An independent view of transport
-
Upload
skm-colin-buchanan -
Category
Business
-
view
342 -
download
2
Transcript of An independent view of transport
An independent view of the transport issues
Malcolm Buchanan
Colin Buchanan and Partners
Limited experience
• Park and ride for Cambridge 1985?
• Cambridge Transport Plan Study 1991
• Expansion at Haverhill 1999?
• Cambridge sub region study 2001
• Reading:- CHUMMS- Cambridge Futures
Local Plan Study 1991
LPS Buses
Mode choice 1991
Local Plan Study Proposals 1991
CHUMMS Study Area
CHUMMS Recommendations
Transport Objectives within a Regional Plan
• Increase accessibility
• Ditto for freight
• Reduce environmental impacts
• Improve safety
• Equity / social inclusiveness
• Contribute to achievement of planning aims
• Integration???
• Minimise public sector costs in achieving above
What are the planning goals to which transport might
contribute?• Preserve the special character of Cambridge
• Control of urban expansion
• Prevent coalescence of communities
• Capitalise on the job and wealth creation potential
• Accommodation of housing and jobs
• etc.
What sort of transport system does this require?
• Good connections to jobs?
• Right lifestyles/image?
• Attention to needs of young families?
• Access to brownfield sites?
• Capable of serving small communities?
The Cambridge Futures Options
• Minimum growth
• Densification
• Necklace
• Green Swap
• Transport links
• Virtual corridor
• New town
The sub region study options
• Cambridge centred
• Mixed (city, green belt, market towns)
• Market town/corridor A (Huntingdon, St Neots, Newmarket, Royston)
• Market town/corridor B (Haverhill, St Neots, Newmarket, Royston)
Travel times (1991=100)
• Virtual highway 105
• Transport links 141
• New town 158
• Densification 176
• Minimum growth 179
• Necklace 184
• Green Swap 187
Mode shares
Min Gr 67 14 3 5Densif 65 15 4 5Neckl 67 14 3 5Green 65 15 4 5Tpt Lks 64 13 4 9Virt Hi 49 7 2 6New Tn 60 14 8 12
Option Car Bike Bus Rail
So is transport an issue?
• No?
• Transport is insufficiently built into the options?
• The models do not reflect transport differences sufficiently?- Car ownership/land use?- Parking policy?- Mode choice?
Guided Busways?
Cycling and mopeds
Design for sustainability
• Density?
• Layout
• Land use mix
• Access priority
• The sustainable village?
What travel markets can be served by conventional public
transport?• Trips to/from city centres:
- bus- rail- tram- P&R
• Long distance trips
• Trips to other major trip attractors
Unplanned P&R
0.00
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
1000.00
1200.00
1400.00
'0-1 1-2 2-5 5-10 10-25 25-50 50-100 >100
Trip length category miles
per
son
mile
s 00
0
Rail passenger miles
Car driver miles
RAIL JOURNEY SPEEDS NON-LONDON
49
42
48
52
51
83
160
77
75
91
Manchester-Nottingham
Cambridge-Worcester
Southampton-Bristol
Oxford-Bristol
Grantham-Hull
Running speed mph
Distance (over track miles)
Journey
LONDON REGION NON-RADIAL RAIL JOURNEY
SPEEDS
32
26
36
40
49
170
140
135
130
165
Canterbury-Brighton
Milton Keynes – Basingstoke
Oxford – Croydon
Guildford – Luton
Bedford – Southampton
Speed (mph)
Time (mins)
Journey
Growth of Mobility in France. Distance Travelled per Day per Capita (Grubler, 1990)
10
100
1,000
10,000
100,000
18
00
18
50
19
00
19
50
20
00
Me
tre
s
TGV
Air
Two-wheeler
Horses
Waterways
Rail
Cars & Buses
All modes
Trend
Waterways
Rail
Horses
Buses & Car
TGVs
Air
2 Wheelers
All modes
Rail
Buses & Car
Essentials of 19th Century Technology
• Locomotives or powered rail cars• Friction drive• Power supplies (diesel or electric current)• Trains• Wheel flanges• Points• Signal systems• Drivers
NBP 21st Century Rail Technology?
• Linear induction motor• Single modular shuttles• Non-stop journeys origin – destination• Contactless “trains” at 100mph• Freezing of points/steering of vehicles• Mixed passenger and freight “trains”• Car technology suspension• Tilting• No signals or drivers• Use of existing (and augmented network)• 160kph(100mph) station-station journey speeds
Conclusions 1• An interesting contribution to the debate
• Models don’t tell you everything
• Conventional public transport can beat the car in only a few circumstances
• Plan for the car where you can’t beat it
• We need a technical breakthrough
• There is one coming
Conclusions: what transport for the region?
Layout and design for:• Walk everywhere
• Cycle and mopeds/electric bikes everywhere in range (SAFELY)
• Bus to city and major destinations (viability)
• Bus as rail (longer distance necklaces)
• Rail
• P&R
• Car: restrict where alternatives exist; plan
• Seek new alternatives