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