Designing a "Milton Keynes" for public transport - what would it look like?

[Thirteen]

It always surprised me that Thamesmead was built with limited public transport but I guess when it was built, the car was king. Compare that to today and developments like Barking Riverside where the station is the focal point to drive new homes and jobs.

 

[fandroid]

Design the layout around trams. That is, provide segregated corridors for all potential main routes and have a large depot site in mind for stabling from the very beginning. The city doesn't have to start with trams; buses being the obvious choice until the traffic builds up enough for trams to be worthwhile. Perhaps technology will replace the need for trams on those corridors, but they've endured for well over 100 years so far as an effective transport option The vital thing is to provide the corridors. Plan buses in from the start too, to distribute passengers within local areas. BUT, ensure there is just one transport authority for the new city that dictates a common pricing structure and ensures that covers all transport modes without having to pay for connections. Seamless travel is the absolute requirement.

If the traffic comes to exceed the capacity of light rail, then build metro lines along the same routes, retaining the trams for distribution between Metro stations.

Traffic growth can be driven by careful siting of big institutions like hospitals and universities at key points on the network.

A study of the modern suburbs of Amsterdam might give a clue, like Amstelveen. That was built with tram/trains in mind, with the Metro line sharing with a tramline extension. I think the Metro no longer shares the tram tracks, but that's possibly due to the construction of the North-South metro.

 

[Dr Day]

If the traffic comes to exceed the capacity of light rail, then build metro lines along the same routes, retaining the trams for distribution between Metro stations.

Been struggling to find a definitive reputable source of 'the maximum capacity of light rail' and how 'metro' differs - can anyone point me in the right direction please? Ideally you wouldn't want to be building segregated underground metros at a later date.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Been struggling to find a definitive reputable source of 'the maximum capacity of light rail' and how 'metro' differs - can anyone point me in the right direction please? Ideally you wouldn't want to be building segregated underground metros at a later date.

There's a lot in common between trams and light rail metros. The constraint on street trams is vehicle length before they start really getting in the way, but if you're designing a town from scratch you'd allocate reserved tracks above ground so this wouldn't be an issue. Underground metros are really about two things - one, existing cities where there's nowhere above ground for a reserved right of way, and two, places of very high land value (which is not where you'd look to do something like this to start with).

It's probably of note that how to build a small to medium town for public transport is essentially already resolved - do it like Runcorn (be it with trams or buses) - a figure 8 with the main CBD at the crossover. It's when you get to a quite big place like MK where one figure-8 loop (or two that cross each other) won't cut it that the challenges become greater. Similarly a small single suburb of an existing town or city - build it in a circle or fig-8 shape with a bus service going somewhere useful.

Talking of figures of 8, I suppose you could expand the "beads on a string" idea by having "double figure 8s" off each "bead" - the middle 500m diameter one that can walk to the station plus a set of beads around a secondary transport route, with a connecting bus running round it to the main rail spine, though that introduces a change of train/bus and so makes it less attractive.

 

[HSTEd]

Design the layout around trams. That is, provide segregated corridors for all potential main routes and have a large depot site in mind for stabling from the very beginning. The city doesn't have to start with trams; buses being the obvious choice until the traffic builds up enough for trams to be worthwhile. Perhaps technology will replace the need for trams on those corridors, but they've endured for well over 100 years so far as an effective transport option The vital thing is to provide the corridors. Plan buses in from the start too, to distribute passengers within local areas. BUT, ensure there is just one transport authority for the new city that dictates a common pricing structure and ensures that covers all transport modes without having to pay for connections. Seamless travel is the absolute requirement.

If you are going to build a dedicated corridor transport system on a greenfield site, why would you lumber yourself with the huge staffing requirements of buses and trams?
Especially since doing anything once its open is going to cost you an absolute fortune.

Just build an automated light metro and be done with it, it might cost marginally more in the first place but it will save you huge sums long term and allow service densities (And thus attractiveness) that buses could never hope to match.

 

[Thirteen]

I'm not sure if you could ever have an automatic Tram system at the moment. If there's street running involved then you need a driver.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not sure if you could ever have an automatic Tram system at the moment. If there's street running involved then you need a driver.

Why would it be street running? This is a greenfield site (as Milton Keynes was), so you can lay out dedicated routes from the beginning.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm not sure if you could ever have an automatic Tram system at the moment. If there's street running involved then you need a driver.

The Very Light Rail being developed for Coventry is supposed to be capable of running without a driver in the future, but I think is still intended to be manually driven when it opens.

 

[Foxhunter]

If you are going to build a dedicated corridor transport system on a greenfield site, why would you lumber yourself with the huge staffing requirements of buses and trams?

Why would it be street running? This is a greenfield site (as Milton Keynes was), so you can lay out dedicated routes from the beginning.

Thank you for drifting this thread to to topic I was considering starting

In a recent thread we discussed why, inconveniently for public transport, people like to live in medium density suburbs with neighbours nearby but on the other side of the fence. Instead of trying to make people want to live in flats and high rises, why not accept the proposition that many don't, and provide public transport to suit?

We know from London and other large cities that if we provide good public transport people will give up their cars. So, with a greenfield new town, why not do the opposite of the last 70 years and design it for no cars. Instead base it on two public transport modes that we have already working and proven. At the top level a Docklands Light Railway, segregated, automatic vehicles running on rail lines covering the whole area. At the lower level, Heathrow Terminal 5 pod parking vehicles to get between the 'DLR' station and home, or provide local transport e.g. kids to school.

We'd still need a road running near each house, for ambulances and the bin lorry if nothing else, but it can be narrow - no car parking, and single direction of use. Maybe allow parcel/supermarket/fast food deliveries on the road, but with speed restricted vehicles and maybe specially licensed (or age restricted e.g. nobody under 50) drivers. And of course good i.e. segregated walking and cycling routes too.

Car use catered for by edge of town car hire points, or park and ride for visitors. Non car out of town journeys catered for by a single railway station and a single bus/coach station.

So, no cars, no trams, no buses, no taxis. But transport available 24/7. Sounds good to me, I'd live there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is there much gained by small pods over electric cars though? A small amount of safety I suppose, but less flexibility.

 

[Foxhunter]

Is there much gained by small pods over electric cars though? A small amount of safety I suppose, but less flexibility.

The way I see it, very few people will be unable to use a pod. Electric cars require licensed drivers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The way I see it, very few people will be unable to use a pod. Electric cars require licensed drivers.

They do, though they can be supplemented by e-bikes etc.

Of note by the way is that Runcorn (a town designed for both the car and public transport) is not particularly high density.

 

[Foxhunter]

They do, though they can be supplemented by e-bikes etc.

Yes, the younger sections of the population will cover a lot of their local transport needs on the segregated walk and cycle routes. Some of the older sections perhaps not so much. And everybody gets a wet weather solulution.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, the younger sections of the population will cover a lot of their local transport needs on the segregated walk and cycle routes. Some of the older sections perhaps not so much. And everybody gets a wet weather solulution.

E-bikes and e-trikes are great for older people, and dedicated cycling infrastructure is an essential for this sort of place, this making it a pleasant activity. You can carry on riding one long after you would have to give up driving, particularly a trike.

Wet weather I'll give you, but despite its reputation it doesn't actually rain that much in all of the UK - Milton Keynes for instance is generally quite dry.

 

[fandroid]

When I said trams I was thinking of the whole range of light rail. As seen in another thread there's a huge spectrum of size here, even in street-running systems. DLR has staffed trains, so there's not a big saving on employees compared with a long tram with one driver.

There's an advantage to a surface system like trams (and buses!). Their routes are fully permeable by people on foot and cycle. An automated Light Rail is likely to be fenced off, as are the Heathrow pods, except they are light enough to be elevated. Big roads will still be needed for servicing the city, even if all traffic is electric. Combine those with the segregated tram rights of way.

A pod system seems great but it does involve a massive amount of infrastructure for a relatively small carrying capacity. This city won't have much of a population at the start so buses (electric) with drivers as their guidance systems provide a low start-up cost system that can utilise those roads that are needed for the bin lorries and emergency services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When I said trams I was thinking of the whole range of light rail. As seen in another thread there's a huge spectrum of size here, even in street-running systems. DLR has staffed trains, so there's not a big saving on employees compared with a long tram with one driver.

It doesn't save much if anything on actual staff, but there are massive customer service and anti-ASB advantages of "guard only operation" over DOO. And you could potentially have them manually drive it over awkward sections, e.g. if you had something like the segregated parts of Metrolink (Bury and Altrincham, primarily) it could run automatically on those (during which the member of staff wanders around doing tickets and helping people) but switch to being manually driven on street running sections.

As far as a typical UK town goes (and I see no reason the population of such a town wouldn't follow that pattern, unless you tagged it onto somewhere very prosperous like Cambridge or something, but the whole premise of the thread is of a totally new, large town, not a garden suburb) a totally unstaffed public transport operation would rapidly be a hive of antisocial behaviour and people just wouldn't be willing to use it, and a "death spiral" would result.

 

[zwk500]

Yes, the younger sections of the population will cover a lot of their local transport needs on the segregated walk and cycle routes. Some of the older sections perhaps not so much. And everybody gets a wet weather solulution.

E-bikes are used more by older than younger people from my experience.

Wet weather I'll give you, but despite its reputation it doesn't actually rain that much in all of the UK - Milton Keynes for instance is generally quite dry.

MK is more inland though. However I think the bigger thing is that rain isn't the problem people who don't cycle think it is. However the UK does need to get better at drying rooms and public/office showers. When I was cycling regularly, I'd only get the train into work if it was Heavy rain or freezing conditions. Even moderate rain isn't a big problem if you're used to cycling regularly.

It doesn't save much if anything on actual staff, but there are massive customer service and anti-ASB advantages of "guard only operation" over DOO. And you could potentially have them manually drive it over awkward sections, e.g. if you had something like the segregated parts of Metrolink (Bury and Altrincham, primarily) it could run automatically on those (during which the member of staff wanders around doing tickets and helping people) but switch to being manually driven on street running sections.

This would be my favoured method of operation. ATO G3/4 with a PSA onboard capable of keeping the service moving in the event of an emergency. The only problem would be if the tram was so rammed you couldn't get through it but if the DLR manages I doubt any other town would be worse.

 

[Bletchleyite]

MK is more inland though. However I think the bigger thing is that rain isn't the problem people who don't cycle think it is. However the UK does need to get better at drying rooms and public/office showers. When I was cycling regularly, I'd only get the train into work if it was Heavy rain or freezing conditions. Even moderate rain isn't a big problem if you're used to cycling regularly.

Yes, it would help increase cycling to work if it was a condition of planning permission for new office and major retail developments to install and maintain* sufficient public (for those who work there, not general public) changing and showering facilities plus clothing lockers within the building so you can store your formal officewear and change into it on arrival. If a reasonably priced laundry service was offered you needn't necessarily even take it home. So perhaps this would be a feature of our new town.

On the other hand, if you cycle slowly and at low effort levels (this is how most Dutch cycling is, rather than British "head down, fancy road bike" cycle commuting) you don't get any sweatier than you would on the Tube, which if coupled with the typical Dutch informal approach to officewear (usually polo shirt and jeans sort of territory, never a suit) might mean that isn't actually necessary. The UK is hillier (MK certainly is!) but e-bikes flatten hills.

* As part of a deed of covenant or similar, so it can be enforced, otherwise you end up with them being built then locked up and used for storage etc.

This would be my favoured method of operation. ATO G3/4 with a PSA onboard capable of keeping the service moving in the event of an emergency. The only problem would be if the tram was so rammed you couldn't get through it but if the DLR manages I doubt any other town would be worse.

Indeed. If this was a total new build you'd build in enough capacity for the planned size and demand, too. London Underground is another level of crowded, which is probably the reason the "driver" remains at the front rather than a DLR "GOO" style approach (the actual ATO tech is largely the same), but London Underground is not a new system. (The Lizzie is, however, and I am slightly surprised that isn't "GOO" on the new sections, though I suppose with a long train it's just a handy place to have the DOO monitors at the front rather than lots of sets at intermediate doors).

For what it's worth I predict that some sort of staff will be quickly reinstated on the Glasgow Subway due to severe ASB once it goes automated. But they're more likely to be in the passenger compartment than the front cab, and probably just be cheap contract security staff.

 

[zwk500]

Yes, it would help increase cycling to work if it was a condition of planning permission for new office and major retail developments to install and maintain* sufficient public (for those who work there, not general public) changing and showering facilities plus clothing lockers within the building so you can store your formal officewear and change into it on arrival. If a reasonably priced laundry service was offered you needn't necessarily even take it home. So perhaps this would be a feature of our new town.

Indeed - this is one of the thing NR (one of MK's big employers) did well. Changing rooms with Showers, lockers in a drying room (with open rack as well) and a more relaxed dress code (Button-down shirt and slacks but no jacket or tie needed) together with a weekly travelling dry-cleaner.

On the other hand, if you cycle slowly and at low effort levels (this is how most Dutch cycling is, rather than British "head down, fancy road bike" cycle commuting) you don't get any sweatier than you would on the Tube, which if coupled with the typical Dutch informal approach to officewear (usually polo shirt and jeans sort of territory, never a suit) might mean that isn't actually necessary. The UK is hillier (MK certainly is!) but e-bikes flatten hills.

Dutch cycling is certainly much slower, and although where I live in Limburg is not much less hilly than MK, Limburg is hilly for the Netherlands and MK is flat for the UK, but see Not Just Bike's video on Switzerland for the use of E-bikes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Dutch cycling is certainly much slower, and although where I live in Limburg is not much less hilly than MK, Limburg is hilly for the Netherlands and MK is flat for the UK, but see Not Just Bike's video on Switzerland for the use of E-bikes.

I'd not say MK was flat for the UK. West Lancashire, or Norfolk, or even London (bar parts of South London) are flat for the UK, as is e.g. south Manchester which is as flat as a proverbial pancake. MK is really quite hilly in places. It's not Edinburgh, Sheffield nor Lancaster, but those are the extremes, really.

Switzerland is so different to most other places (bar parts of northern Italy, southern Germany and Austria) that it finds its own solutions which are unlikely to be applicable to our hypothetical New Town. For instance the town centre is normally in the valley (near the river, for traditional reasons of access to water for drinking, bathing and washing clothes) and the commuter suburbs up the hills surrounding it. This creates an almost unique form of commuting - people ride folding (manual, not e-) scooters downhill to work in the morning, suited up (CH is still quite formal office-wear-wise) and with a laptop bag clipped to the handlebars, then in the evening they fold them up and take the bus back up the hill home. It's almost as curious and unique a sight as the parade of suits across Waterloo Bridge of a morning.

 

[zwk500]

I'd not say MK was flat for the UK. West Lancashire, or Norfolk, or even London (bar parts of South London) are flat for the UK, as is e.g. south Manchester which is as flat as a proverbial pancake. MK is really quite hilly in places. It's not Edinburgh, Sheffield nor Lancaster, but those are the extremes, really.

The total elevation change is still quite low for a country with large amounts of rolling hillside.

Switzerland is so different to most other places (bar parts of northern Italy, southern Germany and Austria) that it finds its own solutions which are unlikely to be applicable to our hypothetical New Town.

Oh indeed, it was just an illustration that 'hills' is not a valid objection to cycling as a mode of transport. Cycling is now a cultural issue, not a practical one. In the UK, it's still largely seen as a leisure activity and therefore the industry around it is geared more towards performance and spending lots of money on your hobby. However when it becomes normalised as a mode of transport as it is here in the Netherlands or in many UK student towns then you tend to see lots of low-cost 'fix-while-you-wait' places offering value for money on good equipment without the same flashiness. The UK can't copy NL like-for-like, but it could certainly learn a few lessons from it.

 

[HSTEd]

DLR has staffed trains, so there's not a big saving on employees compared with a long tram with one driver.

DLR has staffed trains because it was built 40 years ago though.

Today it would not have.

As far as a typical UK town goes (and I see no reason the population of such a town wouldn't follow that pattern, unless you tagged it onto somewhere very prosperous like Cambridge or something, but the whole premise of the thread is of a totally new, large town, not a garden suburb) a totally unstaffed public transport operation would rapidly be a hive of antisocial behaviour and people just wouldn't be willing to use it, and a "death spiral" would result.

In reality DOO rail systems are effectively unmanned, the driver has very little conception of what is going on in the back.

The number of staff required to discourage antisocial behaviour is (probably) a fraction of the quantity required to guarantee a staff member on every single train. Manning every trains would make it impractical to maintain the kind of service densities necessary to make the service attractive, especially in a comparatively low density area such as a neo-MK.

An automated system will allow wait times far lower than a manned system, simply because you could (if you wish) run every single vehicle on the system independently.

Additionally, this thread has also discussed e-bikes, and I am skeptical we would ever end up in a situation where we have simultaneously got massive anti social behaviour on transport but have somehow managed to crush the rampant bike theft that has destroyed cycling as a serious transport system in most major UK urban centres. I might have a bike if I could be sure it wouldn't just get stolen in days.

But I guess the Glasgow Experience will be telling!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The total elevation change is still quite low for a country with large amounts of rolling hillside.

It is, but it's worth bearing in mind that larger towns are generally concentrated on rivers and estuaries for historical water access reasons. So you have relatively few in the areas of rolling hills. Of course MK is different as being built in the 1970s that river connection wasn't significant.

As such, as far as UK large towns and cities go, MK is quite hilly, even if in general terms it isn't, if you see what I mean.

Oh indeed, it was just an illustration that 'hills' is not a valid objection to cycling as a mode of transport. Cycling is now a cultural issue, not a practical one. In the UK, it's still largely seen as a leisure activity and therefore the industry around it is geared more towards performance and spending lots of money on your hobby. However when it becomes normalised as a mode of transport as it is here in the Netherlands or in many UK student towns then you tend to see lots of low-cost 'fix-while-you-wait' places offering value for money on good equipment without the same flashiness. The UK can't copy NL like-for-like, but it could certainly learn a few lessons from it.

Yes, true.

Additionally, this thread has also discussed e-bikes, and I am skeptical we would ever end up in a situation where we have simultaneously got massive anti social behaviour on transport but have somehow managed to crush the rampant bike theft that has destroyed cycling as a serious transport system in most major UK urban centres. I might have a bike if I could be sure it wouldn't just get stolen in days.

I think the fix to this potentially comes with accepting that we'll likely not reach a position where leaving your bike on a Sheffield stand guarantees it'll still be there afterwards (NL has bike theft issues too - there's the old adage that when your Omafiets gets nicked, you just nick another one to replace it and so it goes round) but we could make things like secure indoor storage being conditional for planning of an office building, and similar for a larger shop just inside the door where the till staff would see an attempted theft rather than outside where they wouldn't.

 

[zwk500]

As such, as far as UK large towns and cities go, MK is quite hilly, even if in general terms it isn't, if you see what I mean.

As somebody who grew up around the south downs, I fund MK refreshingly easy to cycle around! Brighton is hardly flat, as anybody who's walked from the Seafront to the station will testify. But then maybe I just got used to the landscape. There's a good story about one of the Architects of MK who was from Buxton, and on his first site visit couldn't believe that there was a place so flat in England (may be apocryphal).

I think the fix to this potentially comes with accepting that we'll likely not reach a position where leaving your bike on a Sheffield stand guarantees it'll still be there afterwards (NL has bike theft issues too - there's the old adage that when your Omafiets gets nicked, you just nick another one to replace it and so it goes round) but we could make things like secure indoor storage being conditional for planning of an office building, and similar for a larger shop just inside the door where the till staff would see an attempted theft rather than outside where they wouldn't.

Can confirm - when I first arrived there was no end of warnings to students about being careful to avoid buying stolen bikes. Having said that, there are so many bikes around here that the chances of your bike specifically being nicked are quite low unless you're really stupid about it. Also if you're found with a stolen bike you can be fined and it will be seized, regardless of if you purchased it legitimately. They also have a much better bike register than in the UK. In the Netherlands (and Copenhagen as well, I noticed) if there isn't a stand available people often don't even lock their bikes to anything - the ring lock alone is felt to be secure enough (despite the ease with which it could be removed if somebody was serious about it).

 

[edwin_m]

At the lower level, Heathrow Terminal 5 pod parking vehicles to get between the 'DLR' station and home, or provide local transport e.g. kids to school.

This type of pod is almost certainly a technological dead end. If they are truly to serve everywhere then everywhere needs a segregated guideway, which is very obtrusive and more expensive than normal road access.

We're probably almost there with low-speed autonomy, which would allow the pods to share the local access roads and truly go anywhere within the city limits. But some problems remain, such as dealing with abuse of pods (what state might the last user have left it in on a Saturday night?) and, given roads are essential, limiting vehicle access to what is strictly necessary.

 

[zwk500]

This type of pod is almost certainly a technological dead end. If they are truly to serve everywhere then everywhere needs a segregated guideway, which is very obtrusive and more expensive than normal road access.

We're probably almost there with low-speed autonomy, which would allow the pods to share the local access roads and truly go anywhere within the city limits. But some problems remain, such as dealing with abuse of pods (what state might the last user have left it in on a Saturday night?) and, given roads are essential, limiting vehicle access to what is strictly necessary.

Pods are a great idea for big airports, with people travelling between parking/transport/terminals etc. The infrastructure is all there and it's a largely contained system (although they could use public roads quite happily at places such as Gatwick). You also have the traffic density to make it work. But for a city they're less realistic.

 

[edwin_m]

Pods are a great idea for big airports, with people travelling between parking/transport/terminals etc. The infrastructure is all there and it's a largely contained system (although they could use public roads quite happily at places such as Gatwick). You also have the traffic density to make it work. But for a city they're less realistic.

Putting that in a slightly different way, airports are one of the few types of place where segregated pods might work. But even then there are far more peoplemovers (carrying many people in a vehicle) than individual pods - in fact I think Heathrow is still the only one.

 

[zwk500]

Putting that in a slightly different way, airports are one of the few types of place where segregated pods might work. But even then there are far more peoplemovers (carrying many people in a vehicle) than individual pods - in fact I think Heathrow is still the only one.

True. The cost of the additional infrastructure when most airports already have people movers makes it difficult to justify the newer system.

 

[HSTEd]

Myself I think pods are silly, they seem to have little advantage over a VAL type system, which can use single vehicles if desired.

 

[Bald Rick]

DLR has staffed trains because it was built 40 years ago though.

Not quite - it has staffed trains because when it was first opened, there were more stations than trains, and it was therefore cheaper to have one person on every train to conduct dispatch than one person on every platform.