AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Solving tomorrow's city transport problems

13th April 1973, Page 40
13th April 1973
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
Page 45
Page 40, 13th April 1973 — Solving tomorrow's city transport problems
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Report of last week's TRRL conference on 'Moving people in cities' by Martin Hayes and Tim Hoare; pictures by Harry Roberts

A PLEA to make better use of existing city transport facilities and try new ideas in small-scale experiments was made last week by Mr John Peyton, Minister for Transport Industries, when he opened a "Moving people in cities" conference at the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. The conference, organized largely as the result of a personal request from Mr Peyton, was attended by over 200 representatives from bus operators, local and national administrators and equipment manufacturers.

The Minister continued to stress the vital need to develop practical solutions when he addressed a press conference. "I am very anxious not to be over-ambitious", he said; "some systems are unreal dreams, although they should be tried out." Mr Peyton castigated many local authorities who, he said, were "too timid" to try out ways and means of fully utilizing their existing bus fleets. Those towns which had experimented had been "richly rewarded", said the Minister.

Delegates to the 1+.-day conference were bombarded with information and views about public transport in cities. Though several of the papers described concepts which many people might feel fell into Mr Peyton's "unreal dreams" category, an overwhelming argument in favour of the bus was put forward. Many speakers agreed that bus transport is still only at the beginning of its potential development.

Planning for the future The first session comprised a paper by Mr W. Burns, chief planner of the Department of the Environment, entitled "The national approach to urban congestion" and a paper entitled "New transport systems in cities" presented by Dr J. W. Fitchie, Head of the Transport Systems Department at the TRRL.

Mr Burns told delegates that the space for the pedestrian in central areas should not be what was left over when all other facilities had been provided. Also, provision for public transport should not be provided only after one had built roads for private transport; it should be planned in at the beginning. The form of public transport then needed to be considered. Mr Burns asked: Should the double-decker, oneman-operated bus, with local rail or underground services in a few of the very big cities, continue to be used? Or should a system be developed that could operate economically on a much finer mesh?

Mr Burns then outlined possible approaches to the problem of urban movement. He suggested that a greater range of buses from the minibus to the largest bus, should be used, with new designs having easier access — on both sides for one-way streets — smoother acceleration, less noise and improved methods of fare collection. The vehicles should be easier to clean and have better accommodation. There should also be a better presentation of information to passengers.

Finally, Mr Burns urged that there had to be more comprehensive planning and management, and if there was to be a better balance between public and private transport then there had to be greater restraint on the use of private cars and more priority given to public transport.

Dr Fitchie in his paper outlined the development by the TRRL of the Cabtrak and Minitram systems of automated transport. Work was now being concentrated on the Minitram system which provided a scheduled service. The vehicl had a capacity of about 12 people wi headway in peak hours of about 15 seconc The system with its track could occupy tube of space about 8ft square and it wou be able to run through buildings and wou also be acceptable on visual grounds. Unified approach needed A plea for a unified approach to t problems of moving people in cities w made in his paper by Dr Tony Ridle director-general of the Tyneside Passeng Transport Executive. He said that it was' longer sensible to see the problem as one bus versus rail, or car versus pub] transport. Each mode had its part to play.

Dr Ridley described Tyneside PTI future plans — which rely heavily on a ne rail-borne rapid transit system — b pointed out that the bus would still have very important role. The whole system public transport was being reoriente involving extensive re-routeing of the b system and the development of bus-c interchanges. Even when the fully integrat system was operating on Tyneside the b would always carry more passengers th, rail. Present measures were aimed making buses carry more passengers, ma effectively.

Summing up his view of the future, 1 Ridley said: "Until recently public transpc has tended to provide for all transport nee for part of the population. Increasingly the future it will have to provide some these needs for virtually all the population

During question time Dr Ridley, told b A. N. Crowther of Hampshire Coun Council, that his PTE had been a sum because it provided a focus for pub' transport planning. Dr Ridley also said th bus priority measures by themselves cou not do enough to help services.

A Department of the Environmei sponsored experiment was currently und way on Tyneside to study the effects Fares levels. Dr Ridley said that his own new was that quality of public transport utrvices was far more important than Lowness of fares.

Ticket system choice the key to

D-1111-0 sUCCEISS

Longer bus-journey times mean fewer masengers. This was the message contained n a paper by Dr F. V. Webster of the CRRL's special research branch. He quoted London Transport experience which had shown that a drop of 3 or 4 per cent in passengers could be expected when journey times increased.

On a typical journey 15 per cent of the riding time was spent stationary at bus stops, A one-second reduction in the time spent at stops in central London alone would result in an annual saving of £500,000 in "community costs". TRRL research showed that the average stop time for a two-man bus was about 8 seconds, but for one-man buses the time varied between 11 and 20 seconds. Thus choice of ticket system was all-important in making o-m-o buses successful.

Interlocks to prevent vehicles with open centre doors being driven could account for as much as six seconds per stop dead time. While this was more than repaid when large numbers of people were using the service, it was costly when the vehicle was lightly loaded. As yet there was no proof that interlocks were an effective safety feature.

Having pointed out that boarding times per passenger on o-m-o buses varied from two to five seconds (compared with one to two seconds for two-man vehicles) Dr Webster went on to say that future research would examine the whole question of boarding times.

During question time Mr F. J. Lloyd, director-general of the West Midlands PTE, took issue with Dr Webster about the effects of introducing o-m-o. "In my PTE 600,000 passengers a day travel on one-man buses on urban routes," he said. Savings in operating costs were shared 50/50 with drivers, as a result of which the staff situation had improved dramatically. No extra time had been allowed for o-m-o vehicles. Mr Lloyd accepted, however, that

a modified fares structure would improve the situation still further.

Mr A. G. Wenger Of the London Borough of Barnet wanted to know what account the TRRL had taken of the needs of commercial vehicles in cities. Dr Webster replied that in his studies commercial vehicles had been costed at £1 per hour compared with 20p per hour for private cars.

Mr E. R. Ellen of LT said that in a 10-year period when traffic in London increased by 16 per cent. bus passengers had decreased by an exactly similar percentage. It was obvious that the West Midlands PTE had been "lucky" with its introduction of o-m-o but, even so, LT was making savings of about 20 per cent over two-man operation after taking into account increased running time and higher drivers' wages.

Promoting the bus from poor relation status

A striking change in policy was contained in the paper presented by British Leyland at the conference. For the first time the corporation spelt out that its efforts alone could not solve the problems facing bus operators. A joint effort by operators, legislators and manufacturers was required.

The joint authors of the paper, Mr A. T. Webster, truck and bus division sales and marketing director, and Mr Joe McGowan divisional body engineer, began by pointing Out that the transport industry was now driven by external influences. Despite this the city bus operating environment had not changed radically nor to the advantage of the bus over the past 70 years.

"We believe that the bus manufacturing industry is now limited in its ability to arrest the slow decline in the standard and public acceptance of the bus system. The answer must lie with the planners of our cities and transport systems. We believe they must give priority of access and road usage to our bus services if they are significantly to alter the trend in bus ridership".

The paper went on to illustrate its central theme: that the bus is the only city public transport system obliged to compete with other forms of traffic on its routes, yet solutions to its problems were readily available and if implemented would allow buses to provide "the most flexible and effective of city transport systems". Operational protection and lane priority in city centres together with facilities enjoyed by cars, taxis and underground railways at major transport interchanges would ensure that the bus could play a much more effective role in moving people.

A long list of situations where planners had made the bus the "poor relation" to other forms of transport was provided by the paper. Turning to the solutions already tried and available, the paper mentioned the bus priority measures currently being introduced in Britain but looked to America for examples of the savings such methods could achieve. Though many examples were quoted, one of the most significant was that of the New Jersey bus transit system in New York where a single bus lane on a multi-lane expressway carried 500 buses with 21,000 passengers during the morning peak hour. A saving of 15 minutes was possible over a 2-1--mile section.

Further evidence that there has been a significant shift in policy at Leyland was provided in the concluding paragraphs of the paper. Having pointed out that the capability of current buses was being underutilized by as much as 80 per cent in city traffic the paper suggested that it might be desirable "for manufacturers to seek a deeper involvement with town, city and transportation planners with a view to developing complete systems to provide reliable public passenger transport".

The paper predicted that manufacturers might be called upon to provide an integration service for research and development related to new transport systems, communications, power forms, location and other services together with taking care of staff training, maintenance and system development.

Improvements to buses and their infrastructure would be insufficient, however. "Buses must become socially convenient," said the paper. The task of making the bus the priority city transport

system fell on three groups: operators — tc pressurize the urban authorities to provid( the facilities; urban authorities and planner! — to hear the operators and act manufacturers — to co-operate witt operators, urban authorities and planners tc achieve the necessary hardware for the nem systems.

During the discussion session Mi McGowan said: "At present our hardwart is being strangled by traffic. It is possible fa] the car and bus to co-exist but the bus needi help to operate efficiently Reserved track above or below the highway would provich near-car convenience."

Putting bus priorities into action "Priority can be given to bus operationi without serious adverse repercussions tc other road users." This was the mair conclusion drawn from the paper on Hu DoE's bus demonstration programme to Mr A. P. Goode from the Department' directorate of research requirements.

Mr Goode explained that the program= — involving 13 bus development projects it different areas — was started against c background of "the well-known spiral a declining patronage, rising fares and furthei reductions in patronage" in which the bu! was caught up. At the same time it wa! realized that the bus must continue to haw a major role in years to come because i operated on existing roads, thus having t potentially superior level of accessibility ant flexibility when compared with some of thc new forms of reserved-track rapid transi systems.

During the preparation of tht demonstration programme it became dere that traffic congestion was the major facto: in increasing bus operating costs ant disturbing service reliability — the most important reason why people did not patronize buses more. Accordingly eight oi the projects chosen involved priorit) measures — five using contra-flow bin lanes and two allowing buses to usc traffic-free streets. Two further project5 involved giving buses priority at traffic signals. The other projects featured 2 number of different ways of helping bu! operations.

Though the results obtained in tin bus-lane experiments had not yet been full) analysed it was possible to say tha substantial journey time savings had beer made. In Tottenham High Road, fin] example, a reduction of more than 30 pei cent in journey time on the most congestec part of the route during the peak hour hac proved possible. In Reading a correspond ing gain had been in the order of 15 pei cent. Though time savings amounted to t few minutes at the most, some indication o. the potential possibilities could be gable( from the percentage improvements.

Mr Goode had to report that there wen some indications, however, that contra-flov bus lanes "may have increased the risk ot accidents". It seemed likely that them dangers could be overcome. The project! involving giving buses a measure of priorit) at traffic signals had proved that savings oi about 20 seconds in the time taken to cross junction could be achieved. However, it was :vident that sites needed to be carefully selected otherwise some services could be harmed, not helped, by the method.

Mr Goode noted that many priority schemes were now being developed throughout the country. "The need now is to put into operation priority schemes of sufficient scale to have a real impact on bus Jperations", he said. There seemed to be a real possibility that bus priorities could 'significantly improve the attractiveness and Linage of buses".

The demonstration programme had been started with the specific aim of finding measures to help the bus at the expense of 3ther road users, said Mr Goode, in reply to a question from Dr A. Henderson, of Plessey Ltd.

Rapid transit could be too late Urgent action now to save public :ran sport was called for by Mr A. A. Wood, chief planning officer of Worcestershire County Council. He said that it would be We to 10 years before any of the proposed rapid transit systems could be adequately developed and by that time existing methods of public transport could be dead. Mr Wood also pointed out that many of the fixed-track systems would be quite unsuitable for towns of less than one million people.

Mr Wood's formula for saving existing public transport within cities was to separate it from other road users. He said that there were four main categories of road user: buses, trucks, private cars and pedestrians. Each got in the others' way. It was possible in many smaller provincial cities — and for that matter in parts of central London — to separate each type of user. Using Norwich as an example, Mr Wood showed how cars and trunk lorries could be diverted round a ring road, leaving roads across the city centre free for public transport and delivery vehicles. At the same time some city-centre streets could be completely pedestrianized. This approach gave buses an important advantage over cars, thus increasing their attraction to users.

Mr Wood said that priorities during the rescue period for public transport should be concerned with "improving the management and operation of existing forms of public transport rather than experimenting on a large scale with new systems". Mr Wood did not, however, completely rule out the Minitram concept, but he said that it had so many problems to overcome, including that of environmental intrusion, that it must be a very long way off.

Replying to a questioner from the TRRL on the value of bus-priority measures (given that London bus journey times would only improve by 16 per cent if all congestion were removed), Mr Wood said that long bus lanes needed to be demonstrated in the UK for their true value to be assessed. On fares levels, Mr Wood said that it was a political decision, where public transport was to be considered in the same way as sewage disposal and so on, or not.

Restricting the car to help the bus Overall control of traffic was one of the most important priorities facing city administrations said Mr J. R. Fitzpatrick, the Greater London Council's director of development.

Mr Fitzpatrick said that GLC policy up to the present time had been based on parking controls. However, the policy was reaching the limits of effectiveness because of the inadequate road system and the growth in traffic. He said that road pricing was unlikely to be introduced in the Seventies and that closing roads to private cars usually resulted in more congestion and was .therefore usually unjustifiable. Thus special licences for driving in the central area were the only measure that could be successfully applied in the near future.

Mr Fitzpatrick listed four measures, to help buses, that the GLC was presently implementing: 1) Bus lanes — 20 in operation, with a target of 120 by the end of next year; 2) area traffic control — phasing lights in favour of buses; 3) banning parking near 2000 bus stops; 4) consideration of five more bus and taxi streets, like Oxford Street.

On lorries, Mr Fitzpatrick said it was important that any new measure did not disrupt the flexibility of urban goods deliveries. However, vehicle design, parking, routeing, delivery times and delivery patterns all needed attention. Already there were plans to ban night street parking of lorries in 50 sq miles of London, and provide lorry parks. At the same time large lorries were being banned from the central areas, clearer signposting of through routes was being introduced and a further examination of the potential for night deliveries was being mounted.

During question time Mr Fitzpatrick said that it was essential to attract passengers back to buses. The time savings by bus priority measures (four minutes on a 27-minute journey) needed to be publicized. In answer to a question about the effects on car usage of fare subsidy, from Mr D. H. Nicholson from the London Borough of Lambeth, Mr Fitzpatrick said that there were many different ways of subsidizing public transport. The GLC was already using several and spending more on subsidies than on roadbuilding.

Keeping control of bus operation A prediction that buses would continue to be the main form of public transport for at least the next 20 years in the 138 British cities with populations over 50,000 was made by Mr E. W. A. Butcher, general manager of the Bristol Omnibus Co Ltd.

The advanced passenger bus which would go forward into the next century would be reliable, quiet, cause negligible pollution and be as comfortable as today's private car. Provided operators put less emphasis on first cost and direct running costs, this should not be difficult, said Mr Butcher.

The one factor that passengers wanted from today's bus service was reliability. Mr Butcher's paper was devoted to how this might be achieved by means of a computer-based bus location and control system currently being developed at Bristol by the National Bus Company and the DoE.

Three ways of minimizing the effects of traffic congestion on bus services needed to be introduced: differential or dynamic scheduling; a controllable route structure; and a flexible, comprehensive control system. Unfortunately all three of these suffered from the same disadvantage — they were more expensive than present methods.

. Mr Butcher concluded his paper — having outlined the Marconi bus location and control system being tried at Bristol — by saying that the experiment would show whether such a sophisticated method of control could be justified in strictly financial terms or whether it would have to be justified in social cost benefit terms.


comments powered by Disqus