22 November 2013
Carolyn McNally Deputy Director General Planning & Programs Sydney City Access Strategy Transport for NSW GPO Box K659 Haymarket NSW 1240
Dear Carolyn,
SYDNEY CITY CENTRE ACCESS STRATEGY
Infrastructure Partnerships Australia (IPA) would like to thank Transport for NSW (TfNSW) for the opportunity to comment on the Sydney City Access Strategy (the Strategy).
The benefit that can be delivered through the strategy is obvious; given the substantial inefficient congestion already impacting Sydney’s supporting road and rail passenger transport networks.
The development of the strategy is particularly timely, given its clear-minded analysis of opportunities to minimise the delivery impacts from major projects, like the CBD and South East Light Rail project; while maximising the contribution they make when operational.
The Strategy presents a well-considered and thorough analysis for how to manage these substantial changes, while improving the long-term productivity and functionality of the CBD.
Given the depth and strength of the draft strategy, IPA’s submission restricts its substantive commentary to two core areas:
1. the movement of freight; and 2. integration across the transport system.
The development of the Strategy, combined with the delivery of the CBD and South East Light Rail project, presents TfNSW with a unique opportunity to reconsider the design of the CBD’s key infrastructure networks. It represents an opportunity to create much-needed capacity and improve the productivity of the CBD, in turn delivering economics benefits for the entire State.
In the coming two decades demand for access to the CBD, from both freight and passenger transport is forecast to significantly grow. By 2031, the number of people travelling to the city centre each day is forecast to grow by 145,000 trips.1 Over the same period freight journeys (articulated and rigid
1 Transport for NSW 2013, Sydney City Centre Access Strategy, p. 7 1 trucks, and light commercial vehicles) travelling in and out of the inner Sydney region are expected to increase by 24 per cent, from 124,377 trips in a day in 2011 to 154,279 trips in 2031.2
Without change these increases in demand will have a material impact on the efficiency of the CBD and in turn the wider productivity of the State. Sydney’s CBD is a fundamental component of the State’s economy, generating $70 billion of activity every year.3 The efficient operation of this precinct is hugely important, impacting both the people who live and work within the CBD and the wider NSW economy.
In the context of these challenges the options for continually increasing the capacity of this high- density, high value precinct are limited. Instead consideration must be given as to whether the operation of the existing infrastructure within the CBD can be reformed in order to increase capacity and extract greater value. IPA’s submission will focus on this issue - how to drive greater efficiency from the CBD’s existing infrastructure – focusing on the operation of freight and the integration of the public transport network.
1. ABOUT INFRASTRUCTURE PARTNERSHIPS AUSTRALIA
Infrastructure Partnerships Australia (IPA) is the nation’s peak infrastructure body – formed in 2005 as a genuine and enduring policy partnership between Australia’s governments and industry. IPA’s formation recognises that through innovation and reform, Australia can extract more from the infrastructure it’s got, and invest more in the infrastructure we need.
Through our research and deep engagement with policymakers and industry, IPA seeks to capture best practice and advance complex reform options to drive up national economic prosperity and competitiveness.
Infrastructure is about more than balance sheets and building sites. Infrastructure is the key to how Australia does business, how we meet the needs of a prosperous economy and growing population and how we sustain a cohesive and inclusive society.
IPA draws together the public and private sectors in a genuine partnership to debate the policy reforms and priority projects that will build Australia for the challenges ahead.
2. THE CHANGING NATURE OF THE CBD FREIGHT TASK
The movement of freight in to, out of and within the Sydney CBD would benefit from a deeper focus within the Strategy. While the strategy identifies the need to better accommodate delivery and service vehicles working within the Sydney CBD, the document lacks a long-term focus on how the city’s freight task is forecast to grow and change, and what impact this will have on the operation of Sydney’s CBD – both for freight and non-freight users.
The importance of freight to the health of the State’s economy cannot be overstated - the efficient operation of the New South Wales freight network is critical to supporting and creating economic
2 NSW Transport Data Centre 2010, February 2010 Release Freight Forecasts (IPA Analysis) 3 Transport for NSW 2013, Sydney City Centre Access Strategy, p. 7 2 growth. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Sydney CBD, where a variety of commercial freight vehicles travel into and out of the CBD on a daily basis, collecting and delivering goods.
Both the impact and benefits of the CBD freight task extend beyond the businesses directly involved. Freight vehicles share infrastructure with passenger transport and pedestrians, meaning they directly impact the wider operation of the precinct and are an important component of the CBD transport task.
Over time the nature of the freight task is forecast to change influencing how freight vehicles will operate within the CBD. In the short term the delivery of a number of large scale projects – Barangaroo, the Wynyard Walk, the new Convention and Exhibition Centre at Darling Harbour and the CBD and South East light rail. These large-scale signature projects will be delivered alongside a dispersed, but nonetheless high intensity, commercial real estate delivery programme within the CBD, driving a rapid increase in the number of freight vehicles entering, exiting and moving around the precinct.
Figure A graphs the projected number of freight trips within the Statistical Local Area of Inner Sydney between 2006 and 2036. Two clear trends emerge from these forecasts. First, the size of inner Sydney’s freight task is growing – between 2006 and 2036 weekday freight trips in and out of Inner Sydney are forecast to grow by over 35 per cent, from 117,247 trips in 2006 to 159,691 trips in 2036.4 Second, the growth in the weekday freight trips will almost entirely result from an increase in the number of trips made by light commercial vehicles. Figure A indicates that over the next 20 years the growth in the overall Inner Sydney freight task will follow the growth in the use of Light Commercial Vehicles, while the growth in heavy commercial vehicles will remain static. This trend is anecdotally supported by the growth of the online retail market and the corresponding increase in ‘white van’ activity from the increasing demand for small parcel deliveries during business hours.5
4 NSW Transport Data Centre 2010, February 2010 Release Freight Forecasts (IPA Analysis) 5 Whyte, S 2013, ‘Postage costs soar by 30% as online retail booms’, The Sydney Morning Herald, April 8, 2013. Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/business/postage-costs-soar-by-30-as-online- retail-booms-20130407-2hewv.html 3
Figure A: Weekday freight trips travelling in and out of inner Sydney 2006-2036
170000 160000 150000 140000 130000 120000 110000 100000 90000 Total 80000 Heavy Commercial Vehicles 70000 Light Commercial Vehicles 60000 50000 40000
No.of average weekdayfreight trips 30000 20000 10000 0 2006 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036
Source: IPA Analysis of February 2010 Release Freight Forecasts
3. ADDRESSING THE CBD FREIGHT CHALLENGE
It is clear that the structure and operation of the CBD freight task is undergoing a period of growth and change. Without action the forecast changes to the movement of freight within the Sydney CBD will have a material impact on the operation of the CBD and in turn the efficiency of the New South Wales’ economy.
The development of the Strategy presents TfNSW with an important opportunity to understand how the operation of freight in the CBD is changing and identify the strategic frameworks and policy initiatives necessary to effectively cater for this change.
In its current form the Strategy includes a number of good recommendations about the operation of service delivery vehicles within the CBD. However in the context of the forecast changes to the CBD freight task these recommendations could go further. The scope of the strategy should be widened to include:
a strategic planning framework to manage the short and long term changes forecast for the movement of freight within the CBD; and policy initiatives to enable the most efficient use of the CBD’s existing freight infrastructure.
4
3.1 A STRATEGIC PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF CBD FREIGHT
The forecast changes for the movement of freight within the CBD in both the short and long term will have a material impact on the day to day operation of the entire precinct. Limiting the impact of these changes and maintaining the productivity of the CBD will depend on the strategic planning frameworks put in place by TfNSW to accommodate these changes.
In its current form the Strategy makes a number of important recommendations for managing changes to the CBD over the short term. Most importantly the establishment of the City Centre Transport Taskforce, tasked with developing planning and logistics strategies for major events and construction periods will be crucial to managing the significant changes the CBD will undergo over the next five to 10 years, with the delivery of a number of large-scale projects.
While these recommendations are necessary and welcome, the projected nature of the future CBD freight task will necessitate a more comprehensive framework to understand and manage the impacts over both the immediate and longer term.
The work of Transport for London, through the development of the London Freight Plan presents TfNSW with a valuable case study on how both the short and long term CBD freight task can be effectively monitored and accommodated through putting in place a hierarchy of effective planning instruments.
The London Freight Plan includes three strategic planning instruments to manage and understand changes to the London freight task:
1. Delivery and Servicing Plans (DSPs): focused on increasing building operational efficiencies of individual buildings, DSPs require premises to develop building specific plans to reduce the impact of freight and service deliveries on the premises and the surrounding areas6; 2. Construction Logistics Plans (CLPs): applied to the design and construction phases of premises, CLPs ensure that the efficient operation of freight is built into the design and construction stages of the building7; and 3. London Freight Data Report: a supporting document of the plan which identifies and monitors London specific freight to enable a greater understanding about freight movements, its impact on other modes and its contribution to the economic growth of the CBD.8
A planning framework meeting similar objectives to the CLPs and DSPs, during the construction, design and operation phases of large-scale buildings in the Sydney CBD would enable TfNSW, over time, to encourage the efficient movement of freight servicing these premises, in turn limiting the impact of the building’s freight on the wider CBD transport network.
Equally the development of a CBD freight data report would enable TfNSW to develop a better understanding of current and future freight movements in the Sydney CBD. For example data regarding the current and future number of daily freight trips, the destination and purpose of freight movements, the type of vehicles being used and the preferred routes of vehicles entering and exiting
6 Transport for London 2012, The London Freight Plan, pp. 61 - 63 7 Transport for London 2012, The London Freight Plan, pp. 64 - 67 8 Transport for London 2012, The London Freight Plan, pp. 30 - 31 5 the Sydney CBD, will enable policy-makers to understand how freight operates within the CBD and put in place policy initiatives necessary to effectively cater for this. This is particularly important in light of the changing nature of the CBD freight task; current and reliable data about changes to the size and operation of the freight task will enable policy makers to put in place effective and timely policy initiatives to cater for these changes.
TfNSW has recently established the Bureau of Freight Statistics to enable the NSW Government to better understand the NSW freight task. However to date, freight data in Australia has largely been national, state and city specific, meaning that there is a lack of robust and current data regarding important metropolitan precincts like the Sydney CBD. The development of the Sydney CBD Access Strategy represents a valuable opportunity to put in place an ongoing initiative for the Bureau of Freight Statistics to develop a bank of data on the CBD freight task.
3.2 POLICY INITIATIVES TO ENABLE THE MOST EFFICIENT USE OF INFRASTRUCTURE
Beyond the management of the CBD freight network, the Strategy represents an important opportunity to initiate a programme of policy reforms focused on increasing the efficiency of the CBD’s freight network. Such policy reforms should focus on extracting greater value from the existing infrastructure and creating much-needed additional network capacity.
The strategy makes reference to a number of innovative ideas but does not yet identify effective actions to convert these policies into reality.
Policy initiatives foreshadowed in the Strategy include:
putting in place incentives to encourage the loading and servicing of freight to occur out of peak periods; encouraging the use of off-street break-freight facilities to consolidate loads destined for the CBD; and developing web and phone based applications to provide freight carriers and receivers with information about the best routes for accessing loading zones at different times in the day.
While recognising that the document is necessarily strategic rather than a detailed implementation plan, it is nonetheless important that it goes beyond simply identifying potential policy ideas, but also outlining tangible pathways for executing them.
For example the strategy identifies a priority to incentivise the delivery of freight outside peak periods – “Encourage loading and servicing to occur out of peak period and during the evening by working with business and providing appropriate incentives”.9
This is a sound initiative; currently 29 per cent of commercial traffic movements occur in the morning and afternoon peak, meaning around one third of the CBD freight task occurs during the busiest times of the day, heightening the impact of freight movements on other modes. 10 By encouraging businesses to move freight during off-peak periods TfNSW can reduce the number of trips that occur
9 Transport for NSW 2013, Sydney City Centre Access Strategy, p. 25 10 Transport for NSW 2013, Sydney City Centre Access Strategy, p. 14 6 during the busiest parts of the day, creating the additional capacity that will be required in the short to medium term to accommodate the forecast increases in people accessing the CBD precinct. Some types of freight will undoubtedly have to be delivered during peak periods - but a lack of appropriate signals to freight carriers and receivers means that deliveries which are not time critical, and could be moved during off-peak periods continues to be transported at the busiest and most economically important part of the day.
Implementing this reform will be a complex undertaking: to be successful the policy will require the participation of a number of disparate stakeholders; the determination of the right pricing or regulatory reforms to incentivise business and freight operators to change their delivery behaviour; and detailed analysis of impacts of any regulatory changes. For example moving a greater portion of freight at night or early in the morning may require businesses to roster receiving staff outside of business hours, with related impacts on employees and employment contracts.
The complexity of this reform means that it will not be sufficient for TfNSW to note the idea as a policy priority within the Strategy; tangible actions need to be identified to explore how the initiatives would be implemented, who it would impact and what barriers exist.
Instructive case studies for understanding how to encourage freight deliveries in off-peak periods can be found overseas.
Between 2009 and 2010 the New York City Department of Transport conducted a trial to explore the benefits and barriers to the city’s freight being delivered outside peak periods. The trial included 33 participating delivery companies and receiver businesses who were each provided with a financial incentive (participating freight receivers were payed $2000, while freight deliverer companies were payed $300 per participating truck) to make and receive freight deliveries between 7:00 pm and 6:00 am.11
The results of the study demonstrated that considerable benefits could be achieved through encouraging freight deliveries to occur during off-peak periods:
on average travel speeds of participating freight deliverers were more than twice as fast as those travelling during regular hours; average service times were found to be more than three times as fast; and delivery routes were on average 50 minutes faster during the off-peak period.12
The findings of the pilot trial were also very insightful in terms of understanding what incentives would be required if a wider policy of off-peak freight deliveries were to be implemented within New York.
A key finding of the pilot study was that the receivers of freight were the key decision maker in terms of determining when freight was delivered. The implication being that the ability to materially
11 New York City Department of Transport 2010, NYC DOT Pilot Program finds economic savings, efficiencies for truck deliveries made during off-hours. Available at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot//html/pr2010/pr10_028.shtml 12 Victorian Government 2013, The Freight State: the Victorian freight and logistics plan, p. 51. 7 change freight deliver patterns sat with the receivers of freight, who tended to prefer deliveries to occur during business hours as it allowed them to take advantage of the staff already at work. In contrast the study found that the carriers of freight would likely welcome a shift to off-peak deliveries as delivering in off-peak hours worked out to be between 20-30 per cent cheaper for them than regular hours.13
The project concluded that the key to introducing a material shift of freight traffic to off-peak hours would require receivers to accept off-hour deliveries either by providing incentives in exchange for the commitment to off-hour deliveries or by encouraging the greater use of practices such as unassisted deliveries that do not require receiver staff to be present at the time deliveries are made.14
The New York pilot highlights that complex policy initiatives, like encouraging off-peak freight deliveries, require in-depth investigation and tangible actions to make them happen. TfNSW should take heed of this and amend the Strategy to include a programme of tangible actions to move broad policy initiatives identified within the Strategy, like encouraging the movement of freight outside peak periods, closer to implementation.
4. CREATING AN INTEGRATED CBD TRANSPORT NETWORK
Demand for transport services travelling to, from and within the CBD is forecast to significantly increase over the next 20 years. According to the Strategy the number of people travelling into the city centre each day will grow by 145,000 trips, to 775,000 trips by 2031.
In the context of this demand growth, it is clear that the capacity and operation of the CBD transport network will need to change in order to meet the demand for increased transport services. While headline projects like the Sydney CBD and South East Light Rail will play an important role, TfNSW will also be required to put in place operational changes focused on enabling the best use of the CBD’s existing transport network.
The effective integration of the CBD transport network, with separate transport modes playing a complementary rather than competing role, provides TfNSW with a valuable framework for enabling greater usage of the CBD’s transport infrastructure.
IPA’s 2012 paper Integrating Australia’s Transport System: a Strategy for an Efficient Transport Future identified that effective transport integration was dependent on the development of five integration characteristics15:
Physical Integration: The positioning of transport interchanges, such as a train station, bus stop or bicycle lane, in close proximity, enabling passengers to seamlessly transfer between different modes;
Network Integration: The manner in which the transport services within a transport network complement each other. For this to happen feeder services, such as buses, trams, and light
13 Integrative freight demand management in the New York City Metropolitan Area: Final Report, pp. 5 – 6. Available at: http://transp.rpi.edu/~usdotp/OHD_FINAL_REPORT.pdf 14 Ibid. 15 Infrastructure Partnerships Australia 2012, Integrating Australia’s Transport System: a Strategy for an Efficient Transport Future, pp. 32-33. 8
rail should be designed to maximise the patronage of trunk routes such as heavy rail services. An essential part of network integration involves timetabling services so that intramodal and intermodal services connect efficiently and effectively;
Fare Integration: Transport ticketing based on the length of a journey as opposed to modal choice in order to facilitate transfers between modes. A single electronic fare card, while not a prerequisite for integrated ticketing, provides a very powerful mechanism to efficiently and effectively operate an integrated fare structure. Best practice examples can be found in Hong Kong, Singapore and London, where the implementation of fare integration has been an important factor in increased public transport patronage;
Information Integration: Comprehensive, easy-to-use, real time travel information is critical to facilitating multi-modal travel. Through the use of Intelligent Transport Systems the signage and information provided at transport interchanges should enable seamless transfers between different modes; and
Institutional Integration: A common institutional framework is better able to undertake land use planning, travel demand management and integrated public transport services.
A copy of Integrating Australia’s Transport System: a Strategy for an Efficient Transport Future has been included as an appendix to this submission.
Integration is a principal focus of the Strategy; the document’s stated aim of not considering modes in isolation, and policies like the establishment of interchange precincts at key transport hubs, have the potential to greatly improve the physical integration of the CBD transport system. However the articulation of transport integration within the document is incomplete, with key integration characteristics missing from the document’s analysis.
For example the Strategy must draw a clear distinction between the roles electronic ticketing and fare integration play in enabling increased transfers between modes. Electronic ticketing offers a welcome opportunity to reduce or eliminate ticket queues and provide a single physical ticket for users across modes – but electronic ticketing must ultimately be supported by integrated fares to reap the full benefits for customers.
Under fare integration customers are charged for their whole journey as opposed to the combination of different modes taken, encouraging them to use the best combination of modes to make the most efficient use of the transport network with zero or very limited financial cost of modal interchange.
Examples of fare integration can be found both overseas and in Australia:
In New York the MetroCard allows commuters to transfer for free between the subway and buses; In London the Oyster Card is capped so that commuters are charged no more than the cheapest combination of single tickets, regardless of the transport mode that is used; and In Melbourne, the myki card calculates fares for the use of trains, trams and buses according to which zones you travel in, not the number of different transport modes used in a single journey.
Though the Strategy refers to the efficiency created through the roll-out of a single electronic ticket – the Opal Card – it does not effectively examine how fare structures can be utilised to encourage commuters to transfer between modes to achieve the most efficient use of the CBD transport network. This is not a minor issue, it is absolutely fundamental to the efficient operation of the CBD 9 and how people ingress and egress the precinct. Fare integration, supported by electronic ticketing, with limited interchange penalties, presents perhaps the single biggest opportunity outside of substantial new infrastructure capacity enhancements to increase the proportion of commuters who use public transport as the mode of first choice.
Welcome progress has been made over recent years on institutional, information and physical integration on the Sydney transport network – with a particular focus on the CBD. TfNSW and the NSW Government should be commended for improvements to way-finding, customer access to information and physical changes such as those to improve the station entry and concourse at Central Station. However further work is required if the full benefits of transport integration are to be achieved.
The development of the CBD Access Strategy presents TfNSW with a renewed opportunity to outline the pathway towards full ticketing and fare integration supported by the Opal Card rollout.
5. CONCLUSION
IPA commends TfNSW and the NSW Government for undertaking detailed, long-term strategic analysis and planning to understand how the Sydney CBD is changing and what policies and projects will be required to accommodate these changes.
It is clear that over the next two decades the operation of the Sydney CBD will evolve significantly. A rapid and substantial increase in the number of people accessing the CBD on a weekday basis will mean renewed pressure will be placed on the precinct’s existing infrastructure; while the delivery of key infrastructure projects and commercial developments will alter the structure and operation of the CBD’s transport system.
Infrastructure solutions, like the delivery of the CBD and South East light rail service, will be vital to making the necessary changes within the CBD over the coming 20 years. But infrastructure solutions alone will not be enough and detailed consideration must be given to how existing infrastructure networks – like the freight and public transport network – can be reformed to improve efficiency and deliver the greatest value. Greater consideration of the movement of freight within the CBD and a comprehensive analysis of how to better integrate the transport system, present TfNSW with two important opportunities to meet these challenges.
Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact IPA’s Manager, Policy Anna Bardsley on (02) 9240 2050.
Yours sincerely,
BRENDAN LYON CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
10
INTEGRATING AUSTRALIA’S TRANSPORT SYSTEMS: A Strategy for an Efficient Transport Future Copyright © Infrastructure Partnerships Australia
Please note
The authors of this report are employed by Booz & Company. The work reported herein was carried out in response to a request by Infrastructure Partnerships Australia (‘IPA’). This paper was prepared solely for the information and use of IPA. No third parties shall have a right to rely on the report or be regarded as a third-party beneficiary of the arrangement between IPA and Booz & Company. The paper was prepared by Booz & Company after due and careful enquiry, based on publicly available information on which Booz & Company relied and did not independently verify. The paper states a number of assumptions made during our analysis.
Infrastructure Partnerships Australia 8th Floor 8-10 Loftus Street Sydney NSW 2000 T 02 9240 2050 F 02 9240 2055 W www.infrastructure.org.au
For more information please contact:
Brendan Lyon Chief Executive Officer Infrastructure Partnerships Australia T 02 9240 2050 E [email protected]
Adrian Dwyer Director, Policy Infrastructure Partnerships Australia T 02 9240 2056 E [email protected]
Robert Williams Partner Booz and Company (Aust) Pty Ltd Level 7, 7 Macquarie Place Sydney, NSW, 2000 T 02 9321 1900 E [email protected]
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge the work of Anna Chau, Malinda Parkinson, Claudia Bottini, and the peer review work of Professor Graham Currie in producing this report. The authors would also like to thank members of IPA’s Transport Taskforce for their advice and input.
Cover: Courtesy of Industry Funds Management (IFM) 3
Contents
LIST OF FIGURES 6
List of Tables 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8
Recommendations 12
1 INTRODUCTION 14
1.1 Context 15
1.2 Project Overview 16
1.2.1 Project Objectives 16
1.3 Project Methodology 17
1.3.1 Task 1: Project Inception 17
1.3.2 Task 2: Assessment of Alternative Transport Modes 17
1.3.3 Task 3: Integrated Systems Based Approaches 18
1.4 Structure of the Report 18
2 Exploring the Roles and Characteristics of Alternative Transport Modes 20
2.1 Introduction 21
2.2 Transport Corridors 21
2.3 Transport Modes Roles and Characteristics 22
2.3.1 Public Transport Modes 23
2.3.2 Private Transport Modes 26
2.3.3 Operating Speeds of Modes 27
2.3.4 Cost-effectiveness of Modes 28
2.3.5 Connection Between Land Use Patterns and Transit Modes 29
3 an Integrated Transport Systems Approach 30
3.1 Introduction 31
3.2 Integrated Multi-modal Transport Network 31
3.3 Complementary Transport Services 34
3.3.1 Direct v. Feeder Services 34
4 3.3.2 Park-and-Ride Facilities 36
3.4 best Practice Examples 38
3.4.1 Example 1: London 38
3.4.2 Example 2: Hong Kong 44
3.4.3 Example 3: Singapore 47
3.4.4 Best Practice Themes 49
4 Comparing Relative Trip Costs 50
4.1 Introduction 51
4.2 What is a Strategic Transport Corridor? 51
4.3 Corridors Assessment Approach 51
4.4 Penrith to Sydney CBD Corridor Assessment 52
4.4.1 Penrith to Sydney CBD Transport Modes 52
4.5 Pakenham to Melbourne CBD Corridor Assessment 56
4.5.1 Pakenham to Melbourne CBD Transport Modes 56
4.6 Summary 60
5 Multi-modal Transport Appraisals 62
5.1 Overview 63
5.2 historical Context and Recent Developments 63
5.3 alternative Approaches 65
5.3.1 Strategic Approaches 65
5.3.2 Specific Appraisal Requirements 65
5.4 Summary 67
6 Conclusion 68
7 REFERENCES 70
aPPENDIX 1. Corridor Assessment Methodology 74
aPPENDIX 2. Corridor Assessment Detailed Results 80
5 List of FIGURES
FIGURE 1.1 Project Methodology 17
FIGURE 2.1 Example of a Multi-modal Transport Corridor 21
Figure 2.2 Operating Speeds v. Line Capacity 27
Figure 2.3 Cost-effectiveness of the Main Mass Transit Modes 28
Figure 3.1 An Example of an Integrated Multi-modal Network 32
Figure 3.2 Time/cost-distance Diagram of a Unimodal and a Multi-modal Trip 35
Figure 3.3 Wollongong Commuter Car Park 36
Figure 3.4 London’s Rail Networks – National Rail, Underground, Overground and Light Rail 39
Figure 3.5 Central London Bus Network 41
Figure 3.6 London’s Barclays Cycle Superhighways 42
Figure 3.7 Hong Kong MTR System Map 44
Figure 3.8 Hong Kong’s Transport Network 45
Figure 4.1 GIS Map of the Penrith to Sydney CBD Transport Corridor 53
Figure 4.2 Graphical Representation of Generalised Trip Cost by Mode for the Penrith to Sydney CBD Corridor 55
Figure 4.3 GIS Map of Pakenham to Melbourne CBD Transport Corridor 57
Figure 4.4 Graphical Representation of Generalised Trip Cost by Mode for the Pakenham to Melbourne CBD Corridor 59
6 List of Tables
Table 2-1 Characteristics of Transport Modes 22
TABLE 3-1 Integration in the London Transport System 43
TABLE 3-2 Integration in the Hong Kong Transport System 46
TABLE 3-3 Integration in the Singapore Transport System 48
TABLE A1-1 Sydney Corridor GTC Calculation Elements 76
TABLE A1-2 Melbourne Corridor GTC Calculation Elements 77
TABLE A1-3 Standard Weightings 78
TABLE A2-1 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Ferry Trips 81
TABLE A2-2 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Bus Trips 81
TABLE A2-3 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Heavy Rail Trips 82
TABLE A2-4 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Car Trips 82
TABLE A2-5 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Walking Trips 82
TABLE A2-6 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Cycling Trips 83
TABLE A2-7 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Light Rail Trips 83
TABLE A2-8 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Bus Trips 84
TABLE A2-9 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Heavy Rail Trips 84
TABLE A2-10 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Car Trips 85
TABLE A2-11 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Walking Trips 85
TABLE A2-12 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Cycling Trips 86
TABLE A2-13 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Light Rail Trips 86
7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Over time, there has been a natural tendency for transport planning to be captured by individual modes or projects, such as rail, light rail, metro, busways or motorways, rather than taking a whole of network approach in which each mode can play its proper role in the broader integrated transport task.
This focus on individual modes has its roots in government structures which have seen mode specific agencies responsible for the capital programme. An example might be a public rail operator planning for new heavy rail links; or a road authority planning a new motorway. While this division between modes is understandable in an operational context, it has contributed to an infrastructure planning debate that has at times given insufficient consideration and evaluation to the relative strengths of all modes in an integrated, multi-modal environment.
The consequence of these structures mean an infrastructure and public transport debate that is about projects, rather than networks, which can result in disjointed transport networks that fail to deliver the best outcome for commuters and other users.
Infrastructure Partnerships Australia (IPA) engaged Booz & Company to develop a policy framework that articulates the case for a new approach to transport infrastructure planning that is based around integrated network outcomes. This paper explores the benefits of including alternative transit modes in strategic transport corridor evaluation and identifies practical steps governments can take to ensure policy makers have the best information available when making modal and whole of network decisions.
This paper calls for a clear action agenda for better integration of Australia’s transport systems. Integration provides the key to greater utility and usage of public transport, while supporting the needs of a burgeoning population.
Our research of global best practice has identified five areas of integration for successful transport delivery:
• Institutional Integration – to ensure the right transport choices are made for commuters;
• Physical Integration – to ensure commuters can enjoy the most convenient travel experience possible;
• Network Integration – to ensure commuters can make a joined up journey from origin to destination;
• Information Integration – to ensure commuters can make informed decisions before and during their journey; and
• Fare Integration – to ensure commuters aren’t penalised for making the most efficient use of an integrated transport system.
It will not be enough to simply pursue integration as new links are added to networks; governments must relentlessly target integration on new and existing transport infrastructure – recognising that the dividends of transport integration are of greatest value when applied to all five key areas and across the whole network.
The paper identifies practical examples of best practice from integrated transport systems around the world and seeks to apply those lessons to an Australian context. Bringing together these broad themes, the paper makes a series of recommendations to Australian governments to ensure the right transport governance and planning structures are in place to deliver the right transport solutions.
8 Historically, in most states within Australia, individual appraisal guidance documents existed for each mode. For example, in NSW, the State Rail Authority’s Guide to the Evaluation of Capital Projects1 provided guidance on the appraisal of heavy rail projects, whilst the Roads and Traffic Authority’s (now Roads and Maritime Services)Economic Analysis Manual2 guided the evaluation of road projects. One of the key implications of having single-mode appraisal guidance documents is that they do not encourage consideration of multi-modal and/or integrated transport options during the optioneering stage. For instance, the options considered to develop a new rail line might be:
• Option 1 – The Base Case – Do Nothing;
• Option 2 – Build a single track line from A to B;
• Option 3 – Build a single track line with a passing loop; and
• Option 4 – Build a double track line.
This focus has several negative consequences:
• The potential for an alternative mode to meet project objectives can be overlooked;
• It can detract from the original objectives of transit investment as pursuit of a specific solution takes over as the driver of project implementation; and
• In implementation, a rational discussion of the pros and cons of modal alternatives can be overtaken by the urge to ‘put down’ detractors who can put committed investments at risk.
An integrated multi-modal transport approach, on the other hand, may consider alternative options e.g. run buses from A to B and/or build light rail from A to B. This is in line with the arguments presented in Australia’s National Guidelines on transport system appraisal, which recommend that governments undertake an options analysis including an ‘options list’ that “encourages consideration of a full range of policy instruments”3. These approaches are designed to ensure the best outcomes emerge from policy development.
A high-level strategic assessment of alternative transport modes was carried out, first by outlining each transport mode’s key characteristics and highlighting its strengths and weaknesses, and second by identifying and carrying out a study of two key strategic transport corridors in Sydney and Melbourne:
• Sydney – CBD to Penrith; and
• Melbourne – CBD to Pakenham.
The relative trip costs of the existing transport options along these corridors were assessed, from a user’s perspective, over a range of distances to understand typical user preferences and responses over various distances. The characteristics and benefits of an integrated systems based approach to transport planning and evaluation were explored, and potential multi-modal evaluation techniques developed.
1 State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1995), Guide to the Evaluation of Capital Projects, New South Wales. 2 New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority (1999), Economic Analysis Manual, New South Wales. 3 Australian Transport Council (2006), National Guidelines for Transport System Management in Australia, 2nd edition, Volumes 1, Canberra, p.14.
9 The common themes that have emerged from the analyses of the strategic transport corridors in Sydney and Melbourne are:
• It is clear from both pieces of analysis that heavy rail is the most suitable transport mode for trips greater than 25km – 30km on strategic commuter corridors, given its lower generalised trip costs; in both Sydney and Melbourne, heavy rail and cars become most cost-effective, from the user’s perspective, as the trip distance increases beyond 10km;
• Active transport modes such as cycling and walking are most cost-effective, from the user perspective, for those trips of less than 10km (or those less than 20km for cycling); however, it should be noted that active transport can be strenuous which is likely to limit the length of journeys;
• Generalised trip costs vary by mode and over different intermediate distances with different modal implications; in particular, analysis of the 0-10km range for both corridors suggest that trip costs do not increase linearly and cross at various points:
– In Sydney, both light rail and ferries show the highest generalised trip costs for journeys less than 10km; however, it must be recognised that users of these modes enjoy relatively new rolling stock in the case of light rail, unsurpassed harbour views in the case of ferries, and relatively low peak crowding in both cases. Therefore, these modes play a role in providing direct main mode services in inner city areas.
– In Melbourne, buses have the highest generalised trip costs between 4km and 16km due to the slow vehicle speeds and the longer headways between services, followed by trams which have the second highest generalised trip costs between 4km and 9km; initially, the margin is quite small but it increases quite rapidly after the 5km mark making it unlikely rational users would prefer bus for travel beyond 15km. In Sydney, even though bus and heavy rail trips have similar trip costs initially, as the distance increases beyond the 3km mark, heavy rail clearly becomes more cost-effective as line speeds increase for longer distances on rail lines and enjoy the absence of road congestion. In general, passengers prefer rail modes to on-street bus due to higher service levels, better ride quality and intuitive network design.
– It is interesting to note that, for most of the Sydney corridor, the generalised trip cost for bus is higher than that for cars. This is not surprising given that there are very few bus services in Sydney with a “turn-up-and-go” frequency, a lack of timetable connectivity between bus services, relatively high bus fares on a per km basis over short distances, and no discounted fares for bus-bus transfers.
While a need for objective cross-modal evaluation is clear, government authorities have a difficult task in undertaking an objective appraisal of alternative transit modes using objective and comparable methods. There is a need to provide a better range of guidance to authorities on the relative roles and attributes of each of the different conventional transit modes. To improve the quality of evaluation undertaken in corridor studies, guidance is also required on how alternative modes perform in terms of costs, benefits and land use impacts.
Too often, transport infrastructure is designed around ‘filling a gap’ in a network, rather than as the result of an arm’s length assessment of delivering the right project, at the right time, based on the best transport outcomes. This paper is designed to encourage governments to adopt a more rigorous approach to transport project prioritisation and funding, and to provide guidance on the ongoing structures required to deliver fully integrated transport solutions.
10 To provide examples of best practice in integrated multi-modal transport, we considered three international case studies and how they foster integration. The international case studies used were:
• London;
• Hong Kong; and
• Singapore.
The case studies identify a clear series of integration themes that were consistent across the cities studied. Although each of the cities display varying degrees of integration in each element – institutional, physical, network, information, and fare – all are present in each city and can be used as a guide to best practice in transport integration.
This paper argues that the frameworks for integrated transport planning must embed a structure where the right transport solution is selected – not the most obvious or the first mode suggested. Too often, the corridor is chosen to fit the mode – not the mode to fit the corridor.
By integrating transport planning across modes, corridors and networks, policy makers can structurally eliminate modal bias – ensuring transport solutions solve problems, before they build legacies.
Integrated transport agencies at the state level should be tasked with producing Metropolitan Corridor Plans that identify strategic transport corridors in wider metropolitan areas, quantify future needs and preserve those corridors where appropriate. State transport planning agencies should include local and federal governments, industry, experts and the community in producing Metropolitan Corridor Plans to ensure a transparent and accountable identification of long-term transport needs.
Metropolitan Corridor Plans should identify and quantify transport corridors over a long- term planning horizon – they should also include assessment of the capacity of existing corridors to identify growth needs or future modal additions and duplications. The most successful transport planning processes have typically looked many decades into the future and developed a strategy to deal with potential and projected growth. Identifying corridors over a long-term horizon, in a thorough, transparent and considered fashion will allow for their preservation and reduce the costs of transport infrastructure provision in the future – they will also provide a consistent and detailed basis for future modal decisions. By aligning Metropolitan Corridor Plans with the planning system, corridors can be zoned and protected in line with future growth needs and identify transit-oriented development opportunities.
With corridors identified and preserved, the methodology outlined in this paper could provide the building blocks for a toolkit to make sure the right mode is selected for the right motive.
11 Recommendations
This Paper’s analysis of global best practice points to a suite of substantial reforms that will be needed to deliver better conceived and better value transport infrastructure networks. Specifically, Australia’s governments should:
1. develop network wide Metropolitan Corridor Plans that identify and protect strategic transport corridors.
Australia’s states should develop long-term Metropolitan Corridor Plans that identify and protect the surface and underground corridors needed for new and expanded transport infrastructure. These plans should be modally agnostic and ensure that strategic transport alignments are not lost to competing developments. These Metropolitan Corridor Plans would identify the corridors that will form the spine of fully integrated metropolitan transport networks.
2. Capture global best-practice in the integration of transport modes across five key areas.
Investment in new or renewed transport infrastructure in Australia’s cities should be informed by an overarching and fully integrated strategy. Global best practice demands that five key areas of integration must form the basis of these strategies, they are:
i. Institutional Integration – Achieving network integration and better service outcomes demands a radical change in the way Australia’s passenger transport networks are planned and regulated. Planning functions should be vested in a single agency that ensures transport planning, pricing and operational aspects span all modes, creating the preconditions for the integrations recommended below.
ii. Fare Integration – The integration of fares is a fundamental aspect of delivering a systems approach to passenger transport. Global experience has shown that integration of fares across public transport modes, through technologies such as electronic smart cards, makes mode switching more seamless from a customer experience viewpoint and ensures common pricing across the transport network, removing price disadvantages that might exist under current arrangements.
iii. Physical Integration – Developing an integrated transport network demands that modes seamlessly connect, making journeys intuitive and ‘pain free’ for commuters. Examples of physical integration include interchange facilities that provide covered walkways, transport hubs, park-and-ride facilities and the integration of transport hubs and commercial precincts.
iv. Network Integration – Physical integration must be supported by a full integration of transport networks and modes. Examples might include bus services that are timetabled to connect to rail services, or a move to ‘turn up and go’ rather than timetabled frequency, ensuring that different transport modes complement each other as part of a whole network, rather than compete with one another.
v. Information Integration – To encourage commuters to travel across public transport modes, a much smarter approach to journey information is required. Electronic signage, easy to access smartphone apps and uniform, high grade signage across all modes ensures that journeys are intuitive and easy for commuters. Real time transit information, such as next service countdown timers are equally important to provide journey time certainty to commuters.
12 3. Deliver a transport and project planning process that is free of modal bias, selecting the best mode to support broader network outcomes.
The integration of network planning and governance in a single agency allows transport planning to be modally agnostic when transport investment decisions are being made. Existing arrangements mean that rail authorities plan for rail projects, road agencies plan for road projects and so forth; institutional integration will allow for a robust assessment of all mode options within a corridor, allowing for ‘best for network’ investment decisions for new (or renewed) transport projects.
Too often, transport planning can be driven in pursuit of a ‘pet project’ or a legacy. The integration of transport planning and project selection will allow transport planning to transcend political cycles and allow for a long-term approach that harnesses strong political will and political consensus about transport infrastructure project priorities.
Robust transport planning will achieve stronger political and community support, but political will remains fundamental to the inception of major projects.
4. Ensure the selection and prioritisation of transport projects in Metropolitan Corridor Plans are accompanied by a transparent assessment of alternative options.
The selection of a particular mode, such as rail, light rail or a busway, should be accompanied by a transparent assessment of why a particular mode has been chosen. This assessment should include a full and robust analysis of the benefits and costs of alternative modes. This level of accountability will help to ensure that public investments are directed to the highest value projects and underpin the credibility of transport infrastructure investment.
5. Develop comprehensive transport planning tools to guide project selection in transport networks.
The fundamental overhaul of transport planning and mode selection recommended in this paper points to a requirement for further work to develop a suite of transport planning and mode prioritisation tools. These refined selection tools will allow for the kind of transparent and dispassionate modal assessments recommended in this paper.
13 INTRODUCTION
14 © Courtesy of RailCorp. Photographer: Bob Peters 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Context Transport planners face a difficult task in evaluating public transport modes, because of the variety of There has been a tendency for recent public transport possible project solutions – and the complexities planning studies, and the infrastructure planning debate that arise from their deployment. For example: in general, to be overly focused on mode specific projects e.g. rail, light rail, metro or busway, rather than • Service level and price features, including frequency undertaking an objective analysis of the benefits that and service spans act to increase the range of might be offered by different modes across an individual possible options in public transport service design; corridor – and indeed, across an integrated, multimodal transport network. • Modes can vary between street transit (bus or streetcar) to rapid transit using rail. For each, a range A mode specific focus can have several negative of service patterns (express, skip stop, all stop) and consequences, including: technology variants diversify the range of possible service offerings; • A lack of thorough assessment of the strengths and weaknesses that different modes might offer • Right of way can vary from on-street in mixed traffic in meeting the outcomes sought by a project; to a fully controlled (signalised) guideway, each with varying impact on performance and cost. Designs • The focus on supporting an individual mode can often require a combination of rights of way, further become the primary driver of an individual project’s compounding the complexity of evaluation; implementation, rather than meeting specific mobility objectives; • Added to this is the development of new public transport technologies which make for a wide • Without a firm basis for a modal decision, and a and diverse range of possible solutions to corridor rational discussion about the relative modal merits, transport problems, all at varying investment cost. a project can be vulnerable to greater criticism from detractors.
Australia’s National Guidelines on transport system appraisal recommend that governments undertake an options analysis including an ‘options list’ that “encourages consideration of a full range of policy instruments”4. This approach is designed to ensure the best outcomes emerge from transport planning.
Despite a range of advocacy positions, which suggest one transit mode is better than another, there is no evidence in research or practice that a specific mode or service solution is the best in every case. Rather, different patterns of modes and services can be adopted for particular conditions. Heavy rail, for example, is best suited to longer distance travel and larger volume or capacity of service – but heavy rail is also most effective when supported by efficient and integrated feeder services which broaden its catchment.
4 Australian Transport Council (2006), National Guidelines for Transport System Management in Australia, 2nd edition, Volumes 1, Canberra, p.14.
15 © Courtesy of RailCorp. Photographer: Bob Peters 1.2 Project Overview
In light of the issues outlined above, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia (“IPA”) engaged Booz & Company to develop a policy discussion paper that puts forward the argument for outcome-based transport system planning. In support of this, the paper explores the benefits of including alternative transit modes in strategic transport corridor evaluation.
This document constitutes the final paper on the study.
1.2.1 Project Objectives
The overall aim of the research is to provide advice to planners and governments to encourage the objective evaluation of a range of public transport modes and services, particularly integrated multi-modal transport, rather than focusing on single mode or project-based evaluation. To achieve this, the research project has the following aims: 1. To explore the benefits of evaluating several modes rather than focusing on a single mode in public transport corridor evaluation;
2. To identify appropriate roles and characteristics of alternative public transport modes so that they may be more appropriately deployed in the assessment of options for transport corridor analysis;
3. To understand the characteristics/dimensions, and hence the strengths and weaknesses of alternative transit modes, in terms of operational performance, user preferences and development impact, to better inform their deployment in network design;
4. To identify key features of an open, objective and defensible evaluation approach which considers alternative public transport mode design options in an unbiased manner; and
5. To promote the thorough evaluation of all modes by governments with a focus on outcomes, rather than individual projects.
The study focuses on conventional transport modes, including bus, light rail, heavy rail, metro, ferry, walking, cycling and private vehicles. At this stage, we have not considered the monorail that operates in the Sydney CBD area, on the basis that it operates in a loop and plays only a boutique role in the transport network. At present, we have also excluded taxis and hire cars.
16 1.3 Project Methodology
Figure 1.1 outlines the approach undertaken to conduct this project.
FIGURE 1.1 Project Methodology
Task 1: Project Inception Task 2: Assessment of Alternative Transport Modes Task 3: Integrated Systems Based Approaches
TASK 2.2 Identify Key Strategic Corridors to be Assessed TASK 3.1 TASK 3.2 Explore the Explore Evalutaion TASK 2.1 Benefits of an Techniques that TASK 1.1 Identify & Define Integrated ensure an Project Inception Transport Modes Systems Based Integrated Systems Approach to Based Approach TASK 2.3 Transport Planning to Transport and Evaluation Planning is Applied Assess Strengths and Weakness of Each Mode for Each Corridor
As highlighted above, the project comprises three Task 2.2 – This section identifies a key strategic key tasks: corridor in both Sydney and Melbourne, and assesses existing transport options. This section also considers • Task 1: Project inception; factors including population density, existing transport services in each city, diversity of land use and socio- • Task 2: Assessment of alternative transport economic groups. The strategic transport corridors modes; and considered are:
• Task 3: Integrated systems based approaches. • Sydney – CBD to Penrith
• Melbourne – CBD to Pakenham 1.3.1. Task 1: Project Inception Task 2.3 – This section compares each transport mode Task 1.1 – An initial inception meeting was held with based on an assessment of generalised trip costs over Infrastructure Partnerships Australia to discuss and a range of trip distances. confirm the project scope. The concept of generalised trip costs aims to measure 1.3.2. Task 2: Assessment of the utility (or usefulness) a passenger derives from the alternative Transport Modes trip. The generalised trip costs are made up of two key components: the generalised journey time incurred by Task 2.1 – This section provides an overview of each the passenger; and the monetary amount paid by the transport mode, outlining the key characteristics, passenger (i.e. the fare or vehicle operating costs). The strengths and weaknesses of each mode. This section lower the generalised trip costs, the higher the utility, also identifies best practice examples for each mode. which provides the basis for modal decisions, i.e. a rational passenger is likely to choose a mode which minimises his/her overall generalised trip costs.
17 Specifically, the total generalised trip cost per passenger 1.4 Structure of the Report journey consists of the following components: The remainder of the report is structured as follows: • the access time (to the mode); • Chapter 2 describes the roles and characteristics of • the waiting time (for the mode); each transport mode and presents examples where each mode has been successfully implemented; • the in-vehicle journey time (on the mode); • Chapter 3 describes the need for an integrated • the egress time (from the mode); transport network and explores how this could be delivered through the integrated operation of • the transfer penalty, measured as the nominal different modes; interchange time allowed between modes; • Chapter 4 compares the relative trip costs of each • the price of the effective fare (for public transport mode with particular reference to a number of key trips); and strategic corridors within Australia;
• the vehicle operating costs (for private vehicles • Chapter 5 examines the case for integrated and bicycles). and multi-modal project evaluation in appraisal guidelines; The variables above are calculated for each mode in a multi-modal journey. The modelling is based on a • Chapter 6 outlines the conclusions emerging from typical notional trip, which assumes standard passenger our analysis and research; and responses. In the real world, the diversity and range of actual trips will vary in each corridor. • Chapter 7 provides the list of references consulted in this paper. Appendix 1 contains a description of generalised trip cost calculations, including the constituent parts of the Appendix 1 describes our corridor assessment calculations and the assumptions for values of time methodology and Appendix 2 provides the detailed and the standard weightings applied to non in-vehicle results of the corridor assessment from the journey time. user’s perspective.
1.3.3 Task 3: Integrated Systems Based Approaches
Task 3.1 – This section explores the characteristics and benefits of an integrated systems based approach to transport planning and evaluation; and
Task 3.2 – This section outlines the potential multi- modal evaluation techniques that are required to ensure the most effective transport mode or modes are developed.
18 19 EXPLORING THE ROLES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORT MODES
20 2 Exploring the Roles and Characteristics of Alternative Transport Modes
2.1 Introduction 2.2 Transport Corridors
Different transport modes have different As outlined in the Australian Transport Council characteristics in terms of accessibility, speed, (“ATC”) 5 National Guidelines for Transport System frequency, fares, capacity and the like. This chapter Management in Australia (The National Guidelines), a explores the roles and characteristics of a range of corridor comprises the parallel/competing modal routes transport modes that could potentially exist along a between two locations. Within a transport corridor, corridor and presents examples where each mode many alternative transport modes may exist. A corridor has been successfully implemented. is multi-modal when more than one mode operates. Figure 2.1 illustrates a conceptual example of a multi- modal transport corridor.
FIGURE 2.1 Example of a Multi-modal Transport Corridor
Park-and-Ride
Home
Office
The characteristics that define a strategic transport corridor include:
• A corridor of substantial length, circa 30-50 kilometres, covering a variety of land uses;
• A corridor which provides connections to, from and between cities or regional centres;
• Corridors which service areas of projected high population growth;
• Corridors which carry a high volume of passengers;
• Corridors which are experiencing a sustained growth in transport demand;
• Corridors which support major freight movements; and/or
• Corridors which make a substantial contribution to economic growth and development.
5 In February 2011, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed to a new Council System consisting of Standing Councils, Select Councils, and Legislative and Governance Fora. On 17 September 2011, COAG withdrew the remit of the Australian Transport Council and replaced it with the Standing Council on Transport and Infrastructure (SCOTI). The inaugural meeting of the Standing Council was held on Friday, 4 November 2011.
21 2.3 Transport Modes Roles and Characteristics
Each transport mode has different characteristics and plays a different role in meeting the various requirements along and within a corridor. Table 2–1 summarises the fundamental characteristics of the transport modes analysed in this paper.
Table 2–1 Characteristics of Transport Modes
Modes Motorised Public or Role/ Typical Capacity Constraints Private Suitability of Use
Walking • No • Private • Access Journey • 1 user • Limited distance and • Egress Journey carrying capacity • Main Journey • Difficult or unsafe in some areas
Cycling • No • Private • Access Journey • Mostly 1 but 2 or 3 users • Limited distance and • Egress Journey are possible(1) carrying capacity • Main Journey • Operating costs
Bus • Yes • Public • Main Journey • Approximately up to • Poor reliability due to • Access Journey 6,000 pph* congestion • Egress Journey • Low speed • To feed main line routes
BRT • Yes • Public • Main Journey • Approximately 6,000 to • Road space (i.e. requires a 11,000 pph* (operating in a clear corridor) segregated right of way) • Often compared unfavourably • Curitiba BRT – 15,000 against light rail pphpd (average speeds • Infrastructure costs required just over 20 kph in a single • Safety issues for pedestrians traffic lane)** and cyclists • Bogatá BRT • Security (e.g. vandalism) (i.e.TransMilenio) – 35,000 pphpd (and average speeds of 29 kph)**
Heavy Rail/Metro • Yes • Public • Main Journey • 12,600 to 17,100pph(2) • High cost per passenger kilometre • Limited walkable catchment Light Rail • Yes • Public • Main Journey • Approximately up to • Limited speed 6,000 pph* • Lower reliability due to on-street running (if not grade separated) • High cost of implementation Ferry • Yes • Public • Main Journey • Generally, low capacity, • Limited speed depending on the overall • Easily affected by adverse size of the fleet(3) weather conditions and maritime conditions • Expensive fares Private Vehicle (Car) • Yes • Private • Main Journey • Generally, 1 to 4 people(4) • Congestion • Access Journey • Parking • Egress Journey • Operating costs * Source: TRB (2003),Transit Capacity and Quality of Service – Manual, (2nd edition), TCRP Report 100, October. ** Source: Hook, W. (2009), Bus Rapid Transit – A Cost-Effective Mass Transit Technology,em- Air & Waste Management Association, June, p.27. Notes: (1) If it is tandem bicycle or a bicycle with child seats; (2) TfNSW, “Rail Options for Sydney Greater Metropolitan Area” ’November 2011, P9; (3) However, the capacity of the ferries network (i.e. Sydney Harbour) is high. TfNSW, “Rail Options for Sydney Greater Metropolitan Area”’ November; (4) More in station wagons or people movers 2011, P9.
22 2.3.1 Public Transport Modes The world’s first BRT in Curitiba (Brazil), was opened in 1974, and is regarded as one of the best in the world. Each public transport mode is characterised by different The Curitiba BRT features the following characteristics11: features. The following section provides an overview of each of the public transport modes analysed: • Physically segregated exclusive bus lanes, which allow higher travel time savings and reliability (a) Bus compared to local bus routes;
Buses are a flexible transport mode that can be • Large, comfortable articulated or bi-articulated adapted to changing travel patterns. Buses can be buses; used to cover the main journey as well as the access and egress trips (feeder trips into another mode, such • Fully enclosed bus stops that feel like a metro as rail and BRT systems). Thanks to its relative cost- station, where passengers pay to enter the BRT effectiveness, this mode can serve both high and low station through a turnstile rather than paying density areas collecting and delivering people closer to the bus driver; their homes and destinations compared to other public transport modes6. The distance between bus stops • A bus station platform level with the bus floor; is usually of 0.25 to 0.5 kilometres7, which translates in a higher walkable catchment than rail. “Buses, • Free and convenient transfer between lines at especially those enjoying priority systems like dedicated enclosed transfer stations; busways or high-occupancy vehicle lanes, are capable of moving comparable volumes at less cost than rail,”8 • Bus priority at intersections, largely by restricting as demonstrated, for instance, by Bus Rapid Transit left hand turns by mixed traffic vehicles; and systems (BRT systems) (see next section). • Private bus operators paid by the kilometre. From a socio-economic aspect, bus users benefit generally from lower fares. In practice, the majority The popularity of BRT in Latin America is probably of people using buses belong to lower income groups, due to the fact that “BRT systems are less expensive compared to users of other public transport modes, to build and can be implemented much faster [than particularly heavy rail. modes such as light and heavy rail]”12.
(b) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) In Australia, Brisbane leads the way with the most extensive and segregated BRT network, although other Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is “a flexible, high performance cities such as Sydney (with the T-Ways) and Adelaide rapid transit mode that combines a variety of physical, (with the O-Bahn) also have limited BRT systems. operating and system elements into a permanently integrated system with a quality image and unique identity”9. Latin America provides some of the strongest examples of BRT usage, with “speed, capacity, and quality of service [that] rival all but the best metro and light rail systems”10.
6 Industry Commission (1994), Urban Transport - Volume 1: Report, Australian Government Publishing Service, Melbourne, p.340. 7 Jenkins, M. (2008), Attributes of a Metro. [shown at RTSA: METROS – Future Rail for Sydney] [viewed in 2008]. 8 Industry Commission (1994), Urban Transport - Volume 1: Report, Australian Government Publishing Service, Melbourne, p.340. 9 Levinson at al., Bus Rapid Transit – Implementation Guidelines, TCRP Report 90-Volume II, cited in FTA and US DOT (prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton) (2004), Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making, August, p.1-1. 10 Hook, W. (2009), Bus Rapid Transit – A Cost-Effective Mass Transit Technology, em- Air & Waste Management Association, June, p.27. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid.
23 (c) Heavy Rail and Metro Rail infrastructure typically has considerably higher capital expenditure costs than other modes. The Heavy rail often forms the backbone of the transport National Guidelines estimate heavy rail construction system in major cities13. This ‘heavy lifter’ of the costs to be around 5 times higher than light rail transport modes is particularly successful in moving construction costs and around 10 times higher large numbers of people efficiently. However, it is not than dedicated bus lane construction costs18. suitable as a mobility solution for the penetration of all local streets in low-density suburban residential areas d) Tram and Light Rail where buses have a more logical role. As presented in Currie (2009)14, when compared to on-street bus Light rail is best suited to inner city areas because services, rail is usually the preferred travel mode the distance between stops are as short as 0.75 for a number of reasons. These factors include: to 1.5 kilometres19.
• The relative simplicity of network; Legacy light rail systems tend to have an in-street alignment (e.g. Melbourne’s trams) sharing the street • The relatively faster travel speed of rail; space with individual transport such as cars, bikes and pedestrians. Newer systems tend to run on a grade • The relatively higher reliability of the journey into separated tracks alignment (e.g. Sydney light rail for the city centres due to its separation from on-street most sections).20 Even though conflicts between LRT, traffic, hence avoiding surface congestion; and cars, bikes and pedestrians can be overcome, the performance of mixed traffic services is often impeded • The volume of amenities offered at stations and and can result in reduced performance and reliability the relative ease for passengers to locate stations of both the LRT and the other modes. and understand network design. Many have argued that light rail is the most desirable The frequency of stops along rail lines can range from way of restructuring our cities. However, others have 3 to 15 kilometres15, which means a smaller walkable argued, “‘rail-based’ transport is an unnecessarily catchment is available (compared to other modes). As a expensive mode to complement more intensive relatively capital intensive mode, heavy rail is particularly development and that busways could achieve a similar well-suited to serve high-density areas. Therefore, result for a significantly lower cost”21. Light rail is also the modern day urban sprawl creates an obstacle to regarded as a comparatively environmentally friendly the introduction of fixed-route systems because low- transport mode as it runs on electricity. density areas spread outward and ultimately undermine the economies of scale which suit heavy rail.
Metropolitan railways (“metros”) share common traits with the heavy rail system. For instance, they are high capacity people movers, which are segregated, electrically powered and service urban areas16. The main distinction between the two systems is that a metro service provides a higher service frequency based on a “turn up and go” schedule, and that the distance between stops is approximately 1 to 2 kilometres17.
13 Glazebrook, G. (2009), Designing a Thirty Year Public Transport Plan for Sydney – Attachments, p.10. Retrieved 21 December 2010 from: http://www.dab.uts.edu.au/research/outcomes/garry-glazebrook-attach.pdf 14 Currie, G. (2009), Research Perspectives on the Merits of Light Rail vs Bus, [shown at BITRE Colloquium 18-19 June 2009]. 15 Jenkins, M. (2008), Attributes of a Metro [shown at RTSA: METROS – Future Rail for Sydney] [viewed in 2008]. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Australian Transport Council (2006), National Guidelines for Transport System Management in Australia, 2nd edition, Volumes 4, Canberra, p.43. 19 Jenkins, M. (2008), Attributes of a Metro [shown at RTSA: METROS – Future Rail for Sydney] [viewed in 2008]. 20 UITP (2009), Light Rail Transit – A Safe Means of Transport, Core Brief, p.1. 21 Hensher and Waters (1993) cited in Industry Commission (1994), Urban Transport – Volume 1: Report, Australian Government Publishing Service, Melbourne, p.332.
24 © Courtesy of Roads and Maritime Services/Ethan Rohloff Photography
(e) Ferry
Even in Sydney, where ferries transport 14.5 million passengers a year, the majority of trips made by ferry are for leisure22. Ferries best serve areas close to the city due to their lower speed. They are a reliable mode in that they are not affected by road traffic and congestion. Adverse weather conditions may affect services for limited periods.
22 Sydney Ferries, Annual Report 2010-11.
25 2.3.2 Private Transport Modes (c) Private Vehicle (car)
Walking and cycling are categorised as active transport. Since its invention, no other mode has influenced An overview of each of these modes is provided below. economic development and growth as much as the motor car. It quickly became an integral part of the (a) Walking movement of people and personal goods. Apart from its actual size and the operation of parking restraints, The majority of access and egress trips to other modes the motor vehicle offers the drivers and other are made by walking. This mode does not require passengers virtually unlimited flexibility and freedom, significant provision of infrastructure, compared to other and avoids the need to plan for and await public modes, and represents a critical link between land-uses transport, and hence waiting and interchange time. and other transport modes. As Allan (2001) observes, distances up to 2km (approximately 20 minutes) can However, urban congestion is having an increasing be reasonably covered by walking and may even be impact on the utility of private vehicles in major competitive with public transport23. cities. The NSW Auditor-General’s 2011 report on the performance of transport found that, over the preceding “The typical walking gait of a normal healthy adult 12 months, the average peak speed fell on six out would be about 6km/h (i.e. 1.67m/s) … however, of seven major commuter routes - including the M4/ as fatigue sets in, a walker's speed for a person of Parramatta Road corridor which saw average AM average fitness would decrease. Also, adverse weather peak speeds decline from 28 km/h in 2010 to conditions, such as heat or rain, and the effects of 25km/h in 2011.27 carrying luggage (such as shopping, gym bags and laptops) may compromise walking performance. (d) Motorcycles and Scooters Hence, a walker may be able to maintain a steady 6km/h walking gait for only 20 minutes, but over 30 While the use of motorcycles and scooters has minutes this average may decline to 5km/h and over been growing rapidly in Australia at around 6.8% per an hour, drop to 4km/h”24. For planning purposes, it is annum, the mode still only makes up less than 1% conventional to adopt an average walking speed of of all journeys to work in Sydney based on Census 4kph as a modeling assumption. data in 2006 (City of Sydney, 2008)28. The popularity of motorcycles and scooters has increased with the (b) Cycling worsening road congestion in Sydney and this is expected to increase as the vehicle kilometres travelled Cycling, like walking, is an environmentally friendly (VKT) for the motorcycle fleet grew at an annual average mode that can offer significant health benefits. of 2.8% per annum, compared to the 1.8% per annum However, a lack of comfort and the inconvenience of for cars and light commercial vehicles. cycling, compared to other modes, deter greater use of this mode. In addition, the high number of bicycle However, given its very small mode share, it is common accidents and the risk of bicycle theft25 are also factors to exclude motorcycles and scooters or to include them which could be addressed to improve cyclists’ safety in private cars in conventional demand forecasting and security. Indeed, “the average Australian adult methods and analysis. On the basis that the daily bicycle travels only about 12km per week. As a result, number of vehicle trips per day was estimated to be its overall operating cost per kilometre is comparable around 574 on Census day in 2006 for the motorcycle to that of a small car”26. fleet, we have not included this mode in the generalised trip cost analysis for the purposes of this discussion Modal integration between cycling and public transport, paper, although it should be recognised that its growing for instance, by offering bike facilities at interchanges popularity means that future multi-modal network (e.g. showers, bike storage), may serve to increase models may need to consider this mode for commuter attractiveness of this mode. trips to and from the CBD.
23 Allan, A. (2001), Walking as a Local Transport Modal Choice in Adelaide, Australia: Walking the 21st Century – 20th to 22nd February 2001 - Perth, Western Australia, pp.124-125. 24 Ibid. 25 Industry Commission (1994), Urban Transport - Volume 1: Report, Australian Government Publishing Service, Melbourne, p.425-428. 26 Arundell, L. (2007), The Cost of Cycling, Thinking on Two Wheels Cycling Conferences, p.1. 27 NSW Auditor General, Financial Audit Volume Eight 2011: Focusing on Transport and Ports. 28 City of Sydney Council (Transport Strategy Unit) (2008), Motorcycle and Scooter Strategy and Action Plan 2008 - 2011, June, p.2.
26 2.3.3 Operating Speeds of Modes
Figure 2.2 illustrates the typical relationship between operating speeds and total line capacity.
The below figure illustrates that, in most instances, higher operating speeds allow rapid transit modes (such as heavy rail trains and metros) to carry more passengers through the system as the higher speeds typically increase network capacity.
Figure 2.2 Operating Speeds v. Line Capacity
90
80
70
Rapid Transit 60 Auto Freeway
50
40 Semi-Rapid Transit Operating speed (km per hour) 30
20 Auto Street Street Transit
10
0 10 20 30 40
Line capacity (Thousands of passengers per hour)
Source: Adapted from Vuchic, V. (1981), as presented in Jenkins (2008), Attributes of a Metro.
27 2.3.4 Cost-effectiveness of Modes
For governments and operators, cost-effectiveness is one of the critical differentiators between modes that, in turn, influence their viability. Figure 2.3 shows the typical cost-effectiveness of operating mass transport modes with regard to capacity.
Figure 2.3 Cost-effectiveness of the Main Mass Transit Modes
Bus on Street
Busway/Light Rail
Heavy Rail Total Cost Per Pass-km Cost Per Total
Cheapest option
Bus on Street Busway/Light Rail Heavy Rail
Low Medium High Capacity Required
Source: Adapted from Glazebrook, G. (2009), Designing a Thirty Year Public Transport Plan for Sydney, p.32.
The above figure suggests that heavy rail/metro It should also be noted that, although not present in generally have the lowest operating cost per passenger Figure 2.3 , a similar comparison could be made with kilometre when moving a large number of people, respect to the viability of private and active transport busway/light rail are the cheapest mode for a medium modes (i.e. car, bicycle, walking). level of capacity, and on-street bus is the most cost- effective mode in locations where there are low capacity requirements (e.g. local suburbs and villages).
28 2.3.5 Connection Between Land and particular types of land use in an area. Public Use Patterns and Transit Modes transport which does not require fixed infrastructure – such as buses and ferries – are likely to induce (or There is a direct two-way relationship between service) different land use outcomes. For example, land use patterns and transport demand. The buses and ferries may not create a market demand for character of an area; the level of density and the mix higher densities as it is much more difficult and costly of residential, commercial and industrial properties, for providers to remove a rail service than it is to redirect will influence the amount and type of transit journeys a bus route; meaning investors and developers have to and from a location. In turn, the level of access and more confidence that public transport will be provided convenience provided by a transport service has an over the long term on the same configuration where impact on the demand for and use of land a significant investment has been made in surrounding the transport service. fixed infrastructure.
Beyond the broad impact of transport on land use The causal relationship between land use patterns patterns, individual transit modes can have specific land and different transit modes is not fixed, other factors use implications for an area. For example, public transit such as the character of the location, the quality of modes that require the provision of fixed infrastructure the transport service and the regulatory and policy such as heavy rail, light rail and grade separated bus framework of government, will alter how one rapid transit, are likely to encourage increased density influences the other.
29 An Integrated Transport Systems Approach
30 3 An Integrated Transport Systems Approach
3.1 Introduction 3.2 Integrated Multi-modal
To meet the differing transport needs and requirements Transport Network that are present in a transport corridor, a range of transport modes may be required. This chapter The transport system is made up of a network of considers the elements that define an integrated interconnected infrastructure and/or services. As such, transport network and explores how this could be no one mode can operate in isolation if it is to play a role delivered through the integrated operation of different in an integrated network. A combination of modes and modes. In this chapter, we also consider current complementary services is typically required as each examples of international best practice for integrated mode is suitable for different journey types. multi-modal transport. It has been argued that “combining private and public transport in a truly multi-modal system offers opportunities to capitalise on the strengths of the various systems while avoiding their weaknesses”29. Similarly, Glazebrook30 defines:
“The task for transport and land use
planners is to develop an overall strategy © Courtesy of RailCorp using the best mode for each particular role rather than ruling out any mode or assuming all problems can be handled by a single solution.”
In addition, the recent development of multi-modal transport appraisal guidelines both in Australia and overseas31 illustrates the increasing awareness of the need for multi-modal transport solutions. Multi-modal project evaluation is further explored in Chapter 5.
A transport network is constituted by a combination of links and nodes. Links typically represent highways, rail lines, air corridors, etc., while nodes, which generally represent physical places such as terminals, stations, parking lots, function as the connection between the various links of a network.
29 Van Nes, R. (2002), Design of Multi-modal Transport Networks – A Hierarchical Approach, TRAIL –Thesis Series T2002/5, DUP Science, The Netherlands, p.vii. 30 Glazebrook, G. (2009), Designing a Thirty Year Public Transport Plan for Sydney. Retrieved 21 December 2010 from: http://www.dab.uts.edu.au/research/outcomes/garry-glazebrook-main.pdf, p.32. 31 Examples include the Australian Transport Council National Guidelines and the UK Department for Transport’s (DfT) “Transport Analysis Guidance”.
31 Figure 3.1 An Example of an Integrated Multi-modal Network
Air Corridors
Roads* Transit Station Airport
Transit Link Park-and-Ride
Air Corridors
Source: Reproduction of Intermodal Network as presented in Sussman (2000), Introduction to Transportation Systems, p.52. Note: *used by cars, buses, taxis
Figure 3.1 shows an example of the interconnection • network Integration – “bus and rail systems between links and nodes which work together to form a should be an integrated network in their own multi-modal transport network. right and these separate networks should further complement one another. Feeder services using Within Australia, the development of integrated buses, trams or light rail should be designed transport networks range from emerging to relatively to maximise the patronage of the trunk routes. mature and the promotion of integrated transport has Network integration is closely linked to physical been encouraged by various bodies at different times. integration and both contribute towards the Most recently, the National Guidelines32 presented and integration of infrastructure”. For instance, it is recommended a framework for project evaluation that relatively easy to change between different lines considers the full range of potential solutions or options, on the London Underground (tube) network as moving beyond the narrow focus on infrastructure and tube stations have been designed with a number single-mode solutions. of interchange points between tube lines. Cities such as Hong Kong, Singapore and Kuala Lumpur In practice, the success of transport integration typically have been able to redesign bus routes so that they depends on a range of integration characteristics or feed into, and support the mass transit/metro lines. measures, including33: Similarly, London’s underground and buses connect with the above ground heavy rail network to take • Physical Integration – “the close proximity and passengers to their final destinations. An essential ease of access at mode interchanges will greatly part of network integration involves timetabling enhance public transport services. Walkways services so that intramodal and intermodal services should be carefully designed for passengers to connect efficiently and effectively. change mode. Passengers should be within a short walking distance from their residences to a transit stop”. Cities like Hong Kong and Singapore have been able to build mass transit stops in the heart of neighbourhoods, thereby providing close proximity to residences, offices and retail outlets.
32 Australian Transport Council (2006), National Guidelines for Transport System Management in Australia, 2nd edition, Volumes 1, Canberra, p.14. 33 Luk and Olszewski 2001; Luk and Yang 2001; Konopatzki 2002, cited in Luk, J. and Olszewski, P. (2003), Integrated Public Transport in Singapore and Hong Kong, Road and Transport Research.
32 • Fare Integration – “a single fare card for multiple • Institutional Integration – “a common institutional transit services will facilitate the transfer between framework is better able to undertake land- modes. Rebates can be implemented as an use planning, travel demand management and inducement for those who transfer from one integrated public transport services. In the absence mode to another”, e.g. zonal rebates in Vancouver. of such common framework, cooperation and Whilst electronic ticketing is not a prerequisite for coordination amongst government agencies, and integrated ticketing, it does provide a very powerful between the private and public sectors, become mechanism to efficiently and effectively operate an vitally important”; the evidence suggests that integrated fares structure, for example, Hong Kong, fewer layers of government are conducive to Singapore and London all have a smart card system providing integrated multi-modal transport, e.g. the in place which has underpinned the increase of city states of Hong Kong and Singapore. public transport usage. For example, public transport in Hong Kong accounts for approximately 85 per Interestingly, in NSW, there has been a recent cent of all main mode trips respectively. In London, integration of transport agencies (including RailCorp, journey stages by public transport modes (defined Sydney Ferries and the RMS) to create a superagency, as bus, tram, Underground, DLR, rail, taxis and Transport for NSW, which is responsible for transport private hire vehicles) increased in share from 30 per co-ordination, policy and planning for all modes cent in 1993 to 34 per cent by 2000, and to 41 per including rail, bus, ferry, taxi services and related cent by 2008 and 2009. The 7 per cent increase in infrastructure, while line agencies focus on service the share of public transport usage between 2000 delivery. Both Victoria and Queensland have established and 2009 is equivalent to a 5 per cent increase in trip institutional integration which encompasses transport based mode share for public transport in London34. network planning across modes. In Victoria franchised While other factors have driven patronage growth public transport service providers have a contractual in these examples, fare integration has underpinned relationship with the Victorian Department of Transport and supported integration in the networks. Recent which retains control over whole-of-system planning examples of fare integration in Australia are for public transport.35 In Brisbane public transport, represented by the introduction of the Go Card in including buses, trains and ferry services, are delivered Brisbane, the MyMulti card in Sydney, the Myki card by the public sector under the single brand – TransLink in Melbourne and the Metroticket in Adelaide. – with the Department of Transport and Main Roads retaining responsibility for transport network planning • Information Integration – “a comprehensive, easy- and strategy. to-use passenger travel guide is critical to successful multi-modal travel. The signage at rail and bus stations should be properly designed to convey effective information to travellers. Information Technologies (IT) and Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) can play important roles in integrated transport in general and information integration in general”; for example, at the major railway stations in Japan, they have very clear signs differentiating directions to the high speed rail network, the intercity trains network and the suburban/local trains network. In addition, websites provide public transport users with information on the multi-modal transport options available and the related details.
34 Transport for London (2010), Travel in London, Report 3, p.44, Table 2.4. 35 In 2011 the Victorian Government established the Public Transport Development Authority (PTDA) as an independent statutory authority to integrate a number of public transport agencies and authorities. It will administer trains, trams and buses and be the primary liaison point with franchisees and agencies.
33 3.3 Complementary The weight of transfer penalties could also be minimised through the physical integration of networks Transport Services of different modes and the creation of interchanges which permit seamless transfers, and the fares 3.3.1 direct v. Feeder Services integration where a second journey does not incur the fares flagfall. Direct and feeder services characterise the kind of services that can be provided along a transport corridor. Various studies have highlighted bus passengers’ On some short journeys, the forced need to transfer preference for direct services, as they have a strong represents a substantial disincentive to use public resistance to transfer due to the extra time and transport36 particularly when there is no fare integration. inconvenience of changing modes or sectors during Therefore, direct services are often the preferred their journey. Hence, forced transfers often result in option by commuters, as they do not require additional passengers switching to the car instead of travelling by transfer time. For longer journeys, the best solution public transport39, even though the overall generalised for the user depends on a number of factors (e.g. cost trip costs might be lower by a multi-modal trip as or time savings, punctuality and reliability of different illustrated in Figure 3.2. alternatives)37. Feeder services, which entail the use of bus, tram or light rail as feeders to fixed rail systems Figure 3.2 compares the hypothetical time/costs of could well serve the needs of passengers that need to a multi-modal trip over different distances, compared cover medium to long distances. However, users of this to a single mode trip. kind of service often incur significant transfer penalties, due to the lack of physical and network integration (in This type of service is supported by the claim that particular, the lack of connectivity in timetables). “a direct bus solution is cheaper and more flexible to operate than a combination of local feeder bus and a rail The transfer penalty that a commuter would incur service to the regional centre”40. It has been argued that when interchanging modes, and which would add too many buses travelling to the CBD create congestion, to the generalised cost of the trip (i.e. extra travel and hence the bus journey would be slower and less time and/or travel costs where the fares flagfall is comfortable than the alternative train journey41. effectively charged twice), represents one of the main disadvantages between taking multi-modal and single mode trips. Thus, it has been argued that “the disutility of a transfer should be compensated for by the characteristics of [the] main transport service used. [For instance], the speed or the costs of [the] transport service [should] compensate for the delay and inconvenience of the transfer”38.
36 Nielsen, G. and Lange, T. (nd), Network Design for Public Transport Success – Theory and Examples. Retrieved 21 December 2010, from: http://www.thredbo-conference-series.org/downloads/thredbo10_papers/thredbo10-themeE-Nielsen-Lange.pdf 37 Ibid. 38 Van Nes, R. (2002), Design of Multi-modal Transport Networks – A Hierarchical Approach, TRAIL – Thesis Series T2002/5, DUP Science, The Netherlands, p.12 & 30. 39 Nielsen, G. and Lange, T. (nd), Network Design for Public Transport Success – Theory and Examples. Retrieved 21 December 2010, from: http://www.thredbo-conference-series.org/downloads/thredbo10_papers/thredbo10-themeE-Nielsen-Lange.pdf 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid.
34 Figure 3.2 Time/Cost-Distance Diagram of a Unimodal and a Multi-modal Trip
Private Car Walking
Train Service Time/Cost
T
Bicycle
Distance
Source: Adapted from Van Nes (2002), Design of Multi-modal Transport Networks – A Hierarchical Approach, p.12.
Notably, it has been argued that “feeder services create local buses and light rail (in some instances) as feeder a more integrated network with better local travel services. In some cases, light rail/tram routes will form opportunities by the transfer of operating resources the trunk routes in the absence of heavy rail main lines from parallel bus and rail operation to a more economic in some areas (e.g. in Melbourne and Manchester). division of roles between bus and rail”42. It has also been added that “a feeder service can often provide However, it should be noted that the willingness to a more frequent and useful local service and thus interchange and subsequently incur a transfer penalty generate more local journeys if there is potential in is dependent on the purpose of the trip. For instance, the market”43. Through the use of feeder services, it a commuter travelling to work may be willing to would be possible to create a network where each interchange, if this will get him to work faster than a mode performs what it does best e.g. rail and express direct service would. On the other hand, someone bus systems (e.g. the metrobus in Sydney, and the travelling for leisure or travelling with children or smartbus in Melbourne) as the true trunk routes, and elderly people will be more resistant to transfer.
42 Nielsen, G. and Lange, T. (nd), Network Design for Public Transport Success – Theory and Examples. Retrieved 21 December 2010, from: http://www.thredbo-conference-series.org/downloads/thredbo10_papers/thredbo10-themeE-Nielsen-Lange.pdf 43 Ibid.
35 3.3.2 Park-and-Ride Facilities
In addition to walking, cycling and driving are the primary private modes used to reach the closest transport interchange. A common strategy adopted for rail systems (and occasionally bus systems) is to provide park-and-ride facilities at stations to facilitate access and make the transfer between car and the other mode seamless for commuters. Park-and-Ride facilities, therefore, allow people to drive to public transport, park their car and take the public transport system into the urban area. In some countries, these kinds of facilities are also being made available for bicycles to promote and facilitate the citywide use of this mode, particularly in cities where bike hire programs have been introduced (e.g. Paris and London). Figure 3.3 shows the newly built park-and-ride facility at Wollongong Station.
Whilst park-and-ride facilities enjoyed some popularity in the UK in the 1990s, there have been persistent debates about the true net benefits of park-and-rides because of the congestion created in the peaks and to and from the car parks, and the subsequent crowding effects on the rail network as the congestion cascades onto the trains and eventually the feeder buses.
Figure 3.3 Wollongong Commuter Car Park Source: Transport Construction Authority (TCA).Retrieved 14 March 2011 from from Source: Transport Construction March 2011 Authority 14 (TCA).Retrieved 36 37 3.4 best Practice Examples 3.4.1 Example 1: London For the purpose of this paper, we have considered London’s overall public transport network is three international best practice examples of transport characterised by a well-established historical and network integration: modern fixed infrastructure networks (the heavy rail network, the London underground, Docklands Light • London; Rail and Croydon Light Rail), complemented by an extensive bus network and a well functioning ferry • Hong Kong; and network along the Thames. • Singapore. The fixed infrastructure networks are integrated by interchange stations which in, most cases, are physically connected and, in many cases, designed for ease of interchange for high volumes of passengers (e.g. island platform interchanges, special connecting passages for adjacent lines in the underground system and undercover walkways). At major stations, purpose built bus interchanges have been developed to be within walking distance of the railway and underground stations, often manned by bus station staff and furbished with real time information systems (e.g. Countdown – which shows the number of minutes until the next bus is due to arrive). Figure 3.4 illustrates the vast scale of the integrated rail networks in London. 38 Figure 3.4 London’s Rail Networks – National Rail, Underground, Overground and Light Rail Source: Transport for London, viewed on 16 January 2011. 1 2 3 5 6 4 Towards Towards Towards Towards Towards Ockendon Chafford Hundred Shenfield Ebbsfleet Southend Gravesend Dartford and Dartford International Southend and Shoeburyness Upminster Towards and Swanley Sevenoaks H H Harold Wood Harold 6 ZONE Rainham Purfleet Grays Bridge Park Upminster Emerson Gidea Park Hornchurch Elm Park 5 ZONE Dock Dagenham Crayford Slade Green Romford Dagenham East Erith Heathway Barnehurst Dagenham Heath Belvedere Chadwell Becontree 4 ZONE Bexley Barking Towards Sevenoaks Bexleyheath Upney Beckton Fairlop Goodmayes Hainault Epping Wood Abbey Gallions Reach Ilford Grange Hill Chigwell Barkingside Seven Kings Seven St. Mary Cray Park Newbury Park Cyprus Albany Welling Beckton Park Beckton G G Redbridge Manor Park Woodgrange Park Plumstead Valley Roding Royal Albert Royal Theydon Bois Theydon Debden Sidcup Prince Regent Knockholt Wanstead Gants Hill Arsenal Woolwich Loughton Chelsfield Wanstead Park Wanstead East Ham Leytonstone Falconwood Custom House for ExCeL Gate Buckhurst Hill Woodford King George V George King Chislehurst 3 Dockyard Leytonstone High Road Orpington ZONE Woolwich New Eltham New Park Snaresbrook Upton Petts Royal Wood Elmstead Woods London City Airport Victoria South Woodford Eltham Pontoon Dock Pontoon Charlton Bickley Mottingham Grove Park Grove Leyton Midland Road Maryland Forest Plaistow South Canning Town Star Lane Star Stratford High Street Abbey Road West Ham West Leyton West Silvertown West Lee Walthamstow Central Walthamstow Road Queen’s Park Chingford Highams Park Street Wood Towards Cheshunt, East Hertford Airport and Stansted Enfield Lock Westcombe 2 Brimsdown Hill Hither Green Maze Bromley North Bromley Sundridge Park East Stratford India Shortlands Bromley by-Bow Bromley International Pudding Mill Lane Stratford North Greenwich for The O Ponders End Ponders Road Street Beckenham Hill Beckenham Blackhorse F F Blackwall Bow Junction Wick Road St. James Blackheath Kidbrooke Angel Road Beckenham Northumberland Park Towards Cheshunt Turkey Street Turkey Bellingham Hackney Cutty Sark for Maritime Greenwich Devons Road Devons Langdon Park Saints All Bridge Deptford Road Elverson Greenwich Poplar Ravensbourne Clapton Hale Ladywell Southbury Homerton Bow Road Quay South Church Tottenham Lewisham Beckenham Central New Beckenham New Clock House Hackney Tottenham 2 Mudchute ZONE West India West Elmers End South Quay Catford Bridge Catford Westferry Heron Quays Heron Canary Wharf Crossharbour Island Gardens Mile End Limehouse St. Johns Park Eden Park Eden Deptford London Fields Town Enfield Road Downs Avenue Bush Hill Hackney Cambridge Heath Kent House Kent New Cross New West Wickham West Crofton Park Stepney Green Stepney Silver Street Silver Bruce Grove Seven Sisters Seven New Addington New Lower Sydenham Lower Stamford Hill Stamford Rectory Road Rectory Green Penge East Penge Fieldway Bethnal Green Bethnal White Hart Lane Hayes Stoke Newington Stoke Edmonton Green Edmonton Whitechapel Shadwell Dalston King Henry’s Drive King Kingsland Birkbeck Harrington Road Gravel Hill Gravel Addington Village Addington Towards Towards North Hertford Hoxton Dalston Crews Hill Crews Hill Gordon Enfield Chase Grange Park Hill Winchmore Green Palmers Wapping Junction East Coombe Lane Brockley Shoreditch High Street Lloyd Park Lloyd Haggerston Tower Harringay Forest Hill Forest Rotherhithe Bowes Park Bowes Sydenham Arena Aldgate Towards East Grinstead and Uckfield Upper Warlingham Surrey Quays Surrey Green Lanes Green Wood Green Wood Lane Turnpike Manor House Canada Water Gateway Riddlesdown Woodside Penge West Penge Canonbury Sandilands Honor Oak Park New Cross Gate Cross New Finsbury Park Addiscombe Road Blackhorse Lane E E Sanderstead Lebanon Anerley 1 ZONE Hill Highbury & Islington Oakwood Aldgate Tower Southgate Cockfosters Arnos Grove Hill Street Essex Road Bounds Green Hornsey Fenchurch Street Fenchurch Bermondsey Harringay Sydenham East Liverpool Nunhead Park River Thames River Old Street Crouch Hill Crouch Croydon Drayton Arsenal Monument Junction Alexandra Palace Alexandra Norwood Queen’s Road Peckham Road Queen’s South Bermondsey Kenley Whyteleafe Whyteleafe South Caterham Road & Road South Croydon Barnsbury Bank Caledonian Purley Purley Oaks Towards Peckham Rye Peckham Palace Crystal Holloway Road Holloway New Barnet New New Southgate New Hadley Wood Moorgate Oakleigh Park Barbican Street St. Paul’s West Cannon Dulwich Angel House East Dulwich George Street George Mansion Wellesley Road Wellesley Farringdon Gipsy Hill Caledonian Road 4 2 6 5 3 ZONE ZONE ZONE ZONE ZONE West Croydon West Reedham Welwyn Garden City Garden Welwyn Bridge North Dulwich Upper Holloway London King’s Cross Towards City Street Church Centrale Archway Denmark Hill Highgate Lane Norbury West Norwood West Coulsdon South Borough Blackfriars Russell Square Thameslink High Barnet Chancery Tufnell Park Tufnell Gatwick Airport Kentish Town Kentish Selhurst East Finchley Inter- Streatham Common West Finchley West Elephant & Castle Streatham Woodside Park Woodside Temple Tulse Hill Tulse Road national Finchley Central Finchley Coulsdon Town Mill Hill East St. Pancras Camden Corner Reeves Kentish Town Kentish West Southwark Covent Garden D D Square Euston Totteridge & Whetstone Totteridge Thornton Heath Lambeth North Gospel Oak Waddon Embankment Wandle Park Wandle Holborn Junction Hill Goodge Street Leicester Square Charing Cross Wallington Herne Hill Kennington Streatham Euston Hampstead Heath Loughborough Brixton Crescent Marsh and Stockwell Waddon Mornington Woodmansterne Camden Town Chalk Farm Street Mitcham Eastfields Way Oval Warren Ampere Waterloo Belsize Park Tottenham Court Road Great Street Chipstead Portland Waterloo East Waterloo Beeches Clapham Common Carshalton Hampstead Kingswood Tadworth Corner Tattenham Westminster Lane Circus Therapia Beddington Lane Clapham South Hackbridge Carshalton Piccadilly Golders Green Park Circus Tooting Oxford Finchley Road Finchley & Frognal Vauxhall Regent’s Finchley Road Finchley St. Wood John’s Swiss Cottage Brent Cross Brent Baker Street Baker Park Tooting Bec Clapham North West Hampstead West St. James’s Hendon Central Victoria Sutton Towards Luton Mitcham Mitcham Junction Elstree & Borehamwood Elstree Mill Hill Broadway Cricklewood Bond Tooting Broadway Balham Street Clapham High Street Edgware Road Arch Wandsworth Road Wandsworth Belgrave Walk Belgrave West Sutton West Green Park Green Queenstown (Battersea) Road Sloane Square Belmont Banstead Epsom Downs Pimlico Common Phipps Bridge 3 Kilburn ZONE 6 5 1 2 4 ZONE ZONE Gate ZONE ZONE Hendon ZONE Colliers Wood Sutton Common Wandsworth Lancaster Marylebone South Battersea Park Willesden Green Morden Road Morden Colindale Hampstead South Hyde Park Corner Park Hyde Brondesbury St. Helier Cheam Knightsbridge C South Wimbledon Kensington Dollis Hill C Road Queensway Marble Paddington Road Earlsfield Road Bayswater High Street Kensington Notting Hill Gate Park Morden South Morden Neasden Gloucester Burnt Oak Edgware 7 Haydons ZONE Ewell East Ewell Brondesbury Wembley Park Wembley Merton Park Dundonald Road Morden Town Kilburn South Merton Imperial Wharf High Road West Brompton Fulham Broadway Earl’s Court Clapham Junction Wandsworth Park Edgware Kensal Rise Kensal Holland 8 ZONE Park Warwick Avenue Stanmore Shepherd’s Bush Kingsbury Dorking Putney Towards Road Worcester Stoneleigh Wimbledon Chase Preston Queensbury Ewell West Ewell Canons Park Maida Vale Westbourne Park Westbourne West Southfields Epsom and East Putney Stadium Towards Hemel Hempstead Wembley (Olympia) Putney Bridge Kilburn Park Kilburn Kensington Parsons Green Parsons River Thames River Kensington Ladbroke Grove Ladbroke Wimbledon Wimbledon Park Barnes Court Barons Royal Oak Royal Kensal Green Kensal Queen’s Park Queen’s Park Manor Lane Road Malden Wood Motspur Tolworth Raynes Park Bushey Latimer 2 Kenton ZONE Mortlake Park Park Hatch End White City Harlesden Shepherd’s East Northwick New Malden New Bush Market Ravenscourt Acton Hammersmith South Kenton Goldhawk Road Headstone Lane Carpenders Park North Wembley Chessington South Chessington North Stonebridge Park Stonebridge Wembley Central Wembley Watford Junction Watford North Acton Chiswick Willesden Junction Watford High Street Watford North Sheen Brook Harrow & Wealdstone Harrow Stamford Barnes Bridge Norbiton B B Harrow- Berrylands on-the-Hill 3 ZONE Acton Green South Acton Central Gunnersbury Gardens Kew Turnham Sudbury & Harrow Road Harrow Surbiton North Harrow Acton Main Line Towards 8 ZONE Guildford Acton Town Sudbury Hill Harrow West Acton Richmond Kingston Park Pinner West Harrow West Kew Bridge Chiswick Northwood Hills Ealing Ditton Ealing Alperton Thames Rayners Lane Common Park Royal Park Broadway 7 South Ealing Wick ZONE North Ealing Brentford Sudbury Hill Northwood Eastcote Sudbury Town Hampton Northfields West Ealing Hanger Lane Syon Lane Syon Perivale St. Margarets Ruislip Manor Moor Park South Harrow Watford Croxley Court Ruislip Isleworth Hampton Strawberry Hill Park Towards Greenford Guildford Twickenham 8 ZONE Teddington Northolt Woking and Woking Hanwell Whitton Hounslow February 2012 poster February Boston Manor Osterley Drayton Green Castle Bar Park East South Greenford Ruislip 4 ZONE Fulwell Hounslow Gardens Rickmansworth Northolt Southall Ickenham 9 Chorleywood ZONE Central West Ruislip West A A South Ruislip Hounslow Chalfont West & Latimer Chesham Hounslow Cross Feltham Hatton Hampton Hillingdon 5 ZONE Heathrow Terminal 4 Hayes & Hayes Harlington Amersham 1, 2, 3 1, 6 ZONE West Uxbridge Drayton Towards Terminals Heathrow Aylesbury 5 Towards High Wycombe Towards Slough Towards Staines Towards Shepperton © Transport for London and ATOC © Transport Terminal Heathrow 1 2 3 5 6 4 Bakerloo Central Circle District Hammersmith & City Jubilee Metropolitan Northern Piccadilly Victoria Waterloo & City Docklands Light Railway London Overground London Tramlink Chiltern Railways c2c First Capital Connect First Great Western Greater Anglia Heathrow Connect Heathrow Express London Midland Southern Southeastern Southeastern high speed South West Trains Interchange stations Airport Riverboat services Station in both fare zones Tramlink fare zone 39 Kew Gardens Kew London’s Rail & Tube services Oyster pay as you go Oyster pay as you to lines and symbols Key Oyster pay as you go is valid at go is valid Oyster pay as you all stations and on services on on this map, except shown Southeastern High Speed, and Express Heathrow Connect between Heathrow & Harlington and Hayes Airport.Heathrow Whilst, on first sight, Figure 3.4 may appear overly complex or unwieldy, on closer inspection, the map clearly demonstrates the extent of connectivity between different rail networks and different lines within each network, and hence connectivity between locations and regions. For example, both Victoria and Waterloo stations are major transport hubs that offer interchange for rail-rail transfers, rail-tube transfers, and tube-tube transfers (note that the map has not shown bus connections that are also available at both hubs). Additionally, an extensive bus network operates in London, with many services operating at regular intervals (i.e. every 8-10 minutes on weekdays). Figure 3.5 illustrates the Central London section of London’s extensive bus network. 40 Figure 3.5 Central London Bus Network Source: Transport for London, viewed on 17 January 2011. W D A O R D 5 B STREET D D ON 10 Fie 10 Ro Lon CANN Lon D Hos D 381 OA 8 ROA R 48 W 106 E PRITCHARD’S N D3 AD Market 26 O D3 R Broadway NCE VALLA Bermondsey y T . s . . E a s 25 T D D y s E Y D D L P . e t S D R d R w E a e N i R R A C10 T A r T R l W i n A n T A n C i l L . E p A W E i s E u 205 c l o S a L L g E O 135 x D E O T E E o & N t d 2 O e n A r R B E P R A E R 453 c H R E R R n c D h D G 381 g i I t A t U l R A A 254 U o r E T r A i T A onnect D t V h m t A a L C C G e H O E e Y R S R s S m O g s K v i n S R A A C n . X68 R . s i T a E O T T T M . T i a r D S o D O D E Whitechapel Bell Foundry R 115 L A l E 188 i 172 N e K I S O E N N L R N h t T C City Farm d T A O AS s A B Park I E E M e O m D n E D a E Southeastern, K O M S R E T d N I K R H M e P O a H Southern and m M A N l E N 0.75 Mile I n C S T 47 F U 1 i 78 a M R L W 15 a O H O R S b . H A A 388 H l O D r O K T R T Haggerston S . u 63 C k L O T T G C H D 55 e S 236 S 100 C J First Capital C I E X e R c I R O G L n . N B 8 Haggerston 53 E i A o G T D H RI U v B A l UEENS M T A O Q S W E M i S N D O l C L L B O D .468.C10 .155.168.171.172 Spitalfields L Design Museum 48 H L a W AD D E M L RO C S I A r G R O Brick Lane Market W N A L I t A A 21 S A T 1 Kilometre L Dock S H T H W N O n E Toynbee Hall O E O Pier J L e K M S T C R 7 H S 26 LANE I R K R R IC R E T A C R B B . I E P T P H T U 100 T 78 S A 42 . A E T E S 15 R St. Katharine’s H T I E H . O 40.67.115.254 T A .27 R St. Katharine’s A B C L S S L R B T E O NS E E S S A P E 67 W M Flower Market T F Columbia Road N T I M L D S R AVENUE 42 A TRAFALGA D I H A O .363.453 U C A L A R T 2 E S T L W M East H O C M E R CO E R E O G S . D 381 Aldgate S 394 Tower Gateway D T E N 63 A I 42 A E 0.5 C W Haggerston Shoreditch High Street R S O O 78 O B Y 67 E R T R 363 R T R E A Dalston B H E RV1 P U . R T 78 P Flowers East Gallery L N W R E T 188.381 188 C T L T .360 Hoxton L Overground T Kingsland Waste Market W S S U C10 Shoreditch S L O .63.68.100.148 O S Y T L S I D D T IE E A X OR 47 E London . I E O IN A H E M E C RV1 T V S B T Y N O A R . E 78 E R 100 D 42 A A O 15 D R E T L A L D K E N A R L E S K E G T N I K S R Bermondsey T D E A M G L Market 35 47 78 D A O R R T D N S A L R D B C S E O D G H D G M A Aldgate I N I E I H S T K E T A Spitalfields L R 15 in O R s H a B E M N C S V H B G A E W T C A I W T 5 L E D C 42 E 8 A 0 .45.53 343 R T A N A O O H 78 d 78 n 8.26.35 H a 7 . l 2 I N s D g S in l K C . . D 42.47.48 8 D M Y 188 E A T T . A T 78.135.149 2 5 D I A S 7 Experience A 168 O W a Street T of London Tower K G . T S 242.344.388 N L Y R T Tesco 4 3 S K U R O 8 Bridge Tower F 5 E O O 1 R n S 1 242 E A D 8 78 R Tower L N 4 E D T . 0 R G L I 149 O . E Fenchurch L R 394 T L E Petticoat Lane Market RV1 A 4 E R 0 N 2 I a B Y A 7 D E Hill Tower O . K 47 . A T R 4 35 E G N 0 4 T 8 O K 26 U M 9 W L . L L A London Road, Elephant & Castle 1.12 176.188.344 A 7 C R R E 1 8 A T 4 67.149 4 T 2 O O D O D W 48.67 3 A T 1 4 Geffrye A T . I E S . 3 T .4 S . U 67.149 H T 242.243 I Millennium Pier T . Park W F 4 A S City Hall R 5 381 E 5 Museum R R s V 0 4 S N 3 3 9 N ’ 242.243 O E . E 3 . S C U 1 T HMS R T A I N 4 B R D L . ’ t . 6 . E S 4 T B . Burgess Belfast R R 2 ’ E E 0 S 2 L 0.25 n . T S Fashion & Textile Museum K N 4 1 T 0 5 G D 381 T T H A 8 A E O T 2 343 R E A 1 E A TR R A R S I e N O O 3 V E R U T P E A G E Hoxton X T S E B G 42.344 C E O T H E D g P R S E 1 ER H T E E M I CING R E P IN G T D R R W 47 e N M S D Hall Town S 78 R 42 . O L E H W D A A NE O O Y E R T A L E T Shoreditch L E O Hackney A T E H R R S 344 U O T O D O 42 S M S R E T E S N E H I 343 8.25.26 242.388 E D S O H 243 I D T E I N M 453 R W R T H City Pier 35.47 E L B B A F T 76 R G N L Street O E S Street A London Dungeon 188 394 O S E C P T T I F Leadenhall Market Hoxton E P Market I E T 42 L 42 D . D R O E C10 135 Liverpool 363 S O T L S L T LE Community College 55 A W R A London Bridge E W T E S T N T P A E . E . E E R M T G T T LS O S S U A R T D R P E T H A O H A N E S 141 343 S F D G C E O C 15 H Y 153.214 . V R A E . ST W R D A I L R E W PITFIE . U G T T T S Market 11.23.133 L E L H L T B R 381 E O E C 53.63 S L W S N 168.172 271 S E T L L R 42 C D London Bridge 4 A R D S E O L N D 381 A 21.76 L E U 21.42 Monument E N L I L R 521 D O H R A 153 E W Park 141 A L Bermondsey T Y O O E U 11 G E H R 394 R Wesley’s Chapel Wesley’s B Y 205 O 153 N O 3 S A 343 E S 0 T 5.21 0 T D 1 R A L N G 214 D A R N H L N T 21 23 V N U A W I E O E T I S G 76 A 20 .34 M A R Shoreditch 1.43 D F I 214.271 U D 141.205 R E 2 1 .R E 141 E A . O B O 4 M R N 21.43.76 271 T Q O B R .1 S 47 1 E 135 T V T D 3 N H 271 A S O S O 8 L A 3 M O 133 E H C R .153 D R E O 1 A T O R AD 17.43.48 Y I N D 3 E IT T L 141 C .214 O T T A L L E R I D T E N H A S 76 T W T 141.149. Guy’s G E T E 100 . R E . O S G E R R 812 O City 21 L L N T Hospital 21 205 344 T O V 21 3 T O I E 381 O K M S T S R N 17.21 G S Arms 141 E R O O 5 D 394 D 76 E 812 N RE 42 P T 21 . East Street Market T 43 I R A T T L A V 4 S 76 E S D S R ST . . O L E G T S Bricklayers S O W O ’ Y O A V E D R O E R T 21.35 E R C A P 3 N Bank P R I N T D D R B 149. 521 T R T E A . N L E A C10 E Fields S V T 6 40.133 812 W l Cannon Street i n T 35.40.43.47 O e Bunhill R Ground E R L O T 48.133.141 Artillery A E E T . T 141 E 343 O R Y S L Cathedral 3 R T W T P 38.56 D Southwark S S N O T L 15.17.521 Y I E R o R K R r . E Y t h n e E L r A A R F L L H I P U Y S 343 O H T R C E H R N E O A E Old 153 T C R T U 8 R B H F 812 T S A R O K O E e I C G N 73.341 t R I I R T c 8 L L G L n E e . B r n T n W I P H e H L Street t D n T i T o s U C N A a 1 D X68 394 S 100 E C l A S e E l Bank of England h O t . S Z S E W 468 a Moorgate A u T H t ST. E T o 476 I i T E 1 H M S e R 468. X68 O p G 148.171.176 171.176 L 394 R D 2 a E R S I 42.45.68 W G E C R 12.35.40 R V e B E L 68.148 D t K R E N L l T R K N 7 A s U C A E T r R i R W 812 A 40.45 A E i G A M . S T E O W F O D E . B Clockmakers’ Museum S R H Vinopolis b 1 D O E O A H T A A R O ES N 12.35 S I U W 1 R N . T D 242 E Clink Prison R L 35.40 812 L N O T T R u E Walworth R E E S E H 8 K S N D S R . P S J O 8 Moorfields E S O L X H D 3 T S E O A 394 le-Bow P A B A E Eye Hospital 271 N 6 S 415.P5 133.343 O H E P5. X68 N St. Mary- N 100.196 333.360 B 25 D Cuming Museum & Library C10 S Guildhall R R 243 RAD S Museum of London A A 1 T 171.176.468 O House S R 344 Centre . D O Newington Barbican N E A H T A 68.148 Mansion E D 344 T L ne R D R H 8 i A Barbican O l N M T 3. G S C W H n n A r R S L E i e W 40.45 214 55 Y E 172 O s E 153 . h 6 T C t B a A r C Y W . E T 12.35 o N E E B O L E E T T A I E N A E H k T E S E 3 R B G E c D GE e W W N Borough S E E R E o A A D E N P l D H Globe I n S S O R TR 5 R E E E E C O T R n 153 T i R R 812 U . 812 56 A B T e O R T W R l NE 388 T 205 E G K T A A N E 4 S S F C T R E D W R E K 1 P T T R R S D 4 S y S L e S A A E A A R t 38.56 D Bankside Pier d 56 O Shakespeare’s V H W i n n C O O H R L i N a W T A I n A O R N G N A t N 43 l r C R U & Castle 271 R E Elephant T T e c R I t E N O e G s O E E n t O . G C S a V C R O e N n K 73.341 I e N Y 812 K h o & I T D R t C c W A W S E 1 N u l R 56 L E i o a R . L 2 N S it G n U P5 r i N p o V 100 U 4 T O a s 4.56 5 P t M H R N a . l lin F C E St. o t B 476 E S U s I . B s 2 l U 344 R Museum F ir Barbican R T 3 T i 381.RV1 F L D r N P5 N N X 4 K S d Y S A O a tra U O 4 2 O Fire Brigade D Hospital E e H S E o O C . R . E E U St. Paul’s S T St. Paul’s t N R T n T Cathedral O IM S T 6 T C 2 S N A ’ T A E Smithfield Market y Tate e a E N J L . T t I 5 A R A Bridge S O A P R i L . 6 U S O M E A L C E 5 56 C R Bartholomew’s B Essex Road Little 3 5 E late 2011) . E T C G 2 U Modern GR D W T & Castle P Angel Elephant . E 4 W S . S R C 2 L O S 5 Millennium T G R closed until Southwark A Theatre . U 5 O L N D P L 3 T Q E N N G S 8 W O T Old I Y I L E I R 56 L O I 2 P 1 O G R A S E 812 B . 2 S W Bailey D H T T L O 7 N E S . N 7 N . P (underground station St. John’s Gate . 1 O N 812 T Southeas 1 tern and E T O . D P5 E . Blackfriars Islington Hall Town T M R S E D P S 5 A S S T 0 155 363 468 A T D ’ O C S N 812 First Capital Connect 1 1 0 A A . A K C 5 C O 812 2 O U Z 1 2 453.C10 O 1 L O T D G 5 . . . U R R E O N 63 E 8 1 O E 6 3 100 T 2 415 D 45 E D . A E R H 133.155 Kennington A B L A C K F R A I R S R O A R D B C L A C K F 7 R I A 4 R S B R I D G T T E 4 4 A U N G S S K City University R k S 2 I Thameslin ’ L City R 196.333 O A 2 E right . 46 .63 R V Southwark E A A 153 . E 17.45 R 153 T T Camden Passage Market . P T T . ST. P BR P 274 E U R W E R . NE G T L B S T N D 5 O E E R D S T R FARRING 43 . S R P N R T U E A 5 P 30 T N 4 N e 12.53 R C N H n H O E 19 148.344.360 R U O li H O J 45 63 S T n O see below E r O T E E e C T E 100 th N T G r G . . B B H T o T R 277 T L X68 O S Angel S L N N R I T S I S H S Theatre 133 812 M L G I R I T . T Almeida D N H D G E T N O Circus L L E O . N E A 812 I T 19 L R N 176.188 RV1 F R G O L O S N D L O RV1 T A O E H B E A D A P S E Ludgate D E R E H 155 E N A E Centre 63 38 D O V Design O N 436 K 17.45.46 I 171.172 L R N H N O Business . H I I 196 S R Theatre D U 333 46 D W 1.68.168 U R T The Old Vic Theatre 46 341 T T A K T Islington O R W Cathedral N E D e Bridewell R S O S 344 . N n N S E N A 2 i L St. George’s 415 O E A Islington L D l O IVERP O R 185 T E D O R L D E 381 Park 1 N N a A T R i E G F S E r G O Farringdon A U A Wharf N 8 N G o 1 L K t . O R 6 E U T O 360 c O E 341 N Gabriel’s R K L Wells M i E War O O N T T 2 T 36 . 7 D E 4 F D A T L V Clerkenwell A I N E R K A 5 5 L 243. 521 Blackfriars I 8 P 4 H R 5 E D E 4.26.139 9 E A O R R . R L 30.73.476 . 0 Imperial E 0 4 Theatre 4 Museum R Kennington Sadler’s 812 V R W R D N . E 4 3 T E V N 1 2 1 1 . A 243 O E . E Millennium Pier R 9 812 5 D . 59 M T D 159 B T A O S D The Temple C e 4 P 3 59 A 63 R 3 A 4 E E 3 t 3 . R e n G L O 1 2 6 Lambeth North L A E . 394 i N Circus 3 R 7 S c . l K 7 U RV1 5 3 N T . P B . I . n 4 Holborn I 4 T F . Finsbury L 341 I R n e L .2 i O N , O O 5 R A 7 W 2 D 0 S N C r P 1 N 2 Waterloo East Waterloo 2 D Y Y M . n O y s U E N e .3 3 L 4 T A H N l K 3 E t 1 N O L R N 2 I . A G N G R L D 1 T O N n 4 h L 55 i e E . I N A 3 B t E E 2 D T I T 3.59 A B e 388 r W o K O n .2 N D M C B A London Silver Vaults A 2 76 R G C 3 O 8 l 5 o i 7 S W S N 415 . E E L Chapel V l E N 5 E Market Y N R A S U T 1 L c K N B & S l C N 6 59 N B D R .1 N D A e O B Y N P r E T N E .1 N E T O R O T N S l I R I D h R 4 i E 6 133.159 O A R t 360 c D 159 ita C 1 D i R A r 7 A N O N M C M London IMAX p H O A O i A 211 507 L M E m .1 A O a R 211.507 T F C H T 341 O E R s 59 19 R 4 C 159 G r Lane S F H d e A O t C L 274 e E R E N A n 38 O s C . n F 46.341 D Chancery N m a A i I R H E 394 ir R 812 W l D Barnsbury F n m V Mount 17.45 N R N 6.9 A 341 P N D K A 153 a a N . O R I 196 Royal National Theatre n N t Oval D . O O R E E L T O F G H i N 13.87 I r Royal M 153 S Pleasant E l H ’ R D S A C O P Courts R Oval o Y 155 812 e A R Temple p E N 1 O R E W N 153 T E o of Justice A . Lambeth P Post Office 77 I h r O t G G s D S e 2 333 I C R t M S n I R R O i H N D r O G R 5 B a S I M D T K r P O H T . R 341. 521. RV1. X68 R R T o O T E T 360 L D L A O 77 t N 2 Cricket Ground H G Sir John Soane’s Museum A R B O 63 A Y B N s Y O I N C R C E 4 A e O N D 171.172.176.188.243 507 T Inn M I O Waterloo P W S T Kennington 2 K ’ W D 388 A 274 N N 436 . G N H E R 1.4.26.59.68.76.139.168 L N h N Gray’s E I A C C K t E 5 C10 Vauxhall City Farm N 3 K 344 I N u A O . . D O C A Gardens B 2 o 17.91 6 O T T E 259 . V A T . 46 L R R L S A H E S Road & H Lincoln’s S E S 8 185 6 R 36 M X68 R B K 45 Inn Fields T Museum 3 O 521 E T C Somerset House AL Barnsbury 4 D 17 S 521 Caledonian G T . 77 S 77 A and Garden R Prison A P I I N Y N N 243 DO R L A N E N O Dental L 5 Festival Pier A A L Holborn C N S D D T Hospital E Pentonville Y I 188 W R Eastman E T 4 A . H W O O Lambeth Palace Pentonville . A RV1 H E 55.243 171 T E D T T G T B 7 S Florence Museum L L 19.38 E O ’ 168 E C S B 1 Savoy Pier A . Y L Conway Conway Hall D O Holborn Nightingale M R IN 91 . A A R D I Charles L A I Dickens 77 D 68 E OA R R YFORDRD. 91 R 274 1.59 Museum 344 T D V Y N W G e R 17 259 A E lin N T H ia R 381 S r S W Embankment Pier N o N N L t E c N A London Eye S B i T A M V I R O K E 388 E 98 N D NG N M 46.63 I O A D L T A K A I D O . 274 G B E R 259 17.45 E R T A L Southbank Centre Hospital H R N 0 R N M Canal A N A 3 C IN E N D O London E E D A (Royal Festival Hall) 17.91 e B Foundling Museum W 1 S T Museum A RV1 8 R F ’ E H 5 L E D F O B lin P Y T O A County Hall and L F D St. Thomas’ London Eye L R R 4 R lly A 4 N i 1 H R N Fields d I 87.91.139.176 . .C Y S X68 H Y A a A G London Aquarium 1 T St. T c E N R A A Coram’s E U . ic 1 7 N O H E 2 O B P N U 6.9.11.13.15.23 P 10 59 242 W 188 M R Great Ormond R G T I 4 3 1 Millennium Pier R Street Hospital E 0 B A R Westminster Millennium Pier 2 88 Cross P L 77 W King’s O O 2 Royal T 390 E H Y 5 T . D C 2 8 Opera U O House S B M T . M 91.168 M . C R E 1 3 .5 S G L A . t A 344 c Pancras U Ear Hospital E R 7 360 e A 2 T 9 n L Y Embankment 259 n O AY 5 W H Pier 3 D o YORK 59.68 B 1 C C L l E Westminster a I 2 T . t P R 1 i H 5 S 8 S p . 87 a 98 A C Royal National . footbridge U 8 R 6 E 8 R Y L Millbank Throat, Nose & X68 9 Vauxhall K M 1 . t E s N P 9 O Victoria Tower Gardens r 3 Museum Russell Square i F T A A 1 . Millennium B O 7 St. Pancras H Oasis Pool B S . 4 W Cross King’s D 5 L 8 . R O T S 8 G G . L E W E 25 W 5 Cross . . O L 0 D K I E I F ‘Big Ben’ and Houses of Parliament R E 6 . A Q E A R N 1 L R 6 B K D T Charing 453 N T C . S A M A S 3 159 H B 88 S R E S L 53.87 London Transport L 3 L O I . L T B 12.24 D B 8 M . O 7 3.11 M A L U D S O E L 2 T A S R A D E St. Martin- in-the Fields 5 A D O T U R U D 156 Covent O S Piccadilly line A H R 8 Garden C U G Market S N T O L S J Q L L H O A A 1 3 Covent H U R E R I Garden N L I T G T H S W E R 7 87 X O SQ D N E A V M L W O . 77.87 T O P A R N L 14 I S . M P S H O T U U 196 L R E E S A M Y A Covent Garden V 507 M 19 N . A D C S D A E C10 390 T 171 T Y A N 38 W O 476 A R S A S U Pier O L U Smith V W F B S A Square R P P Wharf K S T R . I Park E d U 53 L O X T Tate St. John’s Y Abbey D Horse T S e S 88 S Street O R N I St George F 205.390 A 91 Natural Britain e n T O E Guards E A R O r R p T British U S Downing N 168 Y R R H S e U 29 M H t R HA Museum S S Westminster E h B D R O . s U S A MA T g 59.73.91 S R O 91 J i a O . d O T Camley Street S R 7 B R H 188 H D e IT . 176 C O A SM h S . n W 88 T E t G R N V u 68 W M E n o Vauxhall u E 10.30 C10 S British O Y 29 A V N Library E G R 24 o o 59 O IN 176 7 e L R S r 7.188 R d e G N A A 274.390 ria B H Y Square g n 45 63 O n D C i Trafalgar L lin r R R to D 156 A l o 4 R C10 211 L .2 Square T e O 9 U L E National L ic A E G t n R .1 Galleries c Leicester v e 1 4 D E n r ICA War Rooms War A n 1 B o V and Cabinet V l C 22 O e F O a it 242 6 S Market E A ap S 7 M O C h t St Pancras .1 R T 507 s E 344 r t 8 i L E F 214 A 148 O .3 R International R T 274 r E L K 9 T e E 94 R 2 14 o E K R F A T T S G L E C R R MS P A . 360 N E A Circus R E S Churchill Museum L T lin L R M A N D E O 24 19 T H Y 46 S e P S A Piccadilly A H G A E Euston C S H T Pimlico W 18.68 O T Y P E . T E . D N 436 R Tottenham E T ile L Court Road T A I 253.476 R S M 38 E R N R b T A A University College S C O T S 11 R 0 E u A A L R C O W 134 E 134.390 S A E 9 Gordon E Y J W Nine Elms C10 A T Covent New I W R Park R L B F Y T Hospital G R O C 29.73 E T N D Westminster Town R N E 0 O R U E D 185 R E A N A L R A O A RHS Halls P R E S R 5.3 G U G I D W . L Garden Market Euston Square A Somers E O T R G ER T 0 St. James’s T E O M T O 8.3 U R A G 46 Y S A L R N 360 5 S Y 10.14.24 R O T C ES 0 .2 W 24 H E . 36 T .1 T 0 E T L A T Guards’ Museum A B S M 3 S E St. R 24 .3 2 0 8 253 7 0 T R ROC E e E 7 N A C 8 W ) C 1 4 T 0 A Street L 24 9 E 2 h Park Market V n S 1 M I . 9.14.19.22.38 Y T E T M L 1 e 5 c 5 Berwick H i S E W D 507 . . P E A N L .3 n E l A L N 168 T A O V L College 4 R 1 X T lin .2 Hospital R 8 O H R R l O ra N H E L P V 2 University 1 E 0 A T E James’s I Town A rn b N U G L T . a I 3.6.12.13 H Street T C G .9 2 e F 214 D . E r L E ss 1 S .1 A t B T D E 3 T L T Y Soho Goodge S D A E Camden E rth . 1 29 L S ro 15.23.88.94 R T n V Euston T R S R E o 139.159.453 A O .8 N .7 R B S S R E C O A C N e 253 G g 7 5 T A T S 14 D T ’ 2.36.185 W 46 V O C C D S R W P S C10 Pollock’s 5 E rin E A 46 S E S C D a L F A O M 436.507 15 O h Palace Toy Museum Toy A N I A A M Y E U O R (C J E R X D I O O P D T Telecom Tower . T T 24 R T V R C A R T M E S I P S N Royal E e n 453.C2 O i O l A K R a E R R i St. James’s D r R 360 139.159 o t D U C c R D i Westminster Cathedral A V G T Academy D K O N R E D R 3.12 A O 23.88.94 Oxford Circus 274 S A D A E N O E 3.6.12.13 R L T T C D S L A N P O R 55 R M Park T E A E I H M T B T 8.25 Green E E T P N 44 Street V E 5 C1.C2.C10 I 0 S E O M 214.253 E E R E D 24 E ’ U D 0 . E L L T . L W Warren P 3 A U V 24 E R S . C T T E R 2 O N 29.88 N H 88 A 134.168 E A R D 27 29 . M 16.38.44.52.73 T E 24 S Pimlico Y T 7 E G R 82.170.185.507 134 R N E E 31 D R 8 R N S S . T A A A 2 R Y O 344 24.27 T S . N 24 S 8 46 T G B E O T . E V C T E L O 8 L S L R Road W S S L I V C S H T C2 . E S 1 E N E W . E D Faraday L O S Camden T G N E Museum K I B G T T A G I E O T L E T R N T H C2 T S S . R 55 R L E E R . R R 453 O S H H A N Victoria S I P R T E U N e E K B P Palace Crescent B . n P 88 i e E U . Mews B D l R . O L 88 R H T G N T W O o M Y T N C2 n Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital A D H S I o T T E T T 25 N 9 i N B E l K E R r A S L l Mornington G T e Buckingham O S N ) U D h T e S nc k Y H a O T r n b C2 E E L a D y i k R Battersea n . E A M l a The Royal S D. l B B E A ( G 8 C2 R Gallery e T L I E a in l L l B E Dogs’ Home A O rn R i i T 24 e E r R Queen’s L h R rt S N C 14 o T o R R N E K t d D C Y 8.25 N A S c E E E R i E T C a Y L C V C10 Green Line R E E E R A A H d O 360 c I S D E E n B L T I T A 19 c R Coach Station d H E N L a C C 274 T C i l E P Y n 46.134 214.C2 A O A U Jewish Museum E S d S u R T . i P A PL B o T U C S W N N S M M r T . 11.44 Q I U D A W g O T C2 A S n r Y N W S 22 A H K o e V A . n T P r N 88 v L E Green Park S te H d R E G E A T T 453 Great s L I R Street 55 a n R House N Town O B N A e N R 170.211 D O o L H B th n E I u n Portland P r C1.C10 P N o L A T S e C2 W E o O h O 38 K t S 6.13.55 E u D d C2 O Y 453 . o S C I Camden Z S n 94.139.159 d 274 C n M R a E T o T T 88 U 46 L E F L C E I R R C D 453 N U 148.436 A G E S T B C2 R S I D L . R T E B O R U E C2 N S E O T P L . E L E A Broadcasting W T 360 U C P E C N T S A R C E W O 52.73.82 R D I E S ELS STO O C H A C N Lock V V 205 T E D O Y E A E O U S R Q R D S D Market R E A A E 2.16.36.38 Camden G N E Y L E 44 C2 D G D A O I ID A R R O R V E O C B E R E B Lister Hall A U M O R R ET N C1 Y R B 30 V E R A Hospital C H E R E G U R E T S S L U Wigmore D B 274 T E T R E E 24 E N V E Q D 44 Arch Belgravia O B E R T I R 452 Regent’s Park Regent’s M A 31.168 T S 137 W A D S 436 R T E R S B R Bond E O 27 O S E Street S R O . P N K T 211 R B G Wellington L R S R A 414 . E P 24.27 A A O Morrisons E E N P L L W National G U Z R F Y T 27.393 D R E P I E A H L A A O T 148 Mayfair D O E L Station O G R E 159.390 U E D M B C 18 A A V K E Heart Hospital R E Y Jubilee line L F D R E A B 137 O L T I E M N H O 170 E A S R 6.7.10.13.23 T 73.94.98.139 QUAR H I U G G R C H G D O A X S L C S O I E B 82 N I E T H E I B E V A E O R E T W L C E L 11 R N U L N A A Victoria Coach Victoria T C 360 G E P O 74 N C E E A M Corner 452 E S Park LGRA N R Museum 436 E R L N I E L R E s I B O I 168.393 M V A Hyde Park P T E 414 73 C R Wellington A K Wallace L K C A 360 Y R H e O T T Collection Sloane E E Square E C1 C E 148 N Farm S K G E T TR K Battersea 36 Chalk B R D S I E m 4 R R A R E R R 137 Madame Roundhouse Theatre T K K 137 2 . E Marylebone Tussaud’s Open Air Cecil Sharp House R E E E S 1 A L R T D B al A A a 319 P R 82 T N 16 2 S P A E 4 n C Selfridges P . N R A G Regent’s Park Regent’s I . S N E E M h 73 K O a N N R E 9 A 2.10 P E R 7 B 74 D A C Chelsea ALBERT I N . O O T G U I 1 L O I L 3 274 T E . S L C Zoo Children’s Baker TERR. Street C ER 137 B 189 A W 73 1 S R O 452 Park A T L T L 4 Royal Hospital E 139 P . T E E r 360 London Zoo E t’s t’s C R I 113 1 S T B 4 E C1 2 S . 211 11 P ’ 36 R 452 n 74 L R e 168 E A E 137 74.82 7 S Holmes T S T 0 T 137 R D 22 E T e Regent’s S . Museum T Sherlock 13.30 E Museum E E K E R O v 19 16 N Y T 1 T R S C A A g S 2 E E A U H S B . L Arch i G O H E E G e L R National Army E Marble G 2 L 5 N Arch H C R G O 9 10 A O L R T L Chalk Farm R R Marble IL E R S 189 D R A A T G The Hub O U A H D H Y I . N 360 E 30.113 N T R D O C O A M E S Gallery G O Saatchi R O N L L S E A F N Court P E E R D B E C K AR D G L W E O E V . R N Burton’s A L L OGA A C E I I D P A C A T L A D C A Harrods S R B N R R E L E R R O T P e A I I P S Corner A E 11 31 E M B Peace Pagoda C R R M D C U D R C U n 170 U T O Western Opthalmic Hospital O C L LO M D i T T Primrose Hill Y A G R L E 436 t S 274 I S A Speakers’ N T D 19 O H D 2 n E 360 N W O O T H E T E A T R A E 453 S R 414 e C I L P . O R O E R G C11 Y R R E N T M G O p 22 N M R I T R E S R T A E S r P O R A 159 E S U R I D e T T B D S S O 274 E P T E D R A Hospital Knightsbridge N L S D ’ E U 36.98 R H R 211 O E D M G 14 Hyde Park A Samaritan D R A A N I G R R 113 G A . A 205 A e O E B O S M E D T N O U O R C11 G N R O V R C N E 82 N h Circle line Cadogan Pier B E 74 E K 16.23 U W L Brompton R O A A E I N M R E E A B District line N O 27 B T U 319 Central R London T E E D C I N N G Mosque L S N T G 205 K L K Y D 13 N R 6.7 N I R R E A A A R S I D R N T T E B M Y R H Marylebone W d V 414 T 390 O E T B O V P A R D D O Primrose Hill N H n E T D L e A Lido Chelsea Old Hall Town R O B A C A d P T L O u A R M C1 U A O O C n 18 E R Chelsea 452 o O R R Y E E O a r T e lin O R D H T l A n S N o g D i E S EE T d l N G R W R r N Edgware Road A A T i N E n E S D e T S D E A D O 274 A E rlo N O 360 a 52 Y O v O V R L t s R M H E 274 N E I e O T M U T i P L L y 205.436 O A A O S l R K O E a k B S R E N A n o E G S N S R p E O E w a T L o n 18 l 19 C11 R R o V X E V i W G G 36.159 N r T N 211 B E E d o E E 9 E 10 I t A a R OW 189 E 2 A S R T C n d e R O U E 1 H T E T S S . The Oratory S 7.23.27 2 . A o n 49 Q S n R 436 M U 3 148 . T 170 C R E 9 r K L C1 D . T L S S o 31 E Y Knightsbridge 113 e C S 9 House P R t S R L l G T Church Street Market 205.332 U D D i 139 414 D 82 A E E H Y 49 A A h O Carlyle’s M . E S I E C L E 319.345 O O C L H 1 T . 1. South A R R N 94 N 13 E G P B R R 36.159 O C Q 170 H E 74 1 S A D T Road T H T R S Royal Princess Diana E L Jubilee line D L D K Y E A N L R Kensington L R L U L S T Hospital N R 19.49 A 7.23.27 I O A Edgware S S Memorial Fountain O E A E Brompton C H W Albert H T F 14 O S E U G P O C R O R D G Museum N R E A D L O & Victoria H N 360 A T E I D I S X A E E D N S T G T A E L D Royal Marsden Hospital O C C r A D V L 360 N I L S S e H B E R A N A t O C A E R S D O A I a AD O UR B A O U R C R W O K O W R N N T S E ITIO CH L L R IB A g EXH . D O G E 332 R F N n D R 70 L AD P E R A T S o 159 D 430 O R L O W Grove R Lord’s U O U 414 Lisson R Cricket e R Ground O T 345 h E W A Z C B T R S I 452 O S . 319 49 14 Swiss Cottage R T R Hospital H ’ T I S S S E S N Paddington 332 46 E L C O S E 19 N D Cricket Museum ’ M W Wood O 159 N E R N E W Wellington G 360 D A D T N Y T Imperial College A . E B O A 345 74 E St. John’s R H 98 O 211 H H Gallery A A G AD D U C H O D 360 N A L 345 O T Hospital R C O R 46 N Q O 18 F GE . W O E St. Mary’s O L I U D J Museum 13 O 18 L R R 46 R U O 82 D E R 16 F 113 G C Science 187 A R T N Museum A Serpentine R 345 O C O E . E R C D 52 E G ES . E D 6 R R Natural History E C 46 V N A C T 345 B 189 N U O N E N 187 I N R A . G E F S I INC R H H R Y Hall L N 360 E 414 L D 2 D E R S S Y Royal Albert P E 10 V 139 3 E ’ 328 A R O C L O T 390 N E R A .3 A T A C1 O D 205.332.436 G T Albert G 9 E G R S E 9 N 74 E 46.274 E R E 70 E 5 R A U Q P C E K W Memorial E N N .1 T 11.22.328 V O A 49 R 6 W I O R T M R U .4 E S 430 R K R C 70 S O O 46 6 . E N Hospital 148 31 D E A 2 G R B 189 LO D T .3 N E Chelsea & House X Baden E R Powell Lancaster Gate U T 70 R L 5 A South D A 7 R e OM D F D O Westminster I R D R U O S I N R U 360 L 4 R End A .2 E n F O B A A e . R i H 74 L W 3 T A E B 49 Hampstead n O A 0 D 139 T l G 187 World’s .2 94 i R A S C 7 . 14 7 E e D l . A l H N S O t D W R S 31 O E 2 C3 A c D N E c T V N O r A A N i 5 R E T Y i O O O Paddington O . D r R A D O S E R 46 R t D T D 328 C Regent’s Canal Regent’s R 0 R L E R 211 A G L 187 s E R R U 49 Wood I T D Studios E S C CE G i OU 1 GL O M U A N U . E D O H 6 D 46 N South Road G A E O 9 T R E T E E L Pond N I A H V E G A N V C CE 414 Warwick Avenue Warwick Round A St. John’s V A Y G G RR PAL D O 18 O S A Gardens Abbey Road E 49 E A O O N T R E D R Road E G I T T T N O D S 46 R S B N R T K I S H R West E G Kensington R L G E L Kensington E N F Gloucester N A P C K 2 E T C3 I L L B L I B E A N D I 36 L N D E N R O W I O O 5 D A A U Little L C H D W I 187 S 70 G 328 R R G Venice R S 4 R l D 74 T . N R E Brompton M ’ A S . S 189 F R A 27 N CE O F A A R ’ S A a A I P R A R E R B 0 L A TE N A D G E C N D 414 G n S G N W O H D ES D 31 A 7 H 332 L N E E O 23 E L 139 ER H O T a . H V T R N D N A R T I . R U E A W K F F D I S C3 A 2 R 7 H G V 18 Z I D O O South K C1 G 98 S M I G T A C 5 B A U ARL . R . S 14 H 328 O R O S V Vale S C n G N Royal Oak Y D C R A N R 9 Maida Y E 70 I 16 L e . A R L O D E W L D n D S A N io A E i 4 B E O L R N A C R L l H E 211 E . U A E Hampstead N L U 430 O I D o P U n Q I E R B G E F L E R I o Palace I B 0 70 390 H 414 C11 V R E l N T E 189 r O S F E R E A E L F e E D U H 1 D F Vale C Kensington R k U R T I C3 PO . N G N V L G M a C S A A d E D B Maida 9 EN A A E 139 R EL R E 36 V n V O C N C3 D 148 H 0 A a p A R O O Playground 328 C W D A O R r 7 Y R O O I R P Cemetery e C1 T Brompton 3 . n D B R R 14 211 R li Centre G Princess Diana le A P Queensway c 2 T H O r M 94 i G Whiteleys E C 328 . E O G P 27 U R R M Bayswater e 31 O O RN PRIORY 7 T n ILBU N li D R . t e K I S 74 D c O i O t R High Street Kensington tr n B i R Y s c N G A i l i T R 70 D N W D R I r L . A R F t A G R Chelsea FC C 36 s B E H T U i D L 70 AD N Bayswater RO S D 414 E O S E D C R R 452 Ground A O L L C E T . 18 A 328 R E N . A V R 70 E O W Hospital 52 328 M West A Y H A D e Recreation D 28 Paddington Stamford Bridge 139 390 E U D Fulham O R Cromwell N G S T 27 d 187 189 L D n H R ’ I , d C E G n R i Brompton n W 8 L Broadway B N T e P U r u l N n O 6 n R M O R e o C A T r n 2 r S D a G A E h A s y i N A D t g X 31 e I r H D t l 7 u S 3 L . t E E 6 t s L N e i o . A 328 D E E A K v L c 11 s 2 S OA R e Y e L 31 D C R O . O S 9 O r l E Kilburn U e R K e I A A O n T R M V R L R p c 0 4 N E n o Earl’s 328 Court A D High Road L Q & r . 228.414 I A H d E H A P W x O n O S W i 1 32.206 U V n A R D D N . H R t o E h 8 o A D 27 H R C Notting N t E L L N L A O W Hill Gate a G U i 9 2 R C O G G 316.328 A B T A E O D R K e w S 28 I W I L R 316 R G 3 I P m R O 31 A r 11 D E B H R V K I o D C 70 H 328 D H M G w W s E 328 P U P O C E R E r M I B N R A 31 328 . G I N D A 36 D G R .C 32 r E A o G O H A 7 98.189 O h 28 B 206 I R t r 1 L I k e O O t R 74 Town Hall Town W C1 D s O S h L n T D R R a H R r t .C m Kensington T i Kilburn Park N B R A L M A A 16.32 i l e R O 8 a T A 18 R E r R U F A m T O C1.C3 V e H O 2 House U e ROAD ENHAM a E CHIPP L C H O R 3 W 190 316 HA L W S I v H H L Kilburn S B K N l H L’ Y Empress i M E N N R Centres L D U D E 23 D A O D P O E I R F S M O A 31 D A A R 430 36 C Exhibition A T K N O U 74.328 State Building W A N 228 328 6 Linley Sambourne R I O B North End Road Market O Earl’s Court Earl’s G CR B 328 O Y e e D D OA R O N R G R M S n 1 O Y N n 187 A A R 31 R i T i L E . D I E U T D l 206 R S O D B K D T D l 28 A E P E R D L S D l .C 190 148 A L 7 N R T W E A S o O A L L N O E K a E N 9 N W West E A o R T R R r R 36 .2 E l C t O E K R W O E r H E T .4 S n O W 0 A D A S T 74 R R A R A 391 e L 94 KEN I Kensington 8 E e E R R 28 D L U R N k B P O W .1 R C 2 A D C R E A A C3 N 452 a N D 9 . N O T W A E GRE B A G Tesco Kensington P D A O Court A Earl’s A L B O T R 98 T E D L Park E EAD L O O K 391 L 31 O C H I 52 28 RN V T H K C E N R L I E E R L House I F V D O R C I L C V 7 D Leighton A O Museum I W Hill O Y A D Hill O L A E 328 R R P T R W A O A O R L E Brands VIL R 23 U N A K R G W I L 23 A Maida R 295 28.31 West B P W N D Notting Museum of R L Westbourne O N L e O n A D K D C 70 I E i N T U l A Kensington O 23 E S D t R c A W S V O M D i r R E O O R A t D N N Metro s A O K R Park i D A O E D O 211 NG D G AVI TO L N R RO R N B R D R A E D B O K A N AD R O P A E A R O T R T Silverlink O Y E L E N T S 36 2 . R R 2 Holland L S K R O Y 5 S S H R O L U N C T A .5 R S 4 B 228 Kilburn E R C1 E D Route running all day every Route or section of route NOT running all day or every and Bus Passes, Travelcards Oystercards are not accepted Non-stop section of route Route terminus, showing the approximate position of the first stop; alighting point or last stop may be different Underground line and station Y London Overground line and station Docklands Light Railway line and station National Rail line and station Bus station Coach station London River Services pier Place of interest Public building B A E I CEMETERY D A 3 S O e S R O O H N D L R T D Park U L 2 A D D D D A n 228 R O N PADDINGTON E L Park 8 B i 49 L Road H 228 B A W O Holland D e l S A O A S R B I Market U N Queen’s B A n A O O L R .2 y 0 O L i Park C E Portobello N A D l l R R W A 7 391 O l S A R 148 D 28 R A 430 i t Kensington Olympia .1 316 O L G O L 2 R R D W U d O c 9 28 H i A L L Brondesbury N N a B L H 23 r T E I D A t S I U L N A c 206 G N O T 8 B 12 I O L O O s c O D D 190 18 N O E S i R R M i Brondesbury 812 K 521 I N H 187 T E 94 D C1 E D R S X68 R D A P PARK O 41 A A D YH R P 1 K 6 L N G E 49 QUEENS C E Grove A 9 L R Olympia 452 E L 74 V 23.52 C1 L 3 R O G 228 Ladbroke M A 31 . R O 0 TE G 228.452 T 70 H 7 S West E 1 M K . 49 N 52 O 2 U R A Kilburn B 9 M 23 D Court A 7 H L Barons Central London map (day services) full details of Night bus services of the Central London Bus Guide please pick up a copy For 424 E E D D D U D N K A A N A A A E R O O O L V 70 295 O R R 295 R 424 A A S S 52 VILLA D R 18 P ’S N 23 N N 70.295 N E 391 G E N E A 23.52 A R A T . Court T D H N 295 L S Barons D U I R S T O I D Rise B N E A N 52 Y 206 A R D arons O 4 7 Road L E atimer Y V R 11 27 G 9 316 A A H 95 ’S U N Court Kensal N R E AN Over the last five years, there has been an intense effort to promote cycling in London. As part of the campaign, a network of “Cycle Superhighways” has been launched. Figure 3.6 provides a map of the current “Cycle Superhighways” in London. Figure 3.6 London’s Barclays Cycle Superhighways Barclays Cycle Superhighways Indicative Routes Map ENFIELD BARNET Tottenham to City (A10) HARROW HARINGEY WALTHAM REDBRIDGE Bow to Aldgate (A11) FOREST HAVERING Ilford to Bow (A118-A11) ISLINGTON BRENT HACKNEY HILLINGDON CAMDEN Barking to Tower Gateway (A13) BARKING & NEWHAM DAGENHAM TOWER HAMLETS CITY Woolwich to London Bridge EALING KENSINGTON & CHELSEA CITY OF WESTMINSTER (A206 - A200) HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM SOUTHWARK Lewisham to GREENWICH Victoria (A20-A202) HOUNSLOW BEXLEY Penge to City WANDSWORTH LAMBETH (Borough roads) RICHMOND UPON LEWISHAM THAMES Merton to City (A24-A3) MERTON Wandsworth to KINGSTON UPON Westminster THAMES BROMLEY (A3205-A3216-A3212) SUTTON CROYDON Hounslow to Hyde Park (Borough roads) Park Royal to Hyde Park (A40-borough roads) West Hampstead to Marylebone (A41) Route launched Muswell Hill to Angel (A1) To be launched in 2013 Planned future routes 0 2 4 6 8 10 Kilometres subject to consultation Version 3 – 28.06.11 Source: Transport for London, viewed on 17 January 2011. 42 Table 3–1 summarises the examples of integration in the London Transport System. TABLE 3–1 Integration in the London Transport System Types of Integration Specific Examples Physical Integration • An extensive network of transport nodes and hubs with embedded interchange facilities (e.g. island platform interchanges, special connecting passages for adjacent lines in the underground system, undercover walkways and retail centres) throughout the city. Network Integration • Integrated fixed infrastructure networks: the National Rail (heavy rail) network, the London Underground (tube) network, Docklands Light Rail and Croydon Light Rail, e.g. where stations can serve a number of modes, e.g. Bank. • The “turn-up-and-go” service frequencies of most bus and underground services mean that timetable connectivity between rail, bus and tube services is reasonably well-embedded in the system. • Network integration is also strong for airports as airport access is provided by airport express services (such as Heathrow Express and Gatwick Express), the underground (the Piccadilly Line), heavy rail (by South West Trains) and coaches and buses. Fare Integration • The Oyster card was first introduced in 2003 in limited form and as a fully functioning smart card in 2007. • High take-up of Oyster. Information Integration • London has led the way in public transport signage since the development of its internationally recognised roundel sign for London Underground in 1908, and has since developed an extensive range of signage for all modes of transport and direction signage over the decades. Institutional Integration • The City of London, under Ken Livingstone, assumed control of London Underground network, which further paved the way for even stronger integration of transport services in London, including the introduction of the Oyster card. 43 3.4.2 Example 2: Hong Kong Figure 3.7 shows the route map for the current Mass Transit Railway (MTR) network that comprises Public transit services in Hong Kong superbly address an underground metro system and the original the accessibility needs of the city. Every day, about Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation (KCRC) 11.3 million passenger journeys are made on the public heavy rail network in Hong Kong, which merged transport system44, which include railways, trams, into MTR Corporation in 2007. buses, minibuses, taxis and ferries. An astonishing 90 per cent of Hong Kong’s daily trips are made on public transport45. Also remarkable is the very low car ownership at 50 cars per thousand population. Figure 3.7 illustrates the recently combined railway network in Hong Kong. Figure 3.7 Hong Kong MTR System Map Source: MTR, viewed on 17 January 2011. 44 Hong Kong Transport Department (2010), Hong Kong: The Facts, Information Services Department. 45 Lo, H.K., Tang, S. and Wang, D. Z. W. (2008), Managing the Accessibility on Mass Public Transit: The Case of Hong Kong, Journal of Transport and Land Use, Vol 1, No. 2, p.23. 44 Figure 3.8 Hong Kong’s Transport Network Figure 3.8 overlays the ferry and tram services onto • The original KCRC lines were East Rail, West Rail Hong Kong’s rail map. and Ma On Shan lines; The transport network in Hong Kong is served by a • Kowloon Motor Bus (KMB) – operates franchised number of operators, including: bus services in and between the urban and suburban areas of Hong Kong. It is one of the • MTR (incorporating Kowloon-Canton Railway biggest bus operators in the world, operating over Corporation (KCRC)) - one of the most utilised 4,000 buses on more than 400 bus routes, and mass transit railway systems in the world, operating serving over 2.8 million passengers per day47; six lines on 91 kilometres of tracks through 53 stations, and serving over 2.4 million passengers • Star Ferry – operates ferry services from Kowloon daily. As a result of the MTR and KCRC merger, peninsula to Hong Kong Island and other islands; and MTR now operates both the heavy rail and metro rail services46; • Trams – A compact tramway, using double decker trams, is still in existence on Hong Kong Island. 46 Lo, H. K., Tang, S. and Wang, D. Z. W. (2008), Managing the Accessibility on Mass Public Transit: The Case of Hong Kong, Journal of Transport and Land Use, Vol 1, No. 2, pp.23-49. 47 Ibid. 45 Table 3-2 summarises the examples of integration in the Hong Kong transport system. TABLE 3–2 Integration in the Hong Kong Transport System Types of Integration Specific Examples Physical Integration • Government focus on infrastructure investments to facilitate integration through the creation of more and better modal interchanges and extra heavy and light rail routes(1): “Extension of the southern terminal of the East Rail by 1.6km to facilitate interchange with MTR station at Tsim Sha Tsui”; “Construction of the West Rail and better integration with the Light Rail Transit (LRT) in the west side of New Territories”; and “Construction of the Ma On Shan rail to the Sha Tin Station of the East Rail”. • Good integration of MTR stations with activity centres and local neighbourhoods. • Location of bus stops and taxi ranks close to MTR and KCRC stations and at the airport. Network Integration • Several networks are connected by well-designed nodes/hubs such as Tsim Sha Shui. • Buses and mini-buses are timetabled to meet trains and MTR at the outer suburbs. Fare Integration • Octopus integrated fare collection system introduced in 1997 which facilitates multi-modal transport. • High take-up of Octopus. Information Integration • Good signage to facilitate intramodal and intermodal connections. Institutional Integration • Single governing authority helps to implement integration with a minimum of political obstacles. Source: (1) Luk, J. and Olszewski, P. (2003), Integrated Public Transport in Singapore and Hong Kong, Road and Transport Research. Retrieved 16 December 2010 from: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3927/is_200312/ai_n9318847/?tag=content;col1 In order to promote integration, the Hong Kong Government has invested significantly in infrastructure such as modal interchanges, and heavy and light rail routes. At present, there are plans to increase investments in rail to raise the rail modal share from 30% to 45% by 201648. 48 Lo, H. K., Tang, S. and Wang, D. Z. W. (2008), Managing the Accessibility on Mass Public Transit: The Case of Hong Kong, Journal of Transport and Land Use, Vol 1, No. 2, pp.23-49. 46 3.4.3 Example 3: Singapore • Government plans to continue to invest in public transport (especially rail) to reach a modal split In less than two decades, Singapore has become an target of 75% of all motorised trips (2003); international benchmark in offering easy and accessible integrated multi-modal transport. Despite a small • Government provides funding for the infrastructure population of 4.2 million inhabitants, it has made construction; the transit operator funds the rolling significant achievements49: stock, other mechanical and electrical system replacement costs and the on-going operating cost; • Home of the world’s first Area Licensing Scheme (ALS) and subsequent Electronic Road Pricing • SBS Transit and Trans-Island Bus Services (TIBS) (ERP) system; provide bus services on the island; and • Vehicle Quota System – quota for new vehicles kept • In 2002 TIBS was merged with the SMRT Group fixed at 3% of the previous year’s vehicle population; which operates all the heavy and light rail systems in Singapore. • Transit’s modal share is high, accounting for 63% of all motorised trips; 49 Luk, J. and Olszewski, P. (2003), Integrated Public Transport in Singapore and Hong Kong, Road and Transport Research. Retrieved 16 December 2010 from: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3927/is_200312/ai_n9318847/?tag=content;col1. 47 Table 3–3 summarises the examples of integration in the Singapore transport system. TABLe 3–3 Integration in the Singapore Transport System50 Types of Integration Specific Examples Physical Integration • New transit stations are designed to integrate with commercial development and at least one other transport mode; new stations offered covered walkways to connecting modes; • The North-East Line, which opened in June 2003, has all its stations well-integrated with adjacent activity centres; • The Senkang LRT and the Punggol LRT act as feeder services to the North-East Line and are integrated with local neighbourhoods; • Existing MRT stations upgraded to achieve better integration e.g. Woodland MRT/Bus interchange; Novena MRT integrated with nearby commercial development; and • Architectural design of new MRT stations is important from both aesthetic and accessibility point of view – safe and easy walk paths and elevators are now provided for all users, especially for the disabled and elderly. Network Integration • Increase percentage of population within the MRT catchment area from 19 to 24% with the completion of the North-East Line (2002); • In general, it has been estimated that 50% of the Singaporean population live within 500 metres of a MRT station51. • Current catchment of bus network very extensive with 90% of the population living within 300 metres of a bus stop (bus network backbone of the PT services supporting almost 41% of all motorised trips); and • There is active advice to use Bus or LRT network only as a feeder service to MRT so that there is less surface congestion on arterial roads. Fare Integration • A single fare card usable on all public transport modes which greatly facilitates integrated transport called the EZ card also suitable for other applications such as park-and-ride and small retail purchases; and • Rebates for intermodal transfers using EZ card (e.g. rebate of up to $0.25 is given to an individual passenger who transfers from an MRT station to a bus within 30 mins). Information Integration • TransitLink Guide provides coordinated and a comprehensive information on all aspects of travelling on bus, MRT and LRT; • Signage system improved to facilitate multi-modal travel; and • Suggestions to introduce an ‘i-Transport platform’ – IT platform that integrates traffic information from road based ITS measures and transit based measures. Institutional Integration • First step towards integration taken in 1989 with TransitLink; • 1995 – the Land Transport Authority (LTA) was formed; • Publication in 1996 of the LTA’s White Paper major milestone in promoting PT; • Corporate co-operation, for example, between the SMRT Group and SBS Transit; and • Some overlap of the bus network of SBS Transit and TIBS, and hence some competition. 50 Luk, J. and Olszewski, P. (2003), Integrated Public Transport in Singapore and Hong Kong, Road and Transport Research. Retrieved 16 December 2010 from: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3927/is_200312/ai_n9318847/?tag=content;col1. 51 Kenworthy, J. (2000), The Singapore/Hong Kong Success Stories and their Implications for Developing Cities. Retrieved December 2010 from: http://www.istp.murdoch.edu.au/ISTP/casestudies/Case_Studies_Asia/modasia/modasia.html. 48 3.4.4 best Practice Themes In Brisbane, the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads have introduced the Brisbane Busways; The best practice examples outlined on the previous a network of grade separated lanes exclusively reserved pages each feature a high degree of integration across for buses, which pick up and set down passengers a number of measures, including physical, network, at station-styled bus stops, featuring platforms and fare, information and institutional integration. In more electronic timetabling information. Bicycle trips from practical terms some of the key common themes of home to busway stations are facilitated with busway transport network integration include: stations designed to enable easy access for bicycles and provision of bicycle storage facilities. • Comprehensive interchange integration – particularly in ticketing, where the monetary cost to the user of In Western Australia, the Mandurah line was opened changing modes is limited or eliminated; in December 2007 - the 72 kilometre railway line, with 11 stations, connects Perth with Western Australia’s • Consistent and high quality signage designed with second largest city, Mandurah. The opening of the new the user experience in mind – this includes cross line saw the introduction of partial network integration network branding and real-time transit information; and fare integration to Perth’s transport network. The construction of the Mandurah line is coupled with the • An applied disincentive to car use or ownership creation of 62 new feeder bus routes, which connect such as a congestion charge, taxation and the suburbs surrounding the Mandurah line with its 11 registration costs designed to limit ownership, stations. The bus feeder services have train service restrictions of available parking or a mandated limit integrated timetables – meaning the buses and trains on number of vehicles; are co-ordinated at interchange points, reducing the time-cost of modal interchange on passengers. The • Delivery of a safe, secure and efficient service integration of these two modes is supported by the (from the user's perspective); introduction of fare integration in Perth. Rather than mode specific, public transport fares in Perth are priced • A high-frequency/non-timetabled service or an based on movement between zones; meaning that a integrated timetable where modes at transfer nodes ticket is purchased for a time period of access to Perth’s are designed to allow for an efficient interchange; and transport services. The integration of fares is coupled with the introduction of the SmartRider card, which • Modal neutrality in transport network decision allows passengers to pre-load value onto their cards, making – with the best mode selected to suit which is then deducted from the card when passengers the task. tag off at the end of their multi-modal journey. In each of the examples explored, integration has been These two examples represent positive steps towards pursued at a strategic level rather than a project or node an integrated transport system approach in an Australian level – while each project, interchange and node has context. However, in both examples the integration focused on integration as an outcome they have been of the transport network has not been wholesale; part of broader strategies to create a fully integrated integration has been chiefly localised to an individual greater urban transport network. transport corridor in Perth and a single mode in Brisbane. True integration of the example networks – particularly London – has occurred incrementally over time in line with a broad strategic plan for the network. While some level of integration in Australian urban transport networks has occurred, its implementation has largely been in project specific or isolated settings. 49 Comparing Relative Trip Costs 50 4 Comparing Relative Trip Costs 4.1 Introduction 4.2 What is a Strategic This chapter presents two case studies that explore Transport Corridor? the relative trip costs of transit modes, from a user’s perspective, over a range of distances for two key As defined in Chapter 2, a transport corridor comprises strategic corridors within Australia. The analysis seeks the parallel/competing modal routes between two to understand typical user preferences and travel locations. Typically, strategic corridors are part of a decisions for a variety of mode and distance choices. well-connected and integrated transport network, which is reliable and capable of catering for future forecast demand, linking the key centres or areas of importance. For comparison, the following two strategic corridors have been chosen for this assessment: • Sydney: Penrith to Sydney CBD; and • Melbourne: Pakenham to Melbourne CBD. 4.3 Corridors Assessment Approach As outlined above, our assessment explores the relative costs of a number of transport modes servicing the Sydney based and Melbourne based corridors. Estimates of generalised travel costs (GTC), which provide an estimate of the “total cost” of a journey (i.e. the combination of travel time and the associated financial costs), are used to explore the relative costs of the different modes within the observed corridors. Appendix 1 describes the methodology used to estimate generalised trip costs. For the purposes of this study, ‘construction and maintenance costs’ have not been included since the study is concerned about user costs and user benefits. In addition, other factors such as safety and externalities along with congestion have not been taken into account, as they are not normally included in the estimation of generalised travel costs. 51 4.4 Penrith to Sydney CBD • heavy Rail – CityRail operates the heavy rail network along the corridor, providing a mix of Corridor Assessment stopper (all stations), semi-express and express services. At present, during the AM peak hour, The Penrith to Sydney CBD represents a major strategic services between Parramatta and the CBD transport corridor within Sydney. Penrith is located depart around every 3 – 6 minutes; approximately 55 kilometres west of the Sydney CBD. The corridor contains key business districts such as • Ferry – Sydney Ferries operates the ferry network Parramatta and a number of key suburban/residential along the corridor, providing regular ferry services areas including Strathfield, Lidcombe and Blacktown. from Parramatta to the CBD. As travel by ferry is not possible along the entire corridor, our analysis Figure 4.1 identifies the Penrith to Sydney CBD corridor assumes that any trips further west than Parramatta and highlights key transport modes. would require a transfer to another mode (we have assumed a heavy rail transfer on the basis that it is the fastest); 4.4.1 Penrith to Sydney CBD Transport Modes • Light Rail – The light rail network in Sydney is operated by Metro Transport. Light rail services are A large number of transport modes operate within provided at regular intervals between Central Station the Penrith to Sydney CBD corridor: and Lilyfield with key stops including residential areas such as Pyrmont, Glebe and Rozelle Bay. As • Walking – While there is not a designated light rail services are only provided to Lilyfield, our continuous walking route between Penrith and analysis assumes that any trips further west than the CBD, the Sydney CBD and the inner city Lilyfield would require a transfer to bus and then is reasonably served by dedicated walkways, a transfer to heavy rail; and particularly harbourside and bayside walks close to the CBD (e.g. Darling Harbour, Pyrmont, Glebe); • Private Vehicle – The Western Motorway (M4) and the Great Western Highway/Parramatta Road • Cycling – As part of the RMS cycleways program, provides access along the corridor from Penrith a network of on-road cycleway facilities are in to the Sydney CBD. For the purpose of this study, place along the corridor52. Within the Sydney CBD the GTC estimates for private vehicles have been and in areas closer to the Sydney CBD, dedicated calculated using the Great Western Highway as the cycleway facilities with traffic separation exist53 preferred route. We have also assumed the current (e.g. Kent Street and King Street) and more are situation where there is no toll on the M4. under construction; As indicated in Chapter 1, we have not included the • bus – Sydney Buses operates the bus services monorail and taxis that also operate in this corridor. along the corridor. In many instances, travel by bus would not be a primary transport mode, as there Generalised trip costs for each of the transport modes are few direct services between major centres along the corridor have been calculated and are (e.g. Strathfield and Lidcombe) and the CBD. This illustrated in Figure 4.1. circumstance is more prevalent as the distance from the CBD increases. As a result, multiple transfers between buses would be required for locations beyond the inner city area (e.g. from Leichhardt/ Petersham). It should also be noted that a form of BRT system is present on the section running from Parramatta to Liverpool (the Liverpool – Parramatta Transit Way, operated by Western Sydney Buses – a unit of the NSW State Transit Authority); 52 Source: RTA, Sydney Metropolitan Cycleways Maps. Retrieved on 20 December 2010 from: http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/trafficinformation/downloads/penrith_plt.pdf 53 Source: RTA, Sydney Metropolitan Cycleways Maps. Retrieved on 20 December 2010 from: http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/downloads/sydney_parramatta_bikemap_p1.pdf 52 Figure 4.1 GIS Map of the Penrith to Sydney CBD Transport Corridor Source: Booz & Company, 2011 53 The following points emerge from Figure 4.2. • It is interesting to note that, for most of the corridor, the generalised trip cost for bus is higher • For distances under 10km, cycling emerges than that for cars. This is not surprising given that as the most trip cost-effective mode from a user’s there are very few bus services in Sydney with a perspective, with walking also being relatively “turn-up-and-go” frequency, a lack of timetable cost-effective. connectivity between bus services, relatively high bus fares on a per km basis over short distances; • The reason for this is that comparative analysis and no discounted fares for bus-bus transfers; has been undertaken whereby the fare component of the generalised trip costs is high for these • For trips between 10km and 21km, cycling relatively short distances (given the current fare emerges as the most cost-effective mode for structure in Sydney and compared to, say, London users. However, as indicated above, the cost- buses), there is a lack of fare integration (intra- and effectiveness estimation has not captured inter-modal transfers are financially penalised) and the disutility associated with the hardship and a lack of network integration (timetables are not discomfort of cycling over those distances; and generally designed to facilitate connectivity and passengers incur heavy interchange penalties). • Beyond 30km, the most cost-effective options However, in reality, increased cost-effectiveness in Sydney are clearly motorised modes such as does not automatically mean a greater inclination for bus, car and heavy rail; travellers/commuters to take up these modes due to the physical exertion, and subsequent discomfort – For longer trips in Sydney (21km or more), and inconvenience, coupled with the limited load heavy rail stands out as the most trip cost- carrying capacity when cycling and walking; effective mode due to its relative frequent service, speed and relatively lower monetary • The generalised trip costs of both ferry and component (the fare). light rail in Sydney increase rapidly and peak by around the 1km mark and remain the highest cost modes until they are overtaken by walking at around the 14km and the 25km mark respectively. This level of trip costs is consistent with the observation that both modes tend to be used by relatively affluent passengers in the inner city or harbourside/riverside locations. • Users are extremely unlikely to use light rail along the corridor beyond its current terminating point at Lilyfield as it would require multiple interchanges on buses and trains to reach Western Sydney, hence the very high cost for the “light rail+bus+rail” option between 8km and 25km; this also reflects the poor connectivity of the light rail system in Sydney with the rest of the transport network (e.g. only one bus connects at the Lilyfield terminus). • Bus and heavy rail trips have similar trip costs initially but, as the distance increases beyond the 3km mark, heavy rail clearly becomes more cost-effective as line speeds increase for longer distances on rail lines and enjoy the absence of road congestion; 54 Figure 4.2 Graphical Representation of Generalised Trip Cost by Mode for the Penrith to Sydney CBD Corridor Ferry Ferry + Rail* 55 50 Light Rail + Light Rail Bus + Rail** 45 Ferry* 40 35 Walking 30 10 9 25 Car Distance (kms) 8 7 20 6 Bus 5 4 15 3 2 10 1 0 Heavy Rail 0 10 50 40 30 20 5 Sydney Western Corridor – Penrith to the CBD – Penrith Corridor Western Sydney 0 Cycle 0 80 60 40 20 140 180 160 120 100 Generalised Trip Cost ($) Cost Trip Generalised Light Rail** 55 4.5 Pakenham to Melbourne and metro train network. As such, in most instances bus trips from the south eastern suburbs to the CBD Corridor Assessment Melbourne CBD require at least one and, in many cases, two transfers between bus services; The outer portion of the corridor is one of Melbourne's key growth areas, which is currently experiencing • heavy Rail – The Melbourne trains’ franchisee, urbanisation. An outline of the corridor is provided Metro Trains Melbourne (MTM), operates the key in Figure 4.3. suburban rail services along the corridor with inter- urban services operated by V/Line (the Government regional operator). The rail corridor provides regular 4.5.1. Pakenham to Melbourne CBD passenger rail services into the CBD from a range Transport Modes of key areas, including: Caulfield, Oakleigh, Westall, Dandenong and Berwick; Like the Penrith to Sydney CBD corridor, a large number of transport modes operate within the Pakenham to • Light Rail – Melbourne has the largest tram network Melbourne CBD corridor: in the world54. The Melbourne trams’ franchisee, Yarra Trams, operates services along this south • Walking – There is no designated walking corridor eastern corridor. Tram services are not available between Pakenham and the CBD; the routes chosen along the whole corridor and span only from the in the analysis are typically along main roads; Melbourne CBD to Oakleigh. As such, our analysis assumes that trips further on from Oakleigh would • Cycling – A network of bicycle paths is provided require a transfer to another mode, in this instance along the corridor, stretching out beyond Berwick; heavy rail; and • bus – The Melbourne bus network is operated by • Private Vehicle/Car – The Monash/Princess a number of bus corporations and provides local Freeway (M1), along with the Princess Highway connecting services as many trips along the corridor provides access along the corridor from Pakenham rely predominantly on the inner-city tram network to the Melbourne CBD. © Courtesy of Public Transport Victoria 54 Victorian Department of Transport (2008), Investing in Transport. Retrieved 17 January 2011 from: http://210.15.220.118/east_west_report/Investing_in_Transport_East_West-Chapter03.pdf 56 Figure 4.3 GIS Map of Pakenham to Melbourne CBD Transport Corridor Source: Booz & Company, 2011 57 Generalised trip costs for each of the transport modes along the corridor have been calculated and are illustrated in Figure 4.4. Similar to the Sydney corridor analysis, clear distinctions can be seen between trip distance and the most optimal mode choice with respect to generalised trip costs, for example: • For trips less than 10km, cycling, is the most cost- effective mode from a user’s perspective, with walking also being a relatively cost-effective mode for trips around 3km or less; – As indicated earlier, this is not surprising given that there is no waiting or transfer times involved and the relatively low financial outlays involved (free in the case of walking); however, generalised trip cost methods do not fully take account of the discomfort (the disutility) of walking or cycling, otherwise, there would be a much greater take-up of these modes beyond the 2km – 5km distance (cf. a 1.6% mode share in 2006). • Both heavy rail and car become more cost-effective as the trip distance increases to 10km which is similar to the Sydney analysis; • However, the Melbourne case study offers a more robust comparison between heavy rail and light rail/tram because the Melbourne tram network has longer routes, is well-established and is better connected to other modes: – For almost the entire corridor, apart from the first 2km, heavy rail has lower generalised journey costs than trams. However, the short distance between tram stops, and hence accessibility to the final destination (e.g. shops on the main street), make trams a popular mode in the city and the inner city areas. • Also, similar to the Sydney corridor analysis, heavy rail is the most cost-effective mode for trips greater than around 25km (rail has the lowest generalised cost after 31km); however, the combined “light rail+heavy rail” option has the second lowest costs, reflecting that the reach of the tram line in this corridor (approximately 17km) extends further than the current light rail line in the Sydney corridor (approximately 7km) and has better connectivity with the heavy rail network. 58 Figure 4.4 Graphical Representation of Generalised Trip Cost by Mode for the Pakenham to Melbourne CBD Corridor 65 60 Light Rail + Light Rail Heavy Rail 55 50 Walking 45 Car 40 35 Bus 30 10 9 Distance (kms) 8 25 7 Heavy Rail 6 20 5 4 15 3 Cycle 2 1 10 0 10 50 40 30 20 5 Melbourne South-Eastern Corridor – Pakenham to the CBD – Pakenham Corridor Melbourne South-Eastern Light Rail* 0 80 60 40 20 140 180 160 120 100 Generalised Trip Cost ($) Cost Trip Generalised 59 4.6 Summary There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that passengers have inherent preferences for a In comparing the results for the Sydney and Melbourne given public transport mode over another and that corridor, some common themes emerge: this influences ridership levels and usage profiles55. In general, passengers prefer rail modes to on-street • It is clear from both pieces of analysis that heavy rail bus due to higher service levels, better ride quality is the most suitable transport mode for trips greater and a simpler/easier to understand design proposition. than 25km given its lower generalised trip costs, However, bus rapid transit services can have similar and it performs well in the 10km – 25km zone; ridership impacts to rail in some conditions56. Different transit modes also lend themselves to different types • Active transport modes such as cycling and of network structure or service patterns. Rail based walking are most cost-effective from the user cost modes can encourage interchange transfers which are perspective for those trips less than around 10km not usually enjoyed by passengers and can often offset (or those less than 20km, at a maximum, for mode preference benefits. cycling); and While the solution to developing integrated • Generalised trip costs vary by mode and over transport corridors may seem simple, this is not the different intermediate distances with different case. Transport patterns and needs are diverse with modal implications; in particular, the 10km insets a vast array of possible trip origins and destinations. (See Figure 4.2 and 4.4) for both corridors suggest Typical trips are not always between the suburbs and that trip costs do not increase linearly and cross a single central business district in the capital city. at various points: The challenge for governments and transport planners is how to develop and implement integrated multi- – In Sydney, both light rail and ferries show the modal transport networks given these disparate highest generalised trip costs for journeys less transport patterns. than 10km; however, it must be recognised that users of these modes enjoy relatively new rolling stock in the case of light rail, unsurpassed harbour views in the case of ferries, very good reliability due to lack of congestion, and relatively lower peak crowding in both cases. Therefore, these modes play a role in providing direct main mode services in the inner city areas. – In Melbourne, buses have the highest generalised trip costs between 4km and 16km due to the slow vehicle speeds and the longer headways between services, followed by trams which have the second highest generalised trip costs between 4km and 9km; initially, the margin is quite small but it increases quite rapidly after the 5km mark so that it is highly unlikely that users would prefer bus for travel beyond, say, 15km. – Cars perform better than buses in both instances for long-distance travel, meaning that in areas where there is no heavy rail link, it is more cost- effective for users to drive than catch a bus. 55 Booz Allen Hamilton (2000), Valuation of Public Transport Attributes. Final Report. Booz Allen Hamilton for Transfund New Zealand. 56 Currie, G. (2005), The Demand Performance of Bus Rapid Transit, Journal of Public Transportation, Vol 8, No.1, pp. 41-55. 60 61 © Courtesy Trams of Yarra Multi-modal Transport Appraisals 62 5 Multi-modal Transport Appraisals 5.1 Overview 5.2 historical Context and This chapter considers project appraisal and presents Recent Developments arguments for a more comprehensive approach to ensure a wide range of integrated and multi-modal Historically, in most states within Australia, individual options are considered in transport project/policy appraisal guidance documents existed for each mode. development and prioritisation. For example, in NSW, the State Rail Authority’s Guide to the Evaluation of Capital Projects57 provided Given the transport system is an interconnected guidance on the appraisal of heavy rail projects, whilst network, project evaluations should not focus on a the RMS Economic Analysis Manual58 guided the single mode or be pursued in isolation from each other. evaluation of road projects. One of the key implications Factors to be considered in a comprehensive approach of having single-mode appraisal guidance documents are likely to include: is that they do not encourage multi-modal and/or integrated transport options during the optioneering • the types and extent of benefits (as well as the stage of the appraisal process. For instance, the associated costs) are likely to differ greatly given options to develop a new rail line might be: the level of infrastructure and/or services already in place; and • Option 1 – The Base Case – Do Nothing; • identification of the requirements for a multi-modal • Option 2 – Build a single track line from A to B; network wide evaluation of projects, particularly given the unique nature of each city/corridor: • Option 3 – Build a single track line with a passing loop; and – This could potentially be a two-stage approach, with Stage 1 focusing on the strategic corridor • Option 4 – Build a double track line. evaluation and Stage 2 evaluating the range of complementary services required to get the Whereas an integrated multi-modal transport approach best network-wide outcomes. may consider other options e.g. run buses from A to B and/or provide taxis from A to B. In recent years, there have been examples of projects progressing with and without sufficient planning behind However, more recently, there has been a move them. For example, the Epping to Parramatta Rail Link towards multi-modal project evaluation. An assessment in NSW is an example of a project in which a single of a range of transport appraisal guidelines both within mode solution has been chosen and progressed without Australia (federal and state based) and internationally detailed assessment of various project options at the identified the following multi-modal transport appraisal time of announcement. guidance material. On the other hand, the Melbourne East-West Needs Assessment project represents a landmark process in Australia in which a range of options (including private and public transport) for improving east-west transport connections across Melbourne were considered and assessed. 57 State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1995), Guide to the Evaluation of Capital Projects, New South Wales. 58 New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority (1999), Economic Analysis Manual, New South Wales. 63 Case Study 1: East-West Link Needs Assessment In 2006, the Victorian Government asked Sir Rod Eddington to undertake a comprehensive study into improving east-west transport connections across Melbourne. In March 2008, Sir Rod Eddington completed the East–West Link Needs Assessment (EWLNA) and delivered his report to government. The EWLNA report demonstrates the type of strategic approach to transport planning this paper advocates. It had been identified that Melbourne as a city was over reliant on the Monash – CityLink – West Gate corridor and that this would be unsustainable in the face of a growing population and economy. The report sets out to investigate a wide range of options for improving this corridor that could equip Melbourne with the requisite capacity to accommodate more people and hence transport users. The investigation covered public transport opportunities, enhanced freight access, urban amenity, road network connectivity, economic benefits, congestion and costs and funding options. Importantly, the report was instigated with no pre-conceived ideas of what transport modes were needed or would be best. The disparate current and potential problems were identified and the best ‘workable solution’ for each was to be found. A large part of the report's findings were the result of the consultation process, which incorporated the views of business, industry bodies and the general public. The results of the report were a series of recommendations to Government that have since flowed through to transport planning and have spanned both road and rail infrastructure projects as well as building capacity for better cycling and pedestrian access. • The Australian Transport Council’s (ATC) “National To a certain extent, the natural inclination to focus Guidelines”59 presents a framework for multi-modal on own mode projects by agencies will only be project evaluation that considers the full range of discouraged by transport appraisal guidance developed potential solutions or options, thus moving beyond at the industry level. For example, the UK DfT’s TAG the narrow focus on infrastructure and single-mode provides guidance on multi-modal effects and hence solutions alone; encourages the development of multi-modal transport options. Similarly, “integration” was one of the key • The UK Department for Transport’s (DfT) “Transport criteria in the UK Government’s “New Approach to Analysis Guidance” (TAG)60 provides guidance for Appraisal” (NATA) framework in 1997. estimating multi-modal and network effects; and At present, the current framework of mode based • Additionally, Infrastructure Australia (IA) advocates appraisal guidance framework do not encourage the evaluation and appraisal of a range of options or the States to develop integrated and/or multi-modal potential solutions to transport problems including transport options during the appraisal process, rather build, non-build and multi-modal solutions61. it reinforces the development of single-mode/own mode options. 59 Australian Transport Council (2006), National Guidelines for Transport System Management in Australia, 2nd edition, Volumes 1-5, Canberra. 60 United Kingdom Department for Transport (updated February 2010), Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG). Retrieved December 2010 from: http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/ 61 Infrastructure Australia (2009), Better Infrastructure Decision-Making: Guidelines for Making Submissions to Infrastructure Australia’s Infrastructure Planning Process, through Infrastructure Australia’s Reform and Investment Framework, Canberra. 64 5.3 alternative Approaches 5.3.2 Specific Appraisal Requirements 5.3.1 Strategic Approaches Because of the complex trade-offs between mode types and the strategies to deploy them, an objective One alternative would be for State transport agencies framework is needed to appropriately compare modes to adopt a single transport appraisal guidance approach, in a rational and objective manner. An objective similar to the UK DfT’s NATA and TAG approaches, approach to evaluation needs to62: to encourage transport integration and multi-modal transport. • Use comparable assumptions on the design of alternative modes; for example, comparing a new Another alternative would be to modify existing bus system with refurbishment of a 50 year old appraisal guidance documents to stipulate that the railway is not a valid assessment of alternatives; optioneering stage of the appraisal process needs to consider alternative transport mode options. • If different technologies are to be compared, each requires optimisation; there is a danger that an The above two approaches could be reinforced through evaluation of poorly optimised mode A will be the State Treasury Gateway Review Process to ensure rejected in favour of optimised mode B when an that alternative modes have been considered. optimisation of mode A would be the best solution; • It is useful to evaluate alternative modes by classifying design issues separately, including mode technologies, operating patterns and service types; 62 Vuchic, V. (2005), Urban Transit: Operations, Planning and Economics, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc. 65 Case Study 2: Gold Coast Rapid Transit The Gold Coast Rapid Transit (GCRT) project is a new light rail link that aims to reduce congestion and improve public transport services at the Gold Coast. When completed, the 40km route will link Helensvale in the north to Coolangatta and the Gold Coast Airport. The project is being delivered by the Queensland Government (through the Department of Transport and Main Roads), in partnership with the Australian Government and Gold Coast City Council. The relevance of the GCRT project to this paper lies in the way the transport mode was selected and the process of decision making that lead to it. With rapid growth in population and inadequacies in the existing public transport system, a decision was made that a North-South rapid transit system was required for the Gold Coast region. The Queensland Government formulated the Central Design & Implementation Management Plan (CDIMP) that would fully investigate both bus transit and light rail systems that had been identified as possible options for the GCRT project. Throughout the consultation phase of the project, the two modes of rapid transit were investigated in detail. The vehicles were compared against a number of criteria including capacity, passenger comfort, reliability, safety, sustainability and value for money. While both modes proved competitive, light rail was deemed the preferred choice for the Gold Coast community because: • light rail vehicles can carry up to 100, 000 passengers per day — these figures cannot be matched by bus rapid transit; • the length and capacity of light rail vehicles can be increased to meet the demands of the Gold Coast’s fast-growing population; • light rail technology has a proven vehicle life of 30 years or more; • over time, operating a light rail system provides better value for money than operating a bus rapid transit system; • light rail provides superior levels of passenger comfort when compared with other modes of transport; and • the Gold Coast community showed strong support for light rail over bus rapid transit. Importantly, the GCRT project is only a part of long-term transport planning on the Gold Coast. Plans to improve and extend the heavy rail line linking Coolangatta and Brisbane are being considered, as are better bus services for cross-city journeys that will better integrate the bus system with the light rail line. The GCRT project is a good example of long-term transport planning. It demonstrates a thorough and well-considered approach to mode selection and the ensuing decision making process. A need for new transport was identified, possible options were canvassed and duly considered with the option considered the most appropriate implemented and integrated with existing and future transit systems. 66 • All transit systems involve a network and how each 5.4 Summary transit option fits into that network is critical to system wide performance. Hence a network-wide While a need for objective cross-modal evaluation is design is required for all options; clear, government authorities have a difficult task in undertaking an appraisal of alternative transit modes • Investment cost is a major element of mode using objective and comparable methods. There is a selection and, in general, there is a link between need to provide a better range of guidance to authorities high impact and quality mode solutions and high on the relative roles and attributes of each of the cost. If modes are to be reasonably compared, it different conventional transit modes. Guidance on how is invalid to test a high cost and a low cost option alternative modes perform in terms of costs, benefits unless variation in investment cost is an important and transport and land use system impacts is also area being explored in an appraisal; needed to improve the quality of evaluation undertaken in corridor studies. • Transit modes can have varying long term impacts on land use and should be included in an evaluation. Research literature suggests bigger impacts on development density for rail based modes63; however, similar impacts can be seen in large bus rapid transit system investment64; and • The greater the differences between the transit modes being compared, the more comprehensive must be the evaluation procedure being deployed65 . Overall, it is clear that a range of public transport solutions can be deployed in a wide range of patterns and designs for a given transport task. Current evaluation processes are limited by mode specific evaluation methods rather than an objective comparison between modal options. This is limiting the effectiveness of government investment and is a poor use of economic appraisal techniques, which have been designed to explore the full range of options available. It is also in contrast to the practices outlined in the National Guidelines. 63 Dittmar, H. and O. G,(2004), The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit Oriented Developmen,: Island Press. 64 Currie, G. (2006) Bus Transit Oriented Development - Strengths and Weaknesses Relative to Rail, Journal of Public Transportation, Volume 9 No 4. 65 Booz Allen Hamilton (2000), Valuation of Public Transport Attributes, Final Report. Booz Allen Hamilton for Transfund New Zealand. 67 Conclusion 68 6 Conclusion As cities grow in size and population, it is common • Network Integration; for the roles and functions served by the existing transport network to change and evolve, particularly, • Information Integration; and in the light of new transport proposals. Many modern cities, including those in Australia, have found it is • Fare Integration. often no longer sufficient to rely on a single mode of transport to meet all the different user needs in For the benefits of alternative modes to be realised in a transport corridor. an integrated transport environment, the governance of transport appraisals also needs to be revisited. The appraisal of transport corridors in Sydney and Historically, the majority of state-based transport Melbourne undertaken in this study demonstrate appraisals in NSW have been conducted in accordance the need to make detailed and informed assessments with single mode appraisal guidelines. For transport before committing to a mode. The appraisals revealed integration of multi-modal services to be taken seriously, similarities between the corridors but showed that a it is essential that appraisal guidance encourages one-size-fits-all approach to modal selection could identification of alternative modes and explores them result in a sub-optimal solution. during the optioneering stage of transport appraisals. Our analysis has shown that governments around This paper has been undertaken primarily at a strategic Australia should adopt a mode-neutral stance at the level, for illustrative purposes, to demonstrate that we early stages of transport projects. The justification for cannot rely solely on single mode projects in strategic the eventual mode, or modes, selected should be clear, transport corridors and that a mix of transport modes complete and made public. Once a mode is selected, are required to meet the different transport needs it should be pursued vigorously through planning and of the users. Further research and analysis could be procurement on a strong foundation that the most undertaken to build a more comprehensive case for appropriate option has been selected. integrated multi-modal transport, for example: Developing Metropolitan Corridor Plans in a • Considering different combinations of multi-modal mode neutral environment will allow policymakers transport within the corridor (e.g. other multi-modal to identify, protect and preserve strategic corridors. options could consist of bus movements, bus-rail Metropolitan Corridor Plans will also allow state movements, car rail-movements)66; and local governments to identify growth in existing corridors, allowing for better planning of future modal • Undertaking further research to test the sensitivity additions and duplications. A consistent approach to of the parameters and the fares on the two corridor planning, through Metropolitan Corridor Plans, case studies; will give governments a coherent and detailed basis for future modal decisions – thereby reducing modal • Examining other strategic corridors in Sydney bias to arrive at the best transport planning and (e.g. North West corridor in Sydney, North Shore prioritisation decisions. and South West) and Melbourne (e.g. the Western corridor to Geelong and the Northern suburbs); We have presented three examples of international best practice for integrated multi-modal transport. • Extending the analysis to other capital cities by, The lessons learnt focused on the key ingredients for instance, looking at other strategic corridors of transport integration and how different modes of in Brisbane, Adelaide or Perth; and transport work together to successfully deliver services for the user. All three cities – London, Hong Kong and • Extending the analysis to international capital Singapore – have delivered integrated transport by cities in Europe, Asia and North America. achieving integration at both the strategic and practical level of transport planning and service The development of a truly integrated transport delivery, including: network remains a challenge for most Australian cities. However, increasing awareness of successfully • Institutional Integration; integrated networks around the world – through both international travel and environmental concerns – has • Physical Integration; put the need for transport integration and multi-modal services at the top of the transport planning agenda. 66 Except for the combination of light rail with bus and heavy rail, and ferry with heavy rail in the Sydney corridor and light rail with heavy rail in Melbourne. 69 References 70 7 References Aingetroy, P. (2009), Sydney CBD Car Parking ViewPoint. Retrieved from: http://www. cbre.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/BCAB4BE0-A000-412F-A891-6853E01F485A/726328/ CarParkingViewPoint.pdf Allan, A. (2001), Walking as a Local Transport Modal Choice in Adelaide, Australia: Walking the 21st Century – 20th to 22nd February 2001, Perth, Western Australia, pp.122- 135. Retrieved 15 December 2010 from: http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/mediaFiles/ walking_21centconf01bpaper_allan.pdf Arundell, L. (2007), The Cost of Cycling, Thinking on Two Wheels Cycling Conferences, pp. 1-12. Retrieved 02 December 2010 from: http://grapevine.net.au/~mccluskeyarundell/ Cost_of_Cycling.pdf Aspelin, K (2005), Establishing Pedestrian Walking Speeds. Portland State University. Australian Transport Council (2006), National Guidelines for Transport System Management in Australia, 2nd edition, Volumes 1-5, Canberra. Booz Allen Hamilton (2000), Valuation of Public Transport Attributes, Final Report. Booz Allen Hamilton for Transfund New Zealand. City of Sydney Council (Transport Strategy Unit) (2008), Motorcycle and Scooter Strategy and Action Plan2008 - 2011, June. Currie, G. (2005), The Demand Performance of Bus Rapid Transit, Journal of Public Transportation, Vol 8, No.1, pp. 41-55. Currie, G. (2006), Bus Transit Oriented Development - Strengths and Weaknesses Relative to Rail, Journal of Public Transportation, Volume 9 No 4: p. pp 1-21. Currie, G. (2009), Research Perspectives on the Merits of Light Rail vs Bus, [shown at BITRE Colloquium 18-19 June 2009]. Dittmar, H. and O. G. (2004), The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Transit Oriented Development, Island Press. FTA and US DOT (prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton) (2004), Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making, August. Glazebrook, G. (2009), Designing a Thirty Year Public Transport Plan for Sydney. Retrieved 21 December 2010 from: http://www.dab.uts.edu.au/research/outcomes/garry-glazebrook- main.pdf Glazebrook, G. (2009), Designing a Thirty Year Public Transport Plan for Sydney – Attachments. Retrieved 21 December 2010 from: http://www.dab.uts.edu.au/research/ outcomes/garry-glazebrook-attach.pdf Hong Kong Transport Department (2010), Hong Kong: The Facts, Information Services Department. Hook, W. (2009), Bus Rapid Transit – A Cost-Effective Mass Transit Technology, em- Air & Waste Management Association, June. Industry Commission (1994), Urban Transport, Volume 1 Report, Australian Government Publishing Service, Melbourne. 71 Infrastructure Australia (2009), Better Infrastructure Decision-Making: Guidelines for Making Submissions to Infrastructure Australia’s Infrastructure Planning Process, through Infrastructure Australia’s Reform and Investment Framework, Canberra. Jenkins, M. (2008), Attributes of a Metro. [shown at RTSA: METROS – Future Rail for Sydney] [viewed in 2008]. Kenworthy, J. (2000), The Singapore/Hong Kong Success Stories and their Implications for Developing Cities. Retrieved December 2010 from: http://www.istp.murdoch.edu.au/ISTP/ casestudies/Case_Studies_Asia/modasia/modasia.html Lo, H. K., Tang, S. and Wang, D. Z. W. (2008), Managing the Accessibility on Mass Public Transit: The Case of Hong Kong, Journal of Transport and Land Use, Vol 1, No. 2, pp.23-49. Luk, J. and Olszewski, P. (2003), Integrated Public Transport in Singapore and Hong Kong, Road and Transport Research. Retrieved 16 December 2010 from: http://findarticles.com/p/ articles/mi_qa3927/is_200312/ai_n9318847/?tag=content;col1 Macken, D. (2010), Future Perfect, Financial Review Magazine, December, pp.44-50. New South Wales Roads and Traffic Authority (1999), Economic Analysis Manual, New South Wales. Nielsen, G. and Lange, T. (nd), Network Design for Public Transport Success – Theory and Examples. Retrieved 21 December 2010, from: http://www.thredbo-conference-series.org/ downloads/thredbo10_papers/thredbo10-themeE-Nielsen-Lange.pdf RTA (2010), Annual Speed and Traffic Volume Data in Sydney. Retrieved from: http://www. rta.nsw.gov.au/publicationsstatisticsforms/downloads/annual_speed_and_traffic_volume_ data_2009-2010.pdf RTA, Sydney Metropolitan Cycleways Maps. Retrieved on 20 December 2010 from: http:// www.rta.nsw.gov.au/trafficinformation/downloads/penrith_plt.pdf RTA, Sydney Metropolitan Cycleways Maps. Retrieved on 20 December 2010 from: http:// www.rta.nsw.gov.au/usingroads/downloads/sydney_parramatta_bikemap_p1.pdf State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1995), Guide to the Evaluation of Capital Projects, New South Wales. Transport for London (2010), Travel in London, Report 3. Tranter, P (2004), Effective Speeds: Car Costs are Slowing Us Down, Australian Greenhouse Office. TRB (2003),Transit Capacity and Quality of Service – Manual (2nd edition), TCRP Report 100, October. UITP (2009), Light Rail Transit – A Safe Means of Transport, Core Brief. United Kingdom Department for Transport (updated February 2010), Transport Analysis Guidance (TAG), available at http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/ Van Nes, R. (2002), Design of Multi-modal Transport Networks – A Hierarchical Approach, TRAIL – Thesis Series T2002/5, DUP Science, The Netherlands. Retrieved 02 December from:http://www.researchgate.net/publication/27345173_Design_of_multimodal_ transport_networks_A_hierarchical_approach 72 Victorian Department of Transport (2008), Investing in Transport, Retrieved 17 January 2011 from: http://210.15.220.118/east_west_report/Investing_in_Transport_East_West- Chapter03.pdf Vuchic, V. (2005), Urban Transit: Operations, Planning and Economics. Hoboken, New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Vuchic, V.R. (1981), Urban Public Transportation, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall Inc. Wilson Parking, Melbourne Central Car Park. Retrieved from: http://www.wilsonparking. com.au/go/wilson-car-parks/vic/melbourne-central. 73 Appendix 1. Corridor Assessment Methodology 74 Appendix 1. Corridor Assessment Methodology As outlined in Chapter 4, our assessment explores The generalised trip cost values provide an estimate the relative costs of a number of transport modes of the “total cost” of a journey taking into account servicing the Sydney based and Melbourne based factors such as: corridors. Estimates of generalised trip costs (GTC) are used to explore these relative costs. An overview • Fare price (for public transport trips) of the methodology applied when estimating generalised trip costs is outlined to the right. • Vehicle operating costs (for private vehicles) • Travel time A1.1 Generalised Trip • Access and egress time Cost Calculations • Transfer time As an overview, the analysis calculates the GTC of each transport mode over the total distance of the • Wait time corridor. The data is presented in graph form to illustrate how the most cost-effective mode changes as the The generalised trip cost calculation elements distance travelled increases. for each mode of the Sydney corridor is further explained in Table A1-1. 75 Table A1-1 Sydney corridor GTC Calculation Elements Mode GTC Calculation Elements Private vehicle (car) • Vehicle operating costs – calculated as per Austroads Guide to Project Evaluation Part 4 • All day average parking costs – estimated at $35 per day67 • Travel time – estimated applying a peak average travel speed of 36 kph68 Walking • Travel time – estimated applying an average walking speed of 4.8 kph69 Cycling • Travel time – estimated applying an average cycling speed of 19 kph for the first 19 km and of 12.5 kph for the rest of the journey • Cycling vehicle operating costs – based on value presented at the ‘Thinking on Two Wheels Cycling Conference’ equivalent to $0.29 per vkm Ferry • GTC estimates for ferry are based on travel between Circular Quay and Parramatta by ferry and Parramatta to Penrith by train. • Fare – as per Sydney Ferries standard fares • Travel Time – as per Sydney Ferries timetable • Access and Egress Time – based on average values taken from The NSW Department of Planning Transport and Population Data Centre • Transfer Penalty – see Table A1-3 • Wait Time – calculated taking half the average time between services Heavy Rail • Fare – as per City Rail standard fares • Travel Time – as per City Rail timetable • Access and Egress Time – based on values taken from The NSW Department of Planning Transport and Population Data Centre • Transfer Penalty – see Table A1-3 • Wait Time – calculated taking half the average time between services Light Rail As the light rail network currently only covers 6.7km (from Central to Lilyfield), the remainder of the journey was assumed to be undertaken by bus (from Lilyfield to Petersham) and heavy rail (from Petersham to Penrith, plus an additional transfer to an express rail service at Parramatta). • Fare – as per Sydney Light Rail standard fares • Travel Time – as per Sydney Light Rail transport timetable • Access and Egress Time – based on average values taken from The NSW Department of Planning Transport and Population Data Centre • Wait Time – calculated taking half the average time between services Bus In many instances, there are no direct bus services between many of the key locations further along the corridor (e.g. Penrith, Mt Druitt and Blacktown) and the CBD. As a result, typically one or more transfers are required. For example, a bus trip from Penrith to the Sydney CBD requires travel on three separate bus routes as outlined below: 1. Route 776 bus from Penrith Railway Station to St Marys Railway Station 2. Route 745 bus from St Marys Railway Station to Castle Hill Interchange 3. Route M61 bus from Castle Hill Interchange to Sydney CBD The generalised trip costs are calculated based on: • Fare – as per Sydney Buses standard fares • Travel Time – as per Sydney Buses timetable • Access and Egress Time – based on average values taken from The NSW Department of Planning Transport and Population Data Centre • Transfer Penalty – see Table A1-3 • Wait Time – calculated taking half the average time between services 67 Based on the analysis presented at: http://www.cbre.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/BCAB4BE0-A000-412F-A891-6853E01F485A/726328/CarParkingViewPoint.pdf 68 Based on RMS estimates of average travel speeds, available from http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/publicationsstatisticsforms/downloads/annual_speed_and_traffic_volume_data_2009-2010.pdf 69 Based on the analysis presented within Aspelin, K (2005) "Establishing Pedestrian Walking Speeds. Portland State University. 76 Table A1-2 outlines the generalised trips cost calculation elements for the Melbourne corridor. Table A1-2 Melbourne Corridor GTC Calculation Elements Mode GTC Calculation Elements Private vehicle (car) • Vehicle operating costs – calculated as per Austroads Guide to Project Evaluation Part 4 • All day average parking costs – estimated at $14 per day70 • Travel time – estimated applying an peak average travel speed of 41 kph71 Walking • Travel time – estimated applying an average walking speed of 4.8 kph72 Cycling • Travel time – estimated applying an average cycling speed of 19 kph for the first 17 km and of 12.5 kmh for the rest of the journey • Cycling vehicle operating costs – based on value presented at the ‘Thinking on Two Wheels Cycling Conference’ equivalent to $0.29 per vkm Heavy Rail • Fare – as per Metcard 2 hour standard fares • Travel Time – as per Metlink timetable • Access and Egress Time – based on average values taken from Sydney access and egress time values • Transfer Penalty – see Table A1-3 • Wait Time – calculated taking half the average time between services Light Rail/Tram As the light rail network does not cover the full length of the corridor under consideration, running only from the CBD to Caulfield, the remainder of the journey from Oakleigh to Pakenham was assumed to be by heavy rail. • Fare – as per the Metcard 2 hour standard fares • Travel Time – as per Yarra Trams transport timetable • Access and Egress Time – based on average values taken from Sydney access and egress time values • Wait Time – calculated taking half the average time between services Bus In many instances, there are no direct bus services between many of the key locations along the corridor and the CBD. Many of the bus routes along this corridor link into other transport modes or service local shopping centres and major routes across suburbs. As a result, typically one or more transfers are required. For example, a bus trip from Berwick to the Melbourne CBD requires travel on three separate bus routes as outlined below: 1. Route 828 bus from Berwick Railway Station (Reserve Street) to Dandenong Railway Station (Foster Street) 2. Route 901 bus from Dandenong Railway Station (Foster Street) to Doncaster East (Beverley St/ Blackburn Rd) 3. Route 906 bus from Doncaster East (Beverley St/Blackburn Rd) to Melbourne CBD The generalised trip costs are calculated based on: • Fare – as per the Metcard 2 hour standard fares • Travel Time – as per Metlink timetable • Access and Egress Time – based on average values taken from Sydney access and egress time values • Transfer Penalty – see Table A1-3 below • Wait Time – calculated taking half the average time between services 70 Source: http://www.wilsonparking.com.au/go/wilson-car-parks/vic/melbourne-central. 71 Tranter, P (2004), Effective Speeds: Car Costs are Slowing Us Down, Australian Greenhouse Office. 72 Based on the analysis presented within Aspelin, K (2005), Establishing Pedestrian Walking Speeds, Portland State University. 77 The Value of Time Standard Weightings Calculating the GTC for each mode requires the As the value of time, as outlined previously, monetisation of time. A value of $0.21 per minute differs for each aspect of the journey, standard (2010 value) has been applied as per the travel time weightings have been applied to take into account values outlined in Austroads Guide to Project Evaluation these differences. Table A1-3 outlines the standard Part 4 (updated to 2010 dollars using an average weightings that have been applied in the analysis. annual inflation rate of 3.0%). These values are consistent with those outlined in both The National Guidelines for Transport System Management in Australia and the UK Department for Transport WebTAG Guidelines. Table A1-3 Standard Weightings Item Weighting/Value In-vehicle time x 1 Access time x 2 Egress time x 2 Transfer time penalty Bus – Bus: equivalent to 13 minutes LRT – Bus: equivalent to 19 minutes 1 LRT – Heavy Rail: equivalent to 10 minutes Heavy Rail – Heavy Rail: equivalent to 10 minutes 1 Ferry – Heavy Rail: equivalent to 13 minutes Wait time x 2 Note: 1Currie G (2005), “The Demand Performance of Bus Rapid Transit”, Journal of Public Transportation, Volume 8, No.1, pp 41—55, http://www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT%208-1%20Currie.pdf; and Booz Allen Hamilton (2000), Valuation of public transport attributes, Final Report. Booz Allen Hamilton for Transfund New Zealand. 78 79 Appendix 2. Corridor Assessment Detailed Results 80 Appendix 2. Corridor Assessment Detailed Results A2.1 Penrith to Sydney CBD Detailed Results Outlined below in Table A2-1 to A2-7 are the generalised trip cost calculations and estimates for the Penrith to Sydney CBD corridor. Table A2-1 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Ferry Trips Ferry Origin Distance Travel Access Average Egress Average Total Fare ($) Generalised Time Time Wait Time Time Interchange Generalised Trip Cost Time Travel Time Estimate Penrith 55 127 33 25 7 13 269 $ 11.20 $ 66.76 Mt Druitt 44 94 30 29 7 13 238 $ 11.20 $ 60.29 Blacktown 34 80 31 26 7 13 221 $ 10.60 $ 56.26 Parramatta 23 74 14 23 7 161 $ 6.60 $ 39.78 Rydalmere 17 54 14 23 7 141 $ 6.60 $ 35.65 Cabarita 12 39 14 23 7 126 $ 6.60 $ 32.56 Abbottsford 10 34 14 18 7 112 $ 6.60 $ 29.77 Chiswick 9 29 14 7 7 85 $ 6.60 $ 24.03 Huntleys Pt 8 26 14 7 7 82 $ 6.60 $ 23.42 Drummoyne 6 20 14 6 7 74 $ 6.60 $ 21.89 McMahons Pt 2 7 14 5 7 59 $ 5.30 $ 17.44 Milsons Pt 2 5 14 5 7 57 $ 5.30 $ 17.03 Table A2-2 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Bus Trips Bus Origin Distance Travel Access Average Egress Average Total Fare ($) Generalised Time Time Wait Time Time Interchange Generalised Trip Cost Time Travel Time Estimate Penrith 55 160 18 15 7 26 266 $ 6.30 $ 61.24 Mt Druitt 43 124 15 14 7 26 222 $ 6.30 $ 51.99 Blacktown 36 85 16 5 7 13 154 $ 6.30 $ 37.98 Parramatta 24 83 14 5 7 13 148 $ 6.30 $ 36.90 Lidcombe 19 85 12 3 7 26 154 $ 5.70 $ 37.47 Strathfield 14 55 13 2 7 99 $ 5.10 $ 25.57 Redfern 4 26 11 3 7 68 $ 2.00 $ 15.95 Central 3 18 11 1 7 57 $ 2.00 $ 13.71 81 Table A2-3 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Heavy Rail Trips Heavy Rail Origin Distance Travel Access Average Egress Average Total Fare ($) Generalised Time Time Wait Time Time Interchange Generalised Trip Cost Time Travel Time Estimate Penrith 55 96 18 2 7 150.4 $ 6.00 $ 37.02 Mt Druitt 43 63 15 6 7 119.1 $ 6.00 $ 30.55 Blacktown 36 50 16 4 7 102.9 $ 6.00 $ 27.23 Parramatta 24 43 14 2 7 91.3 $ 4.60 $ 23.43 Lidcombe 19 38 12 3 7 80.8 $ 4.00 $ 20.66 Strathfield 14 31 13 1 7 73.9 $ 4.00 $ 19.24 Redfern 4 11 11 2 7 50.9 $ 3.20 $ 13.69 Central 3 9 11 2 7 48.9 $ 3.20 $ 13.28 Table A2-4 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Car Trips Car Origin Distance Travel Access Average Egress Average Total Fare ($) Generalised Time Time Wait Time Time Interchange Generalised Trip Cost Time Travel Time Estimate Penrith 57 95 95 $ 19.42 $ 50.91 Mt Druitt 44 73 73 $ 14.95 $ 41.95 Blacktown 37 62 62 $ 12.60 $ 37.22 Parramatta 24 41 41 $ 8.28 $ 28.53 Lidcombe 20 33 33 $ 6.68 $ 25.32 Strathfield 14 23 23 $ 4.77 $ 21.48 Redfern 4 7 7 $ 1.36 $ 14.64 Central 3 4 4 $ 0.89 $ 13.68 Table A2-5 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Walking Trips Walking Origin Distance Travel Access Average Egress Average Total Fare ($) Generalised Time Time Wait Time Time Interchange Generalised Trip Cost Time Travel Time Estimate Penrith 54 670 670 $ 138.17 Mt Druitt 43 540 540 $ 111.36 Blacktown 36 451 451 $ 93.06 Parramatta 24 300 300 $ 61.87 Lidcombe 19 234 234 $ 48.20 Strathfield 14 173 173 $ 35.57 Redfern 4 46 46 $ 9.54 Central 3 34 34 $ 6.96 82 Table A2-6 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Cycling Trips Cycling Origin Distance Travel Access Average Egress Average Total Fare ($) Generalised Time Time Wait Time Time Interchange Generalised Trip Cost Time Travel Time Estimate Penrith 54 257 257 $ 15.53 $ 68.59 Mt Druitt 43 207 207 $ 12.52 $ 55.28 Blacktown 36 173 173 $ 10.46 $ 46.20 Parramatta 24 115 115 $ 6.96 $ 30.71 Lidcombe 19 59 59 $ 5.42 $ 17.60 Strathfield 14 44 44 $ 4.00 $ 12.99 Redfern 4 12 12 $ 1.07 $ 3.48 Central 3 9 9 $ 0.78 $ 2.54 Table A2-7 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Light Rail Trips Light Rail Origin Distance Travel Access Average Egress Average Total Fare ($) Generalised Time Time Wait Time Time Interchange Generalised Trip Cost Time Travel Time Estimate Lilyfield 7 25 14 6 7 79 $ 4.40 $ 20.77 Rozelle Bay 6 22 14 6 7 76 $ 4.40 $ 20.15 Jubilee Park 6 21 14 6 7 75 $ 4.40 $ 19.94 Glebe 5 19 14 6 7 73 $ 4.40 $ 19.53 Wentworth Park 5 17 14 6 7 71 $ 4.40 $ 19.12 Fish Market 4 15 14 6 7 69 $ 4.40 $ 18.71 John St. Square 3 13 14 6 7 67 $ 4.40 $ 18.29 The Star 3 12 14 6 7 66 $ 4.40 $ 18.09 Pyrmont Bay 3 11 14 6 7 65 $ 4.40 $ 17.88 Darling Harbour/ 2 9 14 6 7 63 $ 3.40 $ 16.47 Convention Exhibition Centre 2 7 14 6 7 61 $ 3.40 $ 16.06 Chinatown/Paddy's 1 5 14 6 7 59 $ 3.40 $ 15.64 Markets Capitol Square 1 3 14 6 7 57 $ 3.40 $ 15.23 83 A2.2 Pakenham to Melbourne CBD Detailed Results Outlined in Table A2-8 to Table A2-13 are the generalised trip cost calculations and estimates for the Pakenham to Melbourne CBD corridor. Table A2-8 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Bus Trips Bus Origin Distance Travel Access Average Egress Average Total Fare ($) Generalised Time Time Wait Time Time Interchange Generalised Trip Cost Time Travel Time Estimate Flinders St Station 2 0 $ – $ – Richmond 5 24 14 6 7 13 91 $ 3.70 $ 22.37 South Yarra 5 30 14 6 7 13 97 $ 3.70 $ 23.61 Caulfield 13 67 14 20 7 26 176 $ 3.70 $ 39.90 Oakleigh 18 75 14 15 7 26 173 $ 3.70 $ 39.45 Clayton 24 93 14 17 7 26 196 $ 5.80 $ 46.13 Springvale 29 94 14 12 7 13 173 $ 5.80 $ 41.45 Dandenong 35 115 14 13 7 13 195 $ 5.80 $ 45.99 Berwick 47 158 14 24 7 26 274 $ 5.80 $ 62.38 Packenham 61 $ – $ – Table A2-9 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Heavy Rail Trips Heavy Rail - Metro Origin Distance Travel Access Average Egress Average Total Fare ($) Generalised Time Time Wait Time Time Interchange Generalised Trip Cost Time Travel Time Estimate Flinders St Station 2 5 14 1 7 48 $ 3.70 $ 13.68 Richmond 5 9 14 1 7 53 $ 3.70 $ 14.60 South Yarra 5 10 14 3 7 59 $ 3.70 $ 15.77 Caulfield 13 24 14 2 7 70 $ 3.70 $ 18.16 Oakleigh 18 29 14 4 7 79 $ 3.70 $ 19.97 Clayton 24 34 14 4 7 84 $ 5.80 $ 23.10 Springvale 29 40 14 4 7 90 $ 5.80 $ 24.33 Dandenong 35 49 14 4 7 99 $ 5.80 $ 26.19 Berwick 47 62 14 13 7 130 $ 5.80 $ 32.67 Packenham 61 73 14 8 7 130 $ 5.80 $ 32.62 84 Table A2-10 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Car Trips Car Origin Distance Travel Access Average Egress Average Total Fare ($) Generalised Time Time Wait Time Time Interchange Generalised Trip Cost Time Travel Time Estimate Flinders St Station 3 5 5 $ 0.90 $ 6.66 Richmond 5 9 9 $ 1.65 $ 8.23 South Yarra 6 10 10 $ 1.77 $ 8.49 Caulfield 15 24 24 $ 4.54 $ 14.32 Oakleigh 20 33 33 $ 6.09 $ 17.59 Clayton 26 43 43 $ 8.05 $ 21.72 Springvale 32 54 54 $ 10.04 $ 25.91 Dandenong 38 63 63 $ 11.79 $ 29.57 Berwick 48 80 80 $ 14.96 $ 36.25 Packenham 63 105 105 $ 19.56 $ 45.94 Table A2-11 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Walking Trips Walking Origin Distance Travel Access Average Egress Average Total Fare ($) Generalised Time Time Wait Time Time Interchange Generalised Trip Cost Time Travel Time Estimate Flinders St Station 2 23 23 $ 4.64 Richmond 4 51 51 $ 10.57 South Yarra 5 61 61 $ 12.63 Caulfield 11 143 143 $ 29.39 Oakleigh 17 210 210 $ 43.31 Clayton 21 265 265 $ 54.65 Springvale 26 320 320 $ 65.99 Dandenong 32 401 401 $ 82.75 Berwick 46 571 571 $ 117.81 Packenham 59 743 743 $ 153.12 85 Table A2-12 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Cycling Trips Cycling Origin Distance Travel Access Average Egress Average Total Fare ($) Generalised Time Time Wait Time Time Interchange Generalised Trip Cost Time Travel Time Estimate Flinders St Station 2 6 6 $ 1.00 $ 1.69 Richmond 4 13 13 $ 1.00 $ 3.86 South Yarra 5 15 15 $ 1.00 $ 4.61 Caulfield 11 36 36 $ 3.00 $ 10.73 Oakleigh 17 53 53 $ 5.00 $ 15.81 Clayton 21 102 102 $ 6.00 $ 27.13 Springvale 26 123 123 $ 7.00 $ 32.76 Dandenong 32 154 154 $ 9.00 $ 41.08 Berwick 46 219 219 $ 13.00 $ 58.48 Packenham 59 285 285 $ 17.00 $ 76.01 Table A2-13 Generalised Trip Cost Estimates for Light Rail Trips Light Rail Origin Distance Travel Access Average Egress Average Total Fare ($) Generalised Time Time Wait Time Time Interchange Generalised Trip Cost Time Travel Time Estimate Flinders St Station 2 3 14 3 7 50 $ 3.70 $ 13.99 Richmond 5 17 14 6 7 70 $ 3.70 $ 18.11 South Yarra 5 34 14 3 7 81 $ 3.70 $ 20.38 Caulfield 13 47 14 7 7 104 $ 3.70 $ 25.10 Oakleigh 18 52 14 16 7 10 137 $ 3.70 $ 31.86 Clayton 24 57 14 16 7 10 142 $ 5.80 $ 34.99 Springvale 29 63 14 16 7 10 148 $ 5.80 $ 36.23 Dandenong 35 72 14 16 7 10 157 $ 5.80 $ 38.08 Berwick 47 85 14 16 7 10 169 $ 5.80 $ 40.71 Packenham 61 96 14 16 7 10 180 $ 5.80 $ 42.93 86 4 Infrastructure Partnerships Australia 8th Floor 8-10 Loftus Street Sydney NSW 2000 T +612 9240 2050 F +612 9240 2055 E [email protected] www.infrastructure.org.au