Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilPublicationsCollection générale2026Metro 3 or Premetro+? An analysis...

2026
217

Metro 3 or Premetro+? An analysis of winning and losing neighbourhoods in Brussels

Métro 3 ou Prémétro+ ? Une analyse des quartiers bruxellois gagnants et perdants
Metro 3 of Premetro+? Analyse van de winnende en verliezende wijken in Brussel
Maël Dupriez
Traduction de Jane Corrigan
Cet article est une traduction de :
Métro 3 ou Prémétro+ ? Une analyse des quartiers bruxellois gagnants et perdants [fr]
Autre(s) traduction(s) de cet article :
Metro 3 of Premetro+? Analyse van de winnende en verliezende wijken in Brussel [nl]

Résumés

Cet article compare quatre scénarios de réorganisation du réseau de transports publics bruxellois – réseau de référence, Métro 3 complet (AlbertNordBordet), Métro 3 amputé (AlbertNord) et Prémétro+ – afin d'estimer leurs effets respectifs sur l'accessibilité des quartiers en termes de temps de parcours horaire, temps de parcours perçu et nombre de correspondances. Les résultats montrent que bien qu’un Métro 3 complet permette de diminuer les temps de parcours horaires pour certains trajets, cela se fait au prix d’une augmentation du nombre moyen de correspondances qui implique alors une perte d’accessibilité pour les déplacements depuis ou vers Neder-Over-Heembeek et Uccle. Autrement dit, avec les scénarios Métro 3, les gains de temps perçu sont compensés, voire surpassés dans la version amputée, par les pertes de temps perçu. À l’inverse, le scénario Prémétro+ permet aussi bien de diminuer les temps de parcours que le nombre moyen de correspondances. Ces résultats soulignent l’importance d’intégrer le temps perçu et les correspondances dans l’évaluation de projets de reconfiguration d’un réseau de transports publics, et invitent à mieux considérer des options alternatives telles que le Prémétro+.

Haut de page

Notes de la rédaction

In order to see the figures in higher resolution, go to the article online and click “Original” below them.

Texte intégral

Introduction

1In 2013, the government of the Brussels-Capital Region adopted the principle of creating metro line 3 (Figure 1), combining two distinct but closely interrelated projects. The first phase involves converting the existing “premetro” line between Place Albert in Forest and North Station in Schaerbeek into a metro. This follows the same approach as earlier metro lines: after years or decades of tunnel use by trams continuing on the surface network, the infrastructure is upgraded to accommodate metro trains rather than trams. In practice, this mainly entails adapting the power supply, signalling systems and platforms, as the infrastructure was originally designed with such conversion in mind – hence the characteristically Brussels term “premetro”. The only exceptions are Lemonnier station (in the southern part of the Pentagon) and the tunnel section between Lemonnier and Place Bara (near South Station), which are not built to metro gauge. This has led the Region to opt for the construction of a new “Toots Thielemans” station in Avenue de Stalingrad, together with new connecting tunnels under Palais du Midi and Boulevard Jamar. The second phase of the Metro 3 project involves extending the existing tunnel towards the north-east of the Region, by building a new deep underground infrastructure across Schaerbeek and Evere, from North Station to Bordet, with seven new stations and a depot at the STIB site in Haren.

Figure 1. Map of the current Brussels metro network and the new metro line 3 project

Figure 1. Map of the current Brussels metro network and the new metro line 3 project

Author: Maël Dupriez, 2026
Sources: UrbIS & STIB

2It is no exaggeration to say that the Metro 3 project as a whole has been – and will likely remain – the subject of intense debate, given the extent of opposition from various citizens’ groups (ARAU, BRAL, IEB, The Shifters, Quartier Nord, Save Tram 55, Association des commerçants Stalingrad-Lemonnier, etc.), a number of academic researchers [Fontaine et al., 2022], and even an honorary secretary general of the International Association of Public Transport (UITP). There have been countless press releases, in-depth articles, opinion pieces, contributions to public inquiries and white papers. Their authors criticise the project’s shifting rationale (alternating – depending on the source and period – between environmental concerns, insufficient capacity of existing tram lines, and issues regarding the “opening up” of north-east Brussels), the lack of genuinely independent supporting studies demonstrating its relevance, the technical and financial risks inherent in megaprojects – often characterised by cost overruns and lower-than-expected collective benefits (as shown more generally by [Flyvbjerg et al., 2002]) – and the considerable depth of the new stations (up to 30 metres below street level, compared with around 22 metres for Botanique, which is currently the deepest station).

  • 1 The cost announced in 2012 in fact covered only the new North-Bordet tunnel and the metro trains to (...)

3It must be acknowledged that some of the anticipated risks have indeed materialised [Court of Audit, 2025]. In Phase 1, major geotechnical difficulties were encountered both beneath the Palais du Midi and North Station, forcing works to be halted and alternative construction techniques to be explored, with estimated additional costs running into the hundreds of millions of euros. As for Phase 2, the estimated cost has continued to rise, despite no public works contracts having yet been awarded. Taken together, the total estimated cost of the Metro 3 project has increased from € 0.82 billion in 2012 (with entry into service in 2020) to € 4.76 billion at the end of 2024 [Court of Audit, 2025]1.

  • 2 For further details, see the webpage dedicated to this proposal: https://premetroplus.be/.

4Three significant developments have occurred in this context. First, a coalition of around twenty Brussels-based organisations, under the banner “Avanti!”, has proposed an alternative operating model for the existing North-Albert premetro tunnel. Rather than converting it into a metro and extending it to Bordet, Avanti! proposes a “Premetro+” network as an upgrade of the existing underground infrastructure through the operation of three tram lines instead of the current two2. This approach is intended to provide greater capacity and more direct connections between the north, centre and south of Brussels, while reducing the number of transfers required of passengers, and at a significantly lower cost than Metro 3 due to more modest investment requirements. Second, STIB has suggested that, if the North-Bordet extension cannot be built in the short or medium term, the first phase could still be completed and the existing North-Albert tunnel operated as a metro line, with tram passengers from the north or south required to make one or two transfers at Albert and/or North Station. Finally, the recent Regional Policy Declaration of the Brussels government for the 2024-2029 legislative period [Government of the Brussels-Capital Region, 2026] introduced two key decisions. On the one hand, the new majority has committed to completing Toots Thielemans station and associated connecting tunnels, including the demolition and reconstruction of the Palais du Midi. However, the agreement specifies that the infrastructure will be operated by tram. On the other hand, the extension of the tunnel towards Schaerbeek and Evere (North-Bordet) has been “fully suspended” and will undergo a “comprehensive reassessment, covering both its desirability and its technical and financial feasibility” [Government of the Brussels-Capital Region, 2026: 6]. This suspension also includes the construction of a turnback tunnel at North Station, effectively ruling out – at least for many years – the option of a temporary metro service between North Station and Albert.

5Whether “suspension” proves to be a euphemism for “abandonment” remains to be seen, but the impact of converting the premetro into a metro system on neighbourhood accessibility in Brussels is likely to resurface sooner or later. In this respect, two contrasting philosophies emerge: on the one hand, greater capacity and faster operating speeds, but with more transfers imposed on passengers and deeper stations (Metro 3); on the other, enhanced connectivity, fewer transfers and easier access to surface tram platforms, but lower commercial speeds and potentially less regular operations (Premetro+).

6At a time when the Brussels Region faces growing budgetary constraints and the federal government is unlikely to finance a substantial share of a regional transport project, it is noteworthy that the Premetro+ has not yet been subjected to independent expert analysis. The Regional Mobility Commission had, however, issued a request to this effect following hearings with both the Avanti! platform and STIB [Regional Mobility Commission, 2023].

7Against this backdrop, the present article aims to compare the likely evolution of neighbourhood accessibility by public transport in Brussels under four contrasting scenarios:

  • The current network (reference situation)

  • The full Metro 3 project (Albert-North-Bordet)

  • The truncated Metro 3 project (Albert-North)

  • The Premetro+ proposal

8The remainder of the article is structured as follows. Section 1 briefly outlines the methodology and data used, including the main technical choices. Section 2 presents overall and destination-specific results at the regional scale in the form of summary tables, while Section 3 provides more detailed results for selected destinations through cartographic representations. The final section offers concluding remarks.

1. Methodological framework and data

9In order to analyse the expected evolution of accessibility by public transport across Brussels neighbourhoods under different network reconfiguration scenarios, this article relies on the modelling of thousands of public transport journeys across the city for each of the four scenarios considered.

1.1. Spatial and temporal scope and routing

10The public transport network considered is that of STIB, the main operator in Brussels. Geographically, journeys were simulated between the 724 statistical sectors of the Brussels-Capital Region and 25 points of interest distributed across the city, yielding 18,100 origin-destination pairs.

11For statistical sectors, the origin point corresponds to their centroid weighted by the built environment. This avoids bias in large sectors which are only built up along their edges (for example near the Sonian Forest), while also accounting for buildings used for non-residential purposes. The use of statistical sectors also enables the results to be cross-referenced with socio-demographic data and mapped using areal units which provide a clear geographical representation of the phenomenon. Given that travel demand is not evenly distributed across the Region, 25 points of interest were selected as destinations (Figure 2). These were chosen to ensure both geographical coverage (aiming to cover as much of Brussels as possible) and diversity in terms of reasons for travel (sport, leisure, work, healthcare, education, etc.).

Figure 2. Location of destinations used to calculate public transport routes

Figure 2. Location of destinations used to calculate public transport routes

Author: Maël Dupriez, 2026
Sources: UrbIS, BruGIS & STIB

12In terms of time, routes were calculated for different times of day (peak and off-peak) and days of the week (weekday, Saturday, Sunday). While results could in principle vary across time periods due to differences in service frequency and operating speeds, the results showed only limited average variation over time. It turns out that peak-hour higher frequencies tend to offset lower operating speeds characteristic of this period. And conversely, off-peak lower frequencies are offset by higher operating speeds. The operational advantages of off-peak times, such as shorter boarding times and reduced road congestion (better operating speed), therefore compensate for their lower frequency. For the remainder of this article, only results for the weekday morning peak are presented – specifically, arrival by 8.30 on a Monday, the standard reference for such analyses.

  • 3 The GTFS data were downloaded on 6 January 2025 from the STIB website at https://stibmivb.opendatas (...)
  • 4 The OSM data were downloaded on 13 March 2025 from the Geofabrik website at https://download.geofab (...)

13Routes were calculated using the OpenTripPlanner package [Morgan et al., 2019], which interfaces the open-source R software with the OpenTripPlanner (OTP) routing engine. Compared with other software solutions, OTP offers extensive parameter settings, enabling the model to be calibrated to generate routes which reflect user behaviour as closely as possible. In order to calculate routes, OTP requires several datasets: a public transport network (stops and routes), associated timetables and a road network. The first two datasets are provided in the General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) format, available as open data for Brussels3, while the road network is derived from OpenStreetMap, also freely accessible.4

1.2. Scheduled time versus perceived time

14Public transport travel time is often implicitly understood as “scheduled” (or “theoretical” or “actual”) time – that is, the time indicated in the timetable. However, each journey is associated with a perception which may influence a user's route choice [González et al., 2015]. This perception can be quantified through the concept of “perceived” time. According to Meng et al. [2018], perceived time varies depending on journey components (waiting time, transfers, modes, etc.), socio-economic characteristics (e.g. age, gender, occupation), trip characteristics (purpose, timing, weather, etc.), and the presence of infrastructure (e.g. shelters, shops, air conditioning). De Vos et al. [2023] add that the perception of travel time is strongly influenced by predictability and the extent to which this time can be used productively. In practice, perceived time generally exceeds scheduled time [De Vos et al., 2023] and may lead users to choose objectively longer routes which are nonetheless considered preferable.

15Therefore, in order to best reflect the impact of changes in accessibility in terms of travel times as experienced by passengers, it is also relevant to analyse the results in terms of perceived time and not just scheduled time. In order to calculate them, surveys of the population (stated preferences) or observations of behaviour (revealed preferences) are carried out to determine the penalty coefficients associated with the various components of a public transport journey (walking time to and from a stop, transfers, delays, boarding conditions, etc.). In Brussels, the most recent coefficients were produced by a consultancy firm for the development of the regional multimodal model MUSTI on the basis of a stated-preference survey [Stratec, 2014]. These coefficients were used to calculate perceived travel times for this article.

1.3. The four network reconfiguration scenarios

16Four contrasting scenarios are considered here in order to compare the expected changes in accessibility of Brussels neighbourhoods by public transport. The first (S0) represents the reference situation: the full STIB network without disruptions or works. This involved extensive work to compile GTFS files, notably restoring the continuity of lines under construction (e.g. tram lines 9 and 19), removing replacement bus services, and reinstating normal timetables for reinforced bus lines to compensate for tram line interruptions.

17The next two scenarios (S1 and S2) correspond to the network reconfigurations envisaged by STIB and the Region depending on whether Metro 3 is implemented in full (Albert-North-Bordet) or in truncated form (Albert-North). In both cases, the new line is assumed to operate at three-minute headways, as planned by STIB, with the same service hours as those of existing metro lines.

18The final scenario (S3) is an alternative reconfiguration of the Metro 3 project called “Premetro+” promoted by the Avanti! collective, which seeks to upgrade the existing North-South-Albert premetro infrastructure [Delaunois, 2024], as mentioned above. For the extensions of lines 7 (Vanderkindere-Albert) and 55 (Rogier-Albert), headways and operating hours remain identical to the reference situation; the hours have simply been extended to cover the additional stops. The timetable for the new line 4 (Hôpital Militaire-Stalle), created by merging the current lines 4 and 10, is based on their combined peak-hour frequency in the reference situation, i.e. every five minutes.

Figure 3. Comparison of network modifications across the different STIB reconfiguration scenarios

Figure 3. Comparison of network modifications across the different STIB reconfiguration scenarios

Author: Maël Dupriez, 2026
Sources: UrbIS & STIB

19In order to visualise these scenarios, Figure 3 highlights the lines affected by changes across the different configurations. In addition to the new Metro 3 line, these changes concern four tram lines in the current network: T4, T7, T10 and T55.

Table 1. Summary of implications in terms of network, infrastructure, rolling stock and hourly capacity for each of the four scenarios considered

Scenario

Implications in terms of

Network

Infrastructure

Rolling stock

Hourly capacity

S0: Reference

Reconstruction of the theoretical network so as to remove the effects of the main works under way on 6 January 2025

/

/

Peak-hour capacity of 6,072 passengers per hour per direction in the North-Albert tunnel, with a headway of 2 min 30 sec

S1: Full M3

Tram 7 extended to Albert,

Tram 4 ending at Albert,

Tram 10 ending at Rogier,

Tram 55 withdrawn

Adaptation of Albert station (demolition and reconstruction of the tram ramp in Avenue Albert and provision of a terminus for tram lines 4 and 7),

Completion of works at Toots Thielemans station and the connecting tunnel to Place Bara,

Construction of the connecting tunnel under the Palais du Midi (including its demolition and reconstruction, except for the facades),

Conversion to metro of existing premetro infrastructure between North Station-Anneessens and South Station-Albert,

Construction of the tunnel and seven new stations between North Station and Bordet,

Construction of a metro depot at the Haren site

New M7 metro trains to be ordered (assuming those currently allocated to metro lines 1 and 5 are not reassigned to line 3)

Peak-hour capacity of 15,160 passengers per hour per direction in the North-Albert tunnel, with a 3-minute headway

S2: Truncated M3

Same as above except tram 55 retained unchanged

Same as above except for the last two elements,

Construction of a turnback facility beyond North Station (to enable train reversal)

Six M7 metro trains to be ordered (assuming those currently allocated to metro lines 1 and 5 are not reassigned to line 3)

Peak-hour capacity of 15,160 passengers per hour per direction in the North-Albert tunnel, with a 3-minute headway

S3: Premetro+

Tram 7 extended from Churchill to North Station,

Trams 4 and 10 merged into a single line linking Hôpital Militaire to Stalle (P),

Tram 55 extended from Rogier to Albert

Light solution: the diversion of lines 51/82 to the surface between Lemonnier and South Station, i.e. approximately 2 × 750 metres of track to be laid along Boulevard Jamar, Place Bara and Avenue Paul-Henri Spaak, in order to increase capacity and frequency on the premetro line (thus resolving capacity issues without requiring completion of Toots Thielemans station and its connecting tunnels, and avoiding demolition and reconstruction of the Palais du Midi),

New tram depot or expansion of existing depot

Additional 40-metre trams (T4200) would likely be required. A framework agreement between STIB and Alstom exists and could be activated, unless conversion of the forthcoming third phase of the current contract makes it possible to convert 30-metre trams (T3200) into 40-metre trams (T4200)

Peak-hour capacity of 7,590 passengers per hour per direction in the North-Albert tunnel, with a headway of 2 min

20Table 1 provides an overview of the implications of each scenario in terms of network configuration, infrastructure, rolling stock and hourly capacity. This makes it possible to approximate the scale of implementation associated with each scenario, thereby enabling comparison and contextualisation in light of the results presented below. A straightforward reading of the table indicates that the full Metro 3 project is unquestionably the most costly option, given the extent of new infrastructure required, whereas the Premetro+ is the least costly, owing to the limited amount of new surface track to be installed (notwithstanding the need to expand vehicle storage capacity). The truncated Metro 3 option lies between these two extremes. In terms of peak-hour capacity, the Metro 3 scenario would almost triple capacity compared with the current situation. However, this would come at the cost of a deterioration in service frequency in the North-Albert tunnel, with headways increasing from 2 minutes 30 seconds at present to 3 minutes. Conversely, the Premetro+ scenario – provided that 40-metre trams are deployed on line 55 – would deliver an increase in hourly capacity of around 25 %, while reducing headways to 2 minutes (i.e. an improvement). This optimisation would likely suffice to meet capacity – and thus comfort – requirements in the short to medium term, especially given that the need for the very high capacity envisaged under Metro 3 has been seriously questioned following downward revisions of ridership projections [Fontaine et al., 2022].

2. Markedly contrasted changes in accessibility

21The results relating to changes in the accessibility of Brussels neighbourhoods by public transport under the four scenarios are first presented globally before being examined in greater detail in the following section. The latter focuses on three specific destinations in order to analyse changes in accessibility from a spatial perspective.

Table 2. Average scheduled travel time by destination (minutes), and relative difference compared with the reference situation for the three reconfiguration scenarios

No.

Destination

Average scheduled travel time

Reference

Full M3

Truncated M3

Premetro+

1

Bourse

37.5

-2.1 %

+2.3 %

-1.6 %

2

Rogier

40.9

+0.1 %

+0.2 %

-0.2 %

3

Brussels-South

40.2

-1.4 %

+2.4 %

-1.8 %

4

Brussels-Central

38.1

-0.1 %

+0.4 %

-0.2 %

5

Brussels-North

41.4

+0.7 %

-0.2 %

+0.7 %

6

Tour & Taxis

49.0

-0.9 %

-0.5 %

-1.3 %

7

Schuman

40.6

-0.1 %

+0.0 %

-0.3 %

8

Luxembourg

39.9

-0.0 %

+0.0 %

-0.0 %

9

Blue Tower

42.7

-0.2 %

-0.2 %

-0.2 %

10

Flagey

41.0

+0.0 %

+0.0 %

+0.1 %

11

Solbosch

56.7

-0.1 %

-0.0 %

-0.1 %

12

ADEPS

60.9

-0.2 %

-0.0 %

-0.2 %

13

Woluwe Shopping Center

44.3

+0.2 %

+0.3 %

-0.2 %

14

Saint-Luc

54.8

+0.1 %

+0.1 %

+0.0 %

15

Bourget

55.6

-0.5 %

-0.4 %

-1.1 %

16

Haren Prison

70.0

-6.1 %

-0.3 %

-2.3 %

17

UZ-Brussel

61.6

-0.0 %

-0.3 %

+0.2 %

18

Westland Shopping

59.2

-0.9 %

-0.0 %

-0.2 %

19

Erasme

53.1

-0.5 %

+0.4 %

-0.2 %

20

Stalle/Neerstalle

52.2

-0.7 %

+1.5 %

-0.5 %

21

HE2B Defré

53.3

-0.1 %

+0.6 %

-1.4 %

22

Edmond Machtens Stadium

48.2

-0.2 %

+0.6 %

-1.2 %

23

Heyzel

50.3

-0.0 %

+0.1 %

-0.6 %

24

Nelson Mandela Stadium

56.3

+4.1 %

+4.1 %

-1.3 %

25

RTBF/VRT

45.3

-2.5 %

-2.4 %

-1.9 %

AVERAGE

49.3

-0.4 %

+0.3 %

-0.6 %

Red indicates that the difference between the scenario and the reference situation is greater than 1 % (longer scheduled travel time), and green indicates that the difference is less than -1 % (shorter scheduled travel time).

22Table 2 presents the average scheduled travel time by destination in the reference situation, together with relative differences for the three reconfiguration scenarios. Overall – that is, across all destinations – the full Metro 3 and Premetro+ scenarios both reduce the average scheduled travel time for public transport journeys within the Brussels-Capital Region. By contrast, the truncated Metro 3 scenario results in an average increase in travel times for users. Although these differences may appear small, they are averages calculated across a sample of 18,100 routes and therefore point to clearly differentiated accessibility outcomes in terms of journey times.

23When disaggregated by destination, these values vary considerably. This is unsurprising, as average travel time from each statistical sector in Brussels depends on both the location of the destination and its level of public transport provision. Likewise, variations across scenarios differ according to destination. Once again, this is hardly surprising, since each reconfiguration affects only certain lines and therefore certain parts of the city. As a result, not all routes within Brussels are impacted in the same way.

Table 3. Average perceived travel time by destination (minutes), and relative difference compared with the reference situation for the three reconfiguration scenarios

No.

Destination

Average perceived travel time

Reference

Full M3

Truncated M3

Premetro+

1

Bourse

58.9

-1.8 %

+3.8 %

-3.0 %

2

Rogier

63.3

+1.0 %

+0.7 %

+0.3 %

3

Brussels-South

60.2

-1.2 %

+2.9 %

-3.1 %

4

Brussels-Central

60.6

-0.2 %

+0.0 %

-0.0 %

5

Brussels-North

65.2

+1.5 %

+0.2 %

+1.1 %

6

Tour & Taxis

82.7

-0.6 %

-0.1 %

-0.9 %

7

Schuman

64.0

-0.0 %

+0.2 %

-0.4 %

8

Luxembourg

70.1

-0.1 %

-0.0 %

-0.1 %

9

Blue Tower

68.2

-0.2 %

-0.1 %

-0.1 %

10

Flagey

67.2

-0.0 %

+0.0 %

-0.0 %

11

Solbosch

87.4

-0.2 %

-0.1 %

-0.3 %

12

ADEPS

100.9

-0.1 %

+0.1 %

-0.2 %

13

Woluwe Shopping Center

65.3

+0.3 %

+0.5 %

-0.3 %

14

Saint-Luc

83.2

+0.2 %

+0.3 %

+0.0 %

15

Bourget

84.2

-0.3 %

-0.2 %

-1.3 %

16

Haren Prison

110.0

-4.5 %

-0.4 %

-1.8 %

17

UZ-Brussel

93.5

-0.0 %

-0.2 %

+0.4 %

18

Westland Shopping

94.6

-0.8 %

+0.0 %

-0.2 %

19

Erasme

77.2

-0.4 %

+0.5 %

-0.4 %

20

Stalle/Neerstalle

76.1

-0.6 %

+1.6 %

-1.9 %

21

HE2B Defré

86.2

-0.0 %

+0.5 %

-1.0 %

22

Edmond Machtens Stadium

77.9

-0.4 %

+0.9 %

-2.0 %

23

Heyzel

72.2

-0.1 %

+0.1 %

-0.4 %

24

Nelson Mandela Stadium

82.6

+8.8 %

+8.7 %

-1.5 %

25

RTBF/VRT

73.7

-3.4 %

-3.4 %

-4.0 %

AVERAGE

77.0

-0.1 %

+0.7 %

-0.8 %

Red indicates that the difference between the scenario and the reference situation is greater than 1 % (longer perceived travel time), and green indicates that the difference is less than -1 % (shorter perceived travel time).

24Table 3 is constructed in the same way as Table 2 but presents results in terms of perceived travel time, which is intended to better reflect the reality experienced by passengers during their public transport journeys. Overall, perceived travel times are, on average, around 50% longer than scheduled times, increasing from approximately 50 to 77 minutes. In other words, relying solely on scheduled travel times would lead to an underestimation of the burden experienced by users, and therefore of the impact of network reorganisation.

25Comparing relative differences in scheduled versus perceived time across the three scenarios leads to the same conclusion. On average, for the 25 destinations considered and compared with the scheduled times presented above (Table 2), the benefit of the full Metro 3 scenario is even smaller when measured in perceived time (virtually no gain, -0.1 %); the truncated Metro 3 scenario results in a somewhat greater increase (+0.7 %); and the Premetro+ scenario yields a slightly bigger decrease (-0.8 %). These differences in relation to scheduled time stem primarily from changes in the number of transfers: an increase under Metro 3 scenarios (particularly the truncated version), and a decrease under Premetro+. In other words, under the Metro 3 scenarios, gains in perceived time are offset – or even outweighed, in the truncated version – by perceived time losses. Only the Premetro+ scenario produces a general improvement in travel times within Brussels, whether measured in scheduled or perceived time.

Table 4. Average number of transfers by destination, and relative difference compared with the reference situation for the three reconfiguration scenarios

No.

Destination

Average number of transfers

Reference

Full M3

Truncated M3

Premetro+

1

Bourse

0.67

-0.5 %

+13.0 %

-12.4 %

2

Rogier

0.79

+5.6 %

+6.4 %

-1.9 %

3

Brussels-South

0.69

-0.1 %

+10.4 %

-14.2 %

4

Brussels-Central

0.59

+0.7 %

+0.1 %

+0.4 %

5

Brussels-North

0.78

+10.9 %

+7.7 %

+2.4 %

6

Tour & Taxis

1.22

+3.2 %

+3.4 %

+0.2 %

7

Schuman

0.73

+0.2 %

+0.2 %

-0.6 %

8

Luxembourg

0.99

-0.4 %

-0.1 %

-0.4 %

9

Blue Tower

0.96

+0.2 %

+0.5 %

+0.0 %

10

Flagey

0.89

-0.2 %

+0.2 %

-0.2 %

11

Solbosch

0.98

-0.3 %

-0.1 %

-0.5 %

12

ADEPS

1.50

+0.0 %

+0.2 %

+0.1 %

13

Woluwe Shopping Center

0.88

+1.2 %

+1.3 %

-0.2 %

14

Saint-Luc

1.12

+0.5 %

+0.6 %

+0.0 %

15

Bourget

1.30

-0.9 %

+1.1 %

-1.2 %

16

Haren Prison

1.45

-1.0 %

-0.2 %

-2.1 %

17

UZ-Brussel

1.34

+2.0 %

+2.7 %

+1.5 %

18

Westland Shopping

1.14

-1.0 %

+0.2 %

-0.7 %

19

Erasme

0.99

+0.6 %

+1.2 %

-1.0 %

20

Stalle/Neerstalle

1.06

+3.5 %

+5.8 %

-5.9 %

21

HE2B Defré

1.19

+2.0 %

+1.6 %

+0.6 %

22

Edmond Machtens Stadium

1.15

-1.4 %

+0.9 %

-3.5 %

23

Heyzel

0.86

-0.9 %

-0.4 %

-0.9 %

24

Nelson Mandela Stadium

1.31

+29.1 %

+29.1 %

-4.1 %

25

RTBF/VRT

1.01

-5.7 %

-5.4 %

-12.0 %

AVERAGE

1.02

+1.9 %

+3.2 %

-2.3 %

Red indicates that the difference between the scenario and the reference situation is greater than 1 % (more transfers), and green indicates that the difference is less than -1 % (fewer transfers).

26Given the central role of transfers in explaining the divergence between scheduled and perceived travel time outcomes, Table 4 presents results in terms of the average number of transfers. It shows that both Metro 3 scenarios – whether full or truncated – would inevitably increase the average number of transfers within the Brussels public transport network. By contrast, the Premetro+ proposal, whose very philosophy is a partial re-meshing of the network, contributes to a reduction in the number of transfers.

Table 5. Summary of average changes in accessibility by public transport in Brussels according to criterion, and its relative magnitude with respect to the other scenarios

Criterion

Scenario

Full M3

Truncated M3

Premetro+

Scheduled time

Improvement (+)

Deterioration (-)

Improvement (+)

Perceived time

Status quo

Deterioration (--)

Improvement (++)

Number of transfers

Deterioration (-)

Deterioration (--)

Improvement (++)

27In summary, although a full Metro 3 reduces scheduled travel times for certain journeys, this is achieved at the cost of an increase in the average number of transfers, which attenuates the overall benefit when perceived time is taken into account (Table 5). This constitutes the key distinction with the Premetro+ scenario, which reduces both travel times and the average number of transfers. By contrast, the scenario with a truncated Metro 3 between North Station and Albert leads, on average, not only to longer travel times but also to an increase in transfers.

3. Spatial analysis of variations between scenarios

28The preceding results do not fully capture the magnitude of changes in accessibility across Brussels neighbourhoods under the STIB network reconfiguration scenarios. This section therefore presents detailed cartographic analyses for three selected destinations. For greater clarity and interpretability of these results, accessibility is examined here in terms of scheduled travel time, which is the most tangible metric. Given that the lines affected by the Metro 3 project are concentrated along the north-south axis, three destinations located along this axis (north, centre, south) are analysed in order to observe the impact of these reconfigurations.

Figure 4. Variations in average scheduled travel time to Brussels-South station according to the scenarios

Figure 4. Variations in average scheduled travel time to Brussels-South station according to the scenarios

Routes calculated with OTP 1.5, based on the STIB network. Simulated arrival no later than 8.30 am on Monday 6 January 2025.

Author: Maël Dupriez, 2026
Sources: UrbIS & STIB

29Let us first consider Brussels-South station. Located just south of the city centre, it is one of the busiest stations in Belgium and provides numerous international rail connections. Figure 4 shows the average travel time required to reach it from all Brussels statistical sectors in the reference situation (top left), followed by variations under each scenario. Increases in travel time compared with the reference situation are shown in red, and decreases are shown in green.

30The full Metro 3 produces a polarised situation in the north of Brussels. It significantly reduces travel times from Haren, Evere and Schaerbeek, but increases them in Laeken and Neder-Over-Heembeek, as well as in the south. By contrast, the truncated Metro 3 scenario is particularly striking in that it leads only to increases in travel time by public transport to Brussels-South station for the south and north of Brussels, while leaving the rest of Brussels largely unchanged. This is primarily due to the truncation of tram lines 10 (in the north) and 4 (in the south), which are transformed into feeder services to the metro, thereby imposing at least one additional transfer for users travelling to Brussels-South station.

31In comparison, the Premetro+ scenario also reduces travel times to Brussels-South station from neighbourhoods in the north-east, as well as along the inner ring (Etterbeek–Ixelles–Uccle). Although the time savings are less pronounced than under the full Metro 3, they are achieved without degrading accessibility elsewhere and at lower cost.

Figure 5. Variations in average scheduled travel time to Nelson Mandela Stadium according to the scenarios

Figure 5. Variations in average scheduled travel time to Nelson Mandela Stadium according to the scenarios

Routes calculated with OTP 1.5, based on the STIB network. Simulated arrival no later than 8.30 am on Monday 6 January 2025.

Author: Maël Dupriez, 2026
Sources: UrbIS & STIB

32Let us now consider Nelson Mandela Stadium (Figure 5). This multi-purpose sports facility (notably for rugby and football) is located in Neder-Over-Heembeek in the north of Brussels, close to tram line 10. In this case, both Metro 3 scenarios produce the same outcome: an increase in average travel time across a large swathe of the Brussels-Capital Region, stretching from west to east via the centre and south. Whether Metro 3 is full or truncated, the spatial extent of this deterioration is therefore considerable. This result reflects the increased number of transfers associated with the “metroisation” of the North-Albert premetro tunnel. By contrast, a reconfiguration of the STIB network under the Premetro+ scenario reduces travel times to this sports facility for many Brussels neighbourhoods, while only worsening the situation in a small number of spatially dispersed areas.

Figure 6. Variations in average scheduled travel time to the HE2B Defré campus according to the scenarios

Figure 6. Variations in average scheduled travel time to the HE2B Defré campus according to the scenarios

Routes calculated with OTP 1.5, based on the STIB network. Simulated arrival no later than 8.30 am on Monday 6 January 2025.

Author: Maël Dupriez, 2026
Sources: UrbIS & STIB

33Finally, let us consider a destination in the south of Brussels (Figure 6). The Defré campus in Uccle is part of the Haute École Bruxelles-Brabant (HE2B), which mainly offers programmes in the social and educational fields. At first glance, the spatial extent of travel time variations is more limited than in the previous example. However, this case once again illustrates one of the consequences of partial network fragmentation associated with Metro 3 scenarios: an increase in the number of transfers for many journeys.

34This is particularly evident along the line of orange/red values from the western edge of Berchem-Sainte-Agathe to Albert station via the city centre. These values correspond to tram line 82. In both the reference and Premetro+ scenarios, the logical route from these neighbourhoods to the HE2B Defré campus is to take tram 82 then tram 4, and then transfer at Héros to get on bus 37 or 38. Under Metro 3 scenarios, where tram 4 ends at Albert, the same journey combines tram 82, bus 48 and then bus 37, which increases the average scheduled times for the neighbourhoods in the west of Brussels served by tram line 82.

35The same is true for journeys from Neder-Over-Heembeek: what is currently a T10 + B37 journey with a transfer at Albert becomes T10 + M3 + B37 with the two Metro 3 scenarios. The additional transfer is therefore associated with an increase in travel time. This represents a potential “double penalty” for users: longer journeys combined with an additional transfer, along with the associated risks, uncertainties and discomfort.

36Once again, the Premetro+ scenario reduces travel times for a number of neighbourhoods without increasing them elsewhere. This general pattern reflects the fundamentally different network logics at play in the topological reconfiguration of the network for each scenario: on the one hand, partial network re-meshing (Premetro+); on the other, a more segmented structure generating additional transfers (Metro 3, especially in its truncated form).

Conclusions

37The results presented in this article clearly demonstrate that the effects of converting the North-Albert premetro tunnel into a metro line (full M3 and truncated M3 scenarios) are far from unequivocal. While the full Metro 3 generally reduces scheduled travel times along its North-Bordet axis – notwithstanding the unmodelled impact of station depth – this improvement is substantially mitigated, or even cancelled out, once user perception (and thus increased transfers) is taken into account. The truncated Metro 3 scenario, for its part, tends on average to worsen travel times and increase transfers across a large number of routes, effectively imposing a double penalty on users: longer journeys and greater exposure to the risks, uncertainties and discomfort associated with transfers. In the case of a full or truncated Metro 3 scenario, Neder-Over-Heembeek and Uccle consistently emerge as losing areas, while other neighbourhoods may also experience reduced accessibility depending on the origin-destination pairing.

38By contrast, the Premetro+ proposal involves a partial re-meshing of the network, enabling simultaneous reductions in travel time and transfers across many neighbourhoods (including Schaerbeek and Evere, as with Metro 3), without significantly degrading accessibility elsewhere. It is also the least costly option and can be implemented without completing the works at Toots Thielemans station and its connecting tunnels, which would involve demolishing and rebuilding the Palais du Midi. By installing only a few hundred metres of surface tram tracks between Lemonnier and South Station, it would be possible to resolve current capacity constraints around Lemonnier station and create a more connected network linking Evere, Schaerbeek and Neder-Over-Heembeek to Saint-Gilles, Forest and Uccle via the city centre, while limiting transfers and the associated user burden.

39From a methodological perspective, the combined use of routes generated by OpenTripPlanner and perceived travel time measurements underscores the importance of moving beyond scheduled time metrics when evaluating public transport network reconfigurations. In terms of mobility policy, these results suggest that we should examine the feasibility of a phased implementation of an alternative such as Premetro+, as a lower-cost and lower-risk solution. This solution could be capable of delivering tangible collective benefits within a single legislative term – at a time when it remains uncertain whether, and when, Metro 3 might become operational [Court of Audit, 2025].

40More broadly, beyond the case of Brussels, this study highlights a general lesson: public transport network reconfiguration projects must be assessed not only in terms of theoretical speed gains, but also – and above all – at the scale of the entire city and in terms of everyday usability (fewer transfers, perceived time and service robustness). This is only possible if perceived travel times and transfer effects are systematically incorporated into project evaluation.

I would like to thank all the people who contribute to open source communities, whose software and data made this article possible.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

COURT OF AUDIT, 2025. Le projet Métro 3 en Région de Bruxelles-Capitale. Brussels: Court of Audit. D/2025/1128/37 Available at: https://www.ccrek.be/fr/publication/le-projet-metro-3-en-region-de-bruxelles-capitale

DE VOS, Jonas, ERMAGUN, Alireza and SHAW, F. Atiyya, 2023. Wait time, travel time and waiting during travel: existing research and future directions. In: Transport Reviews. 04/06/2023. vol. 43, No 5, pp. 805‑810.

DELAUNOIS, Damien (dir.), 2024. Prémétro+ Nord-Midi-Albert. Brussels: Plateforme Avanti!. Version No 4.

DOBRUSZKES, Frédéric, GRANDJEAN, Martin and NIHOUL, Arthur, 2025. Public transport for all (continued)? Journeys within Brussels for disabled people. In: Brussels Studies. 16/02/2025. No 200. Available at: https://journals.openedition.org/brussels/8088

FLYVBJERG, Bent, SKAMRIS HOLM, Mette and BUHL, Søren, 2002. Underestimating Costs in Public Works Projects: Error or Lie?. In: Journal of the American Planning Association. 06/2002. Vol. 68, No 3, pp. 279-295.

FONTAINE, Maxime, HUBERT, Michel, DOBRUSZKES, Frédéric, KĘBŁOWSKI, Wojciech, KESTELOOT, Christian and LACONTE, Pierre, 2022. A better future without the North Metro. In: BSI Position Papers. 19/04/2022. No 2. Available at: https://bsiposition.hypotheses.org/614

GONZÁLEZ, Rosa Marina, MARTÍNEZ-BUDRÍA, Eduardo, DÍAZ-HERNÁNDEZ, Juan José and ESQUIVEL, Arnaldo, 2015. Explanatory factors of distorted perceptions of travel time in tram. In: Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 04/2015. Vol. 30, pp. 107-114.

GOVERNMENT OF THE BRUSSELS-CAPITAL REGION, 2026. Déclaration de Politique Régionale du Gouvernement bruxellois. Brussels: Government of the Brussels-Capital Region. Available at: https://be.brussels/en/about-region/structure-and-organisations/parliament-ministers/government-region/agreements-and-decrees

MENG, Meng, RAU, Andreas and MAHARDHIKA, Hita, 2018. Public transport travel time perception: Effects of socioeconomic characteristics, trip characteristics and facility usage. In: Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 08/2018. Vol. 114, pp. 24-37.

MORGAN, Malcolm, YOUNG, Marcus, LOVELACE, Robin and HAMA, Layik, 2019. OpenTripPlanner for R. In: Journal of Open Source Software. 02/12/2019. Vol. 4, No 44, p. 1926.

REGIONAL MOBILITY COMMISSION, 2023. Avis relatif au Prémétro dans l’axe Nord-Midi-Albert. Brussels: Regional Mobility Commission. Available at: https://be.brussels/en/transport-mobility/mobility-challenges/decision-making-processes/regional-mobility-commission

STRATEC, 2014. Modélisation des comportements tactiques en matière de mobilité. Brussels: Brussels Mobility. Summary of study no C867.

Haut de page

Notes

1 The cost announced in 2012 in fact covered only the new North-Bordet tunnel and the metro trains to be procured. The costs associated with converting the North-Albert premetro into a metro line, as well as constructing a depot at Haren, were only specified at a later stage. Nearly all of these costs subsequently increased [Court of Audit, 2025: 62].

2 For further details, see the webpage dedicated to this proposal: https://premetroplus.be/.

3 The GTFS data were downloaded on 6 January 2025 from the STIB website at https://stibmivb.opendatasoft.com/explore/dataset/gtfs-files-production/export/.

4 The OSM data were downloaded on 13 March 2025 from the Geofabrik website at https://download.geofabrik.de/europe/belgium.html.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1. Map of the current Brussels metro network and the new metro line 3 project
Crédits Author: Maël Dupriez, 2026Sources: UrbIS & STIB
URL http://journals.openedition.org/brussels/docannexe/image/9237/img-1.png
Fichier image/png, 244k
Titre Figure 2. Location of destinations used to calculate public transport routes
Crédits Author: Maël Dupriez, 2026Sources: UrbIS, BruGIS & STIB
URL http://journals.openedition.org/brussels/docannexe/image/9237/img-2.png
Fichier image/png, 448k
Titre Figure 3. Comparison of network modifications across the different STIB reconfiguration scenarios
Crédits Author: Maël Dupriez, 2026Sources: UrbIS & STIB
URL http://journals.openedition.org/brussels/docannexe/image/9237/img-3.png
Fichier image/png, 397k
Titre Figure 4. Variations in average scheduled travel time to Brussels-South station according to the scenarios
Légende Routes calculated with OTP 1.5, based on the STIB network. Simulated arrival no later than 8.30 am on Monday 6 January 2025.
Crédits Author: Maël Dupriez, 2026Sources: UrbIS & STIB
URL http://journals.openedition.org/brussels/docannexe/image/9237/img-4.png
Fichier image/png, 857k
Titre Figure 5. Variations in average scheduled travel time to Nelson Mandela Stadium according to the scenarios
Légende Routes calculated with OTP 1.5, based on the STIB network. Simulated arrival no later than 8.30 am on Monday 6 January 2025.
Crédits Author: Maël Dupriez, 2026Sources: UrbIS & STIB
URL http://journals.openedition.org/brussels/docannexe/image/9237/img-5.png
Fichier image/png, 915k
Titre Figure 6. Variations in average scheduled travel time to the HE2B Defré campus according to the scenarios
Légende Routes calculated with OTP 1.5, based on the STIB network. Simulated arrival no later than 8.30 am on Monday 6 January 2025.
Crédits Author: Maël Dupriez, 2026Sources: UrbIS & STIB
URL http://journals.openedition.org/brussels/docannexe/image/9237/img-6.png
Fichier image/png, 858k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Maël Dupriez, « Metro 3 or Premetro+? An analysis of winning and losing neighbourhoods in Brussels »Brussels Studies [En ligne], Collection générale, document 217, mis en ligne le 20 mai 2026, consulté le 08 juin 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/brussels/9237 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/1691r

Haut de page

Auteur

Maël Dupriez

Maël Dupriez is a recent graduate in geographical sciences from Université libre de Bruxelles (2025). He is interested in transport geography, urban geography, social inequalities and geographical information systems. He wrote a dissertation entitled L'impact des correspondances sur les temps de parcours en transport en commun. Le cas de Bruxelles.
mael.dupriez[at]ulb.be

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search