1. How the French Blend Light Rail and Complete Streets for Total Accessibility Presented at Rail~Volution Minneapolis, 22 September 2014 Greg Thompson. Tom Larwin. Tom Parkinson Transportation Research Board Subcommittee on International Light Rail Development glthompson@fsu.edu larconsult@yahoo.com tep@telus.net

2. Total accessibility

3. Implementing Green Transit/Complete Streets on an Unprecedented Scale

4. Defining the French Approach: the Macro View  MACRO Design Principle 1: Develop a a concept of how public transport should tie the urban agglomeration together: a small number of light rail (nouveau tram) lines is key  MACRO Design Principle 2: High-performance and -capacity vehicles designed to blend with the urban fabric and facilitate accessibility between lines and modes  MACRO Design Principle 3: Fully accessible stops widely spaced  MACRO Design Principle 4: Stops adjacent to,and integrated with major destinations; including in suburbs  MACRO Design Principle 5: Bus lines reconfigured around nouveau tram stations

5. The Micro Design Side of the French Approach: the Art of Insertion  Almost 100% use of public rights-of-way  At the expense of the auto, which are kept off tracks  Examples: Roads, alleys, plazas, university campuses, hospital campuses  All rights-of-way rebuilt from building façade to building façade to facilitate transit performance, pedestrian and bicycle flow, safety, aesthetics  The Art of Insertion is a political process wherein stakeholder groups figure out how to design high performance transit that is compatible with their lifestyles

6. MACRO Design Principle 1: A Regional Core of Light Rail Lines Big box district University Mall Center City High rise offices Industrial district University hospital complex Intercity rail Medical complex Malls and big box stores

7. Macro Design Principle 2: Long vehicles with lots of doors and a fare system that allows passengers to use all doors, bright, cheery, airy

8. Macro Design Principle 3: Fully accessible stops spaced widely to enable faster service

9. Macro Design Principle 4: Stops adjacent to major destinations; many in suburbs

10. Macro Design Principle 5: Bus system reconfigured around light rail stops

11. Center City insertion where two lines cross

12. Insertion into an alley

13. Insertion of station into alley

14. Center city insertion

15. Insertion in Angers: Edge of center city

16. Insertion: Edge of historic center

17. Insertion: Stop shoe-horned into tight spot 12 Oct 2012 - GLT 17

18. Insertion: Stopping trains delay autos; not vice versa 12 Oct 2012 - GLT 18

19. Insertion: Inner suburb

20. Insertion: Outer suburb of single family homes

21. Insertion: Suburban university campus (Nantes)

22. Insertion: Suburban university campus (Orleans)

23. Insertion in Plaza: 1

24. Insertion in Plaza: 2

25. Insertion in Plaza: 3

26. Insertion of high quality transit into urban and suburban fabric: an art combining: Transit planning and engineering Traffic engineering Safety analysis Aesthetics and urban design Politics To achieve the results you have seen 26 Summary: Macro concepts of quality transit combined with The Art of Insertion result in complete streets that truly change travel behavior

27. Thank you — Merci! Waiting for the tram, Strasbourg 2011 TP 27 of 14

28. Remarkable growth, particularly from 2000; there is no distinction between tramways (streetcars) and light rail in France, more a combination of features. Tram-trains are not covered here but are gaining ground with dual-system vehicles capable of over 100km/h— 750 volts plus 1.5V DC or 25kV AC or diesel Growth of French Tramways— kilometres of route Base chart from The Transport Politic, Yonah Freemark 2012 Prior French practice was rubber-tired metro for large cities: Paris, Lyon, Marseille. Rubber-tired light metro (Siemens VAL) for medium cities: Lille, Rennes, Toulouse. Then the lower cost tramway appeared. 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 28 of 14

29. . Some results 29 of 14 Buses and trams are closely integrated with free transfers. Ridership increase is typically 30–60%. Montpellier went from 28.8m/year on the all bus system in1999, to 62.2m in 2010 with 5 routes, an 150% increase.

30. Despite moderate fares and frequent service with union ( syndicat) drivers, average farebox recovery at 48% is good, particularly given that on some systems heavily discounted students make up over half the riders. Alignments may often seem convoluted but ensure that universities, schools and other major generators—hospitals and railway stations—are well connected. 30 of 14 LRT Farebox Recovery as percent of Direct Operating costs

31. 31 of 14 Despite the economies of scale from city to city: joint orders for vehicles, use of public land and easements, and minimising line poles (25% of spans in Brest are attached to buildings), French tramways are comparable or slightly more expensive than other European systems— although allowance should be made for the 15-25% of project costs that are spent on the urban environment—and any APS. The average of eleven recent French systems is US$ 29m/km, range $20.4– $51.2 The average of seven recent US systems is US$ 35m/km, range $28.6– $43.5 Excludes systems, such as Seattle, with tunnels or other high infrastructure costs; €=US$1.3 Bordeaux with APS Capital Costs

32. US light rail vs bus performance 2011

33. Circulator Streetcar vs bus performance 2011

34. France like U.S. in auto ownership and big box retailing 34