Bring Back the Tram Again! Steve Miller Transport for London

Why “Bring Back the Tram Again!”? To distinguish from “Bring Back the Tram!” - my presentation to the 20 th “International” Emme/2 User Group Meeting (Oct – Seattle); To update the Emme/2 community on a project’s evolution; Not a cry for a nostalgic panorama of pre-war UK trams!

Transport for London Transport for London (TfL) is the integrated body responsible for London's transport system. Its role is: to implement the Mayor's Transport Strategy for London To manage the transport services across the capital for which the Mayor has responsibility. TfL manages: –London's buses, the Underground, the Docklands Light Railway (DLR), Croydon Tramlink and London River Services –Victoria Coach Station and London's Transport Museum –The red route network, Congestion Charge, and London's 4,600 traffic lights –A range of alternative transport initiatives including walking and cycling

Public Transport Issues for London Limited investment in new rail infrastructure Limited potential to increase rail capacity “Sweat the Assets”; i.e.: Spread the Peak (demand and supply) Increased crowding Need to demonstrate Value for Money – Cost/Benefit Analysis

The Tram Scheme: Old Tram or New Tram?

Why a Tram? Relieve tube crowding Stimulate regeneration Improve accessibility Increased reliability Better connection between mainline stations Environmentally friendly mode of transport Cost efficient Connect target areas south of river Improve overall system efficiency of highway based public transport

A Tram is Efficient Trams can move passengers far more efficiently than other vehicles 1 tram2 - 4 buses220 cars

Possible Route New 16.5 km tramway Core alignment: Euston to Waterloo 30 trams per hour Branches North: to Kings Cross and Camden Town South: to Peckham and Brixton 15 trams per hour each branch Alternative routes

Initial Assessments Started in 1997: Intermediate Modes Studies Then further Studies: –Tram v high-quality bus services –Tram was feasible and beneficial –Ruled out bus option due to capacity and attractiveness Refined Progressively to demonstrate: Sound Business Case (BCR: 2.64:1) Road Traffic Impacts can be managed

Models available to TfL LTS (London Transportation Studies) Model Railplan SALT (SATURN Assignment of London Traffic) SALT-C (Congestion Charging) Micro-Simulation and Junction Models

LTS (London Transportation Studies) Model Strategic 4 Stage Model, based on legacy software and TRIPS/Cube Covers London and South East England Network representation is not that detailed 1016 zones Run for 2001, 2006, and then every 5 years to 2031

The Railplan Model Runs on EMME/2 usually under UNIX Public Transport Assignment model of London –Underground –Rail –Tram –Bus –Docklands Light Rail (DLR)

The Railplan Model Uses Size 16 licence 1,500-3,000+ Zones 50,000+ Links Distribution-Mode Split model outside Railplan – usually reliant on LTS

Railplan Features Developed since 1988 Initially for the AM Peak Period only All Public Transport sub-modes Congestion in Route Choice Quantifies social benefit of reduced crowding Forecasts station flow patterns to aid station planning

Standard Railplan Model: Demand Derived from LTS Model YearTrips (3 Hrs) 20011,836, ,195,962 Growth 2% p.a.

Standard Railplan: Model Dimensions Network (2001 Base) No. Zones1,571 No. Nodes14,648 No. Links49,596 No. Services1,836

Network Usage (2001 Base) ModeServicesServ. KmsPass. Kms N Rail94941,4709,195,488 Underground12513,7782,826,332 Light Rail661567,120 Tram447124,575 Bus75277,433998,301

SALT (SATURN Assignment of London Traffic) Covers the complete (Greater London) area in detail Slow to run No longer directly supported or used – difficult to find resources to develop and maintain a detailed network model over such a large area Demand derived from LTS

SALT-C (Congestion Charging) Designed to model the “Boundary Route” around CC Scheme Based on a cordoned SALT model for run-time efficiency Matrix Estimation, prior matrix from LTS via SALT Demand externally split between “YACS” and “NACS” on a sector – sector basis 615 zones

Micro-Simulation and Junction Models TRANSYT is the normal basis for such models Micro-simulation (VISSIM) increasingly adopted for the more complex areas Individual models are developed and validated to represent specific junction groups

New Models For the Tram A New family of models: CRISTAL (Cross River Study of Trams Across London) CRISTAL-H (Highway – SATURN) CRISTAL-P (Public Transport – EMME/2) CRISTAL-J (Junctions – TRANSYT and LINSIG) CRISTAL-M (Micro-Simulation – VISSIM) CRISTAL-D (Demand or Mode Shift)

CRISTAL Models: Overview Railplan PT SATURN Strategic Highway TRANSYT Junction VISSIM Microsimulation Mode Share / Dem Revised Signal Timings Flow Changes

Demand across the Thames

Current State of Models : CRISTAL_H Based on SALT-C 615 zones expanded to 697 zones New treatment of taxi user class AM Peak hour model validated PM Peak Hour model validated IP model not yet developed

AM Peak Hour Demand (PCUs/hr) YACS (Accept C.Charge) NACS (Divert around Zone) Total LIGHT 77,000254,000331,000 HEAVY 36,00012,00048,000 TAXIS 20,000 Total 133,000266,000399,000

Highway traffic flows (AM Peak Hour)

Current State of Models : CRISTAL-P Based on Railplan 1571 zones expanded to 1645 zones AM Peak model validated PM Peak and IP models not yet developed

Public Transport Demand Transferred Forecast LU Crowding Relief (AM Peak Period) 4-8% reduction in demand on most crowded services in central London – Northern, Victoria and Piccadilly n over 400,000 travellers on Tube in AM Peak will benefit n Slight increase in demand along a stretch of the Central line, Bank to Holborn

Current State of Models : CRISTAL-J 14 Individual local models developed and validated for AM and PM Peak hours Forecasts produced on operational aspects of traffic flows with or without Tram Mainly using TRANSYT and LINSIG for individual signal groups

Current State of Models : CRISTAL-M VISSIM Model was developed from a series of local models used previously Adequate to confirm general principles of scheme operation – interaction between tram and general traffic not readily handled in static models Route corridor being confirmed at this stage Initial model will be expanded and developed for the chosen route corridor

Current State of Models : CRISTAL-M VISSIM photo - BAYLIS ROAD / WATERLOO ROAD- Work in progress

Current State of Models : CRISTAL-D Previous Demand model was developed using EMME/2 This has been refreshed for CRISTAL Now complies with DfT Advice (“WebTAG”)

Convergence CRISTAL-D Convergence Criteria: WebTAG % relative GAP < 0.1 Benefits as % of network costs >= 10 * GAP Change in CRT demand < 0.5% Change in PT demand < 0.5% Change in highway demand < 0.5%

Future Year Modelling – Results 2026 IBC RUN, SC359 – Iteration 3 Post-Demand Model Results Compared to the Fixed Matrix Assignment

Model Operation –Operation Platform – DOS / Windows –Batch File to operate –3 to 5 iterations to converge CRISTAL-H SATURN Assignment models CRISTAL-P EMME2 Assignment models CRISTAL-D Demand model Costs & DM Demands DS Demands convergence

Model Operation: Run Times Highway Model9.5 hours PT Model<0.5 hours Demand Model<0.25 hours Per iteration10 hours So, a run still takes approx. 30 hours!

Scheme Costs and Benefits Costs and Benefits (£m PV 2004 prices) Tram Costs (600) Revenue 250 User Benefits Time saving on trips 75% - London Buses/Underground relief 25% Economic Benefits500 Non-User Benefits (200) Benefit : Cost Ratio 2.8:1

Conclusions There seems to be a commercial case for a new Tram in central London Congestion Charging has offered some highway capacity for the core section The tools and data are available to develop robust forecasts of demand, traffic impacts and benefits EMME is an important part of the toolkit However, despite the commercial case, there remains issues of political risk and availability of funds

A Vision of the Tram