Event: Tfl IDAG Meeting

Event: TfL IDAG Meeting

Date: 1 September 2014

Duration: (10.07-13.11) 2 hours 50 minutes sitting.

Speakers: Alice Maynard Chair

Simon Cooper SC

Leyla Mustafa LM

Peter Wright PW

Olav Ernstzen OE

Simone Aspis SA

Marie Pye MP

Roger Hewitt RH

Jamie Beddard JB

Andy Thompson AT

Jane Commons JC

Agenda: Transport Modelling

Work Programme

Update

River Services

The Chair opened the meeting at 10.07am and introduced SC who began his presentation with an explanation of what a Transport Model is and why it is necessary. A Transport Model provides information that allows them to predict the impact of transport schemes and those improvements most suitable for investment. The model also allows them to analyse congestion and the impact of travel at a time when London’s population is growing and job opportunities are increasing. Their models aim to represent the behaviour of drivers, passengers, cyclists and pedestrians in London and covered all transport modes. Models are limited insofar as they are idealised projections and rely on information that is sometimes forecast rather than specific; estimates and assumptions about trends that could change and based upon present knowledge. When presenting model outputs therefore, rather than looking at absolute figures, they tend to compare the results and changes between models.

The London Travel Survey uses population and employment forecasts to predict the number of trips made in London, their origin, destination, duration and mode, providing a snap-shot of statistics on a London-wide basis. The other important model is the rail plan, which predicts the public transport mode chosen – rail, underground, bus, DLR, Tram – and the route, and these two models provide future scenarios up to 2031, incorporating Crossrail 2, the Northern Line extension etc. and have been used for projects like proposed river crossings in East London.

SC demonstrated the kinds of analysis that the models allow using slides, noting that in London there were some 1,500 zones providing a matrix of 1,500 by 1,500 origins and destinations and presenting an analysis of possible journeys into Heathrow airport. The Chair observed that the analysis showed that it was quicker to get to Heathrow from Central London than from zones even closer to the airport. SC then went to a diagram of the rail and underground network, demonstrating the links that represented stations and junctions onto which they had mapped the number of passengers on the individual links during the morning peak. SC explained the passenger volumes associated with each of the links shown and the Chair observed that the importance of the information lay in the numbers travelling on specific links at specific times of day. The information helped them to understand capacity and how they might mitigate serious issues when they arose. The diagram represented the current network and plots could also be produced to give predictive volumes for future years and the effects of projects like Crossrail and information leading to new transport schemes. Other methods allowed them to predict comparative connectivity – connectivity between modes – and these tools (Public Transport Accessibility Levels, PTALs) that indicated the numbers of services available within a specified walking distance were being made available via the TfL website in WebCat. SC reiterated that these models represented idealised scenarios. Comparative connectivity modelling enabled them to input different scenarios in order in order to assess the impact of new transport schemes in terms of journey time and connectivity, comparing current with predicted outcomes. This type of analysis had been used to assist in the siting of NHS emergency services and SC demonstrated how in applying catchment data to their analysis they could provide information impacting on the siting of services and infrastructure. He showed a slide demonstrating the distance travelled in 75 minutes out of Woolwich Town Centre and the impact of future improvements like DLR and Crossrail in distance travelled. They were able to input differential walking speeds in terms of time taken to access services and were undertaking analysis on the impact of step-free access. This step-free analysis could be done for specific transport modes producing a spectrum of outputs. The Chair observed that such analysis allowed them to rely on evidence as opposed to anecdote. SC said the base data used would be continually updated and based on assumptions about the traveller that were to some extent historical. The travel times to and from each of the 1,500 areas. In response to SA and OE, SC said that analysis incorporating fares had been done in the past but was not currently included. The Chair observed the difficulty in factoring in fares given the possible changes over time, although it would be possible to deduce the impact for specific routes. LM pointed out that in the analysis for health care changes, the impact of fares was assessed.

In response to MP, SC pointed out those areas that had poor step-free access and those areas to be improved; he observed that it would be useful to overlay the index of deprivation to highlight the issues and hoped to do some analysis of comparative step-free access.

The Chair observed that this sort of analysis and these models helped them understand how TfL made decisions with respect to travel and access.

Moving on to PTALs, an approach to modelling that was simpler and easier to understand. PTALs measured network density across London combining any specific location along with walk times and waiting times specific to any mode within a specified walk distance. The analysis formed an integral part of the London Plan in terms of the decisions made with respect to parking, housing density and key services and allowed comparative analysis between areas. Based on an assumed walking speed of 4.8kph, the analysis showed a maximum walking distance of 640 metres (8 minutes) for bus services and 960 metres (12 minutes) for rail and underground. From these figures the PTAL was derived giving differential values for accessibility/connectivity – 1A, the lowest, to 6B, the highest. A map could then be produced based on grid points at 100 metre intervals – of which there were c. 1,500 – and the PTAL values for each point. Central London had the best level of accessibility and what were termed Metropolitan town centres also had higher values. Because PTAL calculations combined transport modes, places like Kingston appeared as level 6A despite its being an important bus hub.

MP observed that insofar as the map showed accessibility to the transport network, it did not take account of the quality of the transport system in accessing locations quickly.

SC noted that the white areas showed locations below the minimum PTAL value. He further noted that maps could be produced analysing values for individual transport modes. When the web site became available, people could look at the PTAL levels and travel time analyses for specific locations. The Chair noted that these models were predominantly for TfL’s use and individuals might need to use additional materials like the travel planner to map their individual needs.

SC showed a slide demonstrating a modified walking speed of 2.4KPH. For step-free access, such modifications would vastly increase the areas of low and unrecorded PTAL values. He noted also that any walk-speed value could be modelled and the impact measured. MP suggested that with these values to hand, Boroughs could make more appropriate decisions when siting services for those with mobility issues. SC said that while the PTAL values would be on the WebCat web site, it might be useful to pursue the work on modified walking speeds.

In response to RH’s question about the source for NHS access statistics, LM said that they were dependent on NHS travel surveys, such as that undertaken in North West London. The Chair noted that as these were models, they were by definition limited and overcomplicating them diminished their usefulness. SC noted that while specific information about disabled access was not factored into these models, it was possible to factor in specific groups within specific areas. LM noted that their data came from the London Travel Demand Survey, which included a proportion of disabled people; freedom pas usage was also captured and reported. Because wheelchair users did not tap in and out of a bus, capturing specific data was not possible.

There followed a short break.

(11.33am)

Short Break

(11.47am)

Following the break, the Chair went to the Work Programme in order to determine which items delegates did not want to do and what people believed needed to be done. (These items were discussed and allocated and will be published.) OE noted that he would meet up with PW and LM once the programme had been finalised in order that they understood what the landscape looked like currently and what their objectives were to ensure that their focus was on progress and improvement. The Chair concurred and asked delegates to approach their items in this way and report in December.

The Chair asked for updates from delegates.

MP reported real progress on employment issues; research had been completed and there was now a draft action plan for the next 2 years identifying best practice, work on training, communication, raising awareness, available support and the impact of management on people.

SA reported on low emission zone discussions but had not yet been to one on equality and was waiting for such a discussion to be rescheduled.

OE had reported to the Pedestrian Safety Working Group but noted a presentation showing a falling trend in the numbers killed and seriously injured but an increase in the number ‘slightly injured’, a description that was not clarified.

RH reported on the Fit for the Future consultation. There was concern that the closure of ticket offices would impact on the loop system for hearing-aid users. He suggested a solution, the ‘Roger Pen’ but said it would be expensive. Further, he had observed the ‘floating bus stops’ in operation, which, he said, worked better than expected although at Bow, while cyclists avoided the stop, its closeness to traffic lights caused a hazard where traffic turned left across the cycle lane.

PW pointed out that LU were looking to fit induction loops above ticket machines. Floating bus stops had been renamed Bus Stop Bypasses and the earlier examples like Bow had now been superseded by mark 3 stops that avoided such hazards. The most immediate interaction with cyclists would now only occur where, having alighted the bus, one had to cross the cycle lane at the bypass. Crossings would be controlled by lights for both vehicles and cyclists. There would be a kerb demarcating the cycle lane.

AT, General Manager for London River Services (LRS) explained the responsibilities of and issues facing the service. LRS had been a wholly owned subsidiary of TfL since 1997 when a number of piers were transferred from the Port of London Authority. It was now part of a new directorate within surface transport looking after various customer-facing operations. LRS operated 8 of the piers on the Thames, predominantly the busiest - Tower, Embankment, Westminster, Festival, Bankside, Greenwich, Canary Wharf and London Bridge. They were also responsible for the Woolwich Ferry carrying both vehicles and pedestrians 7 days a week and run under contract by Briggs Marine. Apart from their physical assets, LRS had a mandate for licensing most river operators on the Thames, enabling them to set operational standards although operators chose what routes and what prices they wished to apply. LRS sought to license according to effective usage as opposed simply to competitive criteria. The licenses allowed LRS to include terms that ensured both safety and benefit or usefulness, including accessibility.

LRS distinguished between a river bus and a river tour such that a route and operator might be subsidised where it was considered of particular importance. LRS also had a significant role in providing information and a focal point to make the river more visible and more accessible. A leaflet summarising all licensed services was published twice a year, information that was also posted on the web site. Their aim was to expand river bus services and user numbers were increasing, especially as riverside property development expanded.

River tour services were primarily tourist services, although they were diversifying to include cruises and pleasure trips catering for differing interests and activities. These services tended to operate from Westminster, London Eye and Embankment. Since 2009, Thames Clippers operated its bus service allowing passengers to use their PAYG cards. Otherwise, PAYG card holders would get a discount. Notwithstanding the Chair’s experience when she tried to use her Oyster card, AT said staff should now be able to process tickets more easily to make the service more user friendly. Concession tickets would also be available at credit card ticket machines and a ‘tap in’, ‘touch out’ facility.

Within the TfL area there were 29 piers operating bus and tour services across a variety of routes and in 2013 8.4 million passenger journeys were made. The target for 2020 was 12 million passenger journeys. All TfL owned piers had step-free access and despite tidal changes, these piers were designed to have a gradient that did not exceed 1 in 12, although at Woolwich, a lift system was required. Passengers needed to be aware of access facilities and challenges at piers not owned by LRS.

MP noted the inconsistency in accessibility between tour operators and the difficulty in contacting small companies to get what was technical information. AT agreed and said LRS were trying to work with operators to achieve a more consistent boarding system and he believed operators would begin to adopt the ramp system introduced by Thames Clippers. Insofar as many vessels were old and less accessible, the DfT was launching a consultation looking at heritage vessels and possible changes to licensing. AT said that he was seeking to encourage the less dynamic operators to consider the needs of a 21st century market in what was a very conservative business culture.