A Stadtbahn for Quebec?

Transcription

1 MÉMOIRE #130 Montreal, A Stadtbahn for Quebec? Anton Dubrau Ville de Quebec, view from the East. source: Google I m a Montreal resident with a strong interest in transit in Quebec. I ve been following the discussion for a structural network in Quebec City, and would like to give an outside perspective for the current planning process. In the following document, I would like to 1) Critique the SRB study and the resulting project 2) Introduce the Concept of the Stadtbahn, a tram system with some premetro aspects 3) Argue that the Stadtbahn concept is very suitable for Quebec s mobility needs 4) Provide some guidelines that could be used in a Quebec Stadtbahn Network 5) Introduce an example proposal showing a possible implementation of the idea My overall recommendation is to fix the issues with the SRB project (criticisms explained in 1), and consider the implementation of a stadtbahn network.

2 1.) SRB - Critique of Feasibility Study and Approach Until the it was recently put on ice, the SRB was the main project to provide a structural transit network for Quebec City. The project was based largely on a feasibility study published in 2015 that proposed the SRB, along with detailed plans of the trajectory, in favor of a tram. There are several problems with the study and the network that it proposes: a) Overall, the SRB as proposed combines the disadvantages of bus and Trams Trams are generally expensive to build but cheaper to operate per passenger km. Buses are cheaper to build but more expensive to operate per passenger. But they are more flexible in terms of routing. It is easy to create new lines, and serve large areas, without having to invest in extra infrastructure. Buses also allow providing one-seat rides downtown. The SRB proposal included the usage of double-articulated buses. So unlike a traditional busway, this means that passengers would have to transfer from feeder buses to the SRB. This means an extra transfer, and also less speed compared to today s express buses. The SRB at first was presented as a way to save on infrastructure -- a cheaper alternative to the tram. But the cost of the project in the end was close to 40M$/km -- close to that of a tramway. In the end the SRB is a project that combines the in-flexibility, cost and requirement for transfer of trams, with the operating cost, lower ride comfort and perceived lack of attractiveness of a bus network. It probably makes more sense to either build a traditional busway (that allows through-routing normal buses to downtown without transfer), or a proper tram network (which provides more capacity, more comfort, and less operating cost per passenger). b) The Study is Biased against Trams The SRB Feasibility Study claims that the SRB would be a more cost-effective solution, which supposedly would be also more attractive because of higher frequency (due to 150 passengers per bus in double-articulated buses vs 250 in the tram).

3 The study does not sufficiently consider the reduced operating cost per passenger-km for trams (operating cost is 277$/h for the tram vs 208$/h for the bus, but the capacity is % higher, [1] page 62). The study does not sufficiently consider the extended lifetime of tram vehicles. The vehicle cost is given as 333M$ for the tram system, and 163M$ for the SRB ([1], page 61). But tram vehicles generally last 2x-2.5x as long as buses. So after 40 years, the cost of the tram vehicles is actually lower. The study also includes a 193M$ downtown tunnel ([1], page 61), which is described as necessary for the tram, but not for the SRB. There is a tremendous benefit to downtown transit tunnels, in terms of capacity and performance. It appears the independent value of the tunnel was not sufficiently considered (In the cost benefit calculation, the time savings is shown to be lower for the tram compared to the SRB, [1] page 63). Further, the study implies that in the long term, it may be necessary to convert the system to light rail in either case. The combined cost of building an SRB then later converting to a tram is much larger than just building the tram. If the cost calculation was focussed more on the long term combined capital and operating costs, and considered more the benefits of the tram including the proposed downtown tunnel, and also considered the long term requirements of Quebec, the cost-benefit calculation may shift towards trams. c) The Network Planning Presented in the Study is Poor Proposed SRB Network ([1], page 38)

4 i) As proposed a large percentage of the network would be built in Levis, which has a comparably small amount of population, and comparably smaller transportation requirements. It also means there is a large detour from Desjardins to downtown. ii) The connection between Ste-Foy and downtown includes a large number of twists and turns to reach Boulevard Charest. This detour is a poor choice: it means the travel time from Ste-Foy to downtown is increased. Further, there is less demand along Charest compared to along Rene-Levesque. Connecting Ste-Foy to downtown via the haute-ville would be shorter, quicker, and would have more population along the way, which would increase ridership. iii) The downtown area around Parliament and the Grand-Theatre is only served by the short North-South line. This means the most important employment destination can not be directly reached by the East-West line, and requires an extra transfer. The transfer station (Dorchester) is inconvenient because at this point the north-south line is split into two one-way streets, meaning extra-long transfers. Feasibility Study, Annexe 3, page 81 Many trips that may be doable without a transfer today would, may under the SRB proposal be turned into a trips requiring one or two extra transfers. This is a bad choice, since users perceive transfers as more time consuming than they actually are. Overall, the proposed network appears to poorly connect to population, poorly connect to the main employment centers. Large sections of the network are in

5 low-population areas. The network lines include a lot of detours (turns). And the network design appears to force a lot of transfers. Overall, the 2015 SRB study appears to propose the construction of a network that is less useful than what the 2003 tram study proposed ([2], page 3) tram study proposal ([2], page 3) A new approach for mobility in Quebec City should address the flaws of the 2015 SRB study.

6 2.) What is a Stadtbahn? A Stadtbahn is a tramway or light rail that includes segments built to rapid transit standards. These segments are mainly metro-grade tunnels in the central city area. Modern stadtbahn systems were developed in the 1960s in Western Germany, as many cities aimed to separate public transit and private transport. The conflicts that arose between increasing car usage and existing tramway systems led to the desire to convert the tram-systems to be converted to full metros. While large German cities (Munich, Nuremberg) were able to build full-scale metro systems, most West German cities, most of medium size (0.5M-1.2M people) decided to incrementally upgrade their networks step by step, usually by building downtown tunnels and/or some elevated lines. Thus many downtown tunnels were constructed for tram systems, to metro standards, with tunnel station platforms generally around 80m long (even though the trams were initially much shorter). At the same time, surface lines outside of downtown where given their own lanes, and update for speed. By the 1980s it was clear that the process to convert tram systems to full metros would be too expensive for these medium sized cities, and would take too long. But it turned out that the hybrid systems that had developed were very effective, providing many of the benefits of metros without having to build tunnels everywhere. Tunnel ramp in Stuttgart Hannover Stadtbahn high- and low-floor trams in Köln

7 By the 1990s another kind of integration was being done, starting in Karlsruhe: tram vehicles were upgraded to be able to to use heavy rail lines. This resulted in the so called tram-train. By being able to use existing heavy rail infrastructure, Stadtbahn networks were able to expand their reach without large infrastructure costs, and while providing fast service. Stadtbahn systems generally consist of one or more downtown tunnels, built to near metro standards, used by many lines. Outside of downtown, there lines branch into many antennas, providing good coverage. Thus small tunnel sections are leveraged to build large, effective networks. One feature of the stadtbahn systems is the long-term planning of the systems. Often, the networks are envisioned how they will look 50 years in the future, and accommodations are put in place during the construction of lines where there are connections to planned lines. This reduce construction cost once those extensions are put in place. Examples:

8 Hannover Stadtbahn Hannover (population 1.1M). Note the small amount of tunnels downtown (blue), complemented by surface lines (red), which are very extensive. Note also how branching is used to maximize the utility of the tunnels, while maximizing coverage outside of downtown.

9 Düsseldorf Stadtbahn Düsseldorf (population 1.2M). Note again the system uses downtown tunnels (thick lines), and branches. Many stadtbahn systems were built before the Development of low-floor trams, so the platforms are generally at high level. Düsseldorf includes a recently built line (red), which is built using low floor trams. Also note the blue tunnel through downtown, which is built using stacked tunnels and stack stations, providing 4 tracks of capacity.

10 Stuttgart Stadtbahn Stuttgart (population 2.7M) Stuttgart is interesting, because it is a hilly city, just like Quebec City. The Stadtbahn-vehicles in Stuttgart are able to climb prolonged 6.5% grades without problem. Also note how Stuttgart doesn t use tunnels downtown: there are several short tunnels outside of downtown, where-ever the geography, urban development or travel time demand it.

11 Stadtbahn-Systems in Canada There are some systems directly inspired by the Stadtbahn systems of West Germany, even if they don t call it that: Edmonton and Calgary. Both use vehicles developed for West German stadtbahn systems. Edmonton has a downtown tunnel. Calgary has a downtown transit mall (a street in downtown is dedicated for transit). Edmonton Light rail, including downtown tunnel sections (source: urbanrail.net) More recently, Ottawa is building a light rail line, the Confederation line, that has some similarities with a stadtbahn at first sight -- a downtown tunnel and surface running outside of downtown, and the use of tram-vehicles. At closer inspection, the line is completely grade separated everywhere, and the line is designed to allow upgrading to 120m long trains. In effect, this line is more like a metro line built using tram-vehicles.

12 3.) Suitability of the Stadtbahn System for Quebec City Quebec Has many challenges when it comes to building an effective transit system. I believe some of them can be better overcome when adopting the stadtbahn approach. a) Quebec as hilly terrain There is a large height difference between the Basse-Ville and the Haute-Ville. Current and proposed transit lines include large S-type curves to climb to the Haute-Ville. This means longer travel lines, and more turns, all of which cost time. By using a tunnel, it s possible to go more directly, without any turns, and climbing to the Haute-Ville inside the tunnel. b) A complicated traffic situation Downtown Together with the previously mentioned S-curves, there is a lot of traffic converging into the downtown area around Parliament. This means the average speed for surface transit is small. To illustrate the combined effect of a) and b), note how long it takes the Metro bus to travel from Riviere St-Charles to the Grand-Theatre during rush hour: It takes 18 minutes to travel between two points that are only 1.7km apart (as the bird flies). c) Lack of links across the water to Levis The connection between Quebec and Levis is complicated due to the geography and shipping in the river. The bridges are far in the West, and don t directly connection downtown Quebec with downtown Levis. There has been the proposal to build a tram-train tunnel between downtown Quebec and downtown Levis [4]. This can easily be integrated into a stadtbahn network. A bus

13 tunnel under the river would be much more complicated and much more expensive than a guided, electrified rail tunnel. d) The two Main Employment Centers of Quebec are Far Apart Quebec city s main employment centers are the Colline Parlementaire/View-Quebec and Ste-Foy, according to the Enquete Origin-Destination du Quebec Principales zones de destination de l Enquête Origine-Destination 2011 [3] annexe 3 This means many travellers coming from the North/East would like to pass through the Colline Parlementaire (1) to get to Ste-Foy (2); and many travellers from the South-West would like to pass through St-Foy (2) to reach the Colline Parlementaire (1). As previously shown, it takes 18 minutes to pass through the Colline Parlementaire during rush hour -- with a downtown rail tunnel, this travel time could be signficiantly reduced. The stadtbahn concept allows providing the speed necessary to quickly connect the two main employment centers, and make transit more effective.

14 e) existing links to Quebec City are limited in capacity. Integrating a dedicated transit line into the existing Pont du Quebec is contentious. There are only three traffic lanes. If two dedicated lanes were used, this would reduce the individual traffic to one lane -- which is politically infeasible. Both the tram and SRB proposals so far have considered using shared lanes across the bridge, which means the bus or tram can get stuck in traffic. An alternative is to dedicate one lane to a tram (stadtbahn), i.e. provide a dedicated, single track across the bridge. Since the bridge is only about 1.2km long, including approaches, providing 5 minute service across the bridge is still easily doable, even with only a single track. The resulting capacity of the single track would be higher than what the bridge carries today (about 35K trips). Single tracking is not really possible with an SRB, or extremely unlikely.

15 4.) Quebec Stadtbahn Guidelines If Quebec chooses to study the Stadtbahn concept, I would propose the following guidelines: The network should consider a downtown tunnel segment as the basis for the network. This allows Increased speed through downtown Dealing better with the height differences, using a more direct route Tunnel stations should be built to 80m length, even if trains are currently only 40m long The network should be planned with high grades (i.e. up to 6.5%), allowing more efficient tunnels. The downtown segment may require more than 2 tracks, depending on the number of branches. If there are multiple downtown tunnels (or a 4-track tunnel), there should be cross-platform transfers between them (to minimize travel time when transferring) The network should have multiple branches into Quebec and Levis The network should consider building the third link into Levis as a tram/stadtbahn tunnel The network should use the Pont du Quebec to connect to Levis, using a single dedicated rail track (which can provide service as often as every 5 minutes, because the bridge is only 1.2km long, including approaches). Outside of downtown, the stadtbahn system should use surface running. Dedicated lines should be used wherever possible, and sharing lanes with cars should be avoided. If there are areas with little space or large elevation difference, small tunnels should be considered outside of downtown. If possible, existing or former heavy rail lines should be used. Overall, the network should be optimized for speed. The network should maximize utility and efficiency by using Oridgin-Destination data. Phasing: The network should be planned as a final network, covering the whole of the metropolitan region The actual system should be built incrementally, starting with the lines that have the best cost-benefit Accodomodations should be place to minimize the future construction cost of extensions

16

17 5) An Example Proposal of a Stadtbahn System for Quebec City The following proposal attempts to follow some of the guidelines, combining previous Quebec City transit proposals into one: This network is built out of shared downtown tunnel, with 3-4 branches on every side. The length of the trains should be in the 40m-100m range (the tunnel stations should have platforms of m length). Service could be as often as every 5 minutes on the branches, every 100 seconds in the shared tunnel. The branches are approximate, and depend on cost-benefit. This map is supposed to illustrate the overall structure, the idea to build a 60km network with only 4-6km of tunnels.

18 The 500m shared tunnel section could have four tracks, and two stacked stations with island platforms (Gare du Palais doesn't have to be stacked). In between, one of the lines may switch top and bottom level, thus allowing cross-platform transfers in all directions. Sections: - 2.6km downtown shared section (2.0km tunnel) - 4.0km Levis branch (2.2km tunnel) km airport branch - 9.5km Eastern branch (1.4km tunnel) km Western branch (follows 2003 tram study) - 8.6km North-Western branch km Northern branch - 2.8km transit mall (0.1km tunnel) - 4.0km North-Eastern branch (0.5km tunnel) - 5.0km 2nd Levis branch (2003 tram study) Total: ~70km of lines, including ~6km tunnel.

19 The Downtown Tunnel At the center of the proposed network would be a tram-tunnel, used to provide a high capacity through downtown with great relative speed, while minimizing the impact of the transit lines on the city and other traffic. Many branches would meet and serve two consecutive downtown stations. The stretch between the stations would be laid out as a four-track tunnel. Having two connection stations allows cross-platform transfers between all lines in all directions, minimizing the impact of said transfers. This allows all branches to quickly access all other branches. In particular it provides access to the haute-ville and St-Foy (the two most important employment sectors), from any branch - even for lines that don t directly serve these areas. Possible Track Layout for Downtown Tunnel Both Stations would utilize stacked platforms. This allows for one line to switch levels between the two stations, which in turn allows cross platform transfers across all lines. The Tunnel radii are generally above 80m. To future proof the network, it may make sense to make the tunnel stations up to 80m long (or at least have accommodations for stations that long).

20 Gare Du Palais Station This is essentially the central station to the whole network. It is where all lines meet going in the same direction. There is also a connection to the VIA rail station. It would be located under the Park in front of Gare-du-Palais. Parts of Vieux-Quebec are within walking distance. Gare Du Palais station (Profile) Gare du Palais Station (Top View)

21 Charest / du Pont Station This second connection station would allow cross-platform transfers on lines travelling in the opposite direction, most notable from the Western branches to the line serving the Haute-ville and Ste-Foy. Note how it s inserted into the relatively narrow street, maximizing space in the station while minimizing walking distances. Entry into the station would be via traffic islands. A single elevator allows access to all levels. Note how the dominant exchange directions (nord/est -> vers haute-ville, vers nord/est -> vers west) have the larger platform space on the side where people will wait for their transfer. Note: The required width of the station could be reduced further if the height was increased to allow the tracks to be on top of one another (this would only be possible for the two tracks shown on the left on the diagram, because the tracks on the right need to swap their relative location in the interstation distance between du Pont/Charest E and Gare du Palais over a distance of only 330m. Illustrative example: Metro Märkisches Museum, Berlin (photo by Rüdiger Kratz)

22 Profile View of Station Charest / du Pont (under Boulevard Charest E) Top View of Station Charest E / Rue Du Pont

23 Sources [1] Étude de faisabilité du tramway/srb [2] le tramway de Quebec uebec.pdf [3] Enquête Origine - Destination aits-saillants.pdf [4] Le Soleil. Troisième lien: un train-tram sous le fleuve suggéré. Mars 26, train-tram-sous-le-fleuve-suggere.php