Tested Methodologies and Results from Europe

Possibilities of intermodality in passenger transport

2

Table of Contents

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

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

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Europe’s transport is dominated

by road transport. This brought

for generation freedom and easy

mobility, due to its flexibility.

Due to ongoing traffic trends

shed light on the drawbacks of

individual motorized modes

which is a major source of

environmental pollution and

other problems originating from

this. The European Union is

aware of these problems,

promotes clean transport modes

and creates green transport

corridors which are optimised

from environmental and financial

point of view. This could be road

transport as well, but the recent

EU policies are leading European

transport towards versatile

transport modes instead of single

solution.

Our Fiche deals with intermodal

passenger transport putting

emphasis on intermodal nodes,

which are the places for

changing from one transport

mode to another. The Fiche

introduces two research

programmes: Catch-MR and

INTERCONNECT. The former

approaches interconnectivity by

examining good examples and

collecting experience and sharing

best practices and innovations of

7 metropolitan regions for

intermodal nodes. The latter has

also intermodal nodes in focus

with larger variety of scale and

transport modes concentrating

on experience from some typical

and successful projects The

outcome of the project is to give

wider use of analytical tools at

both European and local level.

5

Transport trends in Europe Transport is inseparable part of

our life, engine of our economy

and society. It has an effect on

our everyday life and provides

freedom, mobility, brings remote

places closer, but the seemingly

endless freedom in today’s form

is facing problems that must be

tackled. These challenges

sometimes 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

gathering challenges.

Before we go deeper into the

topic, we should define

intermodal and multimodal

transportation. These two

concepts are used often as

synonyms, but there is a slight

difference in meaning.

Multimodal transport is the

combination of two or more

modes of movement of goods or

passengers such as air, road, rail

or maritime. This does not

require interoperability between

the modes, they simply exist

parallel to each other. In the

case of intermodality,

transportation includes transfer

between the modes.

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

it is much more complicated to

plan the complete system, which

is usually schedule-based, this

gives less flexibility to the user.

There are systems where there is

no option other than

intermodality, e.g. in the case of

intercontinental shipping or long

distance passenger air

transportation. Nevertheless,

6

there are cases where direct

transportation is among available

choices, such as car in

competition with public transport

in urban and intercity trips, as

well as long-haul trucking as a

competitor is intermodal rail

transportation. Though these two

have similar transportation

times, direct 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.

In freight transport road (45.9%)

and waterborne (36.6%)

transport dominate, while the

other modes did not increase

market share in the past few

decades. In total, road

transportation accounted for

72.4% of passenger

transportation and only air

transport could increase market

share to 8.6% by 2008.

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

about real mass mobility, and

remains a symbol of personal

freedom in modern society”.

(White Paper, 2001)

7

Bearing in mind the figures and

trends, it is easy to understand

why congestion became a major

problem in the European Union.

Around 7500 km, or 10%, of the

trans-European road network is

affected by congestion daily,

which costs about 1% of the EU’s

GDP annually (~120 billion €).

That is the reason why the EU

would shift to other modes, and

change the modal split in a

favourable way.

Another decisive factor is

external costs, which are not

paid by the user, rather by

society even if the taxpayer has

nothing to do with some modes

of transportation. The European

Union therefore is making so-

called green transport corridors

that optimise transportation from

energy consumption and

environmental points of view to

minimise the harmful effects.

The European Union is interested

in rail transportation, to relieve

road congestion, although 20%

of European railway network is

also experiencing congestion,

and that is what the TEN-T

project intended to solve along

major routes. Changing to

railways could ease motorways

from heavy freight transport that

could lower maintenance costs,

cause less air pollution and

provide safer roads. In 2007,

transport was responsible for

19.5 % of all CO2 equivalent

greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions. Oil dependence is

clearly a great issue in

transportation which is

dominated by road transport,

therefore the greatest fuel

consumer, and in total only 2.6

% of final energy transport

consumption is from biofuels, all

the rest is from conventional

fossil fuels. The White Paper

2011 set goals in

decarbonisation by 2050.

Waterborne and rail transport

are considered cleaner

8

transportation modes according

to the cost-benefit calculations of

the EU. According to these

calculations, in addition to paid

costs, the highest unpaid cost

belongs to road transportation

burdening society in different

ways transportation costs do. For

road freight and car

transportation it is 88€ per

tonne-km and 87€ per

passenger-km, respectively. In

contrast, for freight and

passenger rail transportation the

socio-economic cost is 19€ per

tonne-km 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 freight

transportation the best choice for

society is waterborne, because

this mode has the least external

costs, 17€ per tonne-km.

Today’s transport system has to

face such issues, for instance

increasing fuel prices and future

scarcity of fossil fuel supplies,

therefore alternatives must be

found. More than 96% of

transport energy demand

depends on oil and oil products;

therefore we can say that oil is

the blood in the body of

economy. We pay a lot to keep it

alive, in 2010, the oil bill of the

EU was around €210 billion.

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

around 34%.

9

There have been plenty of efforts

to reduce these emissions, but it

seems that in spite of the

technical progress, energy

efficiency investments, policy

efforts, these all proved to be

not effective enough to handle

these emissions to change the

transport system fundamentally.

There have been lots of results

since the 2001 White Paper on

Transport: market opening in

road, aviation and partly in rail

transport. Safety and security

increased for transport modes,

as well as passenger rights have

been adopted. The Trans-

European Transport networks

have contributed to faster

cohesion and strengthened

cooperation of Member States.

There have been actions to

enhance the 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

the full cost of transport in

exchange for less congestion,

more information, better service

and more safety, therefore has

the following priorities for

future developments:

Improving the energy

efficiency performance of

vehicles across all modes.

Developing and deploying

sustainable fuels and

propulsion systems;

Optimising the performance

of multimodal logistic

chains, including by making

greater use of inherently more

resource-efficient modes,

where other technological

innovations may be

insufficient (e.g. long distance

freight);

Using transport and infrastructure more

efficiently through use of

improved traffic management

and information systems (e.g.

ITS, SESAR, ERTMS,

SafeSeaNet, RIS), advanced

10

logistic and market measures

such as full development of

an integrated European

railway market, removal of

restrictions on cabotage,

abolition of barriers to short

sea shipping, undistorted

pricing etc.

The actions to be taken may vary

on different scales, therefore the

European Commission considers

three segments:

Medium distances,

Long distances,

Urban transport.

PRESS4TRANSPORT details:

This fiche is produced within the

PRESS4TRANSPORT (Virtual

Press Office to improve EU

Sustainable Surface Transport

research media visibility on a

national and regional level)

project. The overall aim of the

project is to assists EU, National

and Regional funded projects

communicate their surface

transport research results to the

media.

PRESS4TRANSPORT is funded

by the European Commission's

Directorate-General for Research

under the Seventh Framework

Programme for Research and

Technological Development

(FP7).

11

TRANSPORT POLICY As early as in 1994, the Aalborg

Charter devoted particular

attention to sustainable urban

mobility patterns by giving

priority to ecologically sound

means of transport (in particular

walking, cycling, and public

transport) and 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.

The Ministers’ of EU Member

States responsible for Urban

Development signed the Leipzig

Charter on Sustainable

European Cities in 2007. This

document set common

development policy points,

although the development of

urban areas at national

authorities, European Union can

only give recommendations or

set common development

directions such as in the Leipzig

Charter: Promotion of efficient

and affordable urban transport

which could contribute to the

long term social progress and

welfare of the population.

Efficient urban transport is

fundamental to citizens’ quality

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

the urban environment urges

cities to develop Sustainable

Urban Transport 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

12

organizes European Mobility

Week to raise public awareness

about the need to act against

pollution from motorised traffic

and to improve the quality of

urban life. Citizens are

encouraged to change their

travel behaviour and try

alternatives to the car such as

cycling, walking, and public

transport. European cities are

urged to promote these modes of

transport and to invest in

necessary infrastructure.

Urban environment and the

quality of life are largely

influenced by the transport

modes present in cities. The

European Commission in the 6th

European Environmental Action

Programme realised and put into

action the promotion of Local

Agenda 21 programme with

special attention to the

development of clean and low

emission transport modes (public

transport, rail, walking and

cycling), and the decoupling of

GDP growth from mobility

demand increase.

Already in the previous White

Paper in 2001, the balance

between modes of transport has

been an issue, especially linking

up the different modes, not

promoting “a single solution”,

rather offering a mix, by

combining the modes of

transport. On its own, each

transportation mode has its own

problems to be solved, but all

improvements are in favour of

swift, economically and

environmentally optimised

delivery of goods and transport

people.

It can be seen in the White

Paper in 2011 that the

European Union is devoted to

create an efficient, multimodal

13

core network and integrate these

modal solutions let it be airport,

ports, railway, metro and bus

stations so that passengers do

not feel inconvenient when

changing modes. Apart from the

physical infrastructure,

integrated ticketing systems,

innovative solutions and

technologies could help in these

problems.

The main goal is to make

multimodality attractive,

because transport corridors could

be optimised in terms of energy

use and emissions, minimising

environmental impact, making

shipping attractive due to

reliability, limited congestion and

lower costs.

The EU further promotes the

development of clean urban

transport and commuting.

Thereby the EU set 10 goals to

create a competitive and

resource-efficient transport

system, these include:

CO2-free city logistics in

major urban centres by

2030;

30% of road freight over

300 km should shift to other modes by 2030 and

more than 50 % by 2050,

facilitated by efficient and

green freight corridors;

Connect all core network

airports to the rail network, and ensure that

all core seaports are

sufficiently connected to the rail freight and where

possible, inland waterways

system by 2050;

Establish the framework

for a European multimodal

transport information, management and payment

system by 2020;

among others.

We make clear difference

between passenger and freight

when talking about intermodal

14

transportation. Commodities

have different requirements to

cost, time and safety among

many others, while passengers

are more time-sensitive and

price-sensitive, make their own

route-choice, make transit

operations 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 convenient

connections are 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 is given to

Air/Rail intermodality due

projections claiming that by

2025, 60 airports will be heavily

congested. Improving access to

rail links from airports to major

metropolitan areas and high-

speed links with distant regions

is therefore a priority.

15

RESEARCH RESULTS

CATCH-MR

This project is funded by

INTERREG IVC programme is to

exchange experience among 7

metropolitan regions

(Oslo/Akerhus, Goteborg, Berlin,

Vienna, Budapest, Ljubljana,

Rome) and produce information

in the following topics:

Reducing transport demand

through better

coordination of land use

and transport planning;

Modal shift, in particular

by increasing attractiveness

of the local public transport

(laying emphasis on

intermodality;

Increased use of efficient

and low-emission

technologies in private

and public transport.

As a result of the project a

“Guide on efficient mobility and

sustainable growth in

Metropolitan Regions” will be

produced. This will incorporate

such general recommendations

(e.g. policy recommendations),

which can be easily transferred

to other Metropolitan Regions.

The CATCH-MR is still under

execution, but I will present

some partial result in the

following:

Survey about good

intermodal node1 Metropolitan regions could name

any mobility and non‐mobility

functions important for a good

intermodal node. From the

1 Intermodal nodes or terminals are sites or

structures where people transfer from one

mode of transportation to another.

16

survey it is clear, that there is a

broad need for integrated

intermodal nodes with shopping

and services, then good

connections between modes –

passenger information, ticket

machines or counters, short and

comfortable walking connections.

The general conditions of the

node (safety/security,

maintenance, cleanliness) are

also found important.

The other survey for the

metropolitan regions was about

listing the five most important

factors for a good intermodal

node. Good connections between

modes (including short and

barrier free walking connections,

passenger information), the

public transport services

themselves (high frequencies,

direct connections, coordinated

timetables, but also congestion

on roads), accessibility (by car,

by bike, on foot, barrier free)

and the general conditions of the

node (safety/security,

maintenance/cleanliness) are the

most important categories.

General requirements of intermodal nodes From previous experience, prior

to the project, the following

issues concern an intermodal

terminal in the planning phase:

Convenience: Intermodal

integration (physical,

operations, fare), clear

signs;

Safety and Comfort: Seating, lighting, visibility,

shelter;

Land Use: Compatible

land uses, street design,

pedestrian-friendly.

If any of the concerned issues is

planned badly which may

deteriorate any partial results of

the whole project, therefore good

planning is essential. Results of insufficient planning could be

the following:

17

Poor connections

between modes;

Suboptimal passenger

navigation;

Inadequate space for

operators to effectively

provide service (poor

circulation);

Increase in traffic

volumes on surrounding

streets leading to severe

congestion, particularly

during peak hours;

Makeshift use of

surrounding areas (e.g.

by unregulated bus

operators, informal markets,

etc.);

Incompatible land uses

adjacent to intermodal

terminals.

18

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

The result of Catch-MR survey is in line with

requirements for intermodal

node, these are the following:

Planned at the right location,

and fits the structure of the city;

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

transport modes and lines;

Weather-proof stops to give

shelter to passengers (e.g.

heating, ventilation);

Common platforms;

Clean, regularly maintained and

safe walking paths;

Dust-proof P + R, B + R;

Developed, coordinated, real-

time and aesthetic passenger-

information systems;

Integrated (urban-suburban),

intelligent (e-ticket) ticketing

system;

Joint and easy tariff system;

Broad-range of complementary

information services.

For more information visit:

http://www.catch-mr.eu/

19

INTERCONNECT

Interregional passenger journeys

are growing within the European

Union. Poor interconnectivity of

different scales of modal

networks might compromise the

objectives of integration of the

TEN-T network investments and

policy measures.

The Seventh Framework

Programme funded

INTERCONNECT project provides

analytical approach to develop

effective recommendations to

national and European policy

makers. The project is building

on past research and policy

documents which identified

attributes of a well-connected

transport system and on the the

review of prooved problems

affecting local connectivity of

longer distance journeys.

The recommendations for

improving interconnectivity

among different scales and

modes of transport networks are

mainly from the detailed

investigation of selected case

studies. Range and applicability

of each case study will be

examined thoroughly. The case

studies are deliberately chosen

to investigate improving

interconnectivity between the

different network scales (local

and regional) and between road,

rail, maritime, and air passenger

modes of transport. The focus in

these case studies where

effective interconnection was

hindered by institutional barriers,

lack of investment, and lack of

appropriate infrastructure or

failure to innovate

INTERCONNECT will contribute to

wider use of analytical tools at

both European and local level.

20

In the following sections we are

going to introduce some case

studies of intermodal connections

from the INTERCONNECT

project.

Frankfurt airport

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.

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

The greatest improvement in air-

rail connection was when, in

1999, the long-distance train

station was opened, and in 2002

when the high-speed link was

opened reaching Cologne and

Bonn in an hour by

InterCityExpress (ICE).

Several ICE routes serve

Frankfurt airport and this

enabled Lufthansa to cease all

flights 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

access mode to road;

Improve competition with

other gateway airports in

continental Europe;

21

More profitable use of

constraint slots by long haul

instead of short haul flights.

Railway companies:

Higher share on passengers

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;

Improve loads of their

flights.

Policy-makers

Sustainable growth of the

airport business in

Germany;

Improving accessibility of

regions not only in the

vicinity of the airport, but

making more remote

regions attractive for

investment, employment

and tourism.

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

The long distance railway station

provides new interchange

between rail and air modes

connected to high speed railway

links in Germany. Moreover, the

integration of different services

from different actors could be

carried out e.g. special segment

of public trains is used strictly

with airline tickets and through

checking the passenger and their

22

luggage at the station. This co-

operation is known as a common

brand between airlines and

railways, the AirRail, which is

available through airline booking

engines (trains included with

flight numbers), although these

rail trips are the travellers own

responsibility between Frankfurt

airport and the destination. Apart

from travel services, the building

on the top of the railway station,

the ‘Frankfurt Air Center offers

two hotels, supermarket,

restaurants and office space.

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

Capacity constraints at the

airside of 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

intercontinental flights. Different

companies are operating

transport in different core

markets. For example, airlines

competing with Lufthansa and

not members of STAR-Alliance

car hardly benefit from

Lufthansa’s feeders, but

cooperation with German

Railways lets them feed their

flight at Frankfurt. The

competition of rail companies

and airlines on certain short-haul

routes complicated their

competition in fields where they

do not compete.

Frankfurt airport offers the

highest number of

intercontinental transport in Europe, and thus 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

23

hometown instead of a short-

haul feeder flight.

Figure 6: Lufthansa at Frankfurt Airport (Source: Bloomberg)

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 with

physical disabilities). ICE lines

provide direct connection to

many parts of Germany like

Dresden, Hamburg, Stuttgart,

Munich, etc. When the station

was opened in 1999, 9000

travellers used it on workdays,

which rose to 22,500 by 2008.

Another 30,000 travellers use

the regional station on work

days. Safety of users is

significantly higher by train

according to the facts: in 2008,

82 were killed and 7,500 injured

in road accidents per billion

passenger trips by individual

road transport, while only 1.25

people 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

train instead of short-haul feeder

flights and car, which is less

polluting in term of greenhouse

gas emissions. In peak hours,

congestion is typical for

motorways, while this does not

apply to railways.

Almost every airport could be

linked with long-distance railway

services assuming there is a rail

network in the larger vicinity,

though some aspects must be

considered:

(1) Size of the airport

One-third of modal split is

assumed to be achievable

for rail and for the

24

economic viability of train

stops at the airport is at

least 50 people with a

minimum hourly level of

service for the acceptance

by 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 should be

reached by train along

existing or newly built lines

in a way that is demand-

independent from the

airport. So that rerouting of

trains does no cause

significantly longer travel-

times for non-airport

related passengers.

25

Port of Helsingborg

The port of Helsingborg is one of

the busiest ferry ports in the

world with more than 11 million

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.

The ‘Knutpunkten’ (the

Junction) facilitates quick and

direct interchanges between

ferries and all other modes of

public transport. The

Knutpunkten is only 4 km away

from the town of Helsingør,

which is found on the other side

of Öresund Strait. Since the

opening of Öresund Bridge in

2000, ferry traffic dropped by 2

million passengers a year, and

this decline has continued with

the opening of Malmö CityTunnel

in 2010 December.

Figure 1: Knutpunkten from above (Source: INTERCONNECT)

Earlier, different ferry companies

used different docks near the

Knutpunkten which made it

harder for passengers to reach

these ferries. Railway traffic was

complicated, because there were

two railway stations in relatively

close to each other. The ferry

train station served the

interregional trains from

Stockholm and Gothenburg going

on to the ferries to Denmark and

the old train station that served

regional traffic in southern part

of Skåne Region.

26

Today’s central passenger hub of

Helsingborg was built in 1991

and it connects ferries, national

trains, regional trains and

national, regional and local buses

in the centre of Helsingborg

which offers a range of shops,

restaurants, offices and a hotel

attracting thousands of people

every day.

The ferry train station and the

ferry terminal for trains were

removed in 2000 after the

opening of the Öresund Bridge.

Figure 2: Ticket vending machines and timetable screens in the middle of Knutpunkten (Source: Mark Base)

The use of public transport

increased dramatically since the

opening of Knutpunkten, and it is

expected to double by 2020.

Train traffic has overtaken ferry

traffic, and since the opening of

Knutpunkten, train passenger

traffic increased threefold and

growing with about 200,000

passengers annually. Bus traffic

is estimated to have risen by

about 50% from 1995 to 2009,

when 15,000 passengers arrived

or departed with local and

regional buses, and with the

national bus lines 30,000.

Figure 9: Way up to the ferry departures with clear guidance (Source: Mark Base)

The central public transport of

Helsingborg is a complex. Trains

depart below the ground, at the

ground level local, regional and

national buses depart, and car

parks are located at level two

27

and three. Departure for

passengers is on the third floor.

Bicycle parking places are found

just in front of the main entrance

of Knutpunkten. Departure times

could be followed on screen

throughout the building. The

navigation in the building is easy

and logical thanks to the open

and visible places along the main

axis, and guidance system. The

elevators and escalators help

transfer between floors and

modes.

Figure 3: Inside Knutpunkten (Source: Jesper Olsson)

The realisation of the project

Knutpunkten intermodal terminal

was the result of co-operation among lots of stakeholders:

City of Helsingborg

Banverket (authority

responsible for rail traffic in

Sweden)

Region Skane (responsible

for regional development in

Skane Region)

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

and owns 8% of community

28

parking places in

Knutpunkten)

Wihlborgs Fastigheter AB

(owns properties and

remaining community

parking facilities, and two

third of the parking facility

in the bus terminal)

Fastighets AB Ankaret

(owns office building in

Terminal 3 and parking

places in bus terminal).

The Knutpunkten shows that by

progressive planning,

cooperation and continuous

attention changes prevailing

transport choices and

requirements for modern

facilities.

29

Karlsruhe Dual-mode railway system

The main goal of the Karlsruhe

project was to revitalise public

transport, keep cities liveable

and avoid confrontation with

individual road transport. The

case study shows how public

transport between medium sized

urban and rural areas could be

developed avoiding a regular

change from rural to urban

transport system.

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

were less convenient for

passengers (e.g. time lost at

transfer, different ticketing

systems). Unlike 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 process

individual motorised traffic

increased market share, as a

consequence to the

suburbanisation process as well.

30

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

Karlsruhe central railway station

is outside the city centre so the

arriving passenger had to change

to local transport means. At least

two tickets had to be used.

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 commuters and

therefore the information

brochures were poor in any other

pieces of information.

All abovementioned components

(need to change modes,

unattractive tariff systems,

inappropriate location of train

stops, poor schedules, poor

information service) contributed

the decline of public transport.

The situation was further

complicated due to the fact that

about 20 companies ran public

transport services as well as

following different legal and

technical issues and different

regulations applied to them.

Authorities responsible for

controlling track and trains on

German railways and non-federal

railways are different.

Figure 6: Tram (left) and TramTrain (right) in the centre of Karlsruhe (Source: Szűcs Viktor)

In first step, as a result of

upgraded Albtalbahn, trams

could reach the centre of

Karlsruhe on standard gauge

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

local transport authority of

Karlsruhe was founded, which

could implement a common tariff

system for different public

transport modes. Newer and

newer lines were opened with

31

newer extensions, and shared

tracks with the German

Railways.

The upgrading of old lines with

electrification and use of trams

on heavy rail lines meant to be

the Karlsruhe model, in which

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

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

32

What necessary changes

made TramTrains popular?

Instead of passengers,

vehicles change system at

a defined point;

TramTrain vehicles are

equipped with additional

components to be able to

run on both systems;

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;

Electrification of railway

lines;

Innovative elements use

in upgrading to reduce

costs (e.g. Y-sleepers);

Centralised railway

control centre instead of

station control;

Old and new areas covered

due to new routes;

Continuous network

extension with newly

established stops due to

demand (24 km since 1992,

today more than 400 km

and further plans);

Figure 17: Standard layout of platforms for

TramTrains (Source: www.karlsruher-

modell.de)

Improved stations and

interchanges (platforms

with barrier-free access to

vehicles, level-crossing,

real-time timetable

information, waiting booth,

33

ticket vending machines

and tactile stripes);

Rearrangement of bus

stops for easier

interchange;

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

Service every day with

regular interval

schedule, 20-22 hours per

day (including night

service) with stopping-

trains, accelerated-trains

and express-trains;

Bus network and

schedules are adjusted to

TramTrains, and bus routes

avoid parallel lines, serve

as feeder;

Low demand public

transport during off-peak

hours;

Zoning system for

integrated ticketing;

Great variety of travel

information from printed

timetables with schedules

of all modes and lines,

pocket time-tables,

telephone service, online

information, SMS

information;

Involvement of a large

number of stakeholders

in ownership and financing

of the infrastructure, for the

regional transport

association;

Technical, organisational

and political feasibility;

Users’ acceptance and

system take-up (today

16,000 passengers per

working day, which is 8

times as high as in first

34

year), 40% of tram users

used to drive a car before;

Financial feasibility and

development of passenger

figures for public transport;

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 No matter how far passengers

travel, well-planned intermodal

nodes could help them in

changing modes of transport to

use the optimal mode of

transport for the next section of

their trip. Long-, medium-, and

short-distance trips may meet in

an intermodal station, but each

intermodal node is different,

therefore there is no “single

solution” for creating one. Each

case must be examined

separately and through best

practices, experience from other

projects could also be used.

Long distance rail and large

international airports with large

catchment areas can be

effectively connected and can be

financially feasible and such

improvement facilitates

multimodality. Linking Air and

Rail must be done with

minimizing travel time increase for other rail users with

non-airport related trips. To

small and medium sized airports

a new rail connection is not

always viable, only in case

positive network effects are

trailed in the rail network. This is

the case at medium-sized cities

(such as Karlsruhe) where trains

do not reach the town centre

directly and where separated

heavy rail and tramway

infrastructure is available and

dual-mode rail solution provides

excellent cost-benefit ratios. We

cannot neglect the

interconnection of long distance

and short distance, and that

transfer times at interchanges

and access times to terminal

from trip origin/destination

location are to be minimized

such as at Helsingborg ferry

terminal.

36

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

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.

37

REFERENCES

COM(2001) 370 final – White

Paper (European transport policy

for 2010: time to decide),

Brussels, 12.9.2001

COM(2011) 144 final - White

Paper (Roadmap to a Single

European Transport Area –

Towards a competitive and

resource efficient transport

system), Brussels, 28.3.2011

EU Energy and Transport in

figures 2010, Luxenbourg 2010

Charter of European Cities &

Towns Towards Sustainability,

Aalborg, 27 May 1994

Leipzig Charter on Sustainable

European Cities, Leipzig, 24 May

2007

EU’s 6th Environmental Action

Programme, Official Journal of

the European Communities,

10.9.2002

COM(2005) 718 final: Thematic

Strategy on the Urban

Environment, Brussels,

11.1.2006

Optimization models and solution

methods for intermodal

transportation, PhD thesis,

Michael Berliner Pedersen

Technical University of Denmark

(DTU), REPORT 2005-3

INTERCONNECTion Between

Short- and Long-Distance

Transport Networks,

DELIVERABLE D4.1: FACTORS

AFFECTING INTERCONNECTIVITY

IN PASSENGER TRANSPORT,

INTERCONNECT PROJECT

(019746), 2010

European Commission Policies

for Intermodal Passenger Travel,

DG-TREN, Guido MÜLLER

presentation, 17/06/2008

Szűcs Viktor: A Karlsruhei model

– a városi és a regionális vasút

közlekedés összekapcsolása,

Debreceni Egyetem

38

Catch-MR Project,

Documentation of the Budapest

workshop: Encouraging more use

of public transport –

Intermodality and Park & Ride,

Budapest, 22-24 November 2010

Catch-MR Project, Inventory for

the Budapest workshop –

Summary and analysis,

Budapest, 22-24 November 2010

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/hom

e_en.html

39

40

www.press4transport.eu