Transcript No Slide Title

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 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!
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
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
The Tram Scheme:
Old Tram or New Tram?
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
A Tram is Efficient
Trams can move passengers far more efficiently than other vehicles
1 tram
2 - 4 buses
220 cars
Possible Route
New 16.5 km tramway
Core alignment:
Euston to Waterloo
30 trams per hour
Branches
North: to Kings Cross and
Alternative
routes
Camden Town
Alternative
routes
South: to Peckham and Brixton
15 trams per hour each branch
Alternative
routes
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
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
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
The Railplan Model
• Runs on EMME/2 usually under
UNIX
• Public Transport Assignment
model of London
–
–
–
–
–
Underground
Rail
Tram
Bus
Docklands Light Rail (DLR)
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
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
Standard Railplan Model: Demand
Derived from LTS Model
Year
Trips (3 Hrs)
2001
1,836,318
2011
2,195,962
Growth
2% p.a.
Standard Railplan: Model
Dimensions
Network (2001 Base)
No. Zones
1,571
No. Nodes
14,648
No. Links
49,596
No. Services
1,836
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
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
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
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
New Models For the Tram
A New family of models: CRISTAL
(Cross River Study of Trams Across London)
• 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)
CRISTAL Models:
Overview
Railplan
PT
Mode Share / Dem
Flow
Changes
VISSIM
SATURN
Strategic Highway
Revised Signal
Timings
Microsimulation
Flow Changes
TRANSYT
Junction
Revised Signal
Timings
Demand across the Thames
Westminster, Waterloo and Blackfriars Bridges: Summary of Travel
Demand (AM Peak Hour)
Vehicle/Passenger Flow (AM Peak Hour)
35000
30000
25000
CRT
20000
Bus
Taxi
15000
HGV
Car/LGV
10000
5000
0
2006 Base
2016 Reference
Scenario
2016 With CRT
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
AM Peak Hour Demand (PCUs/hr)
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
Total
133,000
20,000
266,000
399,000
Highway traffic flows (AM Peak
Hour)
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
Public Transport Demand
Forecast
LU Crowding Relief (AM Peak Period)
Transferred
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
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
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
Current State of Models :
CRISTAL-M
VISSIM photo - BAYLIS ROAD / WATERLOO ROAD- Work in progress
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”)
T rip F re que nc y
C o mpo s ite C o s ts (d)
Mo de C ho ic e (m)
A s s ig nme nt C o s ts
T rip Dis tributio n (d)
A s s ig nme nt
LOW
s ens itivity of res ponses
C o mpo s ite C o s ts (d,m)
HIG H
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%
Future Year Modelling – Results
2026 IBC RUN, SC359 – Iteration 3
Post-Demand Model Results Compared to the Fixed Matrix
Assignment
Fixed Demand
Variable Demand
2026 IBC RUN, SC359 – Iteration 3
Statistics,
AM
peak
period
Pos t-Demand Model Res ults Compared to the Fixed Matrix As s ignment
DM SC515
DS SC359
PT Demand, pass
CRT Demand, pass
PT Benefits, pass-hrs
PT %GAP
Highway CAR Demand, pass
Highway Benefits, pass-hrs
Highway %GAP
Total Demand, pass
Total Benefits, pass-hrs


2,421,060
63,836
-6,707
1,093,904
2,349
3,514,964
-4,357
2,422,043
66,925
-6,500
0.0002
1,093,101
1,184
0.0147
3,515,144
-5,316
Around 800 Highway trips have trans ferred to PT and ‘s low modes ’.
Overall increas es in demand (181 trips ) and benefits (959 pas s -hrs ) indicate
that improvement in PT times is s ufficient to compens ate for increas ed
journey times on highway
Difference
(DS-DM)
983
3,089
207
-803
-1,165
181
-959
Model Operation
Costs &
DM Demands
CRISTAL-H
SATURN
Assignment models
CRISTAL-D
Demand model
DS Demands
– Operation Platform – DOS / Windows
– Batch File to operate
– 3 to 5 iterations to converge
CRISTAL-P
EMME2
Assignment models
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!
Scheme Costs and Benefits
Costs and Benefits (£m PV 2004 prices)
Tram Costs
Revenue
User Benefits
(600)
250
1500
- Time saving on trips
75%
- London Buses/Underground relief
25%
Economic Benefits
Non-User Benefits
500
(200)
Benefit : Cost Ratio
2.8:1
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
A Vision of the Tram
www.tfl.gov.uk