Q. Which form of transportation is the oldest, is completely sustainable, and is something that many of us take for granted? A. Walking.
In transportation planning initiatives, walking is rarely the main focus or most important attribute of a project. But walking should never simply be overlooked in favor of other modes – it is often central to the success of other modes and as North America continues to invest heavily in public transit, its importance is as high now as it’s ever been.
In 2014, $80 billion will be invested in new public transit in North America, adding 97 services amounting to 737 miles of heavy and light rail, streetcar, commuter rail and bus rapid transit. With service enhancements pending for almost every major metropolitan area, there is a real need to understand how people will access their improved network.
Given that most transit trips begin with walking, either to a bus stop for a local feeder route, or all the way to a station, it makes sense to consider improving conditions for pedestrians to get better value out of these significant investments in public transit.
Globally, many cities are using transit infrastructure investment as a catalyst for wider pedestrian improvements. Mexico City and Moscow are among the cities we have worked with recently to identify improvements to enable walking within transit rider catchment areas (a 15-20 minute walk from the station).
Key principles for designing walkable networks include:
Though extensive street changes can seem overwhelming, our plan for Moscow uses a phased approach, beginning with basic improvements that have an immediate impact on the pedestrian experience. Over time, the noise of engines will be replaced by the stomping of feet to the tune of sustainable travel change.
Research has been carried out for many years into the value of travel-time reliability (VOR), typically to estimate the cost of delays to the economy or to a transport operator, or to help develop a business case for new investment.
One focus of research into VOR has been on managed lanes. As the previous article notes, data from operational managed lane projects shows that some travelers are willing to pay for managed lane usage even when the expected time savings are very small. One possible explanation for this is that they attach a value to higher travel time reliability versus travel time alone.
Steer Davies Gleave developed a new stated preference (SP) survey aimed at quantifying the VOR for a proposed managed lanes project. In the survey, participants were asked to consider trade-offs between not only the traditional travel time and cost variables but also the reliability of travel time. In essence, respondents were given choices between general purpose lanes which were free, slow and less reliable, and managed lanes which were tolled, faster and more reliable.
We analyzed the survey data to estimate parameters for both value of time (VOT) and value of travel time reliability (VOR). These were then used in our traffic forecasting model to estimate the proportion of travelers who will pay to use the managed lanes. The VOT was used to value the travel times of each option, while the VOR was used to value the “extraordinary delay” of the general purpose lanes, presented in the stated preference survey as the amount of additional delay that would occur 20% of the time. Our forecasting model therefore included estimates of the “extraordinary delay”, and the travelers’ response to it, based on the variability of current corridor travel times which we identified from new commercial sources of travel time information.
This approach has improved the accuracy of our traffic forecasting model to account for both average and exceptional levels of delay associated with rejecting the managed lanes in favor of the non-tolled option.
In early 2014, we ran our first annual “Voice of Public Transportation Survey” to give Canadian transit professionals an opportunity to share their insights and opinions on the key issues and challenges facing the industry.
We have now completed our analysis of the results, and share in this edition of the Review some of the more interesting findings. Those who responded to the survey will be provided with a full analysis – so be sure to participate in next years’ survey!
The survey focused on three main areas:
The main findings of the survey can be grouped into two themes: network operations, and system planning and delivery.
Network Operations: the main issues were seen to be ongoing operations, State of Good Repair (SGR), and service expansion. Many associated comments focused on the challenges of delivering efficient transportation to existing but inefficient land use and development. Comments also related to maintaining or improving revenue recovery. Organizations appear to be looking for new ways to gain customer loyalty, enabling them to increase revenues either to help improve cost recovery or to aid and fund service expansion.
While many respondents worked for agencies with some responsibility for managing roads and traffic, congestion was generally not seen as a concern. On the contrary, many respondents saw congestion as a key component of their toolkit for building support for investment in transit (and active transportation, or walking and cycling) networks and promoting long term mode shift.
System Planning and Delivery: the main issues and challenges identified were the planning of high capacity transit corridors, and the need for ongoing engagement of stakeholders and the public throughout the process. Respondents saw this as particularly important to gain support and aid in the delivery and funding of final projects. Even in smaller cities across the country, most respondents indicated that their priority transit projects were focusing on reallocating road space to transit. This is consistent with the relatively low levels of concern with local congestion issues.
Active transportation was seen as a major area for growth and investment, not least because it can deliver mode shift at low cost or even no cost. However, while many respondents recognized the role and need for investment in active transportation, few felt that their agency was dedicating sufficient resources to it, particularly compared to investment in transit and roads planning.
A consistent issue, identified across all areas of transportation operation, development and delivery, was the need to be able to support “evidence-based decision-making” with clear information on costs, funding, financing and hence the ability to demonstrate value-for-money. Respondents saw international best practice, and “views from elsewhere”, as useful means of informing this debate, particularly where expenditure on transportation is a politically sensitive issue.
The inaugural 2014 survey was a great success. For 2015, we plan not only to repeat the survey but also to expand it to include the USA. We hope that you found the summary interesting and will join the conversation next year.
In the September 19 issue of Local Transport Today magazine (LTT656) it stated that “electric dreams are now a reality”. It’s certainly true that there are many positive signs but, given that the number of electric vehicles (EVs) sold in the UK in 2013 represented just 0.3% of all vehicles, we perhaps need to be a bit cautious about such dramatic statements. Rather, it would be more realistic to say that we are currently at the tipping point for the adoption of EVs, but still with their widespread adoption at some risk.
The LTT article referred to above was on the back of the EV Summit held at Surrey University by Surrey County Council. At the event Baroness Kramer, the key note speaker, stated that “we are on the cusp of a technological revolution”. She pointed to a rapid increase in sales and government support in the form of a £500m investment programme, including further support for the plug-in grant, and a plan to install rapid chargers across the trunk road network.
We should recognise that the reasons the Government support EV technologies are two-fold; benefiting both the environment and the economy. This gives some comfort that even with a change in Government, support for the industry is likely to continue.
The Summit was an event which forms part of Surrey County Council’s EV strategy, which Steer Davies Gleave developed. Within the strategy we highlight how for EVs to become mainstream we require a co-ordinated public/private industry effort. Simply leaving it to the market would be unlikely to work (or would at least delay widespread adoption) because of the need for consistent, clear messages and easy to use (and interoperable) supporting infrastructure. In this respect we are not quite there; with differing charging technologies and networks and a confusing array of types of electric vehicles available (see Figure 1).
Nevertheless there is progress. The industry is now working together to create an inter-operable network of charging stations throughout the UK. The EV Summit was a further example of the industry coming together and looking at presenting a more coherent message to consumers.
Figure 1: Electric vehicle alternative technologies
On 15 October 2014 there were 7185 UK charging points of which 649 were rapid chargers. Up to date statistics and locations are available here: https://www.zap-map.com/live/
A question which consumers are concerned about is whether EVs are just a passing fad - a technology which will be soon outdated. The spectre of Betamax remains in the publics’ consciousness. However, the situation is becoming much clearer and we can now be reasonably confident that EVs are here to stay, at least for the next 40 years or so (Hydrogen Fuel Cells are likely to be the next technology, but this is only likely to be at the stage EV technology is now by around 2025).
This is because while electric power has some drawbacks, as a technology it wins out in the long-term. The summary of advantages and drawbacks of the available options shown in Figure 2 demonstrates this. It is true that the full benefit of electric vehicles will only be realised when electricity generation is substantially decarbonised, but even in advance of this, it has clear benefits in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and immediate benefits in terms of air quality.
The key drawback of battery-based technology is the low energy density, which translates into batteries being big, slow to re-charge, and providing less range. This is a key reason why there are so many variants of the technology (see Figure 1). These variants reflect different manufacturers’ approaches to trying to solve these problems. In practice, the issue of range is primarily a fear of the unfamiliar and something which can be overcome. Given its inherent advantages, continuing technological development and the need to become less reliant on carbon-based alternatives - electric vehicles become an increasingly attractive option.
Figure 2: Advantages and drawbacks of alternative vehicle technologies
With the eventual widespread adoption of electric vehicles almost certain, the speed of adoption is not. This is because it is dependent on the speed of technological developments and (even more unpredictably) policy choices by governments. The effect of these dependencies is illustrated in Figure 3 which illustrates the range of ‘take-up’ forecasts of individual EV technologies. For example, hybrid electric vehicles are forecast to represent between 20% and 50% of new car sales in 2030, whilst for battery electric vehicles the range is 5% to 20% by 2030.
To reflect this uncertainty, the World Energy Council has developed two scenarios: a “Freeway” scenario in which market forces prevail (20% of new cars are EVs by 2030); and a “Tollway” scenario where governments intervene to promote the technology (50% of new cars are EVs by 2030). Similarly, the International Energy Agency has developed a “Blue Map” scenario which sets out what could happen if various stakeholders work together. In this scenario, over half of new light vehicle sales globally are EVs by 2050. To achieve this vision requires on-going technological developments, improved consumer understanding and government support to coordinate and help kick-start take up.
Figure 3: Forecast adoption rates for electric vehicle technologies
It seems almost certain that electricity will become the dominant source of power for cars and light vehicles globally at some point in the future. The question is really one of how quickly this will happen and whether the UK manages to be a leader or late adopter of the technology. This comes on the back of a growing appreciation that, while by no means perfect, electric batteries are the best available technology for the foreseeable future.
Sources:
Technology Roadmap: Electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, IEA, 2011
Global EV Outlook, IEA, 2013
Global Transport Scenarios 2050, World Energy Council, 2011
Powering Ahead: The future of low-carbon cars and fuels, UK PIA and RAC Foundation, 2013
Improvements and expansions to rapid transit systems often focus on developing new infrastructure. However, when planning new rapid transit, there is an opportunity to make better use of existing unused or underused legacy infrastructure.
New infrastructure can face numerous high-level challenges, including high capital costs, environmental impacts from new development and potential political and public/stakeholder opposition. Instead of focusing rapid transit planning solely on new infrastructure, an alternate way forward is to consider how to integrate legacy infrastructure to realise strategic goals in a cost-effective manner.
Legacy infrastructure includes previously developed transport corridors that are no longer in use for passenger services, or only see limited functional use. These unused or underused corridors can be integrated into new rapid transit projects to realise a number of benefits.
A key cost in developing new rapid transit is ensuring a separate right of way. Legacy corridors often exist in their own right of way and can be used to provide a high frequency fully grade-separated service at a fraction of the cost of completely new infrastructure, such as a new tunnel or viaduct. These spaces were originally developed to serve transport, so land acquisition can be a less onerous process. Additionally, developing a transit project within these may require less disruptive construction than developing rapid transit along other corridors, such as arterial roads. If the corridor runs through areas of high potential for redevelopment, legacy corridor development may also be a catalyst for urban intensification.
However, legacy infrastructure is not always an ideal fit for project goals. Some old corridors were deliberately remote from communities, so integration of those communities with new transit service may prove difficult. Stations that are well connected to surrounding communities and activity centres are often key project goals, to ensure that new transport can maximise ridership and catalyse new development. Likewise, ensuring that feeder services connect to the corridor may be a challenge, as rail corridors do not often have strong integration with local roads, or lie adjacent to a highway with limited exits. Legacy corridors are also geographically fixed and may require high-cost tunnels or viaducts to integrate them within the broader transport system.
The potential of legacy infrastructure should be determined by assessing its ability to contribute to the project goals, its fit with the broader transport network and regional land use plans and its integration potential with surrounding communities and activity centres.
There is a growing need for new rapid transit in many major metropolitan areas across North America to meet mobility requirements in a sustainable manner. A review of the role of legacy infrastructure may help regions find new opportunities to improve services and significantly reduce the cost of system development.
Steer Davies Gleave is proud to have run an internal Research and Innovation (R&I) programme for many years, and we see it as an important part of our profile. All of our consultants can get involved, but we make a special effort to involve our younger staff, giving them a very wide brief – and the time – to investigate all manner of issues and topics. The result is a growing portfolio of new ideas and products that we can bring to our clients.
This October we held our second Research and Innovation Showcase event, giving invited guests the chance to see some of the rich variety of R&I work the company has done over the last year. Guests from organisations including Transport for London, ATOC, the Sports Ground Safety Authority, Department for Transport, Heathrow and the Greater London Authority saw six mini-presentations from SDG staff. The topics were:
Following the presentation there was an opportunity to network and discuss the topics in further detail. Certainly there were lots of ideas firing back and forth afterwards.
We're pleased to share that feedback has been very good and as a result there will be a further events early in 2015 both at our London and Leeds offices. If you would like to be kept informed of when this will be please forward your contact details to our marketing team.
If you would like to know more about any of the projects discussed during October's event, or our earlier event in April, please contact the presenters directly.
The Cycling Delivery Plan published last week for consultation by the Department for Transport contains 13 mentions of ‘cycle proofing’ a term that has been growing in use, but what does it mean, and have we got the wrong word? Should we be proving that we can create infrastructure that invites cyclists into the transport network?
Arguably we cycle proofed most of our towns and cities from the 1960s onwards with successive land use and transport policies. These in turn made most of the road network appear too hazardous for most people to cycle and placed out-of-town shopping and business centres too far away.
Proving is a better description of what we need to do. Creating the favourable conditions for cycling to rise is much the same as proving bread. Learning to make bread and cycle routes needs a new set of skills, and practice, as well as a continual flow of the right ingredients - for cycle ways this is schemes and funding. In the absence of a dedicated infrastructure fund for cycling we can at least make sure that all new transport schemes are cycle proved.
In the two most recent cycle proving schemes I’ve worked on, our team was able to show, at an early business case stage, that multi million pound benefits can be added to a bus and a tram scheme for modest changes in the design. Cycling is really useful in boosting the cost benefit analysis and it is to the mutual benefit, rather than being perceived as an additional construction cost far later when it is discovered that they have inadvertently been designed out or to old standards. By the time major schemes are built, much of today’s cycle infrastructure will be outdated and a crucial element of cycle proving is ensuring the longevity of design, this is one of the tasks ascribed to the cycle proving working group. This requires an understanding of lane widths, segregation and emerging standards, but at business case stage this is relatively easy to do as it only deals with indicative design.
Cycle proving new schemes is not simply considering an end-to-end route treatment as this may not be a journey that many cyclists will make. It requires a functional understanding of where new cycle facilities within major transport schemes will represent;
Cycle proving represents one important piece of building a cycle network, as it is most often the bigger schemes that offer a barrier to cycling in the future, either, physically at key locations, or psychologically in the case of community severance. As cities and towns densify and grow, the pathways for active travel have to be planned into all major schemes and although the costs may rise, the benefits will rise much more.
Local Authorities seeking to work in partnership with the DfT (signalled in the Cycling Delivery Plan) would be advised to:
Cartoon by Emily Whiteside
The value of world trade has been growing by 7% per year for the last 30 years. This globalization of formerly regional, national and continental markets has everywhere been facilitated by both investment in transportation infrastructure and the development of more efficient vehicles and operations.
The aircraft that carry both passengers and freight have seen fuel consumption halved since 1950, and real air fares have fallen by an average of 20% a decade over that period. After deregulation in 1980, real rates for road and rail transportation in the United States both halved in 20 years, equivalent to a fall of 30% per decade. At sea, the expansion of the Panama canal will see the number of 40-foot containers per ship rise from 2,500 to 6,000 although the largest deep sea ships can already carry 9,000.
Unlike air travel and deep sea shipping, road and rail require extensive land-based infrastructure, but the expanding and linking as market opportunities drive a need for new services over greater distances. Since 2013 a container train has linked China and Germany, covering 6,000 miles in 15 days, much faster than shipping, and is now running four times a week.
The world’s oceans are open to all traffic, and larger, more fuel-efficient ships will be adopted wherever there are markets to fill them. In the air, only 18 years separated the introductions of the Boeing 747-400 and the Airbus A380, which has 50% more space and consumes 20% less fuel per seat. Open Skies between Europe and North America increasingly allows airlines to fly anywhere, subject to finding landing slots at increasingly busy airports.
On land, however, both political and organizational change are needed to allow wider free movement of goods. For road freight, Europe’s Schengen area of 26 states, with a population of 400 million, has become effectively borderless, with no frontier controls or delays. For rail freight, in contrast, services have often developed as, or become, integrated local monopolies poorly-suited to transporting freight across continents. The US and Canadian railroads have long learnt to agree open access to each other’s networks, particularly to allow imports through west coast ports to reach any market. In Australia, the former monopoly railways in each state have transferred control of infrastructure to a single body and now compete, with private sector entrants, to transport freight anywhere on the interstate network.
In Europe as a whole, monopoly rights have been removed, permitting efficient rail operators to compete to carry freight anywhere within the market of 500 million people. In Brazil, the system of regional monopoly railway concessions, introduced in the 1990s, is now being reviewed, with the aim of allowing open access across a national network extending 2,000 miles south from Belém to Rio Grande do Sul.
Mexico’s railways have also shown strong growth in the carriage of domestic traffic, as the chart above shows, but in the coming years are likely to see further growth as barriers to domestic and international trade continue to fall. One possibility is increasing integration into a single open market “railway space” from the Pacific and Gulf coasts of Mexico to the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of Canada.
Looking to the future, the efficiency of transportation will continue to improve, as new trucks and aircraft replace older and less efficient ones, and increasingly deregulated markets allow transportation and logistics companies to provide a range of services at competitive prices.
Yes, you are in the right place. After 40 years, we have changed our name from Steer Davies Gleave to mark our growing international footprint and our expanding portfolio into sectors beyond transport.
Explore our new website to learn more about Steer: who we are, how we work and what our future holds.