1
Centre for Transport Research, Aberdeen University
Optimising the hierarchy
of public transport modes
Martin Higginson
Visiting Fellow, TORG, Newcastle University
Associate, IRS&TH, NRM/York University
Transport Research & Consultancy, York
25 February 2009
2
Trains, trams, buses, cars Lisbon
3
How to determine, design and
implement an appropriate hierarchy
of public transport modes
including tramways/light rail and bus
rapid transit
to fill the quality and capacity gap
between
conventional buses and heavy rail
4
The gap between traditional bus and
heavy rail The tram in the community
5
Public transport modal capacityVehicle C a p a c I t I e s
Passengers Per Unit Veh/Hr Passrs/hr
12-car urban train/metro 1000-1500 25-35 25-50000
Inter City train 500-700 12 6-8000
Light rail / tramway 250-300 40 10-12000
Articulated ‘bendi’ bus 140 60 8000
Double-deck bus 75-100 75 5-8000
Single deck bus 50-70 75 4-5000
Minibus 16-25 100 2-3000
Taxi 4-8 ∞ ∞
6
Maximising capacity on rail and road
7
UK urban public transport modes
Sub/urban train/metro London + main cities
Inter City train Unsuited to local role
Light rail/tramway Rare Only in 5 + 1 cities
Articulated ‘bendi’ bus Rare → endangered
Double-deck bus Universal but in decline
Single deck bus Universal
Minibus Briefly popular in 1980s Now rare
Taxi Universal and increasing
8
Been and gone Arriving Almost
City minibuses Tram trains
9
Local use of inter-city trains
• Few doors → slow boarding and alighting
• Inconveniences long-distance users
• Common due to inadequate local services
– Coventry – Birmingham – Wolverhampton
– Leeds – Wakefield
–Manchester – Stockport
• Need for adequate parallel local services......
• ......and protected fares?
10
Suburban/urban train/metro
• Essential for mega-cities London & SE
• Established + growth Other main cities
• Incomplete separation from long-distance trains
• S-Bahn concept largely missing in UK
• Short trains waste route and station capacity
• Poor city centre penetration
• Conversion to light rail / metro rare
• Cautious tram train trial not due till 2010
11
Urban, Suburban and Regional rail
Double deck
Unlikely in GB
Electric
Clock-face
timetable
On-time
12
Service hierarchies
Optimising stopping patterns
• Separate services for different markets
Long Medium Short Journeys
• Higher overall level of service than for “all purpose” service
• Relies on precise operation to succeed
Short, reliable connections
+ MML, WCML, Norwich-Ely, Lincs Connect
- ECML Irregular stopping pattern
- Cornwall Excessive stops by inter-city trains
- Overlay of commercial and social bus services
13
Pricing hierarchies
• Market price differentiation Mainly rail, air
• Spreading to bus Crude quality basis
• Application often inflexible ≠ upgrade
• Smartcards facilitate wider adoption
Do we want this complexity?
Or prefer Swiss standardisation?
• Peak discounts versus Peak surcharges
Season tickets Individual fares
14
Metros, light rail, tramways
UKLRT 6 cities + 1 building + 4 MetrosManchester Birmingham Sheffield Nottingham Croydon Blackpool
Edinburgh London LUL DLR Newcastle T&W Glasgow Subway
8 major rejectionsBy Government Liverpool Leeds Bristol South Hants Sheffield extensions
By new Mayor of London Cross-River Tram Croydon and DLR extensions
FranceLRT 21 cities of which 8 opened 2006-07
+ 6 metros
15
Minimum city size justifying LRT
Population 000
UK Nottingham 289 [Agglomeration 667]
RejectedRejected Portsmouth-Gosport-Fareham 380
Liverpool 436 Bristol 416 Leeds 715
France Caen 200 Clermont Ferrand 260
Mulhouse 234 Rennes 272 St Etienne 288
Germany Bonn 300 Darmstadt 142
Freiburg 220 Heidelberg 145 Ulm 120
Switzerland Berne 120 [Agglomeration 350]
16
But in 2009 we have only six........
John Prescott, Secretary of State for the
Environment, Transport and the Regions
introducing the
Transport Ten Year Plan
House of Commons, July 2000
“Light rail can transform our cities. Manchester and
other cities have shown what a difference it can
make. So we are going to provide resources for up
to 25 new light rail projects in our major cities”
17
On the continental basis we would
also have LRT in cities such as
Population 000
Aberdeen 202 Dundee 142
Cardiff 320 Swansea 228
Derby 235 Leicester 280
Oxford 150 Plymouth 250
Southampton 230 York 192
18
Reasons for rejection
UK LRT schemes
Bristol, Liverpool Not backed by all authorities
Leeds Unjustified cost escalation / poor VFM
Insufficient consideration of alternative options
Portsmouth Cost increases due to inflation
and Royal Navy objection
London DLR, Croydon and Cross River
New mayor’s policy not to spend on un-committed
schemes
19
Real reasons for LRT rejection
• Central government ultra caution
• Local government fragmentation
• Unwillingness to learn from Europe
• Slow and cumbersome processes
PPP planning and finance
Scheme authorisation
• Unwillingness to subsidise operations
• Failure to appreciate need to invest for the longer term
20
The role of politics
in determining
transport
hierarchies
with
particular
reference
to
London
21
The political football
• Why are British politicians unwilling to
perpetuate transport policies instigated
by predecessors of a different political
persuasion?
• Why won’t they learn from experience?
Good practice from home and abroad
• Are civil servants and local authority
officers too timid in how they brief new
Members?
The Red Book – Blue Book syndrome
22
London’s transport hierarchy
Ken Livingstone’s strategy
• Prioritise public transport, walk, cycle,
freight
• Reduce car modal share
Boris Johnson
• No prioritisation by category of road user
• Favours “fair approach to all road users”
23
York Change of political control →
Procrastination and delay
When Labour lost to Lib-Dem at the last
City Council election
• New Park & Ride schemes on the verge of
authorisation were cancelled
• It has taken nearly four years to agree new
plans - just in time for the next election
24
Can GB learn from other countries?
The case of Switzerland
• 30-year political consensus
No car industry
• Continuing public ownership
Not doctrinaire
• Comprehensive, co-ordinated services /
fares
• Little innovation or commercialisation
• Lack of concern for cost-effectiveness
25
How the two countries differ
• Swiss emphasis
Passengers Voters Public
Bottom-up planning
Culture of local referenda
• British emphasis
Cost Taxpayer Efficiency Business case
Fundamentally different transport policy cultures
26
Conclusions
• Cost efficiency need not stifle
service effectiveness
• Need to recognise value as well as cost
• Quality as well as price
• Move to a “yes we can” culture
• Stop talking and act
• Don’t just admire continental European PT developments Import them
27
We’re getting there gradually
28
Dr M P Higginson
Martin Higginson Transport Research & Consultancy
5 The Avenue
Clifton
York
YO30 6AS
Office 01904 636 704
London 020 7278 2012
Mobile 07980 874 126
www.martinhigginson.co.uk
