Tested Methodologies and Results from Europe

Possibilities of

intermodality

in passenger transport

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................... 4

2 TRANSPORT TRENDS IN EUROPE ............................... 5 TRANSPORT POLICY ................................................ 11 RESEARCH RESULTS ................................................ 15 CATCH-MR ................................................................. 15 Survey about good intermodal node ...........................15 General requirements of intermodal nodes ..................16 INTERCONNECT .......................................................... 19 Frankfurt airport.......................................................20 Port of Helsingborg ...................................................25 Karlsruhe Dual-mode railway system ..........................29 REFERENCES ............................................................ 37

3

This publication was produced by the PRESS4TRANSPORT consortium on behalf of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Research. The European Union, the European Commission or any person acting on their behalf are not responsible for the accurateness, completeness, use of the information contained in this Fiche, nor shall they be liable for any loss, including consequential loss, that might derive from such use or from the findings of the Fiche themselves. Although the authors exercised all reasonable efforts to ensure the accuracy and the quality of the contents of this publication, the Consortium assumes no liability for any inadvertent error or omission that may appear in this publication. Additional information on the analyzed projects is available on the PRESS4TRANSPORT website at http://www.press4transport.eu/vpo/thematic_fiches.php Created by: PRESS4TRANSPORT Consortium Coordinator: CYBION Srl Responsible Scientific Partner: Budapest University of Technology and Economics Author: Balazs Kozak, Gabor Szendro

Our Fiche deals with intermodal

EXECUTIVE

passenger

SUMMARY

4

transport

putting

emphasis on intermodal nodes,

Europe’s transport is dominated

which

by road transport. This brought

changing

from

for generation freedom and easy

mode

another.

mobility, due to its flexibility.

introduces

two

Due to ongoing traffic trends

programmes:

Catch-MR and

shed light on the drawbacks of

INTERCONNECT. The former

individual

approaches interconnectivity by

which

motorized

is

a

major

modes

to

the

places one

for

transport The

Fiche

research

of

examining good examples and

and

collecting experience and sharing

other problems originating from

best practices and innovations of

this.

7

environmental

The

aware

pollution

European

of

source

are

these

Union

is

metropolitan

regions

for

problems,

intermodal nodes. The latter has

promotes clean transport modes

also intermodal nodes in focus

and

transport

with larger variety of scale and

optimised

transport

creates

corridors

green

which

are

modes

concentrating

from environmental and financial

on experience from some typical

point of view. This could be road

and

transport as well, but the recent

outcome of the project is to give

EU policies are leading European

wider use of analytical tools at

transport

both European and local level.

towards

versatile

transport modes instead of single solution.

successful

projects

The

Transport

5

trends

modes of movement of goods or

in

Europe

passengers such as air, road, rail

Transport is inseparable part of

or

our life, engine of our economy

require interoperability between

and society. It has an effect on

the modes, they simply exist

our everyday life and provides

parallel to each other. In the

freedom, mobility, brings remote

case

places closer, but the seemingly

transportation includes transfer

endless freedom in today’s form

between the modes.

maritime.

This

of

does

not

intermodality,

is facing problems that must be tackled. sometimes

These

challenges

need

international

cooperation in finding solutions, but above all, they need local actions. The European transport system is at a crossroads. It has to find the right direction which gives

proper

answers

to

The purpose of transportation is to

move

commodities

and

people between origins and destinations. Transfer and time spent with it is part of the trips, with no distance covered. One may think that direct transport with one mode is better, though the reality is different. Although

gathering challenges.

it is much more complicated to Before we go deeper into the

plan the complete system, which

topic,

define

is usually schedule-based, this

multimodal

gives less flexibility to the user.

we

should

intermodal

and

transportation. concepts

are

These used

two

often

as

There are systems where there is no

option

other

than

synonyms, but there is a slight

intermodality, e.g. in the case of

difference

intercontinental shipping or long

in

meaning.

Multimodal

transport

combination

of

two

is or

the more

distance

passenger

transportation.

air

Nevertheless,

there

are

cases where

direct

72.4%

of

passenger

transportation is among available

transportation

choices,

transport could increase market

such

as

car

in

competition with public transport

and

only

air

share to 8.6% by 2008.

in urban and intercity trips, as well as long-haul trucking as a

6

competitor

is

intermodal

rail

transportation. Though these two have

similar

times,

direct

transportation transport

is

favoured. There is an increasing demand for transportation all around the world.

In

passenger transport

growth is mostly absorbed by car transportation,

while

other

modes such as bus, rail and air are still lagging behind, though air

transport

went

through

significant market share growth in the past few years.

Figure 1: EU-27 Performance by Mode for Passenger Transport - 1995-2008 (billion passenger-kilometres) (Source: EU Energy and Transport in figures 2010)

“The motor car – because of

its flexibility – has brought

In freight transport road (45.9%)

about real mass mobility, and

and

remains a symbol of personal

waterborne

transport

dominate,

(36.6%) while

the

freedom in modern society”.

other modes did not increase market share in the past few decades.

In

transportation

total, accounted

road for

(White Paper, 2001)

7

Bearing in mind the figures and

road congestion, although 20%

trends, it is easy to understand

of European railway network is

why congestion became a major

also

problem in the European Union.

and

Around 7500 km, or 10%, of the

project intended to solve along

trans-European road network is

major

affected

daily,

railways could ease motorways

which costs about 1% of the EU’s

from heavy freight transport that

GDP annually (~120 billion €).

could lower maintenance costs,

by

congestion

experiencing that

cause That is the reason why the EU would shift to other modes, and change

the

modal

split in

a

favourable way. Another

by

decisive

the

factor

is

user,

rather

by

society even if the taxpayer has nothing to do with some modes of transportation. The European Union therefore is making socalled green transport corridors that optimise transportation from energy

what

routes.

less

consumption

and

environmental points of view to minimise the harmful effects. The European Union is interested in rail transportation, to relieve

the

TEN-T

Changing

air

pollution

to

and

provide safer roads. In 2007, transport

was

responsible

for

19.5 % of all CO2 equivalent greenhouse

external costs, which are not paid

is

congestion,

gas

emissions. clearly

Oil

a

(GHG)

dependence

great

transportation

issue which

dominated

by

road

therefore

the

is in is

transport,

greatest

fuel

consumer, and in total only 2.6 %

of

final

energy

transport

consumption is from biofuels, all the rest is from conventional fossil 2011

fuels.

The

set

White

Paper

goals

in

decarbonisation by 2050. Waterborne and rail transport are

considered

cleaner

8

transportation modes according

increasing fuel prices and future

to the cost-benefit calculations of

scarcity of fossil fuel supplies,

the

therefore alternatives must be

EU.

According

to

these

calculations, in addition to paid

found.

costs, the highest unpaid cost

transport

belongs to road transportation

depends on oil and oil products;

burdening

therefore we can say that oil is

society

in

different

More

than

96%

energy

the

road

car

economy. We pay a lot to keep it

per

alive, in 2010, the oil bill of the

per

EU was around €210 billion.

transportation tonne-km

and it

is

and

88€ 87€

passenger-km, respectively. contrast,

for

freight

and

socio-economic cost is 19€ per and

20€

per

passenger-km, respectively. The external

cost

of

bus

transportation is less than half that of car transportation (38€), but still double the cost of rail transportation.

In

the

body

of

In

passenger rail transportation the

tonne-km

in

demand

ways transportation costs do. For freight

blood

of

freight

transportation the best choice for society is waterborne, because this mode has the least external costs, 17€ per tonne-km.

Climate

change

is

another

challenge on the horizon needing to be tackled. GHG emissions must

be

curbed

by

80-95%

below 1990 levels by 2050 to limit climate change below 2oC. One major emitter is transport with

gradually

rising

ratio

of

emitted GHGs, even as other sectors managed to reduce their emissions. Between 1990 and 2008,

the

energy

industries

reduced GHG emissions by 9%, while

over

the

same

period

transport emissions increased by Today’s transport system has to face such issues, for instance

around 34%.

There have been plenty of efforts

the

to reduce these emissions, but it

exchange

seems

the

more information, better service

energy

and more safety, therefore has

that

in

technical efficiency

spite

of

progress, investments,

policy

efforts, these all proved to be

9

the

full

cost

of

for

transport

less

following

in

congestion,

priorities

for

future developments:

not effective enough to handle these emissions to change the



Improving

the

energy

efficiency performance of

transport system fundamentally.

vehicles across all modes. There have been lots of results

Developing

since the 2001 White Paper on

sustainable

Transport:

propulsion systems;

market

opening

in

road, aviation and partly in rail



transport. Safety and security

deploying

fuels

and

Optimising the performance of

increased for transport modes,

and

multimodal

logistic

chains, including by making

as well as passenger rights have

greater use of inherently more

been

resource-efficient

adopted.

European have

The

Transport

contributed

cohesion

and

Transnetworks

to

where

faster

have

enhance

been

the

actions

modes,

technological

innovations

strengthened

may

be

insufficient (e.g. long distance

cooperation of Member States. There

other

freight);

to

environmental

performance of transport, but as yet, the transport system is not sustainable. The EU has been working on the issue that transport users pay for



Using

transport

infrastructure efficiently

through

and more use

of

improved traffic management and information systems (e.g. ITS,

SESAR,

ERTMS,

SafeSeaNet, RIS), advanced

logistic and market measures

project. The overall aim of the

such as full development of

project is to assists EU, National

an

and

integrated

European

funded

projects

their

surface

communicate

restrictions

transport research results to the

on

cabotage,

abolition of barriers to short sea

10

Regional

railway market, removal of

shipping,

undistorted

pricing etc.

media.

PRESS4TRANSPORT

is funded

by the European Commission's The actions to be taken may vary

Directorate-General for Research

on different scales, therefore the

under the Seventh Framework

European Commission considers

Programme

three segments:

Technological (FP7).



Medium distances,



Long distances,



Urban transport.

PRESS4TRANSPORT

details:

This fiche is produced within the

PRESS4TRANSPORT Press

Office

Sustainable

to

(Virtual

improve

Surface

EU

Transport

research media visibility on a national

and

regional

level)

for

Research

and

Development

authorities, European Union can

TRANSPORT

only give recommendations or

POLICY

11

set

common

development

As early as in 1994, the Aalborg

directions such as in the Leipzig

Charter

particular

Charter: Promotion of efficient

attention to sustainable urban

and affordable urban transport

mobility

giving

which could contribute to the

sound

long term social progress and

priority

devoted

patterns to

by

ecologically

means of transport (in particular walking,

cycling,

transport)

and

and

public

making

a

combination of these means the centre

of

planning

efforts.

Unnecessary use of motorised individual transport modes shall neither

be

supported,

nor

promoted, but it has to find its own place among the different transport modes.

welfare of the population. Efficient

Ministers’

States

of

EU Member for

Urban

Development signed the Leipzig on

Sustainable

European Cities in 2007. This document

set

common

development

policy

although

development

urban

the areas

is

of

life

and

to

economic

development. Today’s reliance on the internal combustion engine is a major source of pollution (air and noise) and negative impacts on health and the environment. The EU’s Thematic Strategy on

responsible

Charter

transport

fundamental to citizens’ quality

the The

urban

at

points, of

national

urban

environment

cities

to

develop

Urban

Transport

urges

Sustainable Plans.

These

plans aim to improve traffic flows in and around cities, harmonizing urban

planning

and

economic

interests and promoting the use of public transport, cycling and walking

in

cities

and

towns.

Every year, the European Union

organizes

12

European

Mobility

Agenda

21

programme

Week to raise public awareness

special

about the need to act against

development of clean and low

pollution from motorised traffic

emission transport modes (public

and to improve the quality of

transport,

urban

cycling), and the decoupling of

life.

encouraged travel

Citizens

are

change

their

to

behaviour

and

try

GDP

attention

rail,

to

with

walking

growth

from

the

and

mobility

demand increase.

alternatives to the car such as cycling,

walking,

and

transport. European

public

cities are

urged to promote these modes of transport

and

to

invest

in

Already in the previous White Paper

2001,

the

balance

between modes of transport has been an issue, especially linking up

necessary infrastructure.

in

the

different

promoting rather

“a

single

offering

combining

modes,

a

the

transport.

On

its

not

solution”, mix,

by

modes

of

own,

each

transportation mode has its own problems to be solved, but all improvements are in favour of Urban quality

environment of

influenced modes

life by

present

and

are the in

the

largely transport

cities.

The

European Commission in the 6

swift,

economically

environmentally

and

optimised

delivery of goods and transport people.

th

European Environmental Action Programme realised and put into action the promotion of Local

It can be seen in the White Paper

in

2011

that

the

European Union is devoted to create an efficient, multimodal

core network and integrate these



CO2-free city logistics in

modal solutions let it be airport,

major

ports, railway, metro and bus

2030;

urban

centres

by

stations so that passengers do not

feel

inconvenient

when



300 km should shift to

changing modes. Apart from the

13

physical

other modes by 2030 and

infrastructure,

integrated

ticketing

innovative

more than 50 % by 2050,

systems,

solutions

30% of road freight over

facilitated by efficient and

and

green freight corridors;

technologies could help in these problems.



Connect all core network airports

The

main

goal

is

multimodality

to

make

to

the

rail

network, and ensure that

attractive,

all

because transport corridors could

core

seaports

are

sufficiently connected to

be optimised in terms of energy

the rail freight and where

use and emissions, minimising

possible, inland waterways

environmental

system by 2050;

shipping

impact,

attractive

making due

to

reliability, limited congestion and



Establish

the

framework

for a European multimodal

lower costs.

transport

information,

The EU further promotes the

management and payment

development

system by 2020;

transport

of and

clean

urban

commuting.

Thereby the EU set 10 goals to create

a

competitive

resource-efficient system, these include:

and

transport

among others. We

make

clear

difference

between passenger and freight when talking about intermodal

transportation.

Commodities

areas

and

high-

have different requirements to

speed links with distant regions

cost, time

is therefore a priority.

and

safety

among

many others, while passengers are

more

time-sensitive

and

price-sensitive, make their own

14

metropolitan

route-choice, operations

make

transit

themselves

when

necessary, they can reroute their trip. Although this seems a great advantage, but sometimes still problematic from the passenger’s point of view, therefore more and

more

connections

are

convenient offered

by

transport companies to minimise physical effort and time wasted at transfers. On

longer

distances,

where

options for road decarbonisation are

limited,

the

EU

is

concentrating on intermodality. Special

attention

Air/Rail projections

is

given

intermodality claiming

that

to due by

2025, 60 airports will be heavily congested. Improving access to rail links from airports to major

Increased use of efficient



RESEARCH

and low-emission

RESULTS

technologies in private and public transport.

CATCH-MR

As a result of the project a “Guide on efficient mobility and

15

sustainable

growth

Metropolitan

Regions”

in will

be

by

produced. This will incorporate

INTERREG IVC programme is to

such general recommendations

exchange experience among 7

(e.g. policy recommendations),

metropolitan

which can be easily transferred

This

project

is

funded

regions

(Oslo/Akerhus, Goteborg, Berlin, Vienna,

Budapest,

to other Metropolitan Regions.

Ljubljana,

Rome) and produce information

The CATCH-MR is still under execution,

in the following topics:

some 

Reducing transport demand through

but

partial

I

will

result

present in

the

following:

better

coordination of land use

Survey

and transport planning;

intermodal node Metropolitan regions could name

Modal shift, in particular

any

by increasing attractiveness

functions important for a good

of the local public transport

intermodal

about good 1



(laying

emphasis

and

node.

non‐mobility

From

the

on 1

intermodality;

mobility

Intermodal nodes or terminals are sites or

structures where people transfer from one mode of transportation to another.

survey it is clear, that there is a

maintenance/cleanliness) are the

broad

most important categories.

need

for

integrated

intermodal nodes with shopping and

services,

then

good

connections between modes – passenger

16

information,

ticket

machines or counters, short and comfortable walking connections.

General requirements of

intermodal nodes From previous experience, prior to

the

issues

project, concern

the an

following intermodal

terminal in the planning phase:

The general conditions of the node

(safety/security,

maintenance,

cleanliness)



are

integration

also found important. The

other

survey

Convenience: operations,

for

(physical, fare),

clear

signs;

the

metropolitan regions was about

Intermodal



listing the five most important

Safety

and

Comfort:

Seating, lighting, visibility,

factors for a good intermodal

shelter;

node. Good connections between modes

(including

short

and

barrier free walking connections, passenger public

information), transport

themselves

(high

the



Land land

Use:

Compatible

uses, street design,

pedestrian-friendly.

services frequencies,

If any of the concerned issues is

direct connections, coordinated

planned

timetables, but also congestion

deteriorate any partial results of

on roads), accessibility (by car,

the whole project, therefore good

by bike, on foot, barrier free)

planning is essential.

and the general conditions of the

of insufficient planning could be

node

the following:

(safety/security,

badly

which

may

Results



Poor

connections

between modes; 

Suboptimal

passenger

navigation;

17



Inadequate operators provide

space

to

for

effectively

service

(poor

circulation); 

Increase volumes streets

in on

leading

congestion,

traffic surrounding to

severe

particularly

during peak hours; 

Makeshift

use

of

surrounding areas (e.g. by

unregulated

bus

operators, informal markets, etc.); 

Incompatible land uses adjacent terminals.

to

intermodal



Common platforms;

Clean, regularly maintained and



safe walking paths; 

18



Dust-proof P + R, B + R; Developed, coordinated, realtime and aesthetic passengerinformation systems;

Figure 2: Some possibilities for intermodality (Source: Catch-MR)



result

The

survey

is

requirements

of

Catch-MR

in

line

for

intelligent (e-ticket) ticketing

with

system;

intermodal

node, these are the following: Planned at the right location,



and fits the structure of the city; 

Integrated (urban-suburban),

 

Joint and easy tariff system; Broad-range of complementary information services.

Meets the rules of nodal planning (e.g. easy access for the disabled and elderly people);



Walking distance should not exceed 200-300 m between

For more information visit:

transport modes and lines;

http://www.catch-mr.eu/ 

Weather-proof stops to give shelter to passengers (e.g. heating, ventilation);

INTERCONNECT

affecting

connectivity

of

longer distance journeys. The

19

local

recommendations

for

Interregional passenger journeys

improving

are growing within the European

among

Union. Poor interconnectivity of

modes of transport networks are

different

mainly

scales

of

modal

interconnectivity

different

from

scales

the

and

detailed

networks might compromise the

investigation

objectives of integration of the

studies. Range and applicability

TEN-T network investments and

of

policy measures.

examined thoroughly. The case

each

of

case

selected

study

case

will

be

studies are deliberately chosen to

investigate

interconnectivity

improving between

the

different network scales (local Framework

and regional) and between road,

funded

rail, maritime, and air passenger

INTERCONNECT project provides

modes of transport. The focus in

analytical approach to develop

these

effective

effective

The

Seventh

Programme

recommendations

to

case

studies

where

interconnection

was

policy

hindered by institutional barriers,

makers. The project is building

lack of investment, and lack of

on

appropriate

national

and

past

European

research

documents attributes of

which a

and

policy

identified

well-connected

transport system and on the the review

of

prooved

problems

infrastructure

or

failure to innovate INTERCONNECT will contribute to wider use of analytical tools at both European and local level.

In the following sections we are

when the high-speed link was

going to introduce some case

opened

reaching

studies of intermodal connections

Bonn

in

from

InterCityExpress (ICE).

the

INTERCONNECT

Cologne

an

hour

and by

project. Several

20

Frankfurt

ICE

Frankfurt

airport

routes

airport

serve

and

this

enabled Lufthansa to cease all flights Frankfurt

airport

is

the

third

largest airport in Europe based on annual number of passengers. In 1972 (10 million passengers a year) it was the first airport in Germany to have its own train station.

between

Cologne

and

Frankfurt and use the train as a feeder, instead of feeder flights. Instead,

the

airline

could

concentrate on continental and intercontinental flights which are more

viable

for

different

stakeholders due to:

Airport: 

Enlarged catchment area and more passengers; Faster accessibility by high



speed trains and alternative Figure 3: Frankfurt airport, railway station for regional trains (Source: INTERCONNECT)

The greatest improvement in airrail

connection

1999,

the

was

when,

long-distance

in

train

station was opened, and in 2002

access mode to road; 

Improve competition with other gateway airports in continental Europe;



More profitable use of



Improving accessibility of

constraint slots by long haul

regions not only in the

instead of short haul flights.

vicinity of the airport, but making more remote

Railway companies:

regions attractive for investment, employment

21

Higher share on passengers



and tourism.

travelling to airport instead of other feeder modes; Improve loads on long



distance trains.

Airlines: Strengthen market position



against competing airlines by offering a seamless transport chain to the passenger;

Figure 4: Long-distance station Frankfurt airport (platform area) (Source: INTERCONNECT)

The long distance railway station provides



Improve loads of their flights.

between

new rail

and

interchange air

modes

connected to high speed railway links in Germany. Moreover, the

Policy-makers

integration of different services 

Sustainable growth of the

from different actors could be

airport business in

carried out e.g. special segment

Germany;

of public trains is used strictly with airline tickets and through checking the passenger and their

22

luggage at the station. This co-

intercontinental flights. Different

operation is known as a common

companies

brand

transport

between

airlines

and

are in

operating

different

core

railways, the AirRail, which is

markets. For example, airlines

available through airline booking

competing with Lufthansa and

engines

not members of STAR-Alliance

(trains

included

with

flight numbers), although these

car

rail trips are the travellers own

Lufthansa’s

feeders,

responsibility between Frankfurt

cooperation

with

airport and the destination. Apart

Railways lets them feed their

from travel services, the building

flight

on the top of the railway station,

competition

the ‘Frankfurt Air Center offers

and airlines on certain short-haul

two

routes

hotels,

supermarket,

restaurants and office space.

hardly

benefit

at

from but German

Frankfurt. of

rail

The

companies

complicated

their

competition in fields where they do not compete. Frankfurt

airport

highest

Figure 5: Long-distance station Frankfurt airport with Frankfurt AirCentre on top (Source: INTERCONNECT)

Capacity airside

constraints of

the

at

the

airport

and

regulations e.g. “use it or lose it” principle

made

Lufthansa

to

replace short-haul flights by train services to be able to have more

offers

number

the of

intercontinental

transport

in

thus

Europe,

and

hub

functionality and that about 50% of

total

passenger

demand

comes from transfer passengers, making it a perfect place to be connected

with

long

distance

trains and coaches taking the traveller

directly

to

the

hometown instead of a short-

according to the facts: in 2008,

haul feeder flight.

82 were killed and 7,500 injured in

road

accidents

passenger

trips

per

by

billion

individual

road transport, while only 1.25 people

23

were

killed per billion

passenger trips by rail. Although the number of passengers at the airport is rising year by year, the number of train users (who use Figure 6: Lufthansa at Frankfurt Airport (Source: Bloomberg)

train instead of short-haul feeder flights and car, which is less

Today, about 23,000 travellers use daily the intermodal train station at Frankfurt airport. Door to door travel costs drop by using rail (cheaper ticket and no extra

charge

for

people

polluting in term of greenhouse gas emissions. In peak hours, congestion

is

typical

for

motorways, while this does not apply to railways.

with

physical disabilities). ICE lines

Almost every airport could be

provide

to

linked with long-distance railway

many

direct parts

connection

like

services assuming there is a rail

Stuttgart,

network in the larger vicinity,

Munich, etc. When the station

though some aspects must be

was

considered:

Dresden,

of

Germany

Hamburg,

opened

in

1999,

9000

travellers used it on workdays, which rose to 22,500 by 2008.

(1) Size of the airport

Another 30,000 travellers use the

regional

days.

station

Safety

significantly

of

higher

on

work

users by

is train

One-third of modal split is assumed to be achievable for

rail

and

for

the

economic viability of train

airport. So that rerouting of

stops at the airport is at

trains

least

significantly longer travel-

50

minimum

people hourly

with

a

level

of

service for the acceptance by

24

potential

users,

therefore minimum airport size is about 1.5 million annual passengers. (2) Number of destinations served

compared

to

competing airports Long-distance

services

to

an airport are only sensible if that serves destinations, which are not offered at other airports in its larger region. Demand for those exclusive

flights

shall

be

above 1.5 million annually. (3) Location of the airport The

Airport

reached

by

should train

be

along

existing or newly built lines in a way that is demandindependent

from

the

times

does

for

no

cause

non-airport

related passengers.

Port of

Helsingborg

The port of Helsingborg is one of the busiest ferry ports in the world with more than 11 million

25

annual passengers. In the 1980s a decision was made to create a central terminal for all modes of public

transportation

in

Helsingborg right at the port. ‘Knutpunkten’

The

Junction)

facilitates quick

(the

Figure 1: Knutpunkten from above (Source: INTERCONNECT)

and

between

Earlier, different ferry companies

ferries and all other modes of

used different docks near the

public

Knutpunkten

direct

interchanges

transport.

The

which

made

it

Knutpunkten is only 4 km away

harder for passengers to reach

from

Helsingør,

these ferries. Railway traffic was

which is found on the other side

complicated, because there were

of

the

two railway stations in relatively

opening of Öresund Bridge in

close to each other. The ferry

2000, ferry traffic dropped by 2

train

million passengers a year, and

interregional

this decline has continued with

Stockholm and Gothenburg going

the opening of Malmö CityTunnel

on to the ferries to Denmark and

in 2010 December.

the old train station that served

the

town

Öresund

of

Strait.

Since

station

served trains

the from

regional traffic in southern part of Skåne Region.

26

Today’s central passenger hub of

expected to double by 2020.

Helsingborg was built in 1991

Train traffic has overtaken ferry

and it connects ferries, national

traffic, and since the opening of

trains,

Knutpunkten,

regional

trains

and

train

passenger

national, regional and local buses

traffic increased threefold and

in

growing

the

centre

of

Helsingborg

with

about

200,000

which offers a range of shops,

passengers annually. Bus traffic

restaurants, offices and a hotel

is estimated to have risen by

attracting thousands of people

about 50% from 1995 to 2009,

every day.

when 15,000 passengers arrived or

The ferry train station and the ferry terminal for trains were removed

in

2000

after

departed

regional

with

buses,

and

local with

and the

national bus lines 30,000.

the

opening of the Öresund Bridge.

Figure 9: Way up to the ferry departures with clear guidance (Source: Mark Base) Figure 2: Ticket vending machines and timetable screens in the middle of Knutpunkten (Source: Mark Base)

The central public transport of Helsingborg is a complex. Trains depart below the ground, at the

The

use

of

public

transport

increased dramatically since the opening of Knutpunkten, and it is

ground level local, regional and national buses depart, and car parks are located at level two

and

three.

Departure

for

The realisation of the project

passengers is on the third floor.

Knutpunkten intermodal terminal

Bicycle parking places are found

was the result of

just in front of the main entrance

among lots of stakeholders:

co-operation

of Knutpunkten. Departure times could

27

be

followed

throughout

the

on

screen

building.



City of Helsingborg



Banverket

The

navigation in the building is easy

(authority

and logical thanks to the open

responsible for rail traffic in

and visible places along the main

Sweden)

axis, and guidance system. The elevators transfer

and

escalators

between

floors

help



Region Skane (responsible for regional development in

and

Skane Region)

modes.



Skanetrafiken (Regional Public transport company in Skane



The Port of Helsingborg AB (manages the port)



Scandlines and HH Ferries (ferry companies)



Nordic

Land

(owns

and

manages commercial areas Figure 3: Inside Knutpunkten (Source: Jesper Olsson)

and owns 8% of community

parking

places

in

Knutpunkten)



Wihlborgs

Fastigheter

(owns

properties

remaining

28

AB and

community

parking facilities, and two third of the parking facility in the bus terminal)



Fastighets (owns

AB

office

Terminal

3

Ankaret

building and

in

parking

places in bus terminal).

The Knutpunkten shows that by progressive

planning,

cooperation attention

and changes

transport requirements facilities.

continuous

choices for

prevailing and modern

were

Karlsruhe Dual-mode railway system

less

convenient

passengers (e.g. time lost at transfer,

different

systems). The main goal of the Karlsruhe project was to revitalise public

29

transport, and

keep

avoid

individual

cities

liveable

confrontation road

with

transport.

The

case study shows how public transport between medium sized urban and rural areas could be developed change

avoiding

from

rural

a to

for

regular urban

transport system.

Unlike

ticketing in

other

German cities, in the 1960s local authorities decided to keep the existing

tram

network

and

promote their development, old lines

were

upgraded

and

separated from car traffic. Up to the middle of the 1980s the usage

of

public

transport

stagnated, though the market share decreased and with the fact that passenger numbers on local trains declined too. Due to quick

motorisation

individual

motorised

process traffic

increased market share, as a consequence

to

the

suburbanisation process as well.

Figure 41: TramTrain in Heilbronn (Source: Klaus Kahn)

Earlier travellers from regional trains had to change to local trams in Karlsruhe. Both systems existed

parallel

with

bad

connections to each other, which

30

Figure 5: Old diesel trains on old tracks (Source: INTERCONNECT)

following

different

technical

issues

Karlsruhe central railway station

regulations

is outside the city centre so the

Authorities

arriving passenger had to change

controlling track and trains on

to local transport means. At least

German railways and non-federal

two tickets had

railways are different.

to

be

used.

legal

and

applied

and

different to

them.

responsible

for

Railway lines were built more than

100

years

ago,

the

maintaining of outdated services, diesel locomotives meant high costs

for

the

operators.

Schedules were only fitted to the needs

of

therefore

commuters the

and

information

brochures were poor in any other Figure 6: Tram (left) and TramTrain (right) in the centre of Karlsruhe (Source: Szűcs Viktor)

pieces of information. All abovementioned components

In

(need

upgraded

to

change

unattractive

tariff

modes,

first step, as a

systems,

could

result of

Albtalbahn,

reach

the

trams

centre

of

inappropriate

location

of

train

Karlsruhe

stops,

schedules,

poor

(1,435 mm). As a next step, the

poor

on

standard

gauge

information service) contributed

local

the decline of public transport.

Karlsruhe was founded, which

transport

authority

of

could implement a common tariff The

situation

was

further

complicated due to the fact that about 20 companies ran public transport

services

as

well

as

system transport

for

different

modes.

Newer

public and

newer lines were opened with

newer extensions, and shared tracks

with

the

German

Railways. The upgrading of old lines with electrification and use of trams

31

on heavy rail lines meant to be the Karlsruhe model, in which

Figure 8: Ramp at Albtalbahnhof with interchange from 750 V DC to 15kV AC (Source: www.karlsruher-modell.de)

trams could run on both systems without any compromise.

Figure 7: Basic scheme of a TramTrain (Source: INTERCONNECT)

Eliminating the need to change between vehicles at interchange points meant more comfort and shorter

travel

times

for

passengers, as well as technical adaptation for track sharing of the two systems was feasible and the cost-benefit ratio was much better than for newly built lines.

Figure 9: Sign at Albtalbahnhof for interchange from 750 V DC to 15kV AC (Source: www.karlsruher-modell.de)

What necessary changes

Centralised railway



control centre instead of

made TramTrains popular?

station control; 

Instead of passengers,

vehicles change system at

Old and new areas covered



due to new routes;

a defined point;

32





TramTrain vehicles are

Continuous network extension with newly

equipped with additional

established stops due to

components to be able to

demand (24 km since 1992,

run on both systems;

today more than 400 km and further plans);

TramTrains are longer and



more comfortable than previous trams, have space for bicycles/wheelchairs/ strollers, are equipped with ticket vending machines, stop request buttons, and on longer routes restrooms; Figure 17: Standard layout of platforms for





Electrification of railway

TramTrains

lines;

modell.de)

Innovative elements use in upgrading to reduce costs (e.g. Y-sleepers);



(Source:

www.karlsruher-

Improved stations and interchanges (platforms with barrier-free access to vehicles, level-crossing, real-time timetable information, waiting booth,

ticket vending machines

Low demand public



and tactile stripes);

transport during off-peak hours;

Rearrangement of bus



stops for easier



interchange;

Zoning system for integrated ticketing;

33



Great variety of travel information from printed timetables with schedules of all modes and lines, pocket time-tables, telephone service, online information, SMS information;

Figure 108: Standard layout for interchange points TramTrain bus (Source: www.karlsruher-modell.de)



Involvement of a large number of stakeholders



Service every day with

in ownership and financing

regular interval

of the infrastructure, for the

schedule, 20-22 hours per

regional transport

day (including night

association;

service) with stoppingtrains, accelerated-trains



and express-trains; 

Bus network and

Technical, organisational and political feasibility;



Users’ acceptance and

schedules are adjusted to

system take-up (today

TramTrains, and bus routes

16,000 passengers per

avoid parallel lines, serve

working day, which is 8

as feeder;

times as high as in first

year), 40% of tram users used to drive a car before; Financial feasibility and



development of passenger figures for public transport;

34

Reduced door to door



travel times and cost; 

The Karlsruhe Model made the region more attractive, increased its prestige.

Figure 11: TramTrain and the German high speed train (ICE) in the same system (www.karlsruher-modell.de)

The successful Karlsruhe Model made such fame for the city, that it

earned

the

nickname

“The

Mecca of local public transport”.

For more information visit: http://www.interconnect-project.eu

35

Conclusions

non-airport

No matter how far passengers

a new rail connection

travel, well-planned intermodal

always

nodes

positive

could

help

related

trips.

To

small and medium sized airports

them

in

viable,

only

network

is not in

effects

case are

changing modes of transport to

trailed in the rail network. This is

use

of

the case at medium-sized cities

transport for the next section of

(such as Karlsruhe) where trains

their trip. Long-, medium-, and

do not reach the town centre

short-distance trips may meet in

directly

and

an intermodal station, but each

heavy

rail

intermodal

infrastructure

the

optimal

node

mode

is

different,

where

separated

and

tramway

is available

and

“single

dual-mode rail solution provides

solution” for creating one. Each

excellent cost-benefit ratios. We

case

cannot

therefore

there

must

separately

is

be

and

no

examined

through

best

neglect

the

interconnection of long distance

practices, experience from other

and

short

distance,

and

that

projects could also be used.

transfer times at interchanges and access times to terminal

Long

distance

rail

and

large

international airports with large catchment

areas

can

be

effectively connected and can be financially

feasible

improvement

and

such

facilitates

multimodality. Linking Air and Rail

must

be

done

with

minimizing travel time increase for other rail users with

from

trip

location such

as

terminal.

are at

origin/destination to be

minimized

Helsingborg

ferry

In general, the benefits of intermodal transport are the following:

36 

Improves mobility/interchange;



Reduces congestion;



Provides modal diversity;



Shortens travel times;



Expands coverage;



Improved environmental conditions (reduce air and noise pollution, and reduce energy consumption);



Expands land opportunities;



Expands economic opportunity and includes multiplier effects.

COM(2005) 718 final: Thematic

REFERENCES

Strategy

on

the

Urban

Environment, COM(2001) 370 final – White Paper (European transport policy for

37

2010:

time

to

decide),

Brussels, 12.9.2001

Brussels,

11.1.2006 Optimization models and solution methods

for

transportation,

intermodal PhD

thesis,

COM(2011) 144 final -

White

Michael

Paper

Single

Technical University of Denmark

(Roadmap

European Towards

to

Transport a

resource

a

Area

competitive efficient

– and

transport

system), Brussels, 28.3.2011 EU

Energy

and

Transport

(DTU), REPORT 2005-3 INTERCONNECTion Short-

in

Towns

Towards

and

Between Long-Distance Networks,

DELIVERABLE

D4.1:

FACTORS

AFFECTING INTERCONNECTIVITY IN

European

Pedersen

Transport

figures 2010, Luxenbourg 2010 Charter of

Berliner

PASSENGER

Cities &

INTERCONNECT

Sustainability,

(019746), 2010

TRANSPORT, PROJECT

Aalborg, 27 May 1994 European

Commission

Policies

Leipzig Charter on Sustainable

for Intermodal Passenger Travel,

European Cities, Leipzig, 24 May

DG-TREN,

2007

presentation, 17/06/2008

EU’s 6th Environmental Action

Szűcs Viktor: A Karlsruhei model

Programme, Official Journal of

– a városi és a regionális vasút

the

közlekedés

European

10.9.2002

Communities,

Guido

MÜLLER

összekapcsolása,

Debreceni Egyetem

Catch-MR

Project,

Documentation of the Budapest workshop: Encouraging more use of

public

transport

–

Intermodality and Park & Ride, Budapest, 22-24 November 2010

38

Catch-MR Project, Inventory for the

Budapest

Summary

and

workshop

–

analysis,

Budapest, 22-24 November 2010 http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/hom e_en.html

39

40

www.press4transport.eu