Written Evidence Submitted by Servant Transport Consultants 2. Personal
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
REF0048 Written evidence submitted by Servant Transport Consultants 1. Objective of this memorandum of Evidence. This memorandum of evidence sets out to show the relationship between: The impact on public transport of the Covid-19 pandemic “social distancing” requirements, and The need for the decarbonisation of transport to meet net zero carbon emissions targets by 2050 o and An innovative technological evolution that is already taking place in public transport vehicles to provide increased “personal space” that would serve the objectives of both of these forces for change and has already been proved to be commercially viable for a public transport operator. 2. Personal background. After university and working in the construction industry from 1977 I worked for the Chief Civil Engineer, Western Region, British Railways. In 1984 I changed engineering discipline and lead a rail vehicle design research and development project with D Wickham & Co where the main problem we were addressing was suspension design for light weight rail vehicles. Since 1991 I have been in private practice as an independent Transport Consultant, mainly in the railway industry providing track design for freight terminals, contributions to rail vehicle design, and the assessment of “over-line clearances”, “loading gauge” challenges faced primarily by freight operators wishing to move 9’-6” ISO maritime containers to and from Britain’s deep sea ports and Eurotunnel. This work, based on digital survey data supplied to me by Railtrack, was (eventually!) accepted and acted upon, as all of our deep sea ports enjoy today. This work of assessment of the true clearances available on Britain’s railway enabled me to prepare a presentation (Power-Point) for the All Party Parliamentary Rail Group (11th June 2007) on the feasibility of operating double deck passenger trains on key routes of our railway network. (Incidentally, they are not twice as tall, just 200mm (8 inches) taller than the current maximum height of UK rolling stock.) More recently I have also assisted with the assessment of alternative designs of stations and rail passenger vehicles in terms of their capacity to handle rush hour crowds. A fundamental input into these assessments is the maximum acceptable crowd density that is to be allowed. Since Covid-19 this figure has radically altered. The questions that now hang over public transport operators have become: for how long will the current requirements for “social distancing” as regulatory requirements, last? Then at the end: to what extent will these new standards have become entrenched as traveller expectations? 3. Introduction. The relationship between Covid-19 “social distancing” requirements, and the perception that we should persuade people to use public transport rather than the private car as a means of reducing our national carbon emissions is probably not rocket science but a key aspect of it can actually be described as “space science!” Ergonomics. o Space in the vehicles o Space at each seat o Space for standees REF0048 o Space in the stations In an age when it is recognised that burning fossil fuels, particularly petroleum fuels in transport for around 120 years, has had a severe impact on the average temperatures experienced in every part of our planet, it is also widely agreed that we must all act now to reduce carbon emissions and find other ways of getting about. Increasing use of electric powered railway rolling stock and the development of battery-electric and hydrogen-fuel-cell-electric busses are two such opportunities. However, vehicle propulsion technologies do not have any impact on the new requirements for “social distancing”, the dramatic impact on public transport system capacity of a radically reduced acceptable passenger density. For this reason this memorandum considers only The new need for “social distancing” on public transport vehicles The potential benefit to the marketing of public transport services where more, and more comfortable, “personal space” is offered. Space requirements and the acceptable density of crowding are fundamental inputs for the design of vehicles and stations to meet a required capacity for a new system. Conversely, a significant change to the acceptable level of crowding on an existing system including vehicles and stations, will have a significant impact on the capacity of that system in terms of passengers that can be moved per hour. The use of public transport has declined dramatically as a result of the pandemic. Demand for travel as a whole has dramatically declined but many people have turned from public transport back to the private car as a means of ensuring their own health security during their journey. 4. Crowding standards – before 2020. The following brief run through “Crowding Science” is based entirely on pre-2020 understanding of the issues to be considered. Up to now Crowding Science had not needed to give great weight to public health security issues. Studies by many European public transport operators have contributed to the UITP (International Union of Public Transport) standards that define an acceptable level of crowding and unacceptable over- crowding. UITP suggest that the break point for bus passengers is 4 passengers/square metre, lower figures are proposed for train services. The UK Office of Rail Regulation in 2011 set “2 to 3 pax/m2” as the break point. For many years Transport for London and the Greater London Assembly used 4pax/m2 as the break point and as the maximum level of standees when planning new services, but the 2009 report by the London Assembly, Transport Committee, adopted “3 to 4” pax/m2 as an indicator that a rail service is over-crowded. The Paris transport authority RATP uses the same 4 pax/m2 as their break point between acceptable and unacceptable crowding. UK train operators now consider 2.22 pax/m2 as the maximum acceptable for longer journeys than within Greater London. More widely around the world, 5 pax/m2 is accepted in the US, 6 pax/m2 on Bus Rapid Transit systems in South America and as many as 8 pax/m2 for busses in the PRC. Prof. Keith Still points out that UK Event Guidance calls organisers to plan for a crowd density of 2 people/m2 although the “Green Guide for Safety at Sports Grounds” gives a maximum density of 4.7 people/m2 – however this figure assumes a fairly homogenous set of demographic characteristics. REF0048 5. Personal health security offered by the private car. The future trend for the private car envisaged by their manufacturers. A private car is generally perceived as offering more comfort, more “personal space” and better public health security than any form of public transport service. During the recent 5 years several of the world’s largest automobile manufacturing groups have set out to consolidate their existing advantages over public transport by actively marketing the concept of the private car as a life-time service provision (life-time of the car, that is!). The “user” would enter into a leasing contract under which monthly payments would cover capital, finance, maintenance and final “dismantling for recycling” costs. The automotive industry after-market sectors are obviously resistant to such a prospect, there might be no more second-hand cars! No more cars being maintained by small garages; all would be maintained by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). However, this proposal from the car manufacturing industry points to an opportunity for public transport, if public transport were to “up their game”. 6. A possible response by the public transport sector. Newly-provided rolling stock or busses fitted with new interiors including a new seating layout could be designed to deliver more “personal space” per passenger, including improved comfort, and be arranged in such a way as to better protect public health than has been possible with current public transport seating layouts. All this on a train or a bus without asking for commitment to a sizable monthly lease payment! An effect of CoviD-19 internationally has been to reduce public transport ridership by reducing the capacity of busses, trams, metros, trains, even the public standing space capacity of station platforms and concourses. Knock-on effects have included an increase in cycling and walking but also a partially masked increase in the use of private cars after a long period in which governments have worked hard to encourage people out of the private car and onto public transport. Now, the public transport sector has this work to do all over again. 7. The changed “modal split” picture and a public transport response. On another side of the three axis equation from (a) public transport use and (b) private car use, we have (c) total travel demand – a metric that has seen many regular users of public transport services “home-working”, or put on furlough, or, sadly, laid off work altogether. Recent studies have found that of the order of 68% (Atkins, July 2020) others estimate up to 74%, of those who have been “home working” since the beginning of April 2020 would like to continue to do so. They do not want to return to the regular, daily, commute to the office. As things stand, public transport carryings have been reduced by both (c) reduced total demand, and by (b) many travellers returning to the private car. The public transport sector has its work to do again to persuade people back onto public transport. REF0048 We do not know how long the current public health emergency will last. The WHO expect that it may last for two years. The impacts of “social distancing” regulations and a new heightened concern among transport users for secure “personal space” on public transport may continue for a number of years, perhaps five years initially, but following such a period new public expectations for “personal space” on public transport could have become entrenched, firmly established.