Louisa Sorrentino

Download Louisa Sorrentino

Post on 08-Jul-2015

65 views

Category:

Business

0 download

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

AITPM presentation

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li> 1. Modelling the Return of Sydney'sTrams Louisa Sorrentino Veitch Lister Consulting </li></ul> <p> 2. Before the mid-twentieth century, trams dominated! NSW: Sydney, Newcastle 3. QLD: Brisbane, Rockhampton Before the mid-twentieth century, trams dominated! 4. Before the mid-twentieth century, trams dominated! VIC: Melbourne, Geelong 5. Before the mid-twentieth century, trams dominated! SA: Adelaide 6. The Fall of theTrams Private vehicles and buses rapidly became popular in the mid-twentieth century Trams seen as archaic and taking up road space Most networks were decommissioned or downgraded to tourist routes 7. AustralianTramsToday Public transport falling back in favour Light rail has recently been introduced / upgraded in: Sydney Gold Coast Adelaide Melbourne Cities considering light rail systems include: ACT Perth Hobart 8. SydneysTram Revival Sydney was once one of the largest tram networks in the world The city has now: Extended the InnerWest Light Rail network from the CBD to Dulwich Hill Announced the $1.6 billion CBD and South East Light Rail Project 9. With this in mind: What patronage would a re-activated Sydney tram network achieve today? 10. ZenithTravel Models The Zenith Sydney model is a traditional four-step, strategic model It incorporates: All existing major roadways All existing public transport modes: bus, rail, ferry, monorail and light rail Over 4,500 travel zones spanning Sydney,Wollongong, the Blue Mountains, Newcastle, and the HunterValley 11. Building theTram Model Sydneys tram network of 1947 was encoded into a 2011 Sydney model, as seen on the left Sydney Trams - 1947 12. 1947 SydneyTram Network Statistics Approx. 230 km of track Over 55 individual routes Sydney Trams - 1947 13. 2011 MelbourneTram Network StatisticsMelbourne Trams 2011 Approx. 250km of track 30 individual routes 14. Tram Network Assumptions Adopted a conservative approach: Perception and accessibility made equal to buses Services of large tram corridors (i.e. for Broadway, the Harbour Bridge, Oxford St) capped to the levels of Swanston St, Melbourne Dedicated tram lanes only on these heavily trafficked corridors This translated to max. 15 min headways for all routes (all day) Adopt bus fare system for trams Deletion of mirrored bus routes 15. Initial Model Results Trams aren't doing much to relieve patronage levels on buses and trains (8% share of boardings) Buses impacted most competes more with trams Rail largely unaffected services a vastly different market catchment Total public transport boardings largely unaffected negligible shift from cars 16. SensitivityTests Improve perception and accessibility parameters for tram Reduce competition between trams and buses Double service frequencies (reduce max. headway from 15mins to 7.5mins) 17. SensitivityTest Results Improved Perception / Accessibility Tram boardings triple Balancing out of the bus and rail boardings share Big shift away from rail trams now at same level of attractiveness However such favourable parameters may be unrealistic 18. SensitivityTest Results 30% increase in tram boardings over initial runs Bus boardings decrease sharply many routes deleted as part of test Some previous bus users switching to train rather than trams 19. SensitivityTest Results 40% increase in tram boardings over initial run Biggest shift away from buses Impractically high capacities required to service this level of tram frequency 20. Key Messages from Sensitivity Testing Perception / accessibility, good service levels and reduced competition for patronage all increase tram patronage These may have all occurred to some extent, had the trams been retained Replacing one public transport mode with another providing similar coverage, requires significant improvement in overall service levels for any tangible relief / switching to occur from other modes 21. Limitations The model can account for transport-related benefits (i.e. travel time savings), but cant capture amenity benefits Also limited by our assumptions.To improve modelling outcomes, we could: Downgrade road capacities where on-road trams exist Develop land use scenarios that account for population and employment growth along tram corridors On guidance from planning authorities, implement service levels, fares, travel time and stop locations for trams Rigorous review of competing / complementing bus routes Perform stated preference surveys to calibrate accessibility / perception parameters 22. Conclusions Sydney has changed significantly since the trams were decommissioned, and transport planning has occurred in their absence Tram network offers no new accessibility on top of existing services, and therefore provides little congestion relief with initial conservative assumptions Sensitivity tests showed improved perception, frequencies and competition with other public transport modes increased patronage These conditions are more likely to have occurred naturally had the trams been retained More rigorous modelling could characterise the transport-related benefits with greater detail and precision </p>