rv 2014: complete streets- from policy to implementation by gregory thompson
DESCRIPTION
Complete Streets: From Policy to Implementation (Completely) AICP CM 2 2 HOUR SESSION How can you make your complete streets policy a success? How do you translate complete streets into real benefits for the people who are walking, biking and taking public transportation? How do you promote accessibility and connectivity for all -- including people with disabilities -- through design and planning? Hear regional, city and international perspectives from policy to implementation during this complete complete streets workshop. Moderator: Richard Weaver, AICP, Director of Planning, Policy and Sustainability, American Public Transportation Association; Chair, National Complete Streets Coalition, Washington, DC Joseph Iacobucci, Sam Schwartz Engineering, DPC, Chicago, Illinois Stefanie Seskin, Deputy Director, National Complete Streets Coalition, Smart Growth America, Washington, DC Dan Gallagher, AICP, Transportation Planning Manager, Charlotte Department of Transportation, Charlotte, North Carolina James Cromar, Director of Planning, Broward Metropolitan Planning Organization, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida Tony Hull, Independent Transportation Consultant, Minneapolis, Minnesota Gregory Thompson, Chair, Light Rail Transit Committee of TRB, Tallahassee, Florida Roxana Ene, Project Manager, Broward Metropolitan Planning Organization, Ft. Lauderdale, FloridaTRANSCRIPT
COMPLETE STREETS: FROM POLICY TO IMPLEMENTATION
How the French Blend Light Rail and Complete Streets for Total Accessibility Greg Thompson . Tom Larwin . Tom Parkinson Transportation Research Board Subcommittee on International Light Rail Development
Total accessibility
Implementing Green Transit/Complete Streets on an Unprecedented Scale
Defining the French Approach: the Macro View
§ MACRO Design Principle 1: Develop a a concept of how public transport should tie the urban agglomeration together: a small number of light rail (nouveau tram) lines is key
§ MACRO Design Principle 2: High-‐performance and -‐capacity vehicles designed to blend with the urban fabric and facilitate accessibility between lines and modes
§ MACRO Design Principle 3: Fully accessible stops widely spaced
§ MACRO Design Principle 4: Stops adjacent to ,and integrated with major destinations; including in suburbs
§ MACRO Design Principle 5: Bus lines reconfigured around nouveau tram stations
The Micro Design Side of the French Approach: the Art of Insertion
§ Almost 100% use of public rights-‐of-‐way ú At the expense of the auto, which are kept off tracks ú Examples: Roads, alleys, plazas, university campuses,
hospital campuses
§ All rights-‐of-‐way rebuilt from building façade to building façade to facilitate transit performance, pedestrian and bicycle flow, safety, aesthetics
§ The Art of Insertion is a political process wherein stakeholder groups figure out how to design high performance transit that is compatible with their lifestyles
MACRO Design Principle 1: A Regional Core of Light Rail Lines
Big box district
University Mall
Center City
High rise offices
Industrial district
University hospital complex
Intercity rail
Medical complex
Malls and big box stores
Macro Design Principle 2: Long vehicles with lots of doors and a fare system that allows passengers to use all doors, bright, cheery, airy
Macro Design Principle 3: Fully accessible stops spaced widely to enable faster service
Macro Design Principle 4: Stops adjacent to major destinations; many in suburbs
Macro Design Principle 5: Bus system reconfigured around light rail stops
Center City insertion where two lines cross
Insertion into an alley
Insertion of station into alley
Center city insertion
Insertion: Edge of center city
Insertion: Edge of historic center
Insertion: Stop shoe-‐horned into tight spot
12 Oct 2012 -‐ GLT 17
Insertion: Stopping trains delay autos; not vice versa
12 Oct 2012 -‐ GLT 18
Insertion: Inner suburb
Insertion: Outer suburb of single family homes
Insertion: Suburban university campus (Nantes)
Insertion: Suburban university campus (Orleans)
Insertion in Plaza: 1
Insertion in Plaza: 2
Insertion in Plaza: 3
Insertion of high quality transit into urban and suburban fabric: an art combining:
• Transit planning and engineering • Traffic engineering • Safety analysis • Aesthetics and urban design • Politics
• To achieve the results you have seen 26
Summary: Macro concepts of quality transit combined with The Art of Insertion result in complete streets that truly change travel behavior
Thank you — Merci! Waiting for the tram, Strasbourg 2011
TP
27 of 14
Remarkable growth, particularly from 2000; there is no distinction between tramways (streetcars) and light rail in France, more a combination of features. Tram-‐trains are not covered here but are gaining ground with dual-‐system vehicles capable of over 100km/h— 750 volts plus 1.5V DC or 25kV AC or diesel
Growth of French Tramways—kilometres of route
Base chart from The Transport Politic, Yonah Freemark 2012
Prior French practice was rubber-‐tired metro for large cities: Paris, Lyon, Marseille. Rubber-‐tired light metro (Siemens VAL) for medium cities: Lille, Rennes, Toulouse. Then the lower cost tramway appeared.
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
28 of 14
29 of 14
Despite the economies of scale from city to city: joint orders for vehicles, use of public land and easements, and minimising line poles (25% of spans in Brest are attached to buildings), French tramways are comparable or slightly more expensive than other European systems—although allowance should be made for the 15-‐25% of project costs that are spent on the urban environment—and any APS. The average of eleven recent French systems is US$ 29m/km, range $20.4– $51.2 The average of seven recent US systems is US$ 35m/km, range $28.6– $43.5 Excludes systems, such as Seattle, with tunnels or other high infrastructure costs; €=US$1.3
Bordeaux with APS
Capital Costs
.
Some results
30 of 14
Buses and trams are closely integrated with free transfers. Ridership increase is typically 30–60%. Montpellier went from 28.8m/year on the all bus system in1999, to 62.2m in 2010 with 5 routes, an 150% increase.
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000
US average
Valenciennes
Orléans
Reims
Angers
St-Etienne
Le Mans
Rouen
Average
Strasbourg
Grenoble
Montpellier
Bordeaux
Nice
Rides per day per kilometre of route FTA 2010 data—probable underestimate due to double count of some route miles
Despite moderate fares and frequent service with union (syndicat) drivers, average farebox recovery at 48% is good, particularly given that on some systems heavily discounted students make up over half the riders. Alignments may often seem convoluted but ensure that universities, schools and other major generators—hospitals and railway stations—are well connected.
31 of 14
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
US Average
Nantes
Paris
Marseille
Orleans
Toulouse
Average
Grenoble
Lyon
Lille
St.Etienne
Strasbourg
LRT Farebox Recovery as percent of Direct Operating costs
US light rail vs bus performance 2011
Circulator Streetcar vs bus performance 2011
France like U.S. in auto ownership and big box retailing
34
.
Table 1.1 Intensity of motorization in G-‐7 nations in 2000
Motor vehicles per 1000
population (a)Motor vehicles per worker (b)
Vehicle km. per capita ( c )
Motor vehicle CO2 per capita (d)
United States 784 1.58 15,618 5,202Canada 676 1.43 10,831 3,741Japan 651 1.30 5,976 1,762Italy 626 1.73 6,274 1,917Germany 576 1.29 7,126 2,067France 574 1.44 8,778 2,153United Kingdom 511 1.10 7,662 1,933G-‐7 average 625 1.41 8,895 2,682Source: (a) Vehicle registrations: Ward's Motor Vehicles Facts and Figures, 2002; population data for all series: Maddison, World Economy: Historical Statistics; (b) Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2002, "Comparative Labor Force Statistics, Ten Countries, 1959-‐2001"; (c) Highway Statistics 2002, table IN-‐4, "Vehicle Travel for Selected Countries"; (d) International Energy Agency, CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion, 1971-‐2000, country tables, II.143ff.
The following table is copied from David W. Jones, Mass Motorization + Mass Transit , Indiana University Press, 2008, p. 4.
SUMMARY OF FRENCH TRAMWAYS Lines in service/under construction– all modes¹ Tom Parkinson Dec 2013, modif STRMTG-‐Certu Jan 2014
City/Region Urban area Population Open Km Miles Cars
Tram Pax/Day* Metro VAL
Tram-‐ way
Tram-‐Train
Tram w/ Tires
Trolley-‐bus BRT NOTES
Angers 216,000 2011 12.3 7.4 17 35,000 1²/1 Line B opens 2020Aubagne 100,000 2014 9.0 5.4 8 new -‐/2 Line 1 opens 2014, line 2 in 2019Avignon 180,000 2016 12.6 7.6 24 new -‐/2 line opens 2016Besancon 140,000 2015 14.5 8.7 19 new -‐/1 lowest capital cost/kmBordeaux 835,000 2003 43.4 26.0 74 192,000 3²/1 0/1 extensions and tram/train plannedBrest 201,000 2012 14.3 8.6 20 33,000 1-‐Jan Cross city line with two branchesCaen 198,000 2002 15.7 9.4 24 45,000 0/3 2 Converting to steel wheel tramway + a new lineClermont-‐Ferrand 260,000 2006 16.3 9.8 26 48,000 1 Translohr systemDijon 250,000 2012 20.0 12.0 33 70,000 2Grenoble 530,000 1987 36.4 36.4 89 210,000 4/1Le Havre 244,000 2012 13.0 7.8 22 new 2Le Mans 208,000 2007 15.4 9.2 26 48,000 1/1 2nd line opens in 2015Lille 1,100,000 1909 22.4 13.4 24 34,000 2 2 Retains original metre gaugeLimoges 139,000 1942 32.5 19.5 40 n/a 5Lyon 1,760,000 2000 72.1 43.3 103 250,000 4 4 2 8 TT = Rhônexpress tram-‐train to airport + rapid tram (on same tracks)Marseille 1,530,000 2007 11.5 6.9 26 50,000 2 2 project : extension, not a new lineMontpellier 384,000 2000 54.4 32.6 83 282,000 4/1Mulhouse 250,000 2006 19.0 11.4 39 60,000 3 1 41km with TTNancy 105,000 2001 11.4 6.8 25 n/a 1 Bombardier GLT with double wire overheadNantes 585,000 1985 42.1 25.3 91 274,000 3 '0/1 1 TT opens 2014Nice 350,000 2007 8.7 5.2 28 90,000 1²/1 2nd line to open in 2016Nîmes 2012 6.0 3.6 7,000 0/1 1 line tramway opens 2018Orléans 269,000 2000 29.2 17.5 43 67,000 2²Paris (region) 11,800,000 1992 71.0 42.6 205 450,000 14 1 5/1 1/1 41640 2 Lines 3a and 3b counted separately³Reims 210,000 2011 11.2 6.7 18 45,000 2 Cross city line with two branchesRennes 220,000 2002 9.4 5.6 38 n/a 1/1Rouen 530,000 1994 15.1 9.1 28 65,000 2 3 optically guided busway TEOR, 69 cars, 55,3 kmSt. Etienne 370,000 1981 18.9 11.3 35 82,000 3 1 Retains original metre gaugeStrasbourg 450,000 1994 57.2 34.3 94 243,000 6Toulouse 1,100,000 2010 10.9 6.5 24 20,000 2 1/1 Tram now feeder to VAL-‐-‐will extend to CBDTours 300,000 2013 15.3 9.2 21 new 1Valenciennes 334,000 2006 18.3 11.0 21 28,000 1/133 cities; 29 tramway systems; 57 tramway lines Totals 20 1/6 29/57 5/2 41644 14 7
¹ Many lines cross through the city centre and could be categorised as two lines ²Has section(s) without overhead using APS 3rd rail alimentation par le sol (batteries in Nice)³11.2 km Line T7 (Villejuif-‐Loius Aragon) opened Nov 16, 2013; not included in totals*Patronage figures do not reflect line openings after 2011Population and line length data from various sources is not always consistentMain reference-‐-‐Les tramways francais en 2012, Connaissance du rail