Findings Report March 2011

(1)

Action WP1A21

‘Actualisation, Upgrade and Extension of Feasibilty and Viability

Studies for Tram-Train Link Nijmegen-Kleve’

Action WP1A22

‘Feasibility Study of Tram-Train Options for the Weeze Airport

Link’

Findings Report

March 2011

(2)

(3)

3

Sustainable transport for

North

-

West Europe’s periphery

Sintropher is a five-

year

€

23m transnational

cooperation project with

the aim of

enhancing local and regional transport

provision to, from and within five peripheral

regions in North

-

West Europe.

INTERREG IVB

INTERREG IVB North-West Europe is a financial instrument of the European Union’s Cohesion Policy. It funds projects which support transnational cooperation.

(4)

4

Introduction

This Findings Report describes the summary findings from technical and economic feasibility studies commissioned by the Arnhem Nijmegen City Region and ProRail as part of their contribution to the Sintropher transport project funded by the EU’s North West Europe transnational cooperation programme under INTERREG IVB. The study reports on the combined actions WP1A21 and WP2A22, respectively ‘Actualisation, Upgrade and Extension of Feasibility and Viability Studies for Tram-Train Link Nijmegen-Kleve’ and ‘Feasibility Study of Tram-Tram-Train Options for the Weeze Airport Link’.

Part 1 provides the background and context to the study, whilst Part 2 presents conclusions as applicable to Arnhem Nijmegen. Part 3 sets out the wider

transnational relevance of these findings in relation to knowledge transfer within the Sintropher Project Partnership and wider target audiences. In particular these are decision-makers at wider regional, national and EU levels; transport practitioners,

(6)

6 informed members of the public shaping public opinion; as well as the NWE

Secretariat and agencies providing ERDF co-financing for the project.

We are providing some information about our next steps in Part 4 of this report. Part 5 gives contact details and links to the Main report, which is available in more detail (in Dutch and German).

(7)

7

Part 1 Background and objectives

In 1991, a downward trend in the number of passengers and lower frequencies resulted in the closing of the Nijmegen – Kleve rail link. The relationship between Nijmegen, Kleve and surrounding municipalities has become increasingly important in the last decade. However, public transport connections between the areas on both sides of the border have not kept pace with these developments. The Arnhem

Nijmegen City Region and ProRail have taken the initiative to explore the possible reactivation of the Nijmegen – Kleve rail link. This also involves a study into the feasibility of a connection to the Kleve – Weeze railway link with Weeze Airport. The initiative was taken in the framework of the INTERREG IVB project SINTROPHER. The aim of this study is as follows:

To formulate, define, develop, calculate and consider three alternatives for a rail link between Nijmegen–Kleve–Weeze (Airport) and to improve the quality of rising border mobility.

(8)

8 Location

Scope

The scope of this study focuses on rail links (tram, tram-train and train). It therefore does not include research into the improvement of bus links. This is an exploratory study. As with all exploratory studies, this study has considerable uncertainty margins.

Approach

Many parties are involved in the Nijmegen – Kleve rail link. Based on source research and a workshop with the stakeholders concerned, a set of demands and wishes was formulated. A rail link must comply with these requirements with regard to transport, rolling stock, infrastructure, product formulae, environmental integration and finance. These demands and wishes lead to alternatives and variants to these alternatives. These alternatives and variants are then studied with respect to

transport value, operations and infrastructure. The study results lead to a quantitative (financial) and qualitative analysis. Part of the quantitative analysis is a comparison between costs and benefits. In the Netherlands, this is the Regionale Kentallen Kosten Baten Analyse (RKKBA) and in Germany the Standardisierte Bewertung. Based on these analyses, conclusions can be drawn.

(9)

9

Challenge for transport planning

Two sides of the border

Originally, the municipalities in the Kleve region were more oriented towards the Ruhr area, while the Arnhem Nijmegen City Region tended to look towards the

Randstad conurbation in the west of the Netherlands. Around the Millennium, the two regions started to become increasingly linked. More and more Dutch people are moving to Germany in response to the higher housing prices in the Netherlands, for example. With respect to employment, schools and leisure, the connection between the German border area and the Ruhr is declining in favour of the Nijmegen region. Furthermore, Weeze Airport has become an important airport for Dutch travellers: in 2009, 52% of people travelling from Weeze Airport came from the Netherlands. Planned development

In different locations around the historic rail route, there are plans for area development, which could provide extra mobility. Examples: the development of Nijmegen city centre, around the railway station, the expansion of Heyendaal

campus, the plans for the centre of Groesbeek, a new residential area in Kranenburg and the new Fachhochschule in Kleve.

Public transport networks

The current regional public transport networks focus on both centres on the historic route: Nijmegen and Kleve. Both stations constitute an important interchange in the regional bus networks. Nijmegen and Kleve themselves are linked by two bus lines: via Beek or with a change via Groesbeek. These links are fairly slow and cannot sufficiently facilitate developments in the area. Nijmegen, Arnhem, Kleve and Düsseldorf are linked to the national Dutch and German railway networks. Improvements in quality

The area development on both sides of the border and developments in border traffic require a good rail link between Nijmegen and Kleve. The current bus link tends to be more focused on access than on connecting the regions. The historic route could play an interregional role and provide a response to the needs arising from all the developments.

(10)

10

Framework

Based on source research and a workshop with the stakeholders concerned, the demands and wishes to be satisfied by a reactivated rail link were formulated. Traffic assumptions

§ Stops: in Nijmegen, Nijmegen Heyendaal, Groesbeek, Kranenburg, Kleve, Goch, Bedburg-Hau and Weeze. Possible stops in Nütterden, Donsbrüggen, Kleve Tiergarten and Weeze Airport

§ Shorter travel time compared with the current situation between Nijmegen and Kleve and sub trajectories

§ Minimum frequency during the day 2xhour and 1xhour in the evenings and on Sundays

§ Integration of new rail link with bus network Rolling stock assumptions

§ Material to be included: tram, tram-train and train

§ Power: tram and tram-train: electric or hybrid, train: diesel § Suitable for one-man operation

§ Sufficient seating capacity

§ Link up with future tram stock in Nijmegen or German train stock

§ Comply with environmental, admissibility and accessibility requirements Infrastructure assumptions

§ The track is single track with passing or overtaking places where necessary § No overhead power line unless fully electrically powered

§ A new bridge in Kleve should be movable

§ Rail infrastructure only suitable for passenger transport

§ Connect to tram network in Nijmegen or German and/or Dutch rail network § Couple and decouple Niersexpress in Kleve

Design assumptions

(11)

11 Environmental assumptions

§ Follow historical route

§ Integrate in centre plan and minimise inconvenience to Groesbeek § No impact on ecological main structure.

Financial assumptions

§ Minimum degree of cost effective operation is 50%

§ Positive wirtschaftlichkeitsberechnung (= German method of calculating economic feasibility)

§ Positive Cost Benefit Analysis Nijmegen – Kleve (- Weeze Airport) link

Operational concept

Stakeholders’ requirements form the basis for the transport concept to be explored. Operation, rolling stock, stops and infrastructure will be studied. The wish is to create an attractive link in terms of travel time and frequency using the historic rail link between Nijmegen and Kleve. The link between Nijmegen and Kleve will be integrated into the public transport network on both sides of the border.

The traveller must experience the link as a modern and fast mode of transport. In terms of concept, there will be links with current product formulae on both sides of the border (such as Breng, Niersexpress). The stops must have an inviting modern feel. The material must transport passengers comfortably. Between Nijmegen and Kleve, the rolling stock to be used must link up with existing or new fleets.

Tram, tram-train or train?

The material is an important element when exploring alternatives. There are three different options: tram, tram-train and train. These differ from each other with regard to build (step-in height), stops and transport function:

§ tram: there are two different options:

o urban tram: 70 km/hr, length around 30 metres. This material is not used as a reference due to the fact that the length of the route (28 km) is too long for 70 km/hr

(12)

12

o regional tram: 100 km/hr, 70km/hr when travelling with road traffic, both hybrid (diesel and electric) and only electric possible, length 27 and 37 metres. As reference, the RegioCitadis (electric and hybrid) is used, linking up with the study into a tram in Nijmegen

§ tram-train: unlike the tram, a tram-train can travel on the main railway track. Due to the lack of overhead power cables on the existing track between Kleve and Weeze, only a hybrid variant is considered

§ train: 120-140 km/hr, length 41 metres, diesel. With Lint 41 as a reference, this links up with the Niersexpress in Kleve

Options and variations

Not all the requirements are equally important when choosing alternatives. For the development of alternatives and variants, the following top demands were

established as a reference:

§ type of rolling stock: tram, tram-train or train § stops

§ integration new rail link with bus network

§ link to current systems in terms of material and rail network § power (electric, diesel or hybrid)

The logical combinations of these requirements produce variants in terms of track (whether to go to Weeze Airport or not, on platform or forecourt in Nijmegen),

frequency, material and underlying bus network. The required infrastructure will also be determined. For example, in the event of a higher frequency between Nijmegen and Groesbeek, a passing option must be created as well as a passing option in Kranenburg.

The variants are:

§ Tram (100 km/hr) (city centre -) Nijmegen – Kleve with stops in Nijmegen, Heyendaal, Groesbeek, Kranenburg, Nütterden, Donsbrüggen, Kleve Tiergarten and Kleve:

(13)

13

o 2x per hour – hybrid (without overhead power cable outside Nijmegen)

o 4x per hour between Nijmegen and Groesbeek - hybrid: § passing track at Malden or

§ turning track in Groesbeek

o 2x per hour - electric

o 4x per hour between Nijmegen and Groesbeek - electric: § passing track at Malden or

§ Tram-train (100 km/hr) (city centre -) Nijmegen – Weeze Airport, does not stop at optional stops Nütterden, Donsbrüggen, Kleve Tiergarten:

o 2x per hour - hybrid

o 4x per hour between Nijmegen and Groesbeek - hybrid: § passing track at Malden or

§ Train Nijmegen – Kleve - Weeze Airport, does not stop at optional stops Nütterden, Donsbrüggen, Kleve Tiergarten:

o 2x per hour, third track besides Maas line - diesel: § Deepened at Groesbeek

§ With moveable bridge in Kleve § With both

(14)

14

Part 2 Conclusions for the Arnhem-Nijmegen

region

Demand: There are enough travellers between Nijmegen and Kleve for two connections an hour

About 1800-2100 travellers (both directions) are expected to cross the border each day. In comparison with other cross-boundary connections, this score is high. The busiest part of the line lies between Nijmegen Heyendaal and Nijmegen CS. Here 4,000-4,300 use this connection (apart from the number of people travelling by bus and other train connection).

There are not large differences in the number of travellers between tram, tram-train and train. Train generates most travellers, the connection is quicker and the

(15)

15 A tram has more stops than a train, but the number of travellers on these extra stops is low.

Nijmegen – Kleve has a ‘Euro-regional’ function

The study show that there are only a few travellers can be expected from the Nijmegen-region to the Ruhr-area. The high speed connection from Arnhem to the Ruhr area is faster. So the conclusion can be drawn that Nijmegen-Kleve has a ‘Euro-regional’ function.

(16)

16 A tram-train connection to Weeze Airport is not feasible

The traveller calculations show that between railway station and Weeze Airport, only 500 travellers a day can be expected. The infrastructural costs for a new connection were roughly estimated at € 25 million. Weeze Airport generated 2.4 million travellers in 2009, and 52% of them where Dutch. However, about 95% of all visitors are car-oriented. Travellers also come from a geographically dispersed area.

Parking is an important source of income for the Airport and that is why the build even more parking spaces. It is also cheaper to park in Weeze than for example Düsseldorf or Schiphol.

(17)

17 The urge for the development of an integrated network

There are four buses per hour between Groesbeek and Nijmegen (six per hour at peak times). There is an hourly service between Kleve and Kranenburg.

Unnecessary parallel travel relationships between two destinations should be avoided. A rail connection between Groesbeek and Nijmegen is faster than a bus connection. However, the bus can reach areas that a train cannot reach. So it is not possible to only have a rail connection between Groesbeek and Kleve. An interesting challenge is to develop a network in which buses from surrounding towns can act as feeders to railway stations.

The saving on the operational costs of the bus can be invested into the operation of the trams. Also the travellers from the bus are necessary for the viability of the tram, since many of the expected travellers would otherwise use the bus (45%). This underlines the importance of modal shift.

Train has the best score in the social cost-benefit analysis

The investment costs and the operational costs for the train are the lowest. The infrastructural costs for a train-connection between Nijmegen and Kleve are estimated at € 58m; for the tram at € 64m. Also the operational costs for train are lower than for a tram. This has to do with the fact that there is already a good service between Düsseldorf and Kleve. A tram network (and associated administrative

organisation) has to be built from scratch.

A tram can be better integrated in the built environment than a train.

Tram is a lighter system than a (light) train. The integration into the environment is easier. An example from the study is Wiesenstraße in Kleve. A part of the old track in Kleve had been lifted and cleared for a car park. Between the railway station and the car parks lies the Wiesenstraße, which had an important role for the accessibility of the centre. According to German regulation, a train cannot cross this road at street-level. Tram regulations are less strict, and trams and tram-trains are allowed to cross the road. So selecting the train option means that a flyover has to be built. Similarly construction regulations for heavy rail have more impact on the urban environment. The platform for a train is higher than for a tram.

(18)

18

Part 3 Wider transnational relevance to the

Sintropher Partnership and external

audiences

A key part of the INTERREG concept is learning from one another, and this section sets out some of the main transferable lessons.

1. New techniques and business models can make the reactivation of rail lines feasible

When the line Nijmegen-Kleve was closed down, there was only one (short) old and noisy traditional train every two hours. Nowadays there is another way of working: modern and lighter material is available and a higher frequency is offered to travellers. The conclusion for Nijmegen – Kleve is there are enough travellers to open Nijmegen-Kleve.

2. Travellers at Weeze Airport have a widespread origin and destination and the number of travellers from the region Niederrhein is relatively small

(19)

19 Weeze Airport is situated in a rural area. In the summer of 2011, the airport offers connections to 47 destinations. The largest company is Ryan Air, a low cost carrier. About 11% of the travellers come from the German region Niederrhein, so the number of travellers coming from the home region is relatively small.

The airline network offered at Weeze is merely oriented to holiday destinations instead of economic centres. The attractiveness to travel and park cheaply is so high that people that live far away from this airport are still willing to travel to Weeze. As a consequence of this the origin-destination table shows wide variation.

Another relevant point, which does not stimulate the use of public transport are the timetables of the flights. Cheap airline carriers often have timetables with departures and arrivals at times of the day that don’t suit existing public transport networks well. 3. Weeze Airport is and will be extremely car oriented

About 95% of all travellers are car-oriented. There is no congestion on the road network and parking prices are lower than at large airports like Schiphol and

Düsseldorf. Weeze Airport has 7000 parking spaces, which are situated nearby the terminal. The revenues from parking are very lucrative for the airport. The Airport also wants to improve the connection to the road network. It would like to keep growing, but public transport will keep a marginal function in the modal split. 4. A tram-train is not always the best option for the rebirth of former railway lines

The Netherlands does not have regulation for the mix between trains and tram-trains. So on the Dutch side of the track, trams use their own rail. The connection to Weeze Airport will not be realised, so there is no need for integration with traditional German rail.

The study shows that the cost price of tram-trains, due to their niche position in the market, is relatively high. A regional tram, which has a maximum speed of 100 km/h is cheaper than a tram-train vehicle. So a tram between Nijmegen and Kleve is the best option for Nijmegen – Kleve.

5. Decision-makers should balance decisions between infrastructure costs versus operational costs

At first glance lower investments in infrastructure look more socially acceptable, but they are not always the best solution for society. Often lower investments in

infrastructure imply that transport operating companies have to bear more costs for operations. Investments in infrastructure and exploitation should be approached as one system while searching for the best most cost-effective solutions. In the end, operational costs must be paid every year and for a large part. The benefits are lower than the costs, so government has to pay each year.

(20)

20 § Tram

In the beginning of the study the only focus was on hybrid trams. Later in the process, electrically-powered options were also added. Hybrid trams are more expensive than electric ones. The operational costs for electrical trams are lower than hybrid tram. On the other hand, the investment costs are for

electrification between Nijmegen and Kleve are much higher (€80m instead of

€ 64m).

§ Train

In the train option, the current Regional Express between Düsseldorf and Kleve is extended to Nijmegen. A problem is that Germany and the Netherlands use different safety systems.

For trains two options were researched. The first option is that the German trains use a complete separate rail and do not mix with Dutch regional trains. This is the case that existed until 1991. In this case, the German safety

system can be used until Nijmegen CS. The other option is that German trains use the Dutch tracks. This means that many German trains also need Dutch safety systems. In the case of the use of a separate track, the infrastructural costs are higher and in the case of the mixed use, the operational costs are higher.

6. Keep the rules of scale in mind

A small fleet of trams, tram-trains or trains lead to relatively high costs. If you can avoid this, operational costs will drop. In our study the tram options were more expensive than the train option as the train option could use this rule of scale and trams not. The estimated tram fleet would only be five sets and several operational start-up costs had to be considered (e.g. maintenance shed). By extending the rail line/train operations significant costs reductions arose compared to new operations. When taken into consideration that there could be a city tram network in Nijmegen with only electrically powered trams, electrification between Nijmegen and Kleve proved out to be an interesting business case for society as a whole.

7. There is a need for more insight into the contribution of tram to the spatial-economic of a medium sized cities (Nijmegen and Kleve) and peripheral region This case shows that a tram or tram-train solution is more expensive than a train solution, both with regard to infrastructure and operational costs. However, it is often said that a tram has a lager contribution to spatial and economic development that a

(21)

21 train. This is an important factor in the decision-making process. It is difficult to

quantify this in a cost-benefit analysis.

8. Using methods from both countries proved to be a good solution An important part of the study was the calculation of the expected number of

travellers. Unfortunately, there is no cross-boundary transport model available. The creation of such a model would have taken much time and money. The number of travellers from railway stations is calculated in a different way. In this study, the German approach was used. The Dutch method was used for two new railway stations as a check.

There are also different methods for the calculation of the social cost-benefit analysis. In Germany, is obliged to use the Standardisierte Bewertung for projects over € 25m. In the Netherlands, for large projects a Maatschappelijke Kosten-Batenanalyse is necessary (more than € 100m). Since this is a feasibility study, the simple versions of both approaches was used.

9. The urge for a cross-border cost-benefit analysis

A traditional cost-benefit analysis focuses on one country. This is an international rail project and investments in the Netherlands generate benefits in Germany (and vice versa). There is not enough knowledge and experience with this cross-border approach for reactivation of a regional rail line.

(22)

22

Part 4 Next steps

The present study concludes actions WP2A22 (Feasibility study of tram-train options for the Weeze Airport link) and WP1A21 (Actualisation, upgrade and extension of feasibility and viability studies for tram train link Nijmegen – Kleve), both of which have been highly successful.

However, the work reported here in action WP1A21 has subsequently generated a strong regional and political desire to proceed to the next stage of the identified preferred tram-train option. This comprises detailed evaluation of impacts and cost-benefit analysis, technical designs, a full economic business case, and multi-agency institutional arrangements for implementation. It is an integral follow-on to the

existing work in action WP1A21. Partners wish to capitalise on this success for the region and Sintropher as a whole, and build on existing strong momentum.

This first stage of action WP1A21 has already shown itself to be a pioneering initiative in seeking to reopen an abandoned rail line. This is also the first time an

(23)

23 urban tram-train system is being developed in Netherlands which could potentially include a cross-border link into Germany as part of the network.

We intend to work with other participants in the Sintropher partnership, notably Valenciennes in France, which is developing experience in similar cross-border issues and single-track rail systems. It will offer the opportunity to share knowledge in overcoming transnational issues: reconciling different national systems of financial evaluation (the Dutch Regionale Kenntallen Kosten Baten Analyse and German Standardisierte Bewertung), technical standards, legal and safety requirements, and operational aspects.

These follow-on studies are scheduled to start after summer 2011, but will also be dependent on which mode is selected – whether tram or regional express train.

(24)

24

Part 5 Further information

Detailed findings - Main Report

This is available from Cor Hartogs, Stadsregio Arnhem Nijmegen or online at www.sintropher.eu/reports

Contact details - Person

Cor Hartogs

Stadsregio Arnhem Nijmegen Postbus 6578, 6503 GB,

Nijmegen, The Netherlands +31 (0)24 329 7976

(25)

25 Henri Olink

Pro Rail, Project Manager, Rail Development Postbus 2038

3500 GA Utrecht

The Netherlands [email protected]

(26)

26

Part 6 What is Sintropher?

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.

• All our work is motivated by one overarching aim: to develop sustainable,

cost-effective solutions to improve accessibility to, from and within peripheral regions in North-West Europe. As part of this, we have four specific

objectives:

• Promote best possible cost-effective technology-based solutions

• Assess the appraisal procedure for regional tram systems and improve the

(27)

27 • Achieve high-quality, seamless interchange between regional tram systems

and regional rail and air hubs

• Promote and market the benefits of regional tram-based systems to users and stakeholders

We have a particular focus on tram-train systems which allow local trams to run on to national rail networks, pioneered in Karlsruhe and developed in Kassel (Germany), which allow urban tram systems to extend over national rail tracks to serve extensive city regions. Additionally we are looking at high-quality interchanges at key rail or air hubs.

In all, project partners from five demonstration regions in five EU Member States are working together: Valenciennes (France); the Fylde Coast (UK); West Flanders (Belgium); North Hesse (Germany); and Nijmegen-Kleve (The Netherlands). Participants include public transport operators, local authorities, regional management bodies and universities.

Each region will implement a programme of technical and economic feasibility evaluations for new systems, pilot investment projects, and demonstration projects, of which the present findings report is one such document. This will be

complemented by a set of comparative analyses of EU best practice.

Contact details – Sintropher

Charles King

Sintropher Communications Manager University College London

14 Upper Woburn Place London WC1H 0NN United Kingdom +44 (0)20 3108 9538 [email protected] www.sintropher.eu

(28)

28 Co-funded by the INTERREG IVB programme for North-West Europe

In partnership with

Sintropher is coordinated by

(29)

(30)

Sintropher

University College London 14 Upper Woburn Place London WC1H 0NN United Kingdom