Options Paper All Things Considered
Reduce the road toll, save the environment, remove congestion, create jobs, balance the budget, with Personal Rapid Transit.
Personal Rapid Transit ( ACT, ADA, AAB, AAH, BBG, BRF, BRG, CCT, CLR, CRE, CRR1, DBI, DCR, DFV, DTS, GAT, GWR, GFR, GPA, GRE, GPR, HCT3, HCT2, HSR, LBS, MAB, MAH, MAM, MBN, MMS, MRE1, MPR, MTN, MII, NUM, PTT, RBU, RHR, RRG, RRE1, RRE2, RSF, RRS, SSP, SYM, TNL, TPU, TTF, TSC, WRE1, WRE2, WTB, WVW, ):
Gary Stark says the transport system must be fully automated to be safe, efficient and accessible to all. It must be door to door, no transfers, no stopping, to capture patrons. It must be energy efficient so electric powered, on rail and 40V. Vehicles must be a shared resource to be reliable, reused instead of parked, fewer vehicles to produce and maintain. He proposes pre-fabricated overlay on roads, with conversion of a complete neighbourhood in days. The best design would meet criteria for safety, convenience, efficiency with low cost in dollars and low cost to the environment.
A transcript of Gary Stark video is attached, more detail is on his website.
Ollie Mikosza has the leading design for a Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) system. Small, fully automatic, air conditioned pods travel safely and independently, on an overhead network of light guideways, suspended ten meters above the ground. The pods can travel at up to 70 kilometers per hour, taking an individual or up to five passengers directly to their destination, over a network, with no stops en route. They can transport freight and waste materials. The EU has validated the feasibility of the Mister PRT system in all its technical aspects and in its financial profitability. Capital costs and operating costs are both much less than other public transport systems yet the functionality is much better.
A transcript of his Mister video is attached, together with more information on Mister/Metrino.
Morgantown, West Virginia, has a fully automatic system, 13km long, on its own track, at 50kph, serving university students for over 40 years with seventy million rides and zero fatalities. Other PRT systems are at Masdar City Abu Dabi, London Heathrow, Suncheon South Korea and Mister is being built at Gurgaon, India. Nathan Koren has reviewed the lack of expansion of PRT systems and compared them to the expansion of Microsoft, containerisation, and space tourism. He concludes that PRT: should seek uncontested niches; should evolve cooperatively with existing transport systems; if successful, will create much greater markets with more and better paying jobs; must have a good business model; must not alienate allies; and under no circumstances, take on the incumbents head-on.
Technically, PRT can reduce the road toll, save the environment, remove congestion, and balance the budget. But if the price of this is to reduce jobs, there is no way that workers, bureaucrats or politicians will, as a group, agree to it, much less all three groups. So PRT must be targeted at new marketsto ensure a net increase in (better paying) jobs. Proposed new markets are: PRT pods as a major tourist attraction, from Melbourne airport to the City; extension of tourist services to Melbourne's local sporting, dining, natural, and cultural facilities, and regional attractions; new feeder services to existing public transport, to make it more viable; service alongside existing overloaded services or congested roads, where other options are too expensive. These niches must be aimed primarily to expand markets and create jobs in tourism and transport, with minimal impact on existing services. There will be time later, to assess the new technology and to transition workers to the new jobs.
Footnotes
The airport to City route could operate door to door (hotel/rail to airline), would cost $250M for 20km of two-way suspension track, including 2,000 5-person cabins and 600 off-line stops, and pay for itself in 3-5 years. Stops can be provided at a spacing down to 100m and require a footprint of 15-20m by 5m.
Networks, not linear routes are the key to efficient service. Interchanges are two level with four left turns and a pair of (two level) U-turns to provide four right (P) turns.
PRT systems are still developing and the solutions adopted must be modular to control future upgrade costs. More background material are available at
Level Crossing Removal with Roads Underground (MII, MLC, MRE1): Concern has been expressed about the Skyrail concept by residents. Roads underground, leaving the rail untouched, can be functionally better, far less intrusive visually, satisfactory for road traffic and easily built under rail traffic without disruption to rail. Functionally, passengers can change mode at grade so buses don't wait for passengers to and from rail via flights of stairs. (High Priority). Placing roads underground might only cost $36M compared to $1600M for Skyrail.
The road underpass can be as short and as narrow as possible, yet not reduce road capacity. Standards can be reduced to reflect the need. With roads 20% grade, 7m deep, 2 lanes wide and with adjacent bike and pedestrian underpass 10% grade, 3m deep, the structure is then 70m long x 13m wide x $4k/m2 = $4M per rail crossing eliminated. The approach grades need be only 30m long, for minimal disruption to the existing built environment. Existing 2 lane underpass on Huntingdale Rd, Mt Waverley is OK for width. Collins St is 11% grade.
It is noted that the Skyrail project has other benefits such as new stations but some of the concerns expressed by residents have been serious. Spending the money on Personal Rapid Transit will expand tourism and create far more jobs than Skyrail.
Two-Phase Intersections (ARN, ATM, EWE, EWW, HSP2, RSA, RHU, TNP,): Every existing intersection has been designed with turn phases, that have proven to be an enormous waste of capacity. All new intersections can be to “two-phase” standard to get 70% more traffic capacity for the same cost (Top priority).
Pilot “two-Phase” sites are on Hoddle St/Punt Rd, including Swan St. See for details and examples of this new concept. The web site also shows that right turners have more capacity and less delay, and pedestrians are better protected and safer. “Two-phase” can be retro-fitted to existing roads at any congested site. (High Priority). The continuous flow option is more intuitive and more efficient than the P-turn option. Audit of my analyses of 33 “two phase” intersections, including Hoddle St/Punt Rd from Eastern Fwy to Alexandra Ave and each major metropolitan bottleneck, to confirm the capacity increase claimed, is welcome (Sidra calculations and sketches available).
See that demonstrates actual existing capacity is 44% of potential capacity for Hoddle St/Punt Rd. Prefer public transport routes to be the first for “two-phase” retro-fits (High Priority). But “two-phase” only increases capacity: for better operation, metering and queue jumping are also required. New technology (two-phase) has 70% more capacity at no extra cost.
Meter Arterial Road Traffic to Remove Congestion (AAB, ATM, ETM, EWE, EWW, HSP1, HSP2, RSA, TNP, ): Road space allocation using bus lanes is counter-productive, because they constrict general traffic (cars) and freight, generate such resistance to bus lanes that some have had to be removed, and in consequence, bus priority is not even proposed at sites where it is needed.
Road space allocation consists of taking away a traffic lane for the exclusive use by buses (or trams). Even in Hoddle St with 40 DART buses/hour, there are still more people in cars than buses. Congestion and delay is made worse by taking the lane away. See In Stud Rd where there were only 3 lanes and 7 buses/hour, bus lanes were installed but by popular demand, had to be removed. See and also report by Alan Tudge MP.
In Stud Rd, capacity was reduced by 33%. A much better option is to meter traffic (to 90% of capacity) to give free flow conditions for buses, cars and freight. Everybody benefits, as the capacity is only reduced by 10%, traffic flows at the optimum speed, and bus priority is acceptable. Metering can be used at all congested sites, particularly where there is public transport (Top Priority). Metering generates queues (smaller than with bus lanes) and queue jumping for the bus is essential. It makes sense to also encourage queue jumping for 90% of traffic, see “Queue Jumping for a Small Toll”. New technology (metering) has 25% more capacity than road space allocation, at no extra cost.
Meter Freeways to Prevent Low Speeds from Forced Flow (ATM,ETM,EWE,EWW,RSA,TNP ): Ramp metering can be more aggressive to prevent forced flow (congestion) and double the peak speed: meter so that vehicles spacing is more than 40m. There would be no reduction in flow rate. The VicRoads website shows peak travel times that are twice the desirable travel time. Freeway flow is currently managed with ramp meters, often avoiding total flow breakdown, but still having forced flow. There are more crashes because vehicles are closer and speeds are erratic with forced flow. If there is a crash or roadworks or wet weather, metering can still ensure that there is no congestion on the freeway. Other than vehicle spacing, forced flow can be caused by queues from exit intersections backing down ramps onto the main through lanes: this factor should also control metering. It is better to have vehicles waiting in a queue at entry rather than have dangerous and slow operation of the freeway.
Dr Rahmi Akcelic's review of the Highway Capacity Manual includes Figures 4.4 and 4.5 that show observations for Eastern Fwy, with forced flow often happening on the freeway, and it occurs when spacings between vehicles is less than 40m.
Currently, ramp meters smooth the flow of vehicles entering the freeway, but that can be improved by matching entering flows with gaps in the freeway flow. See also “Queue Jumping for a Small Toll” where buses and 90% of traffic can jump the queue at meters to save time. Buses rarely, but should, get priority at ramp meters. Metering, to prevent forced flow, together with queue jumping for a fee, have great benefits and low cost (Top Priority). Metering and tolled queue jumping are recommended to save up to 30 minutes per commute.
Queue Jumping for a Small Toll ( ATM, ETM, EWE, EWW, HSP2, RSA, TNP, ): Metering car traffic generates queues upstream from the meter (signal), and that delay serves to constrain demand. But for efficiency, buses and trams must be able to jump the queue. Also for efficiency, most car traffic can be enticed to jump the queue, by a toll, set so low, that 90% will pay it. This has two major effects: quick travel time for 90% of traffic, saving up to 30 minutes per commute, and a reduction in queue length by 90% (Top Priority). The remaining queue will have free access; slightly more delay, and be 90% shorter than now, but will progress at one tenth of the speed. Free access via queuing should always be retained for equity.
The toll for “express” travel is not set to raise revenue, but to create much more efficient travel. This can be sold politically with a pilot study at each site, to make sure that there is public acceptance (90% paying will mean majority acceptance). Demand is still constrained by queue delay, (not the toll), but an express service is provided, as a user choice.
Example 1: Freeway ramp metering improves the freeway flow and creates queues at the meters. Existing ramp meters have two lanes and one of these lanes could be converted to express: free for buses and a toll for 90% of cars. The other lane should be retained for the shorter, slower, queued 10% of cars (1,500m queue at Bulleen Rd reduces to 150m).
Example 2: Eastern Fwy and Hoddle St/Punt Rd. Currently, there is a 40 minute trip in the AM peak from the Yarra River at Alphington to Yarra River at Cremorne. If Hoddle St/Punt Rd is metered to 90% capacity and the bus lanes removed, the trip reduces to 29 minutes, yet the DART buses still run free and the Punt Rd bus then gets priority (currently congested). But if 90% of traffic jumps the queue (along with the bus) at the end of Eastern Fwy, the trip reduces to 8 minutes for 90% and increases from 29 to 38 minutes for 10%, average 11 minutes, saving 29 minutes average. See
Implementation by Pilot Study (ATM, EWE, EWW, HSP2, RSA, TNP, ): Queue Jumping is much easier to sell at individual sites using a pilot study, and requiring overwhelming acceptance, to avoid any political backlash (Top Priority).Introducing tolls is always contentious and using a formal pilot study at each site is a prudent transparency.
Metering with tolled queue-jump is a two stage process: Stage One involves no tolls and the entire network can be metered, so that travel speeds are high, and there is no congestion anywhere. The total trip time is the same as now, except much of it is spent in queues at meters, and there are fewer crashes. Stage One already occurs at ramp meters and at the city end of the Eastern Freeway. Stage Two is where queue jumping is introduced for a fee, at every site where the queue is an issue. (There is an option where only the bus jumps the queue, but much greater overall efficiency is gained if most traffic jumps the queue). There are no losers for Stage One, so it can be done any time.
Stage Two needs review at each site. Stage Two is not pricing to manage demand: the queue manages demand in Stage One. Stage Two is pricing to provide customer service, and offers major time savings for efficiency, and reliability. Proposal TNP appears to be for area pricing, but this is a blunt instrument, has side effects, and will not be popular. Better to do queue jumping first and only to resort to area pricing, either area tolls or parking charges, if and when further constraint is needed. A review, as proposed for TNP, will not solve the political hurdles. See for public preference for specific tolls, of the kind proposed for queue jumping.
Low Stress Bicycle Network (AEA, ALR, BVA, BHT, BWP2, BWP3, CPC, CIM, ): Just as there should be a network for trains, trams, buses and freeways, there should be one for bikes; but it must be low stress and reasonably direct to be relevant. Why design bike lanes for 7% of the population when Level of Traffic Stress 2 (LTS2) will satisfy 67% of the population? It is a top priority to plan and implement bike networks to LTS2. The network needs to be complete and to serve schools and business centres. We should not offer bikes token support, fitness for all is an issue.
See where Figure 3 shows that the largest proportion of the population that might cycle are interested, but concerned about their safety. Level of Traffic Stress 2 (LTS2, defined on page 14), and acceptable level of detour of 25%, are essential criteria for the whole network, to satisfy the requirements of most people. The method of planning identifies suitable local streets as Figure 9 on page 34; then supplements them with works proposals to form networks that connect to centres. Network components can be on-road bicycle boulevards like Napier St Fitzroy (with alternating one-way direction for cars to prevent through traffic) or off-road paths or grade separations under arterials. Underpasses must have good lighting and camera surveillance. Bikes on footpaths is a last resort and this requires a 10kph speed limit.
Currently, many bike projects do not comply with AustRoads standards (example bike lanes on Bulleen Rd are unsafe for the volume and traffic speed) but even AustRoads standards do not comply with LTS2. Implementing LTS2 bike networks (and LTS1 to primary schools) will be more effective in congested areas than road or rail projects and the proportion of funding should reflect this.
Coherent Freeway Network (EWE, EWW, HPF, MAN, NEL, OMR, ): An agreed network and strategy is required (Top Priority). Policies can determine the sequence and sensitivity of implementation. Missing links (at Hoddle St, Alexandra Pde, Greensborough Hwy), should be completed for more balanced operation. Existing arterial streets may need to be converted to freeway to complete the network (Hoddle St, Alexandra Pde), using patience and compromised standards. A tunnel to avoid providing access to the city from Alexandra Pde will not prevent such access, since Alexandra Pde still must operate. An outer ring for future freeways should be reserved to avoid future resumption, even if never used. If all else fails, use pricing in its various forms (Hoddle St, Alexandra Pde).
Governments are all too prone to bully when resuming, rather than plan ahead. Filling in missing links is very disruptive when homes are to be resumed. Patience is required and better treatment of residents when resuming property (give 30 years notice for compulsory acquisition). Tunnels are of lower standard again and just as disruptive. Buses and freight need to connect to the city from Alexandra Pde but peak access by cars may warrant constraint with tolls. Congestion is not an acceptable strategy, either plan or price.