WestminsterResearch http://www.westminster.ac.uk/research/westminsterresearch Accessing public transport, a comparative study of Berlin and London Christopher Paul Cook School of Architecture and the Built Environment This is an electronic version of a MPhil thesis awarded by the University of Westminster. © The Author, 2012. This is an exact reproduction of the paper copy held by the University of Westminster library. The WestminsterResearch online digital archive at the University of Westminster aims to make the research output of the University available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the authors and/or copyright owners. Users are permitted to download and/or print one copy for non-commercial private study or research. Further distribution and any use of material from within this archive for profit-making enterprises or for commercial gain is strictly forbidden. Whilst further distribution of specific materials from within this archive is forbidden, you may freely distribute the URL of WestminsterResearch: (http://westminsterresearch.wmin.ac.uk/). In case of abuse or copyright appearing without permission e- mail [email protected] ACCESSING PUBLIC TRANSPORT, A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BERLIN AND LONDON CHRISTOPHER PAUL COOK A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTMINSTER FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY SEPTEMBER 2012 ABSTRACT Berlin and London are both major European capital cities with extensive public transport networks. The main motivation for this study stemmed from my extensive experience travelling around independently in both cities on public transport as a totally blind person. I wanted to gain a much greater insight into, and understanding of, the various practical and policy issues, which are involved in making the Berlin and London public transport networks as accessible as possible to people with a wide variety of physical and sensory impairments. Accessibility is defined as the physical access passengers have e.g. walking time to their nearest bus stop or railway station, and once there, how easy is it for them to board and alight from the vehicles and reach their destination i.e. frequency of service, and direct services versus the need to change en route. The provision of other soft factors such as good quality customer information systems, both at the stations or stops and onboard the vehicles, is also discussed. Accessibility is an important aspect which may help to explain some aggregate trends and differences in public transport ridership in Berlin and London. These are further investigated by examining the market share of public transport and the passenger trip rates per head of population in Berlin and London, to analyse the explanatory factors behind the trends in both cities and identify possible transfers in good practice between them. This may include such phenomena as differences in fare levels for users e.g. cash fares, travelcards and prepay smartcards, as opposed to concessionary fare schemes. Some other significant relationships concerned with household size, levels of cycling and car availability are analysed through numerous cross tabulations using the Mobilität in Deutschland (MiD 2002) and National Travel Survey (NTS 2002-2008) aggregated data sets. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER TITLE PAGE LIST OF TABLES AND 5 CROSSTABULATIONS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 8 AUTHOR’S 9 DECLARATION 1 BACKGROUND TO THE 10 STUDY INTRODUCTION 10 1.1 BERLIN 13 TRAMWAYS AND 15 BUSES IN BERLIN MASS 16 ELECTRIFICATION AND THE BIRTH OF THE BERLIN S-BAHN REUNIFICATION AND 18 RECONSTRUCTION CURRENT AND 23 FUTURE REGENERATION ONGOING 25 OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS WITH THE BERLIN S-BAHN 1.2 RAILWAY 28 DEVELOPMENT IN LONDON MASS 30 ELECTRIFICATION OF LINES AROUND LONDON TRAMWAYS IN 31 LONDON BUSES IN LONDON 32 POST-WAR 33 EXPANSION FUTURE NETWORK 34 ENHANCEMENTS 1.3 ACCESSING PUBLIC 37 TRANSPORT 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) ACCESS INDICATORS 43 AT NETWORK LEVEL ACCESSIBILITY ON 46 AND OFF THE VEHICLES 1.4 DEFINING DISABILITY 52 LEVELS OF AUDIBLE 54 INFORMATION 1.5 STAFFING LEVELS AND 58 AWARENESS TRAINING 1.6 ANTI-DISCRIMINATION 59 LEGISLATION AND CONCESSIONARY FARES 1.7 OVERCOMING THE 63 BARRIERS TO ACCESSING PUBLIC TRANSPORT 1.8 EVALUATING 69 ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS 1.9 CONCLUSION 75 2 ACCESSING PUBLIC 76 TRANSPORT INTRODUCTION 76 2.1 THE FUNCTION AND 77 STRUCTURE OF THE ACCESSIBILITY BODIES IN BERLIN AND LONDON 2.2 DISABILITY 81 AWARENESS TRAINING FOR STAFF 2.3 COMMUNICATION AND 85 SUMMONING ASSISTANCE 2.4 THE INVOLVEMENT 87 AND INPUT OF DISABLED PASSENGERS IN THE DELIVERY OF THE NETWORK 2.5 INVESTMENT IN 89 NETWORK ACCESSIBILITY 2.6 PROVIDING 95 ACCESSIBLE 3 INFORMATION TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 2.7 POSSIBLE FUTURE 97 IMPROVEMENTS IN ACCESSIBILITY 2.8 CONCLUSION 103 3 THEMATIC 105 COMPARISONS INTRODUCTION 105 3.1 COMPARATIVE 109 TRENDS 3.2 NETWORK 114 STRUCTURE 3.3 THE ROLE OF CYCLING 116 3.4 INVESTMENT IN 119 INFRASTRUCTURE AND ROLLING STOCK 3.5 LIGHT RAIL AND BUS 124 DEVELOPMENTS 3.6 OPERATIONAL 127 STRUCTURES 3.7 LABOUR 135 PRODUCTIVITY AND EFFICIENCY 3.8 CONCLUSION 143 4 COMPARATIVE 146 ANALYSIS OF HOUSEHOLD SURVEY DATA INTRODUCTION 146 SAMPLING METHODS 147 AND DATA COLLECTION DIFFERENCES IN 149 DEFINITIONS SAMPLE SIZES AND 152 COMPLETION RATES 4.1 COMPARATIVE 155 CROSSTABULATIONS 4.2 AGE RELATED 156 CROSSTABULATIONS 4.3 HOUSEHOLD SIZE 160 CROSSTABULATIONS 4.4 TRIP FREQUENCY AND 167 TICKET TYPE CROSSTABULATIONS 4.5 DISABILITY RELATED 171 CROSSTABULATIONS 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 4.6 CYCLING RELATED 180 CROSSTABULATIONS 4.7 SUMMARY OF KEY 185 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION 5 CONCLUSION TO THE 191 STUDY INTRODUCTION 191 5.1 KEY HISTORICAL 192 DEVELOPMENTS 5.2 COMPARATIVE 194 ACCESSIBILITY OF THE PUBLIC TRANSPORT NETWORKS 5.3 MODAL SHARE AND 198 THE ROLE OF CYCLING 5.4 CONCLUDING 199 OBSERVATIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY 204 APPENDIX A NUMERICAL DATA 210 FROM THE COMPARATIVE CROSSTABULATIONS APPENDIX B INTERVIEW WITH 228 CHRISTINE ALBRECHT OF BVG APPENDIX C INTERVIEW WITH 237 BETTINA JESCHEK AND ANGELIKA SIMON OF THE BERLIN S- BAHN APPENDIX D INTERVIEW WITH 243 WANE TREVOR OF TFL APPENDIX E LIST OF INTERVIEW 254 QUESTIONS 5 LIST OF TABLES AND CROSSTABULATIONS TABLE / TITLE PAGE CROSSTABULATION 1.1 PASSENGER TRIPS 34 ON LONDON UNDERGROUND AND LONDON BUSES FROM 1960 TO THE PRESENT DAY 1.2 KEY HISTORICAL 36 DEVELOPMENTS IN BERLIN AND LONDON 1.3 VEHICLE AND 38 STATION ACCESSIBILITY IN BERLIN AND LONDON 3.1 KEY INDICATORS FOR 107 BERLIN AND LONDON 3.2 COMPARATIVE FARE 111 LEVELS IN BERLIN AND LONDON 4.21 (MiD) AGE AGAINST 210 NUMBER OF TRIPS PER DAY 4.22 (MiD) AGE AGAINST MODE 210 USED ON FOOT 4.23 (MiD) AGE AGAINST BUS 211 USE ON THE SURVEY DAY 4.24 (MiD) AGE AGAINST 211 UNDERGROUND AND TRAM USE ON THE SURVEY DAY 4.25 (MiD) AGE AGAINST S-BAHN 211 AND COMMUTER TRAIN USE ON THE SURVEY DAY 4.31 (MiD) HOUSEHOLD SIZE 212 AGAINST AGE 4.32 (MiD) HOUSEHOLD SIZE 212 AGAINST NUMBER OF CARS 4.33 (MiD) HOUSEHOLD SIZE 213 AGAINST AVAILABILITY OF A CAR ON THE SURVEY DAY 6 LIST OF TABLES AND CROSSTABULATIONS (CONTINUED) 4.34 (NTS) HOUSEHOLD 213 STRUCTURE AGAINST CAR OR LIGHT VAN AVAILABILITY 4.35 (MiD) HOUSEHOLD SIZE 214 AGAINST DISTANCE TO THE NEAREST BUS STOP AND RAILWAY STATION IN MINUTES 4.36 (NTS) HOUSEHOLD 215 STRUCTURE AGAINST WALK TIME TO BUS STOP 4.41 (NTS) FIRST TICKET PASS 215 USE AGAINST FIRST TICKET PASS TYPE (SEASON TICKET) 4.42 (NTS) FIRST TICKET PASS 216 USE AGAINST FIRST TICKET PASS TYPE (AREA TRAVELCARD) 4.43 (NTS) FIRST TICKET PASS 216 USE AGAINST FIRST TICKET PASS TYPE (COMBINED SEASON TICKET) 4.44 (NTS) FIRST TICKET PASS 217 USE AGAINST FIRST TICKET PASS TYPE (SCHOLAR PASS) 4.45 (NTS) FIRST TICKET PASS 217 USE AGAINST FIRST TICKET PASS TYPE (EMPLOYEE PASS) 4.46 (NTS) FIRST TICKET PASS 218 USE AGAINST FIRST TICKET PASS TYPE (OAP PASS) 4.47 (NTS) FIRST TICKET PASS 218 USE AGAINST FIRST TICKET PASS TYPE (DISABILITY PASS) 7 LIST OF TABLES AND CROSSTABULATIONS (CONTINUED) 4.51 (MiD) DO YOU FEEL 219 IMPAIRED IN YOUR MOBILITY BY YOUR PHYSICAL DISABILITY AGAINST AGE 4.52 (MiD) DO YOU FEEL 219 IMPAIRED IN YOUR MOBILITY BY YOUR PHYSICAL DISABILITY AGAINST MODE USED BUS 4.53 (MiD) DO YOU FEEL 219 IMPAIRED IN YOUR MOBILITY BY YOUR PHYSICAL DISABILITY AGAINST MODE USED UNDERGROUND OR TRAM 4.54 (MiD) COMBINED JOURNEY 220 DISTANCE AGAINST DO YOU FEEL IMPAIRED IN YOUR MOBILITY BY YOUR PHYSICAL DISABILITY 4.55 (NTS) DIFFICULTIES 220 AGAINST FREQUENCY OF BUS USE 4.61 (MiD) HOUSEHOLD SIZE 223 AGAINST DO YOU CURRENTLY OWN A ROADWORTHY BICYCLE 4.62 (NTS) HOUSEHOLD 224 STRUCTURE AGAINST NUMBER OF BICYCLES 4.63 (MiD) AGE AGAINST MODE 224 USED BICYCLE 4.64 (NTS) AGE AGAINST 225 FREQUENCY OF BICYCLE USE 4.65 (MiD) MAIN MODE AGAINST 227 WEATHER ON THE SURVEY DAY 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to thank the following people most sincerely for their invaluable contributions to the study. Peter White and David Whibley, for their support, guidance and constructive feedback throughout the study. Christine Albrecht of BVG, Bettina Jeschek and Angelika Simon of Berlin S-Bahn and most notably Wayne Trevor of TfL for their time, enlightening interviews and invaluable assistance with my research. Mike Fisher, for his wonderful blend of expert, impartial advice and tremendous sense of humour, which were always very much appreciated. My parents Robin and Susan, partner Astrid and our Old English Sheepdogs Rocky and Indy, whose endless love and support through all the ups and downs during my research has been truly inspirational. To Klaus, who kindly agreed to accompany me on my many field trips to Berlin and to his partner Ramona for loaning him to me for a fortnight each year.