making transport links happen European case studies Anton Valk, Chief Executive, Abellio. Chaired by Professor Sir Peter Hall, University College London We all have an idea of how ʻsuccessfulʼ transport in the regions looks overall. This session identifies the context in which the best schemes function – politically, financially and operationally. We will draw on examples from across Europe

Masterclass three: Successful transport hubs Creating transport hubs and economic development opportunities Michèle Dix, Managing Director of Planning, Transport for London. Chaired by Colin Osborne, Project Manager, Sintropher Well-connected transport hubs are very attractive to commerce in many forms. Major railway and Underground stations in London have exploited the opportunities well. This masterclass explores how such key nodes can be developed further, and best practice adapted to benefit a wide range of stations 32

Speaker biographies

Sir Peter Hall (conference chair) Bartlett Professor of Planning and Regeneration, Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning, University College London

Alexander Jan Head of Transport, Transaction Advice, Arup

Alex leads Arupʼs transaction advice team from London which specialises in advising clients of technical and commercial risk associated with funding, buying or selling new and existing infrastructure assets. Alex has led many transport assignments on behalf of infrastructure funders. These have included advising a bidder for High Speed One, lenders to Tube Line lines, a new rail link under Brussels airport and a range of toll road and airport assets France and Spain. Alex is an author of one of the Sir Roy McNulty reviews covering value for money for GB rolling stock. He also leads work on Network Railʼs cost efficiency under Arupʼs Independent Reporter mandate for Network Rail and the Office of Rail Regulation. A first class economist from the LSE, Alex has some twenty years of UK and European transport infrastructure finance, policy and regulatory experience. Alex previously worked with KPMG where he was involved in developing economic development strategies for a number of borough councils with a focus on the role infrastructure can play in stimulating economic development and urban regeneration. He also worked as a policy advisor on transport matters to the CBI, the previous mayor of London and the Greater London Assembly. Alex is a Fellow of the UK Chartered Institute of Transport & Logistics and is a regular commentator on infrastructure finance.

Sir Peter has a PhD from the University of Cambridge and has taught at the London School of Economics, the University of Reading and the University of California at Berkeley. From 1991– 94 he was Special Adviser on Strategic Planning to the UK Secretary of State for the Environment, with special reference to Thames Gateway and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. He was a member of the Deputy Prime Minister's Urban Task Force (19989), the Expert Advisory Committee to the Barker Review of the planning system (2006) and the Eco-Towns Challenge Panel (2008). In 2009 he co-authored a report on future train stations for the Secretary of State for Transport, and launched Sintropher, a 22 million Euro EU programme promoting new transport technologies, particularly tram-trains, to assist European regional development. He is author, co-author or editor of nearly 40 books on urban and regional planning and related topics, including The World Cities, Urban and Regional Planning, Cities of Tomorrow, Cities in Civilization, Urban Future 21 and The Polycentric Metropolis. Sandro Santamato Head of Unit, DG MOVE, European Commission

Mr Santamato is the Head of the Unit in charge of Economic Analysis, Impact Assessment and Evaluation in DG Mobility and Transport since January 2007. He has been closely involved in the preparation of the Climate and Energy package of March 2008, of the Greening of Transport package of July 2008, and of the Communication on a Sustainable Future for Transport of June 2009. He has been leading the work on the White Paper on Transport adopted on 28 March 2011. He has formerly worked in DG Competition on State Aid issues (telecom, broadcasting, and banking sectors) and, previously, on Antitrust and Mergers. An economist by training, he has begun his career in the European Commission in 1993 in the DG for Economic and Financial Affairs. Before joining the Commission he held a position as financial analyst in the research department of a commercial bank.

Marc Le Tourneur Senior Advisor, VEOLIA TRANSDEVʼs Innovation & Development Department

M. Le Tourneur is responsible for LRT, urban mobility, transport and urban planning. From 2001 to 2010, he was CEO of TaM, the public transport operator in the Greater Montpellier area, and implemented tram lines 1, 2 and 3. A graduate of lʼEcole Centrale de Paris, Marc has been director for major projects for the Transdev Group, and was previously CEO of the public transport provider in Strasbourg, where he was also Project Director for the construction of the tramway. He has been City Planning Engineer for Grenoble and held responsibility for the construction of tram lines 1 and 2.

Wolfgang Munch Forward Studies, DG REGIO, European Commission

Anton Valk Chief Executive, Abellio

Wolfgang Munch is a civil servant in the European Commission. He has worked in the policy conception unit at the Directorate General for Regional Policy for a number of years. He deals with the design of the future Cohesion Policy and, among others, the aspect of infrastructure. He joined the European Commission in 2000 to advise on the EU enlargement strategy in the field of agriculture, as well as on several policy reform packages. Before joining the European Commission he worked as researcher and consultant for a number of governments in Europe and North America, as well as for the World Bank.


In 2001, Anton Valk set up Abellio from scratch as the international subsidiary of Netherlands Railways. He has been Chief Executive of the Board of Directors ever since. His primary aim was to create a profitable international public transport company as European markets opened up to competition. Anton led our successful bids for the Northern and Merseyrail franchises, and expansion in the UK, Germany and the Czech Republic. Anton has a passion for excellence in customer service and for creating strong partnerships with clients such as the Department for Transport, Transport for London and passenger transport executives in the north of England. Antonʼs belief in these values is deep-rooted and draws on his experience in developing and managing global and international subsidiaries of Philips Electronics and KPN Telecom in the USA and in Europe.

Throughout his career in multinational corporations, Anton has recognised the importance of best practice exchange and this has been one of Abellioʼs core values since acquiring its first business. In 2006, Anton became a member of the Group Advisory board of Netherlands Railways, cementing the links with our parent company. In this role he is closely involved in strategy and policy, and various senior management programmes. Michèle Dix Managing Director, Planning, Transport for London

Michèle started her career at the Greater London Council (GLC) after completing her PhD and became a chartered civil engineer through the GLCʼs transport planning graduate scheme. Following 10 years in the private sector working on a range of studies Michèle joined Transport for London as Director of Congestion Charging in a job-share with Malcolm Murray-Clark. In June 2007, they were promoted to Managing Directors of Planning. Malcolm has now retired whilst Michele continues to lead TfL's strategic thinking on the future transport needs of London, testing and challenging policies and providing clear direction on appropriate transport solutions for the future.

Nils Jänig Transport Technologie-Consult Karlsruhe

Nils Jänig has been deputy director and leader of the international studies department at TTK since 2005. TTK is a subsidiary of the Karlsruhe tram-train operator and PTV AG. He studied at the Technical University of Berlin, is a Diplom-Ingenieur, and holds an MSc. in transport planning. He is a specialist in the field of LRT and tram-train, especially with regard to operations, rolling stock, ITCS systems and economics. In these fields Nils is part of the technical consultant team on the Sintropher projects in Nijmegen Kleve and Blackpool. In recent years he has worked mainly on LRT/tram-train projects in Germany, the UK and France.

Pierre Laconte Former Director, UITP

Pierre Laconte specialises in urban and transport planning, and their links with environmental issues. He has Doctorates in Laws and in Economics from the Louvain University and is Dr h.c., Edinburgh Napier University. M. Laconte was one of the three planners in charge of the Louvain University ʻGroupe Urbanisme Architectureʼ. This team was entrusted with the planning and architectural coordination of the new university town of Louvainla-Neuve, now a major growth area south of Brussels. It includes a new underground railway station and numerous ecologic features such as separation of storm water and sewage water and its centre is entirely pedestrian. He is vice-chair of the European Environment Agency Scientific Committee, honorary Secretary General of the International Association of Public Transport (UITP), past-president of the International Society of City and Regional Planners (2006-2009) and president of the Foundation for the Urban Environment. 34

Dominik Brühwiler Deputy Director and Head of Transportation Planning Zürcher Verkehrsverbund

Dominik Brühwiler was born in 1969 in Switzerland. In 1993 he finished his studies at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich with a Masters Degree in Civil Engineering and Transportation Engineering. From 1993 until 1996 he remained at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich working for the Institute of Transportation, Highway-and Railway-Engineering (IVT) as a technical Assistant. From 1996 – 2000 he worked for Electrowatt Engineering Ltd, Switzerland (today Pöyry ltd.) in the Department of Transport Projects as a Project Manager on various urban railway projects in Latin America. He spent much of the time in Venezuela for the Metro Valencia Underground Light Rail project (1997-98) and the Metro Maracaibo project (19992000). Other projects took place in Argentina, Mexico and Thailand. In 2001 he became the head of transport planning department at Zürcher Verkehrsverbund ZVV, Zurich, the Public Transport Authority of the Canton of Zurich. The ZVV finances and coordinates 51 public transport companies in the Canton of Zürich. It has a turnover of around CHF 1 bn per year. A key project was the creation and implementation of the ZVV nighttime network (2001-2002) consisting of over 60 bus and train lines serving the canton of Zurich at nights. The night-time network covers more than 100 per cent of its operating costs. The dominant project is the planning and construction of the new cross-city link and the fourth extension of the Zurich S-Bahn network (2001-2018). The package of CHF 3.5 bn will enable a new, more extensive range of S-Bahn and long-distance rail services to be offered as of 2014. Dominik Brühwiler is responsible for the timetable, the infrastructure and the rolling stock concept. In 2007 Dominik Brühwiler became deputy director of Zürcher Verkehrsverbund. Tony Depledge Director, Transport Policy, Arriva plc, Chairman, European Union Committee, UITP

Tony Depledge has worked in public transport since 1969 and in the management of operating companies since 1973, in both the public and private sectors. He joined Arriva in October 2001. Prior to this, Tony was Managing Director of Blackpool Transport, a local-authority company running buses and trams in the northwest of England. He has wide experience of the operation of public transport by bus and light rail and of working with central and local government and with local authorities at both a strategic and an operational level. For Arriva, Tony is responsible for work with regional, national and European government bodies and other agencies on public transport policy. Tony Depledge was President of the UK trade association CPT from December 1999 to June 2001. He is currently President of the European Union Committee of the international trade association, UITP.

Sintropher Conference proceedings May 2011  

Using innovative transport technologies to stimulate regional development. Developing sustainable, cost-effective solutions to improve acce...