Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

green transport hierarchy

Expand Messages
  • Simon Norton
    Moved over from World Transport Forum: From: Simon Norton Date: Tue May 30, 2006 6:44pm Subject: green transport hierarchy I
    Message 1 of 7 , May 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment

      Moved over from World Transport Forum:

       

      From: Simon Norton <S.Norton@...>
      Date: Tue May 30, 2006 6:44pm
      Subject: green transport hierarchy

       

       

      I generally agree with Dave's comments, so let me clarify by saying that "small
      vehicles can only be assumed to be an advantage over large ones if the number
      of passengers [per vehicle] is kept constant".
       
      The advantage of higher frequency may not always be applicable. For example,
      consider coaches which take passengers from a rail station to a popular event
      starting at a specific time; it's clearly best to use fewer, larger buses.

       

    • Michael Yeates
      Moved from World Transport Forum: From: Michael Yeates Date: Wed May 31, 2006 0:27am Subject: RE: WorldTransport Forum green
      Message 2 of 7 , May 31, 2006
      • 0 Attachment

        Moved from World Transport Forum:

         

        From: Michael Yeates <michaelm@...>
        Date: Wed May 31, 2006 0:27am
        Subject: RE: WorldTransport Forum green transport hierarchy

         

         

        It is worth a return to read Chris Bradshaw's earlier email (18/19 May 2006) and note that the small "vehicles" (= shoes for walking, bicycles and various forms of mobility aids) score high on every count ...including those below ... AND in addition, they also act to discourage high speed travel and thus discourage longer journeys ... the scourge of transport sustainability ....!

        Thus it is of interest that it is still difficult (in some cases almost impossible) to get road authorities (Dave I hope you won't mind if I use TfL as an example) to encourage cycling "on the road" ... any urban or suburban road ... but not in exclusive lanes as these "bike lanes" etc (i)  provide an incentive to retain much higher speed for other vehicles and (ii) prioritise the hierarchy ... and thus, (iii) don't change the problem which is far too much emphasis on high speed travel ... thus it is said, making the roads too dangerous for cycling "on the road" ... so the road authorities won't endorse cycling "on the road"...!

        Bring on
        London's 20mph on 'all' roads and streets ...!

        Hence I am not at all surprised and in fact agree with much of Chris' critique ... and wonder why walking, cycling and disabled access vehicles are not prioritised in the debate/discussion about "sustainable transport". Well of course I know why.

        So where are the cities and towns (and the road authorities) that have implemented a policy of encouraging or better still, endorsing cycling "on the road" but not in "bike lanes" or on footpaths for bicycles?

        As I have argued elsewhere (eg http://www.yeatesit.biz/transfiles/veloci99paperb.pdf ), if it is safe enough for pedestrians of all ages and abilities to cross the road then the roads are safe enough for road authorities to endorse cycling on them.

        Cyclists and pedestrians become mobile speed reducing devices ... like David Engwicht's "mental speed bumps" perhaps?

        But please think about that concept beyond any immediate reaction of horror, mirth or "concern for safety" .. and consider the consequences of that thinking as nothing more than entrenched belief in high speed dangerous "unsustainable" (?) travel on urban roads and streets.

        High speed buses are therefore part of the problem if they rely on travelling at higher speed than 20mph (30km/h) at any time on their route on urban streets ... Those streets must remain available and safe and convenient for people ... walking* or cycling.

        Hence slow small local accessible buses are definitely a plus ... but also definitely on the next hierarchical level well below the three sustainable modes, walking, cycling and disabled access vehicles as long as "economics and environmental needs" (?) suggest that the larger (faster?) vehicles are the best option because in part that makes them part of the problem ... not part of the solution ... except on very high demand areas with very frequent stops...

        ( * In Australia, the Pedestrian Council of Australia includes people who need/use mobility and other devices as pedestrians ... see the "Pedestrian Charter" at PCA website which helps this discussion greatly as it helps to encourage the idea that pedestrian facilities should be safer and also accessible, and if accessible, are safer for all pedestrians, and are therefore suitable for use by bicycles and other HPVs ... subject to another hierarchy which puts pedestrians above cycling and some of the HPVs ... which is part of the reason the roads should be safe enough for road authorities to endorse cycling "on the road".)

        Michael Yeates
        Brisbane Australia ............. 

        At 01:26 AM 31/05/2006, you wrote:


        I fully agree with point 5 but disagree with point 3.
         
         “
        3. Small vehicles are only an advantage over large ones if the number of
        passengers is kept constant.”

        Suppose the demand is 360 paxs per hour on the route.
        This  number stays constant and does not vary.
        The demand can be met with 5 x 72 pax capacity buses or 10 x 36 pax capacity buses.
        The advantage of the 10 smaller buses is that you provide a more frequent 6 minute service than the larger bus every 12 minutes.
        The higher frequency may even attract more riders.
        But economics (and environmental needs) suggests the larger bus is the best option.
         
        “5. Why "don't ban street parking/stopping" at peak (or other) times ? Last week
        I did a bus trip in inner (but not central) London which took nearly an hour for
        about 4 miles -- because there were two diversions due to major road closures
        and in both cases the bus couldn't get through on its diversion route due to
        parked cars.”
         
        All bus routes should have double yellow lines banning parking around all road junctions and all pinch points.

         
         
        Dave
        Dave Wetzel,
        Vice-Chair, TfL
        020 7126 4200
         
         
        -----Original Message-----
        From: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com [ mailto:WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Simon Norton
        Sent:
        Tuesday, May 30, 2006 3:56 PM
        To: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: WorldTransport Forum green transport hierarchy
         
        A few comments on Chris Bradshaw's paper.

        1. Use of public transport does have one important positive factor which should
        be factored in: it helps to keep the system going by reducing both cost and
        energy efficiency on a per passenger basis.

        2. In classifying modes of transport by energy source one must factor in their
        substitutibility. For example using hydrogen generated from renewable sources is
        not an advantage over fossil fuels if those renewable sources could otherwise be
        used to generate electricity that would otherwise need fossil fuels to generate.
        (And if the hydrogen is generated from fossil fuels it is no advantage at all
        except for local air quality.)

        3. Small vehicles are only an advantage over large ones if the number of
        passengers is kept constant.

        4. For trip purposes, multi-purpose trips will usually score higher than single
        purpose trips.

        5. Why "don't ban street parking/stopping" at peak (or other) times ? Last week
        I did a bus trip in inner (but not central) London which took nearly an hour for
        about 4 miles -- because there were two diversions due to major road closures
        and in both cases the bus couldn't get through on its diversion route due to
        parked cars.

        Simon Norton

         

      • Anzir Boodoo
        Moved over from World Transport list: From: Anzir Boodoo Date: Tue May 30, 2006 9:30pm Subject: Re: WorldTransport Forum green
        Message 3 of 7 , May 31, 2006
        • 0 Attachment

          Moved over from World Transport list:

           

          From: Anzir Boodoo <ab@...>
          Date: Tue May 30, 2006 9:30pm
          Subject: Re: WorldTransport Forum green transport hierarchy

           

           

          Dave.
          On 30 May 2006, at 16:26, Wetzel Dave wrote:
          > I fully agree with point 5 but disagree with point 3.
          >
          >  “3. Small vehicles are only an advantage over large ones if the
          > number of passengers is kept constant.”
          >
          > Suppose the demand is 360 paxs per hour on the route.
          >
          > This  number stays constant and does not vary.
          >
          > The demand can be met with 5 x 72 pax capacity buses or 10 x 36 pax
          > capacity buses.
          >
          > The advantage of the 10 smaller buses is that you provide a more
          > frequent 6 minute service than the larger bus every 12 minutes.
          >
          > The higher frequency may even attract more riders.
           
          More frequent buses approximate to "car like mobility", well, until
          they start holding each other up, that is...
          > But economics (and environmental needs) suggests the larger bus is
          > the best option.
           
          Is there some level of frequency at which any additional frequency
          increase is basically of no consequence? I notice that:
           
          A lot of bus routes in central London seem to operate at 3-5 minute
          Intervals
           
          The Birmingham number 50 has pretty much stayed at a 4 minute
          interval whilst some other services have increased in frequency, and
          several other West Midlands corridors seem to operate at that 3-5
          minute interval
           
          Really high frequency corridors with multiple routes (such as Oxford
          Road in Manchester) are a complete nightmare to figure out
           
          Outside London, comparatively few routes operate at less than a 10
          minute interval (although there are routes in cities such as Leeds
          and Manchester which nominally run every 10 minutes but are in fact
          more frequent - the 135 I think in Manchester and the 1 and 56 in
          Leeds spring to mind)
           
          I think this has something to do with the perception of timetables
          and frequencies, something which I began to investigate some years
          ago, but never seemed to be of enough interest to anyone else... (OK,
          British Rail did cover it in background work for the Passenger Demand
          Forecasting Handbook)
           
          > “5. Why "don't ban street parking/stopping" at peak (or other)
          > times ? Last week
          >
          > I did a bus trip in inner (but not central) London which took
          > nearly an hour for
          > about 4 miles -- because there were two diversions due to major
          > road closures
          > and in both cases the bus couldn't get through on its diversion
          > route due to
          > parked cars.”
          >
          > All bus routes should have double yellow lines banning parking
          > around all road junctions and all pinch points.
           
          I suppose this depends very much on the frequency of the bus route,
          though there's no doubt it would have helped in the Northamptonshire
          villages I was going through by bus last autumn on a route which runs
          once an hour...
           
          (incidentally, I assume this was an off peak journey... my morning
          bus commute in Leeds used to take nearly an hour for about the same
          distance)
           
          --
          Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
          transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD

           

        • Michael Yeates
          From: Michael Yeates Cc: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com Date: Wed May 31, 2006 3:03am Subject: Re: WorldTransport Forum green
          Message 4 of 7 , May 31, 2006
          • 0 Attachment

            From: Michael Yeates <michaelm@...>
            Cc: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Wed May 31, 2006 3:03am
            Subject: Re: WorldTransport Forum green transport hierarchy

            michaelm@......
            Send MessageSend Message
            Edit MembershipEdit Membership

            However, ........
             
            In regard to #1, it is often argued that because/when/if the service is
            subsidised (at all), then every extra passenger is a cost ... although
            probably not using the same sort of economic "rules" as we might...!
             
            In regard to #3, this is the legitimation for giving the highest priority
            to pedestrians (including those with mobility assistance devices) and
            slightly lower priority to cycling and other HPVs.
             
            In regard to #5, this is one of the reasons (i) walking (if able, 4-5 miles
            in an hour is not too difficult if the road traffic does not make it much
            slower) and (ii) cycling (4-5 times faster for the same effort) but with
            the added advantages of flexibility of route choice and times of departure,
            should be much more emphasised in the "sustainable transport" discussion
            but more than just as symbolic gestures ...!!
             
            My other email addresses some of the related and more challenging issues in
            more detail.
             
            Regards
             
            Michael Yeates
            Convenor
            Public Transport Alliance
            Brisbane Australia ......

             

          • Simon Norton
            Michael Yeates refers to people who argue that more passengers means more subsidies. Where do they get their brains from ? The main reason why subsidies came
            Message 5 of 7 , May 31, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Michael Yeates refers to people who argue that more passengers means more
              subsidies. Where do they get their brains from ? The main reason why subsidies
              came to be needed in the first place is that (especially off peak) passengers
              were abstracted away by cars. Conversely, I would imagine that the greatest
              potential to capture new passengers was off peak where the existing modal share
              of the car is greatest.

              Another factor is that in times of congestion the transfer of passengers from
              cars to buses can create new capacity on the latter because if vehicles are
              going faster they can do more round trips in the same time and for the same
              cost.

              Michael also says that people can cycle 4-5 times faster than walking for the
              same effort. As a one time cyclist I never managed more than a factor of 2. I
              dare say a top quality bike might have made a difference, but many people
              wouldn't want to use them for everyday cycling because of the danger of theft.

              Simon Norton
            • Rory McMullan
              http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2006/06/01/2003311083 By Jimmy Chuang STAFF REPORTER Thursday, Jun 01, 2006 Taiwan is planning to construct
              Message 6 of 7 , Jun 2, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                 
                By Jimmy Chuang
                STAFF REPORTER
                Thursday, Jun 01, 2006
                 
                Taiwan is planning to construct 2,600km of bicycle lanes by 2011 to help promote the use of bicycles rather than motor vehicles.
                 
                "The idea is to help save energy, protect the environment and promote the idea of riding bicycles. However, we want to avoid potential waste at the same time as well," Premier Su Tseng-chang (Ĭ­s©÷) said.
                 
                Su said that the Cabinet's plan was to build bicycle-only lanes nationwide, and also to amend related traffic rules so that bicyclists' legal rights can be protected. While constructing the bike lanes, the premier asked officials to avoid wasting money by considering the practicality of the lanes in terms of location and material used for construction.
                 
                "You do not want to build a bike lane in a mountain area where bicyclists would not even visit. You do not want to cut down a lot of trees or pave over those spaces that used to be grass just to build a fancy bike track," Su said.
                 
                In the meantime, Su said that he was also concerned about the fact that, although the sale of sport utility vehicles (SUV) was decreasing worldwide, the sale of SUVs in Taiwan was growing steadily. He said that since SUVs guzzle more gas, they were anathema to energy conservation efforts.
                 
                "We will ask the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to do something about it. Maybe we should control the number of SUVs by raising applicable taxes. Anyway, we will do whatever it takes to protect Taiwan's natural environment," Su said.
                 
                In the 1990s, the Taipei City Government built the city's first bicycle lane on Dunhua N Road. The lane began in front of Songshan Domestic Airport, and ended at Dunhua N Road and Renai Road.

                Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

              • Anzir Boodoo
                Simon, ... Total agreement, supported (in the UK) by: Stagecoach Buses, who have proposed to government a Kickstart funding mechanism whereby government
                Message 7 of 7 , Jun 4, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Simon,
                  On 31 May 2006, at 21:23, Simon Norton wrote:

                  > Michael Yeates refers to people who argue that more passengers
                  > means more
                  > subsidies. Where do they get their brains from ? The main reason
                  > why subsidies
                  > came to be needed in the first place is that (especially off peak)
                  > passengers
                  > were abstracted away by cars. Conversely, I would imagine that the
                  > greatest
                  > potential to capture new passengers was off peak where the existing
                  > modal share
                  > of the car is greatest.

                  Total agreement, supported (in the UK) by:

                  Stagecoach Buses, who have proposed to government a "Kickstart"
                  funding mechanism whereby government funds a major service
                  improvement on a lossmaking (but potentially profitable) bus route
                  instead of subsidising it. The operator improves the route and
                  frequency, or pays for priority measures or park & ride, and after 3
                  years the route has to stand on its own two feet financially. How?
                  Because more passengers means less subsidy per passenger, and
                  eventually you get into profit. Kickstarts would be of the order of
                  GBP 200,000 to GBP 1,000,000 (a typical bus costs GBP 100,000)

                  the rail industry. Some commuter lines in South East England (serving
                  London) have gone from being lossmaking to profitmaking in the last
                  few years as London's growth has fuelled commuting. In major cities
                  outside London, there is a perception that rail is heavily lossmaking
                  and there are high subsidies per passenger. While these are in the
                  order of GBP 0.20 - 0.30 per passenger, in the West Midlands they are
                  around GBP 0.05 per passenger. Why? Because the trains are more full.
                  They also run longer trains at a higher frequency than many other
                  urban areas.

                  Harrogate & District buses (north of Leeds) concluded that, as they
                  served a wealthy area with high car ownership, they had to provide a
                  competitive product. So they invested in the most expensive double
                  deck buses in the UK, with reclining leather seats, and do not charge
                  a premium fare. They aimed to attract the "BMW drivers" who preferred
                  to queue on the roads into Leeds. The service is profitable and the
                  frequency has had to be increased twice. They also plan later
                  journeys to abstract passengers from taxis. The service launch cost
                  around GBP 3,000,000 to put together. The bus company is happy, it
                  was within their power to deliver in the short term, and car volumes
                  in the corridor are down more than 10%

                  RULE: More services mean more subsidies, more passengers mean more
                  revenue. You try and run more services to get more passengers until
                  your subsidies reduce or you go into profit.

                  > Another factor is that in times of congestion the transfer of
                  > passengers from
                  > cars to buses can create new capacity on the latter because if
                  > vehicles are
                  > going faster they can do more round trips in the same time and for
                  > the same
                  > cost.

                  A lot of this benefit can be got from good bus priority measures.
                  More passengers (in the UK, not in some Continental countries like
                  Italy) mean more waiting time at stops, which slows the bus down again.

                  > Michael also says that people can cycle 4-5 times faster than
                  > walking for the
                  > same effort. As a one time cyclist I never managed more than a
                  > factor of 2. I
                  > dare say a top quality bike might have made a difference, but many
                  > people
                  > wouldn't want to use them for everyday cycling because of the
                  > danger of theft.

                  That's certainly put me off cycling before. As a traveller, you want
                  some security of your ride home. If I plan a journey by bike that has
                  no public transport backup (such as riding to a nearby village that
                  has no bus service, or staying until after the last bus when it's too
                  far to walk), I need to know I can get back...

                  --
                  Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
                  transcience, 72 Staplehurst, BRACKNELL RG12 8DD
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.