railway station areas. Particularly in the context of the dynamics of urban networks, HST railway stations areas ..... Bologna-Florence. 77 km. Italy: Turin-Novara.
05082621B.SOV HP/IH E137 Version March 1st, 2006
HST-Railway Stations as Dynamic Nodes in Urban Networks Paper to be presented at the conference ‘Land Use and Transportation Planning in Urban China’, Ministry of Construction & China Planning Society, Beijing, June 14-16, 2006 Hugo Priemus, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology The author is Scientific Director of the Habiforum program ‘Innovative Land Use’, cofunded by Dutch government. Abstract In the European Union we observe increased shares of high-speed trains and light rail + metro lines in the modal split of passenger transport. This may suggest a revival of rail transport and of railway station areas. Particularly in the context of the dynamics of urban networks, HST railway stations areas are now being redeveloped into urban nodes. In a number of EU-countries this is stimulated by local governments, but also by national governments. The Dutch government is co-funding the redevelopment of HST railway stations. But in general developers and real estate investors have a decisive role: they determine whether private investments will be made in and around these stations. The development of HST railway station areas is a challenge for public-private partnerships, in which private initiatives and public values will be combined. Modern large urban networks are best served by a multinodal approach, with the development of not one but several big stations, each with its own functional programme and its own special transport features. This prevents overburdening one station where all transport networks (roads and railways) meet. Following the model of Japanese best practices, more synergy could be achieved between urban development, urban real estate development, and the development and operation of transport infrastructure networks.
Keywords: Railway Station, High-Speed-Train, Network City, Urban Network, Public-Private Partnership. Acknowledgement: The author thanks Piet Rietveld and Bert van Wee for their comments on an earlier version of this paper.
1
1.
Introduction
In most Western European countries railway companies are leading a troubled existence. Traditionally they are public monopolies which are being made independent with considerable difficulty and in a few cases completely or partly privatized. The train has only a modest share in the modal split of passenger transport, while the passenger car and the aeroplane are still gaining ground. For a long time the stations and the station areas shared in the malaise of the railway sector. In the Netherlands the rail sector was demerged and privatized in the late twentieth century. At that time the operation of station buildings and the development of station areas was placed in the hands of separate limited liability companies. This marked the beginning of a new dynamic in station areas in the Netherlands. In many other European countries we see similar developments. A second factor which has reinforced this dynamic is the development of the European HST network. More and more countries, such as the Netherlands, are connected with this network. It is expected that the stations where the high-speed train stops will have to cope with a larger number of passengers, partly of high socio-economic status. This will bring spending power into the station building and its vicinity, thus reinforcing both the urban and transport functions of the station (Bertolini, 1996; 1998; Bertolini & Spit, 1998; Serlie, 1998; Zweedijk & Serlie, 1998). There is a third factor which considerably reinforces the previously mentioned factors: the construction of light rail connections and metro systems, which improve public transport systems at the local and regional levels (Raad voor Verkeer en Waterstaat, 1996; Priemus & Konings, 1999; 2000; 2001; Priemus, 2004). The relatively old stations in urban areas serve as central nodes for these public transport systems which connect networks with each other at various scale levels. Not only developments in the transport sector mark a new dynamic phase in the existence of urban station areas; the recovery of the urban economy in advanced economies is also relevant (Boelhouwer et al., 1995; Priemus, 2001). This brings us to the fourth factor. The structural shift from employment in industry to employment in business and personal services is putting the cities back on the map. The rapid development of information and communication technology raises the productivity of production processes and supports consumer demand. This leads to more opportunities for creative activities and knowledge development (Florida, 2002). Cities provide a more attractive environment for activities of this kind than for large-scale industrial processes, which to an increasing extent are moving to rapidly-developing low-wage countries. Finally, it seems that in certain respects the city is gaining ground as a residential area. Surveys of households’ residential preferences in Western Europe show that the suburban residential environment is still the most popular. However, a significant minority of 25% to 30% prefer to live in a metropolitan environment, close to urban facilities and in a relatively central location (Spaans et al., 2004). This trend makes the station area attractive as a residential environment and supports the recent policy shift in the Netherlands from ‘compact city’ to ‘network city’ (Govers et al., 1999; Bontje, 2003; Van den Burg & Dieleman, 2004). The network city is polynuclear and has several nodes, with stations contributing significantly to the accessibility of the urban centres. At a slightly higher scale level, a few network cities together form an urban network, such as ‘Brabantstad’ and ‘Randstad Holland’ in the Netherlands. The new dynamic of stations and station areas means a considerable opportunity for investments for both the private and the public sector. Broadly speaking, government authorities are responsible for the improvement of transport infrastructure and the public space. There is also plenty to co-ordinate in the area of spatial economics. For the private sector there are potential
2
profits to be gained in various areas: land and property development in the station area and possibly the operation of some public transport connections. This paper analyses the growing dynamic of stations and station areas in the EU and the Netherlands. The central problem is: What can the redevelopment of HST railway station areas mean for the spatial and economic development of urban areas in EU-countries in general and in the Netherlands in particular? We refer in particular to the synergy between urban networks and HST station area redevelopment. The following research questions are dealt with: (1) How is high-speed rail transport in the EU developing since 1990 amidst a changing modal split (Sections 2 and 3)? (2) How can the HST-railway station nodes be analysed, making a distinction between the cumulation of urban functions and transport relations (Section 4)? (3) What urban impact in different zones can be expected after the advent of the HST (Section 5)? (4) How is the Dutch program of New Key Projects defined, promoting the redevelopment of HST railway station areas (Section 6)? (5) How can the synergy between HST-networks and urban structure be strengthened? What is – in this context – the relevance of the transformation from mononodal to multimodal urban structures (Section 7)? (6) How can the (re)development of HST station areas be defined as public-private challenge (Section 8)? The study is conducted, based on some EU statistics, a literature review and an analysis of Dutch policy documents. In Section 2 we analyse the changes in modal split in the EU and the Netherlands since 1970. Section 3 focuses on the development of high-speed rail transport in the European Union. After these two contextual sections, we analyse nodes as concentrations of urban functions and traffic flows in Section 4. We follow the approach of Bertolini (1996; 1999), who distinguishes the ‘node value’ and the ‘place value’ of railway station areas. Section 5 deals with the urban impact of the advent of the HST. The Dutch HST railway stations as so-called New Key Projects are presented in Section 6. The Dutch national government is taking at least part of the responsibility for developing HST railway station areas in order to stimulate urban economy. Section 7 shows that the Dutch New Key Projects policy does not take enough advantage of the urban design of the ‘network city’ and the ‘urban network’. In most big cities a transition can be observed from a mononodal approach to a multinodal one. In Section 8 we make clear in which way the development of HST railway station areas is a challenge for public-private partnerships. The contribution finishes with section 9 in which conclusions are formulated. 2.
Changes in Modal Split in the EU and the Netherlands
In the Sections 2 and 3 we deal with the question: ‘How is high-speed rail transport in the EU developing since 1990 amidst a changing modal split? First we analyse the changing modal split since 1970. Between 1970 and 2002 the share of rail transport in the modal split of passenger transport in the “old” EU (15 member states) fell from 10.4% to 6.2%. During the same period the share of tram & metro fell from 1.6% to 1.0%. The bus also lost ground: from 12.7% to 8.3%. The winners in this period were the passenger car (from 73.8% to 78.8%) and the aeroplane (from 1.6% to 5.7%)
3
(see Table 1). Figure 1 (EU, 2004) shows how the passenger car has become more and more dominant in the EU since 1970, how the market share of the aeroplane gained ground in the modal split and how modest the shares of bus, rail and tram plus metro have remained. In 2002 the share of the passenger car in the Netherlands (81.5%) was above the EU average (78.8%), while the share of the aeroplane in the Netherlands (5.5%) was slightly lower than the EU-15 average (5.7%). The train had a higher market share in the Netherlands than in the EU (8.1% against 6.2). In the Netherlands the bus lags behind the EU average (4.1% against 8.3%); this is also true for the tram plus metro (0.8% against 1.0%) (Table 2). Table 1
Performance by Mode for Passenger Transport, EU-15, 1970-2002, selected years (pkm, horizontal %)
Passenger Cars 1970 73.8 1980 76.1 1990 79.0 1991 78.9 1995 79.5 1999 78.8 2000 78.5 2001 78.5 2002 78.8 Source: EU, 2004: 3.3.2.
Bus & Coach
Railways
12.7 11.8 9.3 9.2 8.7 8.4 8.3 8.3 8.3
10.4 8.4 6.7 6.8 6.3 6.2 6.3 6.3 6.2
Tram Metro 1.6 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0
&
Air
Total
1.6 2.5 4.0 4.1 4.6 5.5 5.9 5.9 5.7
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
[Figure 1 about here] Table 2
Modal Split for Passenger Transport in EU-15, the Netherlands and the USA, 2002 (pkm, horizontal %)
Passenger Cars EU 15 78.8 The Netherlands 81.5 USA (2001) 85.7 Source: EU, 2004: 3.3.2; 3.4.17.
Bus & Coach
Railways
8.3 4.1 3.1
6.2 8.1 0.3
Tram Metro 1.0 0.8 0.3
&
Air
Total
5.7 5.5 10.6
100.0 100.0 100.0
In the United States the high share of air transport and passenger cars is striking; the market share of trains and trams is negligible here (Table 2). Table 3
Development of Passenger Transport in the Netherlands, 1990-2002, selected years (1000 mio pkm)
1990 Passenger Cars 137.30 Bus & Coach 13.00 Tram & Metro 1.26 Railways 11.06 Air Transport 4.08 Source: EU, 2004: 3.3.7-3.3.12.
4
2000 141.10 7.50 1.43 14.76 9.59
2001 141.60 7.60 1.44 14.29 9.44
2002 144.20 7.20 1.45 13.85 9.74
Table 3 shows that the shares of the passenger car and air transport have also grown substantially in the Netherlands since 1990. The bus has lost market share. Since 1990 the shares of both tram and rail services have risen slightly. This is due mainly to the introduction of the free public transport pass for students. While devoting attention in this paper to the redevelopment of railway station areas, we must bear in mind that in the Netherlands and the EU both the railways and the rest of the public transport services are losing ground. A couple of bright spots are the increase in light rail transport and – in particular – the rapid development of high-speed rail transport in Europe, which is discussed in the following section. 3.
Development of High-Speed Rail Transport in the EU
In the European Union high-speed rail transport has increased significantly since 1990. Between 1990 and 2003 passenger transport by high-speed train increased almost fivefold (Table 4). Table 4
High-Speed Rail Transport, EU-15, 1990-2003 (1000 mio pkm)
Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Source: EU, 2004: 3.4.13.
Table 5
X 1000 mio pkm 15.2 20.4 25.2 27.6 30.7 32.8 37.5 43.4 48.5 52.7 59.1 65.5 68.2 70.5
High-Speed Rail Transport in EU countries, 2003 (1000 mio pkm)
Country France Germany Italy Spain Sweden Belgium Netherlands Finland EU 15 Source: EU, 2004: 3.4.13.
X 1000 mio pkm 39.6 17.5 7.4 2.5 2.3 0.9 0.2 0.1 70.5
Table 5 shows how a number of countries participated in high-speed rail transport in 2003. France has a dominant position in European high-speed rail transport, followed by Germany, Italy and Spain (see also Table 6). In the Netherlands, high-speed rail transport began only recently, on existing tracks, which do not yet allow really high speeds. This will change in 2007 5
when the new dedicated HST-line connecting Amsterdam and Belgium will be opened (Visser & Bentvelsen, 1991; TCI 2004a; 2004b). The United Kingdom was not yet represented in the 2003 data. Table 6
Length of dedicated high-speed rail network per country, EU-15, 2002 (km)
France Germany Spain Italy Belgium Total EU15 Source: EU, 2004: 3.5.3.
Table 7
1.395 687 377 259 135 2.853
High-speed lines under construction in the EU (2004)
Belgium: Belgium: Netherlands: Germany: Spain: France: Italy: Italy: Italy: Italy: Sweden: Sweden: United Kingdom:
Liege-German border Antwerp-Dutch border Amsterdam/Schiphol-Belgian border Nuremberg-Ingolstadt Madrid-Lerida TGV-Est Milan-Bologna Bologna-Florence Turin-Novara Rome-Naples Södertälje-Linköping Nyland-Umeá Ebbsfleet-London (St. Pancras)
33 km 38 km 120 km 88 km 481 km 302 km 196 km 77 km 92 km 220 km 140 km 190 km 38 km
Source: EU, 2004: 3.5.3.
A considerable number of high-speed lines are under construction in Europe (see Table 7). Step by step, the isolated high-speed tracks will be integrated to form a true European high-speed rail network. Several nodes in this network may develop a strategic function. Within a decreasing share of the train in the modal split the role of the high speed train in Europe will increase in the next decades. 4.
HST-stations at the crossroads of urban functions and transport networks
In this section the research question is: ‘How can the HST-railway station nodes be analysed, making a distinction between the cumulation of urban functions and transport relations?’ Pol (2002; 2005) points out in his dissertation that there has been little or no investment in many European urban station areas for decades. With the arrival of the high-speed trains and the expansion of the European HST network this is now changing significantly. Pol (2005: 23) (in translation): ‘The development of a European HST network can be seen as a revival of rail transport. This means not only the improvement of the stations and the redevelopment of the station areas, but in particular the creation of a stimulus for urban development in the wider sense.’
6
In Section 5 this statement will be made conditional: only in certain situations and in certain circumstances can it be expected that the redevelopment of a station area will lead to an impulse for urban development. Over the past few years a large number of studies of station areas have appeared in which a relative degree of consensus can be observed as to the definition of a node (see Bertolini, 1996, 1999; VHP/Goudappel Coffeng, 1999; Meijers, 2000). The essence of this definition is that a node entails both a concentration of transport and infrastructure and a concentration of urban functions (work, facilities, residential function). A readily applicable definition of a node in which this essence is clearly expressed is that of the Dutch National Spatial Planning Agency (in VHP/Goudappel Coffeng, 1999) (in translation): ‘A node is a multi-modal transfer point in the network of collective and individual transport at which a spatial concentration of functions and activities is also organized).’ Bertolini (1996) distinguishes two components of station areas: ‘Station areas are (or may become) important “nodes” in emerging, heterogeneous transportation networks. On the other hand, they identify a “place”, both a temporarily and a permanently inhabited portion of the city, an often dense and diverse assemblage of uses and forms, that may or may not share in the life of the node’. (See also Bertolini & Spit, 1997; 1998: 9). In this context, Bertolini makes a distinction between property-led and transport-led developments. A property-led station development is stimulated primarily by changes in the place, and a transport-led development mostly by changes in the node (or related infrastructure). Pol (2002: 31) adds two more components to the picture: spatial quality and image. The extent to which transport streams interconnect at a node is referred to by Bertolini (1996; 1999) as the ‘node value’ and the degree of concentration of urban functions as ‘place value’. [Figure 2 about here] With the help of the ‘rugby ball model’ (see Figure 2), Bertolini distinguishes five types of station location: Accessible station locations: locations where the node and place values are equal and the two functions support each other. In Figure 2 these locations are clustered around the dotted line. Dependent station locations: at these locations there are very few transport facilities and also very few cafés and restaurants, shops, businesses and houses. These stations are probably not very viable and the question is why station locations of this kind are maintained. Tense situation: tension will appear if there are too many transport facilities and other functions present at a station location. The various facilities compete for the space and get in each other’s way, which may lead to conflict or chaos. More node than place: at this kind of location the transport facilities are very well developed, but there are few other functions. These locations are very interesting from the development point of view, because there are probably possibilities for creating new functions. More place than node: these locations are characterized by a large number of functions and relatively speaking few transport facilities. Locations of this kind are interesting from the transport point of view, because there are probably possibilities for developing new transport facilities. Bertolini argues that the node value and place value of a node should be more or less in balance. The node-place model, which ranks the two values against each other, is an instrument by which nodes can be characterized on the basis of the extent to which there is a balance between node and place value. Ideally, a node should be located inside the ‘rugby ball’ in such a way that there is no dependence or tension.
7
Although there are huge problems of quantification, the Bertolini model has been followed by policymakers since it also clearly reflects the potentials for node development. We prefer to use the terms ‘transport value’ instead of node value and ‘functional value’ instead of place value. Following Bertolini (1996; 1999), the prevailing view in the literature and among policymakers is that node development should be focused on balancing the transport value of a node with its functional value. The reason is that the two are thought to reinforce each other. If a location has good accessibility it will attract business, facilities and households. Vice versa, a high functional value generates a great deal of transportation and thus provides support for transport systems (Serlie, 1998; Zweedijk & Serlie, 1998; AVV, 2000a; 2000b). At a node different sorts of infrastructure and transport systems, both collective and individual, meet. Efficient and convenient transfers between the different modes of transport at nodes is of vital importance if they are to function properly. Access transport which serves only the node must be connected at the node to transport services which connect the nodes. In this sense a node forms a link between various scale levels of transport. Although attention is often focused on the highest level of the transport system (it is often this level which determines the transport value; for example an HST station, an intercity station), the underlying transport systems, with their feeder function, are also important to the operation of the highest level. Nodes should be ‘transfer machines’, in which the passenger can make a choice from various transport alternatives. Achieving complete integration of the passenger car with other, collective modes of transport at the node is an important part of this, but until recently this has often been ignored by public authorities, in particular Dutch national government. Station locations can be distinguished on the basis of the number of passengers getting on and off trains per day. Table 8 shows how the Dutch Railways (NS) categorize stations according to this criterion (Janssen & Braun, 2005). Table 8
Station categories according to the Dutch Railways (NS)
Category Very small Small Medium Big Mega Source: Janssen & Braun, 2005.
No. of passengers getting on and off trains per day < 2,500 2,500 – 10,000 10,000 – 15,000 15,000 – 50,000 > 50,000
In thinking about the development of new urban patterns, an important role is attributed to the big and the mega stations. As regards the urban functions of a node (which determine its functional value), it is important to place complementary urban functions close to each other. This principle of complementarity means that a mix of urban functions (houses, workplaces, shops, restaurants, facilities) are concentrated at a node in such a way that they have added value for each other: for example, not only workplaces, but also a child day care centre, a supermarket, a fitness centre and shopping facilities (Janssen & Braun, 2005). The idea is that people should be able to undertake different activities in one trip chain. Careful planning of a concentrated mix of functions may increase welfare and save mobility.
8
There are two factors which determine the influence area of a node: a) the scale level at which the node functions b) the quality of the underlying network. a) Govers et al., 1999: 290 argue that, to strengthen the position of public transport structurally, integrated long-term planning of space and infrastructure is needed. A good choice of spatial scale level is a crucial element in this. The higher the scale level, the higher the influence area of a node will be. The scale level of the node function and the scale level of the place function are both determining factors. The scale level of the node function is determined by the infrastructure and transport systems available at the node and the scale level they serve. Often attention is focused on public transport systems, which can be clearly attributed to a certain scale level, although compared with a few decades ago the systems overlap much more (see Figure 3). [Figure 3 about here] The road system is also of great importance. This system also has hierarchic categories (international, national, provincial, but it is much less marked by hierarchy because of its convenient and frequent opportunities to transfer from one category to another, without requiring anything comparable with changing trains. Cars can also be used for transport over practically any distance. In short, Govers et al. (1999) conclude that car accessibility is a less distinguishing feature of nodes than accessibility through the public transport system. However, the more the capacity and costs of parking space are taken into account, the more – in my opinion - this statement must be modified. b) The quality and the spatial structure of the underlying network determine the size of a node area because of the fact that this network influences the time needed to reach the actual transport node from the node area. It is in fact not distance but travel time which determines the size of the node area. A good underlying transport system, for instance a bus network or an efficiently organized park-and-ride centre or bicycle path system, may mean that locations which are quite a distance from the actual transport node are still within its influence area. The notion of representing a node area by a circle with a radius of a certain length is too simplistic (Govers et al., 1999). The importance of the time needed to get to and from the actual transport node deserves discussion in greater detail. Some other factors which partly determine the influence area of a node are (VHP/Goudappel Coffeng, 1999): (a) Is the node the origin or the destination of the journey, and (b) the distance/time travelled in the main mode of transport. a) Is the node the beginning of the journey (origin) or the end of the journey (destination)? The average time accepted to reach a transport node for the beginning of a journey is longer than the average time accepted at the end of the journey to reach the final destination. Krygsman & Dijst (2001) have shown that in multimodal transport the average distance from home to transport node is 3.8 km, whereas the average distance to the final destination at the end of the journey is 2.6 km. Partly this has to do with the availability of transport. For example, in the Netherlands a person may have a bicycle available to get from home to the station, but not at the other end of the journey, and having to go on foot limits the radius of action.
9
b) The distance/time travelled in the main mode of transport The average time accepted for getting to and from the railway station depends on the duration of the main journey and the scale of the network. See Table 9.
Table 9 Scale level
Average time accepted for travel to and from a railway station by scale level
Origin area North West Europe 60 min Part of continent 30 min Part of country 20 min Region 15 min Metropolitan area 10 min City 5 min Source: VHP/Goudappel Coffeng, 1999.
Destination area 30 min 15 min 10 min 7.5 min 5 min 5 min
The fact that the origin area is bigger than the destination area has consequences for the organization of the area. ‘Destination activities’, for example work or a facility, should be situated closer to the actual transport node than ‘origin activities’ – specifically, the residential function. In other words, houses can be further away from the actual transport node than facilities or workplaces and still be within its influence area. This opens up prospects for the realization of substantial housing programmes in and near nodes. If possible, the functional value of a node should also include a residential function. The Province of South Holland (Provincie Zuid-Holland, 2002) gives several arguments for this: having a residential function increases the liveliness and livability of a node; having a residential function and local service facilities embeds the node in the local context; nodes offer room for the increasing demand for metropolitan living; if a residential function is added, the location will develop into a more complete part of the city. Govers et al., (1999: 290) also focus on the nodes, because it is there that networks and spatial functions come together: ‘The desired connection between various networks and between networks and space is crystallized in the nodes. By focusing on the nodes in planning, an optimal framework for public transport can be attained’. The transport value and functional value of a station can reinforce each other if public policy focuses on this happening. The transformation of an ‘ordinary’ railway station into an HST railway station may be a reason for it to do so. However, we should take care not to have unrealistic expectations. It is by no means certain that the transformation of every ordinary railway station into an HST railway will have the major consequences for the economic development of a city or a region, which Pol (2002; 2005) is expecting. 5.
Urban impact of the advent of the HST
This section deals with the following research question: What urban impact (in different zones) can be expected after the advent of the HST? Pol (2002: 18) distinguishes three options in this context: on the one hand, the HST may reinforce the existing hierarchical position of cities, while on the other hand it may promote the formation of a network of cities, given the existing hierarchical relationships between cities. He also suggests a third 10
possibility: municipal authorities might also try to achieve a better position in the existing urban hierarchy by taking a number of policy measures, such as stimulating the regeneration of station areas in the wider sense. Pol (2002: 28) defends this third possibility in the following hypothesis relating to the strategy of urban actors: he sees the advent of the HST as a stimulus for urban actors to invest substantially in their HST station areas in order to enhance the positive effects of improved external accessibility and/or to prevent backwash effects. He strongly emphasizes the urban impact of the advent of the HST. Pol (2002: 24) outlines the urban impact of the advent of the HST as follows (see also CEAT, 1993 and van den Berg & Pol, 1998): ‘The connection of a city to the HST-network can be seen as an external impulse given to an urban region’. (…) ‘The high-speed railway brings cities closer together in terms of travel time and (direct) transport costs. In particular, direct access to the centres of major cities will be improved, because many HST-stations are in city centres. The generalized transport costs (GTC) will also be reduced by competition between transport modes serving the same intercity connections in Europe, notably air and rail. Such competition also spells greater choice and flexibility, as well as lower prices for travellers’. (…) ‘The relevant region for individuals is extended. With the same GTC level, more remote locations can be reached. Their welfare potential will therefore increase: within the relevant region, more welfare elements will be available”. [Figure 4 about here] The following critical comments can be made on this approach: a) In many cases HST stations are not located in the centre of the city but on the outskirts (for example Amsterdam-Zuidas; see also the views of De Wilde & Megens (2005) on the crossing stations in The Hague and Utrecht, to be presented in Section 6). b) It is by no means certain that the generalized transport costs for the traveller would drop due to HST development, considering the explosive growth of cut price offers in air travel and the lower prices, including discount passes, in standard rail travel. c) Particularly in view of the rapid development of cheap airlines it is questionable whether the ‘relevant region’ would really increase due to the advent of the HST. The urban impact of the advent of the HST is doubtful in particular in the Netherlands. Randstad Holland will have five HST stations! It is by no means certain that this will lead to a very large number of additional passengers per station compared with the present rail passenger transport figures. In this respect the situation in central France, the Spanish tablelands and Italy is much more favourable. As Figure 4 shows, Pol (2002: 25) distinguishes two sorts of impact HST connections may have on the regional economy: ‘A catalyzing role is achieved when the connection to the HST network draws new activities to an urban region, thus causing the economy to grow. Most of the regions thus affected have low economic growth, or are undergoing a transition from one economic phase to another (for instance, from a manufacturing economy to a service economy), and need a strong impulse to direct the local economy. Urban actors in such cities expect their economic potential to be strengthened substantially by their connection to the HST-network, and will be inclined to lobby quite intensively to obtain a full-fledged connection. In particular, actors in these cities are expected to carry out additional investments in response to the HST connection in order to improve their economic potential.
11
By a facilitating role, we mean its impact on cities with a prosperous local economy, which need new infrastructure to accommodate their economic growth. Most of these are hierarchically important cities (such as capitals), often already endowed with a relatively high economic potential, and frequently the first to be connected to the HST network. These cities constantly need to ensure that their accessibility keeps pace with their economic growth. Pol (2002) also expects actors in these cities to make additional investments in response to the HST-connection, but they will probably focus on reducing perceived imbalances concerning welfare potential’. The difference between the catalysing and facilitating roles seems to be one of degrees. Pol (2002: 25) does in fact admit that the impacts referred to are not empirically measurable. Accessibility changes and economic developments cannot be directly linked, according to Pol. There is also often a tendency to overestimate the effects of the transformation of railway stations into HST stations. For example, the high-speed train has been stopping at Rotterdam Centraal for years. When the HST starts to travel on a new dedicated high-speed line, only the additional travellers using the faster train and getting in or out or changing at Rotterdam, in comparison with the present number of HST-travellers, should be taken into account. For the time being this additional number is likely to be modest, especially in view of the large number of other HST stations in the vicinity. Three development zones Following Schütz (1998), Pol (2002: 26) distinguishes three development zones in which the accessibility of an HST stop has various kinds of influence. He distinguishes primary, secondary and tertiary development zones, which are, respectively, a zone that is within five to ten minutes’ reach of the station; a zone that can be reached within 15 minutes from the HST-station by complementary transport modes; and a zone at more than 15 minutes’ travel time from the HSTstation (see Table 10). The primary development zone can be enlarged by several means of transport, such as a people mover. In this zone (the HST-station area), the greatest effects of the advent of the HST can be expected. It is indeed here that most travel time can be saved because in principle the traveler needs no complementary transport. Besides, by its proximity to the HST-network, this area profits directly from its improved status as a location. That is why particularly in the primary development zone high-grade office and residential functions can be established and where relatively high increases in land and real estate values are expected. As a result, to build high and dense becomes attractive in this area. On the advent of the HST, stakeholders will respond in the first instance by investing in this zone. In particular, urban actors in cities eager to use the advent of the HST as a catalyst for regional economic growth, will invest pro-actively in the primary development zone.
12
Table 10
Development zones in relation to accessibility of an HST stop
Building density
Very high
OG2: Secondary development zone Indirect 15 minutes, by complementary transport modes (incl. travel and changing time) Variety of functions depending on specific location factors Depends on specific situation Modest
Schütz points out that high-grade functions may also be established in secondary development zones in order to be close to the HST-station, but the gains in property value and the building density will be lower than in the primary development zone. Stakeholders may therefore be less inclined to invest in these zones, though they may still do so at a later stage. Even tertiary development zones may profit from improved accessibility, but in these zones there are not likely to be any development effects that can be directly related to the advent of the HST. The three zones are presented in Figure 5. [Figure 5 about here] The larger the area in question, the more speculative the expectations are about the urban impact of the advent of the HST. 6
Dutch HST railway stations as New Key Projects
The next research question is: ‘What is the Dutch program of New Key Projects, promoting the redevelopment of HST Railway Station Areas?’ This analysis starts in 1988. In that year the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment began to tackle the ‘key projects’ approach as a strategy to implement spatial planning policy at the project level. Key projects are specific investment projects for urban areas which are considered to be of strategic importance for spatial planning in the Netherlands. They are thought to contribute significantly to the realization of the main outlines of spatial planning policy. An important objective in this policy is the development of high-quality nodes in the urban networks. The ministry is trying to realize this objective by subsidizing the (re)development of HST railway stations and station areas: the New Key Projects. As was demonstrated in section 5, the HST stations offer plenty of potential for the development of high-quality public transport nodes with attractive locations for offices, residential housing and service facilities. To realize this potential, investment projects have been set up around the HST stations. The underlying idea of these New Key Projects is that the cities involved will be able to benefit optimally from the opportunities a future HST connection will offer for the vitality of the city (KPMG, 1998; Priemus et al., 2002: 86-92). In the first instance there were five projects: 13
Amsterdam Zuidas Rotterdam Centraal The Hague Hoog Hage Utrecht Centrum Project (subsequently referred to as Utrecht CS International Node) Arnhem Centraal/Coehoorn.
Later another project was added: Breda Spoorzone. The HST-station at Amsterdam Schiphol is deemed to be able to develop without extra public support. These New Key Projects are outlined briefly in Table 11. The Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (Ministerie van VROM, 1998a; 1998b) considers the development of the New Key Projects so important for the spatial development of the Netherlands in general and for the quality of urbanization in particular that it wants to take a directive role in organizing it. Table 11
Brief outlines of the New Key Projects in the Netherlands
Amsterdam Zuidas¹) Amsterdam Zuidas is the set of plans for the development and redevelopment of the area around the World Trade Center and the A10-Zuid. The plans include placing the infrastructure underground and improving the quality of the public space. The functional emphasis is on offices, with the main target being national and international business. Rotterdam Centraal¹) Rotterdam Centraal has to do with the development of Centraal Station and the surrounding area. The plan is that there will be offices and educational institutions, urban entertainment, service facilities and residential housing here. The development of the ‘Rotterdam CS Mobility Node’ plays a major role in the plan. The Hague Hoog Hage¹) In The Hague Hoog Hage the area around Centraal Station, ‘Carrefour’ and the Binckhorst business park will be tackled in an integrated way. The addition of offices and businesses is the main point in the functional programme. Recreation facilities, residential housing and shops are also planned. Interventions in urban design, spatial planning and infrastructure are also included in the project; one of the most striking plans is the viaduct over the rail yard. Utrecht CS International Node¹) The Utrecht CS International Node project includes interventions in urban design, spatial planning and traffic, and the addition of functions in the Hoog Catharijne and Jaarbeurs areas. Although to a large extent the programme is focused on offices, there is a varied mix of functions since there is also quite an emphasis on shops, facilities and residential housing. Arnhem Centraal/Coehoorn¹) The Arnhem Centraal/Coehoorn project entails plans to raise the quality of the area surrounding the station and the area between the station and the bank of the Rhine. As well as interventions in urban design (including changes to public spaces and intensified use of the space) there will be improvement of the infrastructure. The emphasis in the functional programme will be mainly on offices and to a lesser extent on shops, restaurants and residential housing. Breda Spoorzone²) The Spoorzone (Railway Zone) includes the present station with the shunting yard and several business parks. The core of the project is the development of offices, shops, restaurants and residential housing in the station area. The station itself will also be drastically renovated and the quality of the neighbouring residential districts of Belcrum and Spoorbuurt improved, with maximum use being made of the potential offered by the river Mark for waterside living and water recreation. ¹) Source: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (1998a; 1998b) ²) Source: www.spoorzone.nl
The major role the State wants to play in these projects also involves funding. The Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB) has indicated that in these projects ‘a financial contribution from the government may contribute to the improvement of the quality of the public space, to infrastructure accessibility and to removing or mitigating external effects’ (CPB, 2001: 20). In a letter (TK 1999-2000, 26800 XI no. 76) dated 4 July 2000 accompanying the
14
progress report on the New Key Projects, Dutch State Secretary of Housing and Spatial Planning Johan Remkes announced that over EUR 900 million was going to be allocated to the New Key Projects. The funds available for the projects can be divided into the New Key Projects (NSP) budget of EUR 245 million for the quality of the urban design in the New Key Projects, and the Long-Term Infrastructure and Transport (MIT) budget of EUR 299.9 million for the adaptation of the stations. In addition, another EUR 356.2 million has been set aside for the projects in the framework of the Randstad Accessibility Offensive (BOR). The division of this money is shown in Table 12. Table 12
Amsterdam Rotterdam The Hague Utrecht Arnhem Breda
Indicative division of state funding for New Key Projects (in millions of euros), July 2000 Indicative division of MIT Large Stations budget
Indicative division of NSP budget
BOR
Total
EUR 56.7 49.9 13.6 152.5 13.6 13.6
EUR 70.3 54.5 34.0 54.5 15.9 15.9
EUR 181.5 106.6
EUR 308.6 211.0 47.6 275.0 29.5 29.5
68.1
Total 299.9 245.0 356.2 901.2 Source: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, 2000, Progress Report on New Key Projects (NSP), 4 July (Ministerie van VROM, 2000a). MIT = Meerjarenprogramma Infrastructuur en Transport (Long-Term Infrastructure and Transport Programme) NSP = Nieuwe Sleutelprojecten (New Key Projects) BOR = Bereikbaarheidsoffensief Randstad (Randstad Accessibility Offensive)
The State pays part of the costs of infrastructure, public transport terminals and the furnishing of public spaces. In addition, the State stimulates integrated planning. The main criterion in determining the division of the NSP budget is the ‘national added value’. The contribution a project makes to creating a climate for the establishment of national and international highquality business is taken into account in the allocation of state subsidies. This has been laid down in a decision-making framework. The same decision-making framework was used for the division of the MIT Large Stations budget, but in this case the magnitude of the problems involved in maintaining the transfer function of the station in question was also taken into consideration. To be eligible for state funding, the projects have to meet certain conditions with respect to urban design, infrastructure and finance.
15
Table 13 Total costs of HST key projects in 1997 and 2001 compared (according to figures provided by municipalities) (in millions of euros, not corrected for inflation)
Amsterdam-Zuidas Rotterdam CS The Hague Hoog-Hage Utrecht Centrum Project Arnhem Coehoorn area
1997 EUR 340.3 158.8 295.0 90.8 22.7
2001 EUR 1,361.3 2,132.8 2,042.0 ? 1,207.1
Source: Priemus et al., 1998: I-264; Priemus et al., 2002 (data provided by municipalities)
A comparison of the costs per HST project as determined in 1997 (Priemus et al., 1998: I-264) with the amounts quoted in Priemus et al., 2002 (see Table 13) illustrates the situation. In four years the costs per project have rocketed, mainly due to the growth of ambitions. In conclusion. It is clear that Dutch government is subsidizing the redevelopment of HST station areas. But it is not clear which role national government is playing in this redevelopment process, which risks the government is willing to accept and how national government sees the relation between the HST station areas redevelopment and the urban restructuring. 7.
From mononodal to multinodal cities
This section starts with the research question: ‘How can the synergy between HST-networks and urban structure be strengthened? What is – in this context – the relevance of the transformation from mononodal to multinodal urban structures? This analysis starts with the proposal by De Wilde & Megens (2005) to introduce crossing stations in The Hague and Utrecht, located just outside the city centres, which will relieve the existing stations in the inner cities. Travellers who do not need to go to the central station will change here. Regional transport can be connected to these peripheral stations, so that there will be a better separation of urban transport. The crossing stations will also function as park-and-ride centres for visitors to the inner city. Around these crossing stations there will be multimodal development of the area, so that part of the costs of the new nodes will be earned back through land development (Nyfer, 1998). The advantage of these areas, where the Dutch Railways own a lot of land, is that they are readily accessible to car traffic. It is strange that the New Key Projects in The Hague and Utrecht do not include the two crossing stations: in both towns there is room for scope optimization. The question is whether the numbers of passengers to and from the HST railway stations in The Hague and Utrecht have not been grossly overestimated, if the decision were made to realize the two crossing stations. De Wilde & Megens (2005: 5) report that NS, ProRail and Railion have joined forces to arrive at a common perspective: ‘Benutten en bouwen’ (Use and Build). To make rail infrastructure more readily accessible and more reliable, these parties suggest introducing ‘corridors’. As much as possible, these corridors should be independent of each other, in order to limit the impact of incidents on the tracks spreading. The trains will depart in closer succession, thus raising capacity on the tracks. Holland Rail Consult concludes that the rail infrastructure will be used optimally only when the corridors in the whole of the Netherlands are physically completely separated from each other, with independent timetables in the form of a frequency model and independent 16
traffic control. Where there is a large demand for transport, corridors over a longer distance will be bundled to increase capacity. The Dutch railway infrastructure as a whole will become a metro system. The management and maintenance of the railway infrastructure will become cheaper because it has become less complicated. For densely populated regions like Randstad Holland the approach of De Wilde & Megens (2005) seems to be a promising one. A typical feature of the approach of Schütz (1998) and Pol (2002), presented in Section 5, is that they regard the urban structure implicitly as monocentric. The HST station is seen as the epicentre of the city; the closer areas of the city are to it, the greater its impact on them will be. The fact that the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment is treating the HST stations as New Key Projects is evidence of the same view. With the exception of the Amsterdam Zuid WTC station, all of the New Key Projects are located in city centres. If in large urban areas all local and regional public transport connections are focused on this same node, and the roads as well, there will be an overburdening of the transport value of the central HST station and the functional value of the surrounding area will be eroded (more ‘node’ than ‘place’). Other railway stations in the urban region will have a much less pronounced transport value, while their functional value may be high (more ‘place’ than ‘node’). In Bertolini’s terminology (1996), both the New Key Project and the other stations in the urban region will be in a state of imbalance. A much more logical approach would be to implement the idea of the network city and the urban network consistently and to adopt a multinodal model, as has been suggested by De Wilde & Megens (2005). According to this model, a big city has several high-grade nodes which have good connections with each other and each of which also has a certain functional specialism. The Amsterdam CS station is important because of its connections with local public transport, and for the residents of the inner city, the tourists, and very specific components of the business world. Access by car and parking space will always be limited in this area. The Amsterdam Zuidas area is much more focused on trade and industry (offices in particular) and on the interchange between HST and car accessibility. The relative significance of the stations Amsterdam Sloterdijk, Amsterdam RAI and Duivendrecht would be increased if the hub function of Amsterdam were spread over several stations. The Schiphol HST station is focused mainly on the interchange between air transport, HST trains and intercity trains. There are no light rail, tram or metro networks here. Schiphol Plaza and Airport City Schiphol dominate the functional value, with many shops and recreation facilities, relatively few offices, and no houses. In The Hague there have been two big railway stations for a very long time: Den Haag Centraal (CS) and Den Haag Hollands Spoor (HS). There are also smaller, more peripheral stations such as Voorburg, Rijswijk, Mariahoeve, Laan van NO Indië and Den Haag Moerwijk. An obvious strategy would be to divide tasks further between HS and CS; CS could operate as a connecting point for the HST and have a rich functional value, while HS would have a relatively high transport value in the corridor Rotterdam – The Hague – Leiden – Amsterdam. Breda and Arnhem are too small for a multinodal approach; in these towns the HST stops are situated in a logical way. Rotterdam and Utrecht on the other hand are too big for a mononodal approach. The plan proposed by De Wilde & Megens (2005) for a multinodal approach in Utrecht offers an interesting solution. A similar approach would be an obvious option for Rotterdam, with Rotterdam Alexanderpolder, Rotterdam Lombardijen and Schiedam being significantly upgraded in both transport value and functional value. In some mega-cities in other countries the trend towards multinodality outlined here is already at a further stage than in the Dutch towns we have discussed. In London and in Paris there is not
17
one central station, but a series of big stations, each of which has a specific function in the metropolitan area. In Brussels there are at least three big stations: North, Central and Midi. Clearly the design of the urban and regional development and restructuring must correspond with the redefinition of stations and station areas, and with the network formation of both rail and road transport. 8.
Public-private partnerships in the development of HST railway station areas
Section 8 deals with the research question: ‘How can the (re)development of HST station areas be defined as public-private challenge?’ Whether or not a particular node is eventually (re)developed depends on the one hand on the priority attributed to it by politics, and on the other hand – to a high degree – on the interest of property developers and investors (AVV, 2000b). Nodes have enjoyed the interest of politicians since recently again. For private developers and investors, the main criterion is commercial feasibility, which actually boils down to considerations of financial yields and risks. Various kinds of (public and private) risks can be distinguished (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, 2000b): plan development risks (uncertainty as to costs and time in plan development) land development risks (uncertainty as to costs and time of land development) building risks (uncertainty as to the costs and time of the building process) market risks (uncertainty as to future market conditions) public law risks (uncertainty as to the outcome of formal procedures) and political risks (uncertainty as to future insights and priorities). The Dutch Ministry of Spatial Planning, Housing and the Environment seems to have underestimated the risks associated with public transport operation, since they are not mentioned. The content of the functional programme of a node is determined mainly by the market; after all, there have to be buyers for offices, shops, other commercial buildings and houses. There also have to be users of the node; their presence is mainly related to the transport value of the node, but also to the content of its functional value. Government authorities, in particular municipal councils, can influence the functional programme of a node by formulating conditions. To do this, it is essential that ambitions should be on a realistic scale and be co-ordinated per urban network. Large HST stations are at the same time places with a variety of functions, and nodes between high-speed rail networks, national core rail networks, regional light rail networks, bus networks, road networks, bicycle lanes and pedestrian areas (Bertolini & Spit, 1997; 1998). Railway stations are and will be developed to promote interconnectivity between those networks. Public responsibilities are also involved, such as overall co-ordination, the spatial integration of HSTstations in urban networks, the safeguarding of specific public values, and support of networks which can only be operated with the help of public funding (such as most urban and regional public transport). Dutch government has decided to support the development of six HST railway stations partly by public funding. The local governments involved also contribute with public funding. The majority of the investments will be made by private investors who expect a return from selling and leasing offices and apartments and from other commercial enterprises. 18
The starting point in the Dutch New Key Projects has always been public-private collaboration. Insight into the contribution of the market is important in order to justify the claim made on the State. It gives an indication of the commitment of private parties and the perspectives for collaboration between public and private parties, and shows what can be achieved with the help of the State’s contribution. It is precisely around HST stations that market potentials are supposed to be considerable. These market players are badly in need of something to hold on to, some kind of risk reduction. The government can provide this by thinking carefully about the relationship between urban design, property development and transport networks. For big cities a multinodal approach is more appropriate than a mononodal approach. We argued in section 6 that the Dutch New Key Projects policy is still based too much on a mononodal approach, except in relation to Amsterdam Zuid WTC. Real estate development is increasingly seen as a negotiation process (Healey, 1992; Healey, Purdue & Ennis, 1995) in which both public and private actors play their roles. This is especially the case in the development of strategic real estate projects such as HST railway station areas which are aimed at revitalizing central urban areas (Spaans, 2000). Public authorities usually play two roles: the traditional public role (land use plan, urban and regional planning, building permits) and more and more also the role of entrepreneurial partner in real estate development. The two roles are essentially different, but have seldom been distinguished clearly (Ten Heuvelhof, 1993). Academic studies (since Van der Boor, 1991) have investigated the best and worst practices of public-private partnerships. In each specific situation the optimal distribution of responsibilities, risks and tasks between public and private actors in real estate development has to be determined. It is important to evaluate (both with hindsight and in advance) the distribution of responsibilities as it can be observed in practice in France, Germany, the Netherlands and (in particular) Japan. It is also crucial to investigate the feasibility of reinvesting some of the returns of station development in rail infrastructure (Nyfer, 1998). Issues related to scope optimization and value capturing are relevant to the development of public-private partnerships in real estate development (Priemus, 2002). Broadly speaking, it can be ascertained that the private and public actors in the development and redevelopment of public transport nodes are highly dependent on each other. They determine each other’s risks to a large extent and it is in their interests to achieve synergy. This argues in favour of arrangements whereby public and private actors share benefits and risks under the motto of: ‘shared benefit, shared misery’. 9.
Conclusions
Since the relative success of the Japanese and the French high-speed railway systems (Amano et al., 1991; Bonnafous, 1987) and in particular of Euralille (Newman & Thornley, 1995), many people in the European Union have unrealistic expectations of the urban impact of the advent of the HST. This is certainly the case in the Netherlands, which is located on the outer edge of the European HST network and where the high-speed train will stop relatively frequently. Here travel time will be reduced only to a limited extent. In a small area the new HST railway areas (New Key Projects) are competing with each other. This situation is very different from that of the HST connections in central France and the Spanish tablelands. In the Netherlands, for the time being only a modest number of additional passengers is involved, and probably only a very modest impulse to the urban economy may be expected.
19
In general, a multinodal approach is more suitable than a mononodal one in promoting the mutual reinforcement of the transport and functional values of a node in a big city. The road network and the public transport lines and networks should be synchronized with the multinodal urban design of the network city and the urban network. Property development may play a special role in the way the transport and functional values of a node reinforce each other, particularly in the relationship between public transport and real estate management. The quality of transport services and the development of real estate can reinforce each other. If transport services are poor, real estate value will drop significantly. If real estate is inadequately developed, there will be fewer passengers and the profitability and provision of transport services will come under pressure. In Japan this interaction has been optimized because public transport operators are directly involved in property development and management. The experience of Japanese railway companies shows that this can be a formula for success (Van de Velde, 1999). Railway companies which own or can purchase land act as property developers, and where land cannot be acquired, contracts can be entered into with property developers. In the event of collaboration with property developers, the profits resulting from the appreciation of the land will be shared by both parties. The presence of public facilities offers opportunities to attract passengers in off-peak hours, if possible in the opposite direction, so that the capacity utilization of public transport is improved. At several stations in Japan this entire approach has led to considerably greater density, with differentiation of functions, larger numbers of passengers and better results for public transport. In the Netherlands it appears that NS Vastgoed is following the Japanese example, though to a much more limited extent. For the time being only modest numbers of extra passengers in Randstad Holland are involved. The urban impact of all these stops will be that the high-speed railway networks, the urban networks and the network cities will support each other. A strategic role will be played by extra private investments made by property developers and businesses. Public funding should be restricted to the costs of the infrastructure, the public space and the costs of management and co-ordination. Investments in private real estate will have to pay their own way. For the present, car accessibility is more urgent for the urban economy than accessibility by HST. Only in the long term is there any hope of an increased market share of the HST in the modal split. For now it would be quite an achievement if the arrival of the HST were to lead to stabilization of the market share of the train, and indirectly of light rail, metro and tram in the modal split of passenger transport.
20
References Amano, K., T. Toda & D. Nakagawa, 1991, The Rapid Transportation System and the Socioeconomic Restructuring of Japan, in: J. Brotchie, M. Batty, P. Hall & P. Newton (eds.), Cities of the 21st century. New technologies and spatial systems, New York (Longman Cheshire): 3947. AVV (Traffic and Transport Advisory Service), 2000a, Naar een visie op knooppunten, Deelproject 1: Inventarisatie concepten en toepassingen [Towards a perspective on nodes, Project 1: Inventory of concepts and applications] Rotterdam (AVV). AVV (Traffic and Transport Advisory Service), 2000b, Naar een visie op knooppunten, Deelproject 2: Uitwerking concept en empirische operationalisatie – studie op gidslocaties [Towards a perspective on nodes, Project 2: Elaboration of concept and empirical operationalization – study of pilot locations], Rotterdam (AVV). Berg, L. van den & P.M.J. Pol, 1998, The European High-Speed Train and Urban Development. Experiences in fourteen European regions, Aldershot etc. (Ashgate). Bertolini, L., 1996, Nodes and Places: Complexities of Railway Station Redevelopment, European Planning Studies, 4, no. 3: 331-345. Bertolini, L., 1998, (Her)ontwikkeling van stationslocaties [(Re)development of station locations], Stedebouw en Ruimtelijke Ordening, 79, no. 4: 4-9. Bertolini, L., 1999, Spatial Development Patterns and Public Transport: The Application of an Analytical Model in the Netherlands, Planning Practice & Research, 14 (2): 199-210. Bertolini, L. & T. Spit, 1997, Herontwikkeling van stationslocaties in internationaal perspectief [Redevelopment of station locations in international perspective] , Rooilijn, 30, no. 8: 268-274. Bertolini, L. & T. Spit, 1998, Cities on Rails. The Redevelopment of Railway Station Areas, London/New York (Spon). Boelhouwer, P.J., H.M. Kruythoff & H. Priemus, 1995, Beleid voor de grote stad in de toekomst [Policy for Major Cities in the Future], Delft (Delft University Press). Bonnafous, A., 1987, The regional impact of the TGV, Transportation, 14: 127-138. Bontje, M., 2003, A planner’s Paradise lost? Past, Present and Future of Dutch National Urbanization Policy, European Urban and Regional Studies, 10: 135-151. Boor, W.S. van der, 1991, Stedebouw in samenwerking: een onderzoek naar de grondslagen voor publiek-private samenwerking in de stedebouw [Urban Development in Collaboration: a Study of the Basis for Public-Private Collaboration in Urban Development], Alphen aan den Rijn (Samsom H.D. Tjeenk Willink). Burg, A.J. van der & F.M. Dieleman, 2004, ‘Dutch urbanization policies: from “compact city” to “urban network”’, Journal of Economic and Social Geography TESG, 95, no. 1: 108-116.
21
CEAT, 1993, La mise en valuer des terrains de gare: Conditions de réalisation et de mise en oeuvre, Lausanne (CEAT). Centraal Planbureau (CPB = Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis), 2001, Beoordeling voorstellen nieuwe investeringsimpuls, CPB-notitie nr. 01/61 [Assessment of Proposals for a New Investment Impulse, CPB memo no. 01/61] The Hague, 8 November. European Commission, Directorate-General for Energy and Transport (EU), 2004, EU Energy and Transport in Figures. Statistical pocketbook 2004, Luxembourg (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities). Florida, R., 2002, The Rise of the Creative Class, New York (Basic Books). Govers, B., R. Brand-van Tuijn & R. van Leusden, 1999, Van stad naar netwerk: kansen voor het openbaar vervoer [From city to network: opportunities for public transport], Rooilijn, 32, nr. 6: 285-290. Healey, P., 1992, An Institutional Model of the Development Process, Journal of Property Research, 9: 33-44. Healey P., M. Purdue & F. Ennis, 1995, Negotiating Development. Rationales and Practice for Development Obligations and Planning Gain, London (EFN Spon). Heuvelhof, E. ten, 1993, Gedragsnormen voor overheden in horizontale structuren. Het alterneren van eenzijdige en meerzijdige vormen van sturing bij de toepassing van de principe ‘de vervuiler betaalt [Norms of Conduct for Government Authorities in Horizontal Structures. The Alternation of Unilateral and Multilateral Forms of Steering in the Application of the ‘Polluter Pays’ Principle], The Hague (VUGA Uitgevers). Janssen, I.I. & B.H.G. Braun, 2005, De potentie van stationslocaties voor winkelvoorzieningen [The potential of station locations for shopping facilities], Service, 12, no. 3, June: 20-22. KPMG Bureau voor Economische Argumentatie, 1998, De Nieuwe Steutelprojecten op (hoge) snelheid, Identificatie en economie van de tweede generatie sleutelprojecten [The New Key Projects at (High) Speed, Identification and Economics of the Second-Generation Key Projects]. Drawn up at the request of the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, National Spatial Planning Agency, Hoofddorp. Krygsman, S. & M. Dijst, 2001, Multimodal Trips in the Netherlands: Conceptual Clarification, Micro-Level Individual Attributes and Residential Context, paper presented at the Annual Transportation Research Board Meeting, Washington. Meijers, E.J., 2000, Knooppunten binnen stedelijke netwerken [Nodes in Urban Networks], Nijmeegse Planologische Cahiers 52, Nijmegen (Catholic University of Nijmegen). Ministerie van VROM, 1998a, Nieuwe sleutelprojecten op hoge snelheid [New Key Projects at High Speed], The Hague (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment). Ministerie van VROM, 1998b, Nieuwe Sleutelprojecten, een tussentijdse evaluatie [New Key Projects, an Interim Evaluation], The Hague (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment).
22
Ministerie van VROM, 2000a, Voortgangsrapport Nieuwe Sleutelprojecten [Progress Report New Key Projects], The Hague (Ministerie van VROM). Ministerie van VROM, 2000b, Ruimtelijke Ontwikkelingsbeleid en Grondwaardestijging [Spatial Development Policy and Land Value Increases], The Hague (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment). Newman, P. & A. Thornley, 1995, ‘Euralille: “boosterism” at the centre of Europe, European Urban and Regional Studies, 2 (3): 237-246. Nyfer, 1998, Geld uit de grond, financiering van infrastructuur [Money out of the Ground, Funding Infrastructure], The Hague (Sdu Uitgevers) Pol, P.M.J., 2002, A Renaissance of Stations, Railways and Cities. Economic Effects, Development Strategies and Organisational Issues of European High-Speed Train Stations, PhD-thesis, Delft (DUP Science). Pol, P.M.J., 2005, De hogesnelheidstrein als katalysator voor stedelijke vernieuwing [The highspeed train as a catalyst for urban renewal], Nova Terra, 5, no. 2: 22-26. Priemus, H., 2001, Recent Transformations in Urban Policies in the Netherlands, in: A. Graafland & D. Hauptmann (eds), Cities in Transition, Rotterdam (010 Publishers): 388-403. Priemus, H., 2002, Public-private partnership for spatio-economic investments: a changing spatial planning approach in the Netherlands, Planning Practice & Research, 17, 2: 197-203. Priemus, H., 2004, Light Rail: Backbone of European Urban Regions, in: M. Beuthe, V. Himanen, A. Reggiani & L. Zamparini (eds), Transport Developments and Innovations in an Evolving World, Berlin etc. (Springer): 255-273. Priemus, H., R.C. Kloosterman, B.W. Lambregts, H.M. Kruythoff & J. den Draak, 1998, De stedelijke investeringsopgave 1999-2010 gekwantificeerd. Naar economische vitaliteit, bereikbaarheid, sociale cohesie en duurzaamheid [The 1999-2010 Urban Investment Statement Quantified. Towards Economic Vitality, Accessibility, Social Cohesion and Sustainability] Delft (Delft University Press). Priemus, H. & J.W. Konings, 1999, Stadsgewestelijk openbaar vervoer [Metropolitan Public Transport], Infrastructuur, Transport en Logistiek [Infrastructure, Transport and Logistics] series, no. 27, Delft (DUP). Priemus, H. & J.W. Konings, 2000, Public Transport in Urbanised Regions: The Missing Link in the Pursuit of the Economic Vitality of Cities, Planning Practice & Research, 15, 3: 233-245. Priemus, H. & R. Konings, 2001, Light Rail in Urban Regions: What Dutch Policymakers Could Learn from Experiences in France, Germany and Japan, Journal of Transport Geography, 9: 187-198. Priemus, H., R. Verhage & H.M. Kruythoff, 2002, De stedelijke investeringsopgave 20032004 [The 2003-2004 Urban Investment Challenge], Delft (Delft University Press).
23
Provincie Zuid-Holland, 2002, Knopen leggen, Van visie naar beleid, basisrapport [Making Nodes, from perspective to policy, basic report], The Hague (Province of South Holland). Raad voor Verkeer en Waterstaat, 1996, Knooppunten in openbaar vervoernetwerken [Nodes in Public Transport Networks], The Hague (Advisory Council for Transport, Public Works and Water Management). Schütz, E., 1998, Stadtentwicklung durch Hochgeschwindigkeitsverkehr, Konzeptionelle und Methodische Absätze zum Umgang mit den Raumwirkungen des schienengebunden PersonenHochgeschwindigkeitsverkehr (HGV) als Beitrag zur Lösung von Problemen der Stadtentwicklung, Informationen zur Raumentwicklungs, Heft 6: 369-383. Serlie, Z., 1998, Stationslocaties in vergelijkend perspectief [Station Locations in a Comparative Perspective], Graduation thesis, University of Utrecht. Spaans, M., 2000, Realisatie van stedelijke revitaliseringsprojecten. Een internationale vergelijking [Realization of Urban Revitalization Projects. An national Comparison], Delft (Delft University Press). Spaans, M., K. Maat, R. Konings, E. Meijers, J. Kersloot & H. Priemus, 2004, Potenties voor wonen nabij knooppunten [Potentials for Housing Near Nodes], Hoevelaken (Bouwfonds Ontwikkeling). Tijdelijke Commissie Infrastructuurprojecten (TCI) [Temporary Committee for Infrastructure Projects], 2004a, Grote projecten uitvergroot. Een infrastructuur voor besluitvorming [Major Projects Magnified. An Infrastructure for Decision-Making], The Hague (Sdu Uitgevers). Tijdelijke Commissie Infrastructuurprojecten (TCI) [Temporary Committee for Infrastructure Projects], 2004b, Reconstructie HSL-Zuid. De besluitvorming uitvergroot, [Reconstruction of HSL-Zuid. The Decision-Making Process Magnified], The Hague (Sdu Uitgevers). Velde, D. van de, 1999, Met onroerend goed stimuleert Japan het openbaar vervoer [Japan stimulates public transport with real estate], OV Magazine, 6 February: 10-13. VHP/Goudappel Coffeng, 1999, Knopen [Nodes], Rotterdam (VHP). Visser, J.G.S.N. & T.G.M. Bentvelsen, 1991, De hoge-snelheidstrein in de Randstad. Beleid en besluitvorming omtrent een grootschalig infrastructuurproject [The High-Speed Train in the Randstad. Policy and Decision-Making on a Large-Scale Infrastructure Project], Delft (Delft University Press). Wilde, S. de & E. Megens, 2005, Nieuwe generatie knooppunten [New-generation nodes], Nova Terra, 5, no. 2, June: 4-9. Zweedijk, A. & Z. Serlie, 1998, Een ‘knoop-plaats’-model voor stationslocaties [A ‘node-place’ model for station locations], Geografie, 7, October: 35-37.
24
Figure 1
Performance by Mode for Passenger Transport, EU-15, 1970-2002 (x billion passenger-km)
4000
1
3600
billion passenger
- km
3200
2800
2400
2000
1600
1200
800 2 3
400
4 5
1= Passenger Cars
4= Tram and metro
2= Bus and coach
5= Air
2002
1998
1994
1990
1986
1982
1978
1974
1970
0
3= Railway
Source: EU, 2004, Figure 3.3.1
25
Figure 2
Node
Bertolini’s node-place model
excessive node value excessive place
dependence
tension Place
26
suitability of system
Figure 3
Public transport systems and the scale level they serve
metropolitan interregional international national local regional very suitable
1
2
3
6
10
20
30
60
100 200
600 1000
distance km Source: Govers et al., 1999: 288, adapted from PbIVVS, 1998.
27
Figure 4
Influence of the HST on urban areas Connection to the HST-network
Lower generalised transport costs (GTC)
Longer maximum communication distance
Depending on:
Influence on the urban economy: Source: van den Berg and Pol, 1998.
28
Economic potential of an urban region
Catalysing role
Facilitating role
Figure 5
Development zones related to the accessibility of an HST-stopping place 15 minutes accessibility
Complementary rail infrastructure
Secondary development zone Tertiary development zone
5-10 minutes accessibility
HST-station High Speed Line(HSL) Transport mode Primary development zone
Source: Schütz, 1998.
29
