louisa sorrentino
DESCRIPTION
AITPM presentationTRANSCRIPT
Modelling the Return of Sydney's Trams
Louisa Sorrentino
Veitch Lister Consulting
Before the mid-twentieth century, trams dominated!
• NSW: Sydney, Newcastle
• QLD: Brisbane, Rockhampton
Before the mid-twentieth century, trams dominated!
Before the mid-twentieth century, trams dominated!
• VIC: Melbourne, Geelong
Before the mid-twentieth century, trams dominated!
• SA: Adelaide
The Fall of the Trams
• 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
Australian Trams Today
• 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
Sydney’s Tram Revival
• Sydney was once one of the largest tram networks in the world
• The city has now:
• Extended the Inner West Light Rail network from the CBD to Dulwich Hill
• Announced the $1.6 billion CBD and South East Light Rail Project
With this in mind:
What patronage would a re-activated Sydney tram network achieve today?
Zenith Travel 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 Hunter Valley
Building the Tram Model
Sydney’s tram network of 1947 was encoded into a 2011 Sydney model, as seen on the left
Sydney Trams - 1947
1947 Sydney Tram Network Statistics
• Approx. 230 km of track
• Over 55 individual routes
Sydney Trams - 1947
2011 Melbourne Tram Network StatisticsMelbourne Trams –
2011
• Approx. 250km of track
• 30 individual routes
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
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
Sensitivity Tests
• Improve perception and accessibility parameters for tram
• Reduce competition between trams and buses
• Double service frequencies (reduce max. headway from 15mins to 7.5mins)
Sensitivity Test 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
Sensitivity Test 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
Sensitivity Test 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
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
Limitations
• The model can account for transport-related benefits (i.e. travel time savings), but can’t 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
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