|
|
CONTENTS
BACKGROUND
SUMMARY
ORIGINAL PROPOSAL
DISCUSSION
Detailed comments on -
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
Section 6
Section 7
17th July 2001
PAPER 15 - MASS TRANSIT / TRAM NETWORK STUDY
PROPOSED REVISED RECOMMENDATION - LIBERAL DEMOCRATS
2.1 That a briefing be organised for Members to give an update on (a) rapid transit developments in the context of the Government's Ten Year Transport Plan; (b) proposals relating to Bristol; and (c) future possibilities in Bath and North East Somerset, taking into account current work on the Western Riverside regeneration plan and the revised planning application for the Southgate redevelopment scheme
2.2 That the Committee note that the timescale for preparation of the Western Riverside regeneration plan and associated public transport proposals does not allow for the submission of a full major scheme Local Transport Plan bid for this year but that a detailed programme will be included in the Annual Progress Report setting out the steps leading to the submission of a comprehensive bid in July 2002.
2.3 That officers, in consultation with spokespersons or relevant successors, commission a two-phase study to define an integrated principal public transport network for Bath and North East Somerset, the first phase to analyse existing and desirable transport movements in order to design an optimal network and the second to appraise and evaluate viability of the alternative technologies available for achieving this network over a period of ten to twenty years.
2.4 That £30,000 be made available through "over-programming" which will assist in improving further the level of agreed Capital Allocation for Transportation.
2.5 That the study objectives encompass this Council's adopted Local Agenda 21 Vision, which includes: -
"Access & Mobility for All
There will be full access to a public and community transport system. This will be efficient, non-polluting, reliable and safe. Because of greater choice, people will drive less and will be able to cycle, use wheelchairs and walk in a clean, safe environment."
2.6 That spokespersons or their relevant successors be involved at key stages of the study
2.7 That officers aim to present the results of Phase 1 of this study as early as possible but no later than January 2002.
We note at the outset that the word 'Tram' is not used in this report, whereas the word 'Bus' appears at least 50 times. For a report which is dealing with the future rather than the present - and which specifically followed-on from a need to analyse a light tram network - we find this somewhat surprising. The expressions "Light Rapid Transit" and "Rapid Transit" do appear - these are generic terms referring to either buses or trams but the report makes no attempt to explain this or to further define their meaning.
The concept of a network, particularly a "Rapid Transit" network which might include a tram, is also difficult to find. There are a number of references to the desirability of such a thing, but the overall outcome of the report is a disjointed series of corridors of different modes, showing no indication of how they might be connected in practice.
We therefore conclude that, either through a failure of the brief or through a failure to follow the brief, this report does not fulfil the original objectives expressed by the B&NES PTE committee on 17th July 2001 and set out in PAPER 15 - MASS TRANSIT / TRAM NETWORK STUDY (P4 of this report).
The report spends a great deal of time and effort in describing how the study was to be undertaken, to the detriment of actually undertaking the study and producing results. The current Local Transport Plan has been heavily criticised for expressing high ideals but failing to show any practical means by which they are to be achieved, this report appears to have fallen into the same trap.
Whilst reading the report, there is a continuing sense of frustration that many obviously desirable outcomes are being suggested, apparently without any awareness that a description of the means of putting them into practice is part of the duty of a consultant. As a guide to attaining these high ideals, the report is entirely devoid of any useful information.
Almost all of the information and suggestions contained in this report will be familiar to anyone who has studied the transport scenario in Bath during the past five years and there is a great deal of further information freely available which could have been made reference to, or summarised and usefully incorporated., In particular, it is noted that the report recommends the commissioning of studies which have already been undertaken.
The report reinforces the desirable objectives set out in the LTP. It then incorporates the results of many previous proposals, including some from the LTP itself, without any comment as to their value or utility in achieving these objectives.
It would be surprising if any significant changes could be made to the Local Transport Plan as a result of this report and, in its other function as a report into a light tramway network, it is of no value whatsoever.
Trams for Bath July 2002
|
|
|
| 1.2
Background The development and adoption of appropriate transport policies within the local B&NES area has been the cause of intense public debate for over 30 years. |
1.2 The Abercrombie Plan (1944) was more than 30 years ago |
|
The overall approach to the study is outlined in Figure
2.1...... Essentially these two work streams progressed in an iterative
fashion until |
2.2 We are of the opinion that 'Convergence' was not achieved. Mismatch across a wide gulf was the actual result with no indication of the means by which the ends were to be achieved |
| 4.
... From these outputs, it was then possible to identify those types of transport interventions, which would need to be implemented by B&NES Council over and above those already set out in the Local Transport Plan. This includes measures for the current 5-year programme and in subsequent periods over the coming 20 years. |
2.2.4 This is the crux of the matter and the reason this report was undertaken, but no significant changes to the LTP have in fact been suggested. |
|
3.3 .... ·The importance of the quality and distribution of employment in Bath and the rest of B&NES, and the desire to develop the tourist industry; ·The need for social inclusion in transport provision, especially outside Bath; ·Retaining and enhancing a world class environment. |
3.3 None of the transport measures recommended by the report has the potential to significantly influence any of these factors. |
| Return to top of page | |
|
4 A Vision for Transport It is recognised that in the 'real world' that such a high level of vision is very difficult to achieve |
4.1 There are many cities throughout Europe which approach this ideal, nearly all of them have a public transport system based on an electric tram network. Unfortunately this report does not mention them or the way in which they achieve these objectives. |
| ... later sections describe the problems and conflicts associated with this Vision and how a practical transport strategy could be developed from it. | 4.1 Unfortunately no practical strategy is included in this report |
| 4.2.2
Principal Features of Transport Vision With the Transport Vision in place, the transport networks would efficiently serve the local economy allowing it to grow and prosper without being significantly affected by traffic congestion. Links to the national and international transport network would facilitate the movement of public transport, goods and private vehicles, and would provide for the travel needs of the workforce, visitors and tourists. |
4.2.2 This would be the situation with a tramway network in place, it is unlikely to ever be achieved with a bus-based system, regardless of whether it is called "Rapid Transit" or not. |
|
|
|
|
| a) Noise | High noise generation | Low noise generation |
| (b) Local Air Quality | Emissions of SO2 & particulates | No local emissions |
| c) Greenhouse Gases | CO2 produced during manufacture and use of fuel | Least CO2 production of any public transport mode |
| (d) Landscape | Detrimental to landscape | Integrates well in landscape |
| (e) Townscape | Vehicles and infrastructure detrimental to townscape | Vehicles and infrastructure much less detrimental to townscape |
| (f) Heritage of Historic Resources | Uncontrolled damage to stonework and under-road cellars | Minor controlled damage from wire fixings. Reduced pollution and car use. |
| (g) Biodiversity | No effect | No effect |
| (h) Water | No effect | No effect |
| (i) Physical Fitness | Enforces walking by discouraging use of public transport | Encourages short walks by reducing car-dependence |
| (j) Journey Ambience | Very poor | Excellent |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
| (a) Accidents | Steerable vehicle with unpredictable
pathway. Subject to general road traffic rules and driver training. |
Guided vehicle with pathway
clearly marked and followed. Subject to rigorous HSE inspection and stringent driver training and re-training. |
| (b) Security | Communication between control centre and drivers / passengers / intending passengers can be provided as expensive 'extras'. | Communication between control centre and drivers / passengers / intending passengers all provided as part of the system planning.(under-road ducts form a necessary part of tramway infrastructure) |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
| (a) Transport Economic Efficiency | Low initial costs
with little economy of scale leads to low user takeup at
high fares with 'captive' user-base. High vehicle occupancy needed for economic operation which leads to infrequent service and reduced economic operating hours. Heavy subsidy needed for socially desirable service. Extra vehicles needed to cope with peak periods. Cost of infrastructure not borne by operating companies. |
High initial
cost because track is charged to the project, not to the Local
Authority. Expensive vehicles but cheap to run over a 50-year lifespan. Large economies of scale lead to cheap fares and high passenger numbers. Economic operation with fewer passengers allows long operating hours without the need for a subsidy. High ratio of standing to seated passengers allows 'crush-loading' to cope with peak periods and special events without extra vehicles. |
| (b) Reliability |
Notorious unreliability which does not seem to improve, even under considerable pressure to do so. Very poor percieved reliability. Passenger information systems expensive to provide and difficult to implement |
High levels of built-in reliability by avoidance of traffic pinch-points during the design phase, emergency manning arrangements and provision of standby vehicles during operation. Very high percieved reliability, assisted by real-time passenger information built into all tram stops |
| (c) Wider Economic Impacts |
Little or no beneficial economic effect from improved bus services. Any effects localised and short-term |
Far-reaching long-term beneficial economic effects
on: Widespread effects due to enhancement of other associated public transport modes |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
| ((a) Option Values | Not relevant | Not relevant |
| (b) Severance | Roads used by
buses often have a severe severance effect; not just due to the
buses themselves but because other traffic can share the road
space. Guided busways have an even greater severance effect and form a complete longitudinal barrier to pedestrians and all other traffic. |
Tramways have
a clearly marked-out path which allows them to be integrated into pedestrian areas without danger. Their severance potential is very low and the tracks can be easily made inaccessible to other vehicles where required. |
| (c) Access to the Transport System |
Although bus stops are often closely-spaced, access is generally poor in practice due to infrequent or unreliable services. Access for disabled persons is poor because the vehicles cannot be driven accurately enough to give reliable level gap-free boarding at every stop. Bus stops are often blocked by parked vehicles. |
Tram stops tend to be more widely spaced but their psychological catchment area is larger than for a bus(1) and their reliable service frequency tends to be higher.. Tram journeys tend to be faster than the equivalent bus journey because of faster acceleration and shorter loading times. All tram stops give 100% stepless and gapless boarding for disabled passengers |
| (1) The catchment radius for a bus stop is in the order of 500 metres whereas for a tram stop it is 600 metres. This gives a tram stop a 44% greater catchment area | ||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
| (a) Transport Interchange | Currently bus services are
very poorly integrated. Attempts to achieve integration are limited
by the physical constraints of steerable vehicles and the need
to distrubute bus stops to avoid accidents and local congestion The bus-based proposals shown in the report do not integrate in any way whatsoever. No practical scheme for integration has been put forward |
Currently bus services are
very poorly integrated. Attempts to achieve integration are limited
by the physical constraints of steerable vehicles and the need
to distrubute bus stops to avoid accidents and local congestion The bus-based proposals shown in the report do not integrate in any way whatsoever. No practical scheme for integration has been put forward |
| (b) Land-Use Policy | ||
|
|
|
| 5.2.1
... Section 4 calls for greatly improved real mobility with a reduction of the impact that transportation has on the environment. In practical terms, this can only be achieved through the provision of significantly improved public transport and a reduction in the dependence on the private motor car. |
5.2.1 Reduction on car dependence can only be effective if a realistic alternative is available, otherwise it merely become an exercise in oppression. |
| Achieving this outcome in a practical manner is at the root of the transport strategy that is described in this section. | A practical way to achieve that outcome is not described. |
|
5.2.3 Public Transport the quality challenge The prime form of public transport in B&NES is bus. But
it only currently |
5.2.3 The only way buses will be made to attract a wider cross-section of the public is by means of continuous heavy subsidies. |
| 5.2.4
Modal Shift The issues discussed so far lead to the obvious and inescapable conclusion that thecornerstone of any strategy designed to create the Transport Vision should be to achieve a significant transfer of mode choice away from use of the private car to the use of public transport ... |
5.2.4 It is important that the optimum mode for promoting shift away from car use is identified at an early stage. Table 1 (P12) shows the relative increase or decrease in public transport use according to the choice of mode available |
| ... reduced congestion would allow the public transport system to deliver fast and reliable journeys, | improved segregation of modes could achieve this to a sufficient extent to break the vicious circle. A properly planned tramway system would allow faster public transport even before congestion began to reduce. |
|
|
|
||||||||||||
| 5.2.4
... The analysis reveals that a reduction in car mode share of between 10% and 30% depending on corridors would be required to reduce congestion levels below those experienced today. This represents a very significant increase in public transport usage; on many corridors more than doubling existing public transport patronage, this itself, requiring a significant increase in the number of buses and associated resources / staff. |
5.2.4 The table below show the effect per 100 passenger journeys:
From this we can conclude that 30% reduction in car use car will give at least a 270% increase in bus passenger journeys. We do not feel this is commensurate with the environmental aspirations raised elsewhere in the report. |
||||||||||||
| 5.2.5
... However, there is no reason why ... the current linkage between economic growth and traffic growth [should not] be reduced |
5.2.5 If there is a satisfactory way of reducing that linkage, why does this report not put it forward or at least give a reference to it. |
||||||||||||
| 5.2.8
Bath Western Riverside The Bath Western Riverside development (BWRD) presents an ideal opportunity to demonstrate the full range of the Transport Vision. It is intended that the development be substantially car free with a focus instead on quality public transport links and provisions for cyclists and pedestrians. At the same time environmental quality will be of a very high standard. ... The development will be a strong display of the benefits that can be achieved through the Vision. |
5.2.8 Despite the attempted embargo on discussing transport, there was overwhelming public support for "Rapid Transit" through the W. Riverside site. Furthermore, a clear need was identified for this transit system to link this site with the rest of Bath, not just to become an isolated corridor. |
||||||||||||
| 5.3.2
Improvement of Public Transport ... This means vehicles and services designed with all sectors of the community in mind, with routing and frequencies that serve the main travel demands effectively with reliable services, comfortable vehicles, excellent passenger information and affordable fares. Minimum guaranteed levels of service and accessibility will need to be defined and adhered to, for all parts of B&NES based on location types and trip purpose. Of particular importance is the need to provide public transport services that can be accessed by all members of society including those with special needs, people with disabilities, parents with small children and those carrying luggage and shopping. |
5.3.2 This is the absolute minimum that will bring public transport up to a level where some car drivers may consider switching mode..... |
||||||||||||
| 5.3.2
... Buses will remain the backbone of public transport for the area... |
... and this is a guaranteed way to ensure that it is never properly achieved. | ||||||||||||
| Return to top of page | |||||||||||||
|
5.3.2 ... The precise form of this public transport system will need to be examined in further studies. |
5.3.2 Rapid transit corridors in isolation will be useless in Bath as there is not sufficient demand to justify each one. Connected together to form a network with a well-thought-out interchange system they then become economically viable. This was supposed to be the study which did examine the precise form of the public transport system. It was broadened to include other factors and the original requirement now remains unfulfilled. |
||||||||||||
| 5.3.2
... A natural concomitant of the more focused support of public transport is the need for a form of Passenger Transport Authority and Passenger Transport Executive for the ex-Avon sub-region. B&NES should support the formation of such an authority, as this is the most promising way of providing integrated high quality public transport within, and to and from, the area. |
5.3.2 We entirely agree that a PTE / PTA is long overdue. |
||||||||||||
|
5.3.3 Management of Road Space ...It is important to protect public transport from the effects
of congestion, and |
5.3.3 The use of some slow modes could add to congestion because more vehicles would be required for a given passenger throughput. Slowness is not a virtue in itself, the virtue is the safety which results from it. (A bicycle is a 'slow mode' of transport, but it is dangerous if ridden at high speed into a group of pedestrians) |
||||||||||||
| 5.3.5
Other Mode Shift Measures One element of the strategy is that Bath may ultimately have to introduce workplace parking charges or congestion charging as a means of restraining the use of private cars |
5.3.5 If a need to suppress parking is proven, there is a case for saying that on-street residential parking should be removed in preference to destination parking. This will clear the way for public transport and reduce the amount of inner-city traffic circulating around looking for parking places. As far as we are aware, the relative merits of these two stratagem have not previously been examined by B&NES |
||||||||||||
| Return to top of page | |||||||||||||
| 5.3.8
Public Acceptance One of the biggest hurdles to the introduction of the Strategy outlined above, is the likely objection to the more radical parts of the package by the public at large. Much of this arises from a misunderstanding of the nature of benefits that will be achieved for the community as a whole, over the plan period. |
5.3.8 If there is no clearly perceived individual benefit, very little modal shift will be achieved. |
||||||||||||
|
5.3.8 ...
In B&NES most public transport can only be substantially improved if road congestion is reduced so the two must go hand-in-hand. |
5.3.8
People will not stop using their cars until an effective alternative has been put in place and is fully working. Any other course of action will be tantamount to preventing people travelling within Bath and will radically alter the whole social and financial structure of the city in a very short while. Such a misguided policy could take several decades to reverse. |
||||||||||||
| 5.3.9
Funding ... restraint measures based on charging are seen to have a double benefit of providing both an effective means of reducing use of the private car and providing an income stream. Both workplace parking charges and congestion charging could deliver an additional income stream, although congestion charging is seen to have the longer term benefit. |
5.3.9 If a proper self-consistent LTP with real practical policies
could be put forward, the additional pricing measure might be
found to be unnecessary. Additional funding pathways for Rapid Transit have been identified
by Trams for Bath. Why were these not considered as possible
sources of funding for beginning the modal shift process? |
||||||||||||
| Return to top of page | |||||||||||||
| 6.2
Enhancement of Public Transport 6.2.1 Overview The radical enhancement of public transport services within B& NES is at the heart of the Transport Vision. It cannot be restricted to improvement of a single mode but is an holistic treatment of all public transport. ... |
6.2.1 The key concept should be to identify where people travel from and where they travel to - this has been completely ignored in favour of a 'corridor' approach, which is easier to analyse but meaningless. |
||||||||||||
|
6.2.1 ...
|
6.2.1 ... Suitable accessibility criteria already exist and are mandatory for all public transport except buses. They are specified in the Disability Discrimination Act Statutory Instrument 1998 No 2456, and the fact that buses do not currently meet them should no longer be a reason to ignore them. |
||||||||||||
|
Fig 6.1 |
There can be
no improvement in interchange until the concept of a network
has been firmly grasped. The map of public transport (Fig 6.1)
shows no sign of any overall concept of a network which could
be integrated. In particular, the inclusion of the 'Rapid Transit' route on the S&D Railway alignment in isolation through Oldfield Park is complete nonsense. |
||||||||||||
|
6.2.6 Rapid Transit ... This study has not defined the exact form that this rapid transit should take... |
6.2.6
|
||||||||||||
| 6.2.6
... ...Although this study has not attempted to define in detail the network that should be served by rapid transit,... |
6.2.6 It would have been courteous of Halcrow to acknowledge that much of the detailed work on a Rapid Transit network of routes has already been done. |
||||||||||||
|
... the following routes are considered to be those most appropriate for development as rapid transit corridors:
|
6.2.6 There is no mention of interchange, without which none of these routes will be viable. |
||||||||||||
|
6.2.7 Park & Ride
|
6.2.7 A bus-based rapid transit system is unsuitable for these routes and will be expensive to remove. It would be cheaper to build tramways from the start and these are more likely to attract Government funding than a busway which will have to be removed after 5 years. The site indicated for the initial P+R at Lambridge is inadequate. Rather than wasting money causing an additional traffic problem close to a roundabout, it would be better to built the P+R site in Bathampton Meadows to start with. Saltford station is not a suitable location for a P+R site. A tramway with multiple stops distributed throughout the residential area would offer a better arrangement. It might also allow a P+R to be located elsewhere and linked to the railway station by tramway. |
||||||||||||
| Return to top of page | |||||||||||||
| 6.2.8 Rail
Services Rail currently performs an important function in linking B&NES to other parts of the Region, in particular Bristol but also in providing the important link to London, Reading and the South East. |
6.2.8 One of the features of the present rail arrangements is lack of good public transport links to the final destination. If you cannot complete your journey by public transport, you won't start it by public transport. |
||||||||||||
|
6.3.2 Public Transport ...
|
6.3.2 This link to the Newbridge P+R has a potential demand of 600 passengers daily, mostly during the morning and evening peaks. The route is inaccessible for the most part and extremely expensive. The route also fails to address the problems of the Royal United Hospital which would benefit from connection to the W Riverside route. This is merely a repetition of a flawed proposal from the
LTP which should have been rejected long ago. For a discussion
of the criteria involved and some suggestions for more suitable
alternatives see: |
||||||||||||
|
6.3.2 Public Transport ... ·The development of a dedicated public transport route
through the Oldfield Park/Twerton area along the line of the
old rail trackbed which is currently used as a Linear Park |
6.3.2 Once again this is a residual route from an earlier proposal with no proper consideration for the purpose it might serve and no prospect of usefully integrating it into any local network. |
||||||||||||
|
6.4 Introduction of Additional Traffic Restraint Measures ·... parking charges on-street.& off-street; Control of...long-stay parking spaces; Physical restriction of traffic Bus priority measures Development of residents' parking schemes. Introduction of workplace parking levies Introduction of congestion charging. |
6.4 Residents' Parking Schemes and workplace parking levies are the exact opposite of what is required - residents should be encouraged to make their own off-street parking arrangements. Streets should be reserved for the passage of vehicles and short-term parking only. |
||||||||||||
| 6.5 Changes to Relationship between Traffic, People and Places | 6.5.2 - 6.5.3 Examples of European practice could have been included as an appendix. |
||||||||||||
| 6.5.5 Home
Zones / Living Zones ... Home zones are residential streets in which road space is shared between motor vehicles and other road users, with measures taken to encourage social activity. |
6.5.5 Trams are the only current form of public transport which is properly compatible with the home zone concept. |
||||||||||||
| 6.7.3 Water
Borne Transport ... However, the potential exists to operate a valuable river ferry service between Weston Lock and Pultney Weir with suitable intermediate stops linking Lower Weston, the Western Riverside Developments and the City Centre. |
6.7.3 Is this ferry service suggested in order to meet a recognised travel need or merely included because the river exists? |
||||||||||||
|
6.3 Indicative timetable for the implementation of measures Introduction of Rapid Transit Years 1-5 Introduction of additional bus
Public Transport Years 1-5 Public Transport Development |
6.3 The picture emerges of a single bus corridor, fed by a P+R site at each end and having no connections to the catchment areas it passes through. It would be optimistic to suppose that this could survive in operation for 15 years while the rest of the network was built at leisure. It is also improbable that the Government would fund the construction of an expensive bus infrastructure which was due to be replaced after 5-10 years by a tramway. There is no reason at all why the whole network should not be planned and built as a complete entity. If the recommendation to B&NES Council (7.2) had included a feasibility study for a tram network (which this report was supposed to encompass), the system could be installed and running by the year 2015. |
||||||||||||
|
6.9 Summary Chapter 6 ... Implementation of a transit system on key routes would be an effective means of contributing to the necessary scale of mode shift. This should operate on the main transport corridors into Bath City Centre and provide a high capacity, high frequency service. |
6.9 Why should a good quality transit system be confined to certain key routes (mostly P+R) when all routes would benefit from an integrated network.? |
||||||||||||
| Return to top of page | |||||||||||||
|
7 Actions Required by B&NES Council ·A switch from public consultation towards a programme of enlightenment of the public.... ·Development and acceptance of the 'accessibility criteria', and the means of their delivery through significant improvement of public transport. ·...quality partnership arrangements, ·... reallocate road space... in favour of public transport, pedestrians and cyclists wherever possible ·... extend the provision of "home zone" arrangements... ·..parking revenues are recognised as a legitimate means of raising revenue for cross-subsidy into other transport measures, ... examination of introducing workplace charging to provide an enhanced revenue stream ·Re-examination of the basic highway network to ensure that "gaps" in the network are recognised. ·A comprehensive study of the value of introducing congestion charging |
7.2 These measures are just a list of current Government thinking coupled with elements of existing proposals and the current Local Transport Plan. They show no original thought by the compilers of this report and do not form a coherent whole Furthermore, many of them do not tie-in with the aspirations previously expressed . In particular, LRT should now be specifically mentioned as a long-term goal. The process of applying for LRT funding is a very long complex and slow procedure which must be started well in advance of the rest of the project. |
Trams for Bath
July 2002
