Access Transit Strategies

Abstract

To achieve the principal aim of demonstrating accessibility benefits for areas not directly served by HSR services, this chapter identifies alternative transit options capable of conveying HSR accessibility benefits into the region. These options are here also defined as strategies since not limited to the conventional network as pure intermodal means to access HSR but selected with specific criteria to exploit a more complementary role. As such, these strategies would allow for NEs to be produced in relation to HSR, thanks to their regional integration of networks and services, as it would be the case with mixed traffic HSR operating models, previously seen. To begin with, transit strategies are defined as potential interfaces of HSR, making a distinction with the notion of feeder systems. It will also be acknowledged how important is to consider infrastructure sharing and mixed traffic operations as possible operational models since the early stages of HSR planning, equally important as network architecture and connectivity, to enhance the integration between different railway systems. The selection of alternative transit strategies is performed upon criteria presenting the following three essential aspects: (1) the ability to integrate (or even enhance) specific competitive advantages of HSR, (2) the capacity to serve a regional context (3) and the interoperability to work synergistically with HSR. Thus, four different strategies are selected accordingly and reviewed. These are the regional metro rail (RMR), the regional high-speed rail (RHSR), the light rail transit (LRT) and the continuous railway system (CRS). However, to assess the efficiency of these strategies and compare them against their distributive ability of accessibility benefits for areas not directly served by HSR services through NEs, the CRS strategy was missing essential data. Even without current applications, the latter strategy is included as a stimulating alternative to stretch the limits of this study and to suggest that there might be scope for future research. While on the RMR, RHSR or LRT, data are ample and publicly available in regard to operating speeds and possible service levels, there was a lack of data available to obtain sufficiently detailed information to compare the CRS strategy with the others. The call for expert advice is first explained as a methodological choice since the CRS strategy requires an estimation that cannot be forecasted through the analysis of existing trends. Thus, a research technique is presented combining two methods: a panel of experts (Delphi) retrieving the steps to determine the feasibility of a proposal (backcasting).