1 / 40

Bring Back the Tram Again!

Bring Back the Tram Again!. Steve Miller Transport for London. Why “Bring Back the Tram Again!”?. To distinguish from “Bring Back the Tram!” - my presentation to the 20 th “International” Emme/2 User Group Meeting (Oct. 2006 – Seattle);

simeon
Download Presentation

Bring Back the Tram Again!

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Bring Back the Tram Again! Steve Miller Transport for London

  2. Why “Bring Back the Tram Again!”? • To distinguish from “Bring Back the Tram!” - my presentation to the 20th “International” Emme/2 User Group Meeting (Oct. 2006 – Seattle); • To update the Emme/2 community on a project’s evolution; • Not a cry for a nostalgic panorama of pre-war UK trams!

  3. Transport for London Transport for London (TfL) is the integrated body responsible for London's transport system. Its role is: • to implement the Mayor's Transport Strategy for London • To manage the transport services across the capital for which the Mayor has responsibility. TfL manages: • London's buses, the Underground, the Docklands Light Railway (DLR), Croydon Tramlink and London River Services • Victoria Coach Station and London's Transport Museum • The red route network, Congestion Charge, and London's 4,600 traffic lights • A range of alternative transport initiatives including walking and cycling

  4. Public Transport Issues for London Limited investment in new rail infrastructure Limited potential to increase rail capacity “Sweat the Assets”; i.e.: • Spread the Peak (demand and supply) • Increased crowding Need to demonstrate Value for Money – Cost/Benefit Analysis

  5. The Tram Scheme:Old Tram or New Tram?

  6. Why a Tram? • Relieve tube crowding • Stimulate regeneration • Improve accessibility • Increased reliability • Better connection between mainline stations • Environmentally friendly mode of transport • Cost efficient • Connect target areas south of river • Improve overall system efficiency of highway based public transport

  7. A Tram is Efficient Trams can move passengers far more efficiently than other vehicles 1 tram 2 - 4 buses 220 cars

  8. Alternative routes Alternative routes Alternative routes Possible Route New 16.5 km tramway Core alignment: Euston to Waterloo 30 trams per hour Branches North: to Kings Cross and Camden Town South: to Peckham and Brixton 15 trams per hour each branch

  9. Initial Assessments Started in 1997: Intermediate Modes Studies Then further Studies: • Tram v high-quality bus services • Tram was feasible and beneficial • Ruled out bus option due to capacity and attractiveness Refined Progressively to demonstrate: • Sound Business Case (BCR: 2.64:1) • Road Traffic Impacts can be managed

  10. Models available to TfL • LTS (London Transportation Studies) Model • Railplan • SALT (SATURN Assignment of London Traffic) • SALT-C (Congestion Charging) • Micro-Simulation and Junction Models

  11. LTS (London Transportation Studies) Model • Strategic 4 Stage Model, based on legacy software and TRIPS/Cube • Covers London and South East England • Network representation is not that detailed • 1016 zones • Run for 2001, 2006, and then every 5 years to 2031

  12. The Railplan Model • Runs on EMME/2 usually under UNIX • Public Transport Assignment model of London • Underground • Rail • Tram • Bus • Docklands Light Rail (DLR)

  13. The Railplan Model • Uses Size 16 licence • 1,500-3,000+ Zones • 50,000+ Links • Distribution-Mode Split model outside Railplan – usually reliant on LTS

  14. Railplan Features Developed since 1988 Initially for the AM Peak Period only All Public Transport sub-modes Congestion in Route Choice Quantifies social benefit of reduced crowding Forecasts station flow patterns to aid station planning

  15. Standard Railplan Model: Demand Derived from LTS Model Year Trips (3 Hrs) 2001 1,836,318 2011 2,195,962 Growth 2% p.a.

  16. Standard Railplan: Model Dimensions Network (2001 Base) No. Zones 1,571 No. Nodes 14,648 No. Links 49,596 No. Services 1,836

  17. Network Usage (2001 Base) Mode Services Serv. Kms Pass. Kms N Rail 949 41,470 9,195,488 Underground 125 13,778 2,826,332 Light Rail 6 615 67,120 Tram 4 471 24,575 Bus 752 77,433 998,301

  18. SALT (SATURN Assignment of London Traffic) • Covers the complete (Greater London) area in detail • Slow to run • No longer directly supported or used – difficult to find resources to develop and maintain a detailed network model over such a large area • Demand derived from LTS

  19. SALT-C (Congestion Charging) • Designed to model the “Boundary Route” around CC Scheme • Based on a cordoned SALT model for run-time efficiency • Matrix Estimation, prior matrix from LTS via SALT • Demand externally split between “YACS” and “NACS” on a sector – sector basis • 615 zones

  20. Micro-Simulation and Junction Models • TRANSYT is the normal basis for such models • Micro-simulation (VISSIM) increasingly adopted for the more complex areas • Individual models are developed and validated to represent specific junction groups

  21. New Models For the Tram A New family of models: CRISTAL (CrossRiverStudyofTramsAcrossLondon) • CRISTAL-H (Highway – SATURN) • CRISTAL-P (Public Transport – EMME/2) • CRISTAL-J (Junctions – TRANSYT and LINSIG) • CRISTAL-M (Micro-Simulation – VISSIM) • CRISTAL-D (Demand or Mode Shift)

  22. CRISTAL Models: Overview Railplan PT Mode Share / Dem SATURN Strategic Highway Flow Changes Flow Changes VISSIM Microsimulation TRANSYT Junction Revised Signal Timings Revised Signal Timings

  23. Demand across the Thames

  24. Current State of Models : CRISTAL_H Based on SALT-C 615 zones expanded to 697 zones New treatment of taxi user class AM Peak hour model validated PM Peak Hour model validated IP model not yet developed

  25. YACS (Accept C.Charge) NACS (Divert around Zone) Total LIGHT 77,000 254,000 331,000 HEAVY 36,000 12,000 48,000 TAXIS 20,000 20,000 Total 133,000 266,000 399,000 AM Peak Hour Demand (PCUs/hr)

  26. Highway traffic flows (AM Peak Hour)

  27. Current State of Models : CRISTAL-P Based on Railplan • 1571 zones expanded to 1645 zones • AM Peak model validated • PM Peak and IP models not yet developed

  28. Public Transport Demand Transferred Forecast LU Crowding Relief (AM Peak Period) 4-8% reduction in demand on most crowded services in central London – Northern, Victoria and Piccadilly • over 400,000 travellers on Tube in AM Peak will benefit • Slight increase in demand along a stretch of the Central line, Bank to Holborn

  29. Current State of Models :CRISTAL-J • 14 Individual local models developed and validated for AM and PM Peak hours • Forecasts produced on operational aspects of traffic flows with or without Tram • Mainly using TRANSYT and LINSIG for individual signal groups

  30. Current State of Models : CRISTAL-M • VISSIM Model was developed from a series of local models used previously • Adequate to confirm general principles of scheme operation – interaction between tram and general traffic not readily handled in static models • Route corridor being confirmed at this stage • Initial model will be expanded and developed for the chosen route corridor

  31. Current State of Models : CRISTAL-M VISSIM photo - BAYLIS ROAD / WATERLOO ROAD- Work in progress

  32. Current State of Models :CRISTAL-D • Previous Demand model was developed using EMME/2 • This has been refreshed for CRISTAL • Now complies with DfT Advice (“WebTAG”)

  33. Convergence CRISTAL-D Convergence Criteria: • WebTAG % relative GAP < 0.1 • Benefits as % of network costs >= 10 * GAP • Change in CRT demand < 0.5% • Change in PT demand < 0.5% • Change in highway demand < 0.5%

  34. Future Year Modelling – Results2026 IBC RUN, SC359 – Iteration 3Post-Demand Model Results Compared to the Fixed Matrix Assignment

  35. Costs & DM Demands CRISTAL-H SATURN Assignment models CRISTAL-D Demand model CRISTAL-P EMME2 Assignment models convergence DS Demands Model Operation • Operation Platform – DOS / Windows • Batch File to operate • 3 to 5 iterations to converge

  36. Model Operation: Run Times Highway Model 9.5 hours PT Model <0.5 hours Demand Model <0.25 hours Per iteration 10 hours So, a run still takes approx. 30 hours!

  37. Scheme Costs and Benefits Costs and Benefits (£m PV 2004 prices) Tram Costs (600) Revenue 250 User Benefits 1500 - Time saving on trips 75% - London Buses/Underground relief 25% Economic Benefits 500 Non-User Benefits (200) Benefit : Cost Ratio 2.8:1

  38. Conclusions • There seems to be a commercial case for a new Tram in central London • Congestion Charging has offered some highway capacity for the core section • The tools and data are available to develop robust forecasts of demand, traffic impacts and benefits • EMME is an important part of the toolkit • However, despite the commercial case, there remains issues of political risk and availability of funds

  39. A Vision of the Tram

  40. www.tfl.gov.uk

More Related