the london transportation study and beyond

10
This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library] On: 29 October 2014, At: 15:13 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Regional Studies Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cres20 The London Transportation Study and beyond T.M. Ridley a & J.O. Tresidder b a Greater London Council b Fox, Wilbur Smith and Associates Published online: 03 Feb 2007. To cite this article: T.M. Ridley & J.O. Tresidder (1970) The London Transportation Study and beyond, Regional Studies, 4:1, 63-71, DOI: 10.1080/09595237000185061 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09595237000185061 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Upload: jo

Post on 06-Mar-2017

212 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: The London Transportation Study and beyond

This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library]On: 29 October 2014, At: 15:13Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Regional StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cres20

The London Transportation Study and beyondT.M. Ridley a & J.O. Tresidder ba Greater London Councilb Fox, Wilbur Smith and AssociatesPublished online: 03 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: T.M. Ridley & J.O. Tresidder (1970) The London Transportation Study and beyond, Regional Studies,4:1, 63-71, DOI: 10.1080/09595237000185061

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09595237000185061

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: The London Transportation Study and beyond

Regional Studies. Vol. 4, pp. 63-71. Pergamon Press 1970. Printed in Great Britain

The London Transportation and Beyond

T. M. RIDLEY

Greater London Council

and

S f B Ac l UDC 385/388: 711.4-112(421)

Study

j . o . TRESIDDER

Freeman, Fox, Wilbur Smith and Associates

(Received 18 February 1969)

RIDtEY T. M. and T~smD~R J. O. (1970) The London Transportation Study and Beyond, Reg. Studies 4, 63-71. The London Transportation Study was carried out in three phases. Phase I collected basic data on person and travel characteristics in 1962. Phase II made the first forecasts of potential demand for travel in London in 1981 assuming certain population, employment, income and car ownership levels and that car owners in future would behave in the same way as in 1962. Phase III extended the previous work and developed methods which allowed the testing of alternative combinations of road and public transport networks, the estimate of road travel demand in balance with capacity assumptions and the economic evaluation of networks.

The paper briefly describes the methods used, the tests carried out and shows how the new methods produced revised estimates of future travel. The implica- tions of these results and the possible effect of revised planning assumptions are discussed.

London Transportation Study Traffic forecasts Transport plans mic evaluation Traftlc restraint Potential travel demand

Econo-

I N T R O D U C T I O N

IN 1960 the London County Council and the Ministry of Transport as joint clients, initiated the London Traffic Survey with the co-operation of London Transport and British Rail. A number of surveys were carried out in 1962 to ascertain the existing travel pattern in London and to establish the basic relationships between person and household characteristics and travel character- istics (L.C.C., 1964). The survey was originally conceived quite narrowly though it was large in scale. The history of the work since then has been the steady development of a more comprehensive approach and particularly a much greater emphasis on public transport (MARXlN, 1968).

In this paper the main results of Phases I and II of the Survey are reviewed, the new method- ology developed for the London Transportation Study (Phase III) is discussed and illustrated by some results. Some implications for transport planning in London are aired and attention is drawn to the questions raised by recent thinking on future population and employment totals in London.

PHASE II In Phase II of the Survey the first comprehen-

sive forecasts were made of future travel demands in London. The procedures used were fairly conventional and demonstrated the amount and mode of travel which could be expected in future if car ownership continued to increase rapidly and if cars were used with the same relative freedom which existed in 1962 (G.L.C., 1966).

Based on the assumption of a small increase in population and employment in the L.T.S. area (half as large again as the G.L.C. area) between 1962 and 1981 and a rapid increase in real income it was estimated that car ownership would approximately double (1-2 million to 2.5 million cars).

The changes in the travel pattern which would result are illustrated by Tables 1 and 2 which show millions of person round-trips (two-way) per week-day by purpose and mode for 1962 and 1981 respectively. These figures illustrate several important points which flow from the Phase I surveys and the Phase II assumptions.

1. The small proportion of external trips.

63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

13 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 3: The London Transportation Study and beyond

64 T. M . Ridley and J. O. Tresidder

Table 1. Travel pattern in 1962 (Phase I) (millions of persons round-trips per week-day)

Work Non-work Total Work Non-work Total

Dr iver+Other 0-15 0-18 0-32 Dr iver+Other 0"82 1"66 2"48 Bus 0-29 0"11 0-40 Bus 0"73 0"81 1"55 Rail 0"50 0"09 0'59 Rail 0"20 0" 12 0-32

Total 0"93 0"38 1"32 Total 1"75 2"59 4"32 Internal to Central Internal

(excluding Central)

Driver + Other Bus Rail

Total

0.01 0.02 0.03 Driver+Other 0.11 0.19 0"30 - - - - 0"01 Bus 0.04 0.05 0"08

0"18 0.06 0"24 Rail 0"04 0.01 0.04

0"20 0.08 0.28 Total 0.18 0"25 0"43 External to Central External to Internal

(excluding Central)

Note: There are rounding errors.

Table 2. Potential travel pattern in 1981 (Phase II) (millions of person round-trips per week-day)

Work Non-work Total Work Non-work Total

Driver + Other Bus Rail Total

0-21 0.34 0-55 Driver + Other 1.43 4"16 5.59 0'28 0'08 0"36 Bus 0"36 0.64 1.00 0.51 0.08 0.59 Rail 0-17 0-09 0-26

1"00 0-50 1"50 Total 1"96 4-89 6-85 Internal to Central Internal

(excluding Central)

Driver + Other Bus Rail

Total

0"03 0"04 0-07 Driver + Other 0"28 0-50 0-78 - - - - 0"01 Bus 0.02 0"02 0.04

0"29 0"05 0-34 Rail 0'03 0.01 0"04

0"32 0-09 0-42 Total 0"33 0"53 0-86 External to Central External to Internal

(excluding Central)

Note: There are rounding errors.

2. The predominance of rail for work trips to the Central Area.

3. The predominance of the car for work and even more for non-work trips outside the Central Area.

4. The continued predominance of rail for work trips to the Central Area in future.

5. The increasing use of the car for trips to the Central Area in future especially for non- work purposes.

6. The decline in the use of the bus in future, particularly for trips outside the Central Area.

7. The very large increase in future in the use of the car for work purposes and even greater increase for non-work purposes for trips outside the Central Area.

It should be noted that these results are based on assumptions about population and employment and on the assumption that 1962 relationships between personal and travel characteristics will continue to hold, whilst freedom to use the car will remain approximately the same. They represent potential demand.

Phase II at this stage provided a main frame- work for exploration of policy. The significance of variation in the assumptions made on the demand forecast could be broadly understood and some general policy lines were adopted. But it was necessary to extend the L.T.S., now known as the London Transportation Study, to a third phase to clarify some important questions. Phase II was not carried to a stage that provided:

1. A forecast of the pattern of public transport demand.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

13 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 4: The London Transportation Study and beyond

The London Transportation Study and Beyond 65

2. Testing of alternative combinations of road and public transport networks

3. A realistic estimate of actual volumes of travel by car in which the demand was in balance with the capacity of the network tested.

4. An economic evaluation of the network tested.

The way in which these factors were dealt with in Phase III is now described.

PHASE HI

Three basic road plans (Plan 1, Plan 3 and Plan 9) were devised and tested and represented

£2300 million, represented a situation in which the general demand for movement could be satisfied in terms of travel by road. Plan 3 is illustrated in Fig. 1.

Alternative methods of improving public transport facilities in London were also examined and two plans tested. In the first, increased facilities for the distribution of passengers by Underground within the Central Area were included and major improvements, particularly in service schedules, made to the main lines through the use of electrification and elimination of botde-necks, together with substantial im- provements to the bus services. The other public transport plan was designed on the principle of bringing main-line railway services directly

Enfield Walthamstow

) \ .

I

Uxbr|dge i ~ " ¢ I t

( \

Statnes "~

Harrow

SouthalFI: • RingwaY Westminster

Rornford'

Dagenbam

, : , oo , . , , o .

o_ s van Ktngston

Croydon "~ Orplngton

f ' . I

i"! ["- . . . . " ~L , . l i "J I / • Greater London i / " V - . . . . co nc, u d,ry L.~,"

Fig. I. Road plan 3.

three different levels of investment in the trans- port system. The first assumed very little invest- ment in an urban motorway system other than a ring road around the outskirts of London; it accordingly depended substantially on public transport facilities. The total cost including the provision of additional parking facilities was £450 million. The second level of investment was in the order of £1800 million and was represented by a reasonably complete system of three Ringways and appropriate radial motor- ways. The third plan, involving an investment of

into the central areas of the West End and City in addition to the other improvements already envisaged for the railways in the improvement of schedules.

The two plans tested, known as Plan C2/B and Plan G/B respectively, are illustrated in Fig. 2. It will be noted that, in physical layout, the suburban railway system adopted in Plan C2/B does not appear to be substantially different from the present day system. This is true and reflects the fact that London's public transport system has grown with the spread of the city

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

13 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 5: The London Transportation Study and beyond

66 T. M. Ridley and J. O. Tresidder

%

) ! 9

Paddi r

Iif \ ~' t l;Xing's / \

\ t \ t \ ## i /

\ ;, X • k \ t1! . / " I

X , , ~ ' ~-~tcm ~---~ . . . . . "- \ " , , , "-r ' , . - - ; > / % . . " - - . ,,,. -.~.<" ,.,/- / -., " - , ~ ' . - . Baker ~ . - ' " / ~ , , _ . ]

"N';'.. Street ->S, "" , "%, Farringoon - . ' , . . . . . . - - . .__ . _~.- ~. , ~,

Marylebone~, ":!L~ . . . . ', , \ V. w^p,^r n ",, / ..-;'>" \ ;~ \ ~ ~ Oxford ", I ~ ........ -. i

,e;~" '¢,<, ',, ~ "Scir~os ', / Y~; ..... . . "-..~ . .-':'." ~ ~ ", ~ /", \ ~ _..-o-_ j moorgate- , ,,~_..- ~.. .- \ , / ,, ~-.--.- - .... ~'~"-,_ ,5," 'C e' " L / . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . ) ' \ L u d g a ; ~

,, I . /

. . . . " ( / I . I

..." Piccadilly .. . . . / ~ ..-+, .... / / -

% %

x~.Victoria

y / -i¢ "y'$-'''~ ......... :2" ......... "'"i

i / i / \%"\

i i, i,,

C o v e n t : ~ ; " q " - - f I \ x . I - u r l u o r l l i

. . . . ~aterloo j Cross ~,

, ' "i"\,, ,

• D2 -.

" \ ) and Castle

/ / g.R. Under- ~ lines ground /i Existing

routes in . . . . . . plans C2/B and G

~ / A d d i t i o n a l routes in i

,XStockwell p,!an G only ,

Fig. 2. Plans C2/B and C--rail networks in central area.

and its network already meets transportation requirements very well. For the same reason the popular concepts of monorails and other novel systems were not included in the plans tests. From the outset it was clear that they could have little place in London's transport system, just as subsequently, they were ruled out in the development of an entirely new system for Manchester.

Changes in the system were therefore princi- pally aimed at improving the level of service provided by increasing speeds, increasing the capacity of overloaded links and reducing the number of transfers required between one train or one facility and another. Extensive electrifica- tion of lines was then allowed for, track capacity increased at notable bottle-necks, such as Borough Market Junction, and at East Croydon, New Cross Gate, Shordands, East Brixton and Battersea. The result of these and of other changes was that journey times would be reduced by up to 40 per cent and by an average of 15 per cent. There would also be a large increase in the number of trains entering terminals during the morning peak.

The Underground system in Plan C2/B was extended by extending the new Victoria Line to Brixton, the Piccadilly Line to Heathrow and the Holborn-Aldwych line to Waterloo. A new line, the Fleet Line, was provided. This incor- porated the Stanmore branch of the Bakerloo Line and continued it via Bond Street, Fleet Street, the City and New Cross to Lewisham, with a branch to New Cross Gate. The Under- ground Plan was thus conceived as extending its existing function of distributing traffic within Inner and Central London.

Altogether, seven different railway plans and four Underground plans were prepared and examined before the final two plans were selected for testing.

Plan G/B contained a significant departure in the arrangement of suburban lines in Central London. By carrying British Railway services across Central London and arranging suitably sited stations in the Central Area, a good deal of changing could be saved and internal distribution of passenger traffic speeded up. In this plan, a Western Region line would be extended from Paddington through a tunnel via Oxford Street,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

13 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 6: The London Transportation Study and beyond

The London Transportation Study and Beyond 67

Covent Garden and Ludgate to Liverpool Street; meanwhile a Southern Region loop would run from Victoria via Piccadilly, Covent Garden, Blackfriars and Cannon Street to London Bridge. There would be a "cross platform" con- nexion at Covent Garden.

Allied with these plans for rail and Under- ground, a large improved system of buses was included. High speed buses were routed along all the motorways and bus priority routes were provided from these into Central London. Other routeing systems connected the principal stations by standee buses and "Red Arrow" type services, while special direct services were pro- vided to connect Ringway 1 to Central London. A network of Green Line buses covered the whole of the study area, serving those that were un- touched by motorway coaches. Such a public transport area system thus represented a sub- stantial intensification and extension of the services offered at present and the bus system in particular could well be regarded as an over- statement of what it would, in fact, be practicable to provide.

Various new techniques were devised for the purpose of testing and evaluating these alterna- tive plans and any further plans that might be tested (T~SIDD~ et al., 1968). A transportation model was developed to deal with a large con- gested system of roads operating in conjunction with an extensive public transport system. The model made use o f speed reductions in relevant areas to reflect congested road conditions and the consequent reduction in traffic demand on the roads and transfer where appropriate to public transport.

The model operated as follows. It first of all estimated the total demand for trips in the year 1981 on the basis of observed relationships between trip production and household charac- teristics such as income, car ownership, number of employed residents and residential density. Trips were distributed using a gravity model, the modal split being carried out on the basis of observed relationships between the ratio of travel by road and by public transport and the ratio of journey time by each mode. A program was developed so that travel time by public transport could be divided into time spent, walking, waiting and changing.

After the resulting matrix of road traffic demand had been assigned by a minimum time path technique to the road systems being tested, it was normally found that the system was over- loaded. Arrangements were then made in the model for the speeds to be reduced on the over- loaded motorway links to represent the effect of congestion on the motorway system. The trips

were redistributed and the modal split repeated using these reduced speeds: this had the effect of decreasing trip lengths and transferring some trat~c to the secondary road system and some to public transport. This process was repeated in successive iterations until a balance was obtained between the degree of overloading on the motor- ways and on the surrounding secondary system.

Finally, the remainder of excess trips was removed from the system by a linear program- ming method which was used to represent some form of trip restraint such as by pricing or parking regulation. The restraint was applied in such a way that it made the smallest reduction in trips consistent with elimination of this excess demand.

The trips so removed were then considered as being made by people who would, in the par- ticular circumstances of these trips, be in the position of not having the use of a car. It was assumed that they would then behave as non-car owners and make trips by public transport or not at all according to measured relationships between public transport trip making and trip purpose.

Naturally, the estimates of traffic depend upon the overall assumptions of future population and employment distribution to which the relationships between traffic generation and household characteristics were applied at the outset of the model. The forecasts of population and employment were, of course, based on future estimates and policies made by the L.C.C. and the various London boroughs before the recent 1966 census results were available to show latest trends. In order to judge the sensitivity of the traffic estimates to changes in the expected population or employment levels in different areas, several tests were carried out in which very large changes in employment distribution were assumed. It was found that the effect on traffic loadings on the motorway system was small and the general pattern of overloaded motorways was maintained.

The transportation model was designed in such a way as to enable economic benefits to be cal- culated and summed individually for all journeys; it was thus possible to assess the economic value to both road and public transport users of the trips generated with the different networks considered. In parallel with this, fairly detailed studies were made of the type of motorway design appropriate to different parts of the net- work and of the costs of construction considered. A wide range of road networks was considered in addition to those three which were actually analysed. Some of them were costed. The cost data which was obtained is summarized in Fig. 3.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

13 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 7: The London Transportation Study and beyond

68 T. M. Ridley and J. O. Tresidder

IL l . - I m

z Lid

z .< ,._1

,v"

LU et

E

i:. o ~

0 U

2'2-

2-0-

1.8.

1"6

I-4,

1"2-

I '0-

0.8-

0.6

0.4

0'2'

0i 0

Within Ringway 1

Land and property

Construction

| Total

Outer radial

6 8 J

AVERAGE DISTANCE FROM CHARING CROSS: MILES

Fig. 3. Motorway acquisition and construction costs.

SOME I L L U S T R A T I V E R E S U L T S OF P H A S E III

Table 3 shows the effect of using new tech- niques of forecasting in an attempt to take account of the factors referred to previously. These refer to only one of the five tests which were carried out and are not, therefore, forecasts o f" the 1981 situation". However, they refer to networks and planning parameters similar to those for the Phase II test given earlier. They illustrate very vividly that the total traffic on the road system may be expected to be substantially less than the unconstrained demand shown by the Phase II results. Furthermore the corresponding amount of travel by public transport is higher than

indicated by the Phase II results. O f this increase 0.11 million round trips were transferred from the roads by the restraint procedure in the model. In all 0.3 million round trips were restrained off the roads so that 0.19 million did not take place at all. The corresponding figures for the small invest- ment Plan 1 were 0-57 million, 1.45 million and 0. 88 million. In Plan 9 no restraint procedure was necessary.

A high proportion of public transport trips in 1981 will be from car-owning households because of the rapid rise in the number of car-owning households. The proportion in the Phase Iii results is much higher than in the Phase II results however and this is of great significance. Phase II represents behaviour by car owners in 1981 similar to that

Table 3. Internal travel (millions of person round-trips per week-day)

Phase I Phase II Phase III (1962) (1981) (1981)

Total private transport 2"80 6"14 5"31 Public transport:

N.C.O. and mode choice 2"86 2"21 2"82 Restraint -- -- 0"11 Unreported 0"35 0"41 0"41

Total public transport 3"21 2"62 3"34 Restrained off system -- -- 0"19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

13 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 8: The London Transportation Study and beyond

The London Transportation Study and Beyond 69

observed in 1962. The higher use of public trans- port by car owners under the Phase HI assumptions implies that car owners would use public trans- port instead of their cars much more readily in future than has been the case in the past.

Included in Table 3 are figures for unreported trips by public transport. It was recognized that the 1962 surveys had not included all public transport travellers. Estimates were made of the number and pattern of unreported trips in 1962 by inspecting public transport travel records and the equivalent figure for 1981 was calculated. The totals in Table 3 therefore differ from those for internal trips in Tables 1 and 2 and also differ from totals previously- published for Phases I and II.

These results of course depend on certain assumptions about population and employment and car ownership. It now seems possible that the population of London might be as much as 1 million less than the 8¼ million assumed for 1981 in the Study. Tests of the road network are being undertaken with the population estimate revised downwards. It should be borne in mind that while this fall would be substantial its effect would still be relatively small in comparison with that of the rise in real income and therefore car ownership which is to be expected. A smaller population would most probably lead to a potential demand more in balance with the supply of roads which it is feasible to provide.

It is not clear what effect a change in population would have on the public transport system. If there were a dramatic fall in population in Inner London it could lead to a further reduction in the use of buses, aggravated by greater difficulty in manning the buses and thus providing a satisfactory service. There could also be a fall in the use of the Underground system.

It might be that a fall in population would lead to a rapid rise in long-distance commuting. London has a labour shortage in most areas and for most activities. However, it has been sug- gested that increased competition for labour out- side of London might in fact result in London being unable to attract the lost population back to work in the centre. In this case commuting would not rise dramatically if at all.

Table 4 shows the estimated benefits and costs of the network (Plan 3) to which the above Phase III traffic results apply as compared with more modest investment concentrated on Ring- way 3 towards the outer edge of London (Plan 1). It should be emphasized that those costs are based on uniformly high engineering and environ- mental standards. For example the costs assumed in relation to the Blackwall Tunnels and their approaches allowed for more fully restricted

access, more lanes and more redevelopment on the frontage than is currently being achieved in the work now in progress.

The estimates should be treated cautiously as this pioneering work in the economic analysis of complete transport networks has not had time to gain universal acceptance. Nevertheless, its results are significant. They demonstrate the very high proportion of benefit which accrues as the result of additional trips being able to be made. In addition to the actual benefit to users due to the provision of extra road capacity, there is a taxa- tion benefit which reflects the fact that generated traffic is prepared to pay a tax because of the benefits to be obtainedfrom travel. It should be noted of course that these results include only those benefits able to be readily quantified. They exclude, for example, environmental benefit resulting from traffic being taken away from secondary roads and channelled on to motorways, while they also exclude any adverse effects of the motorways on their immediate vicinity.

The economic analysis calculated a 1-year rate of return in 1981 (at 1966 prices). The calculated rate depends on the conditions under which the networks compared are to operate. The incre- mental rate of return is less if it is possible to operate the smaller network efficiently. Assume for a moment that it is possible, by restraint policies such as road pricing or direct controls, to operate in an uncongested condition close to the economic optimum. Let B1 = benefit of Plan 1 operating under con-

gestion bl = additional benefit of restraint to Plan 1

with similar definitions Ba and b3 for Plan 3 In this study the benefit from the restraint policy was, not surprisingly, greater for the smaller network than for the larger and thus

b 1 2> b 3 B,)

+ b , ) - (B, +

which says that the incremental benefit with an effective restraint policy is less than without such a policy.

The incremental benefit of Plan 3 over Plan 1 under the assumptions about restraint in Phase III was £121.8 million as shown in Table 4. In a situation of no restraint the additional benefit has been estimated to be of the order of £175 million. These two figures correspond to 1-year rates of return (at 1966 prices) of approximately 10 and 20 per cent respectively. It seems highly unlikely that traffic conditions will be allowed to fred their own level in future. On the other hand it is not clear to what extent control measures

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

13 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 9: The London Transportation Study and beyond

70 T. M. Ridley and J. O. Tresidder

Table 4. Costs and benefits

Plan 1 Plan 3

Route length (miles) 150 345

Construction cost (£m) 59 513 Property cost (£m) 313 1145 Total cost of roads (£m) 372 1658 Parking (£m) 79 183 Total capital cost (£m) (including parking) 451 1841

Plan 3 minus Plan 1

Benefit due to change in journey costs (£m) 29.9 Benefit due to extra capacity (£m) 53'8 Benefit measured by tax paid by generated

traffic (£m) 41"7 Increased maintenance (£m) -- 3"6 Total benefit (£m) 121.8

will be either technically feasible or politically and socially acceptable. It may be safe to conclude that the true rate of return on urban road invest- ment in future will lie somewhere within a range, the precise position representing a political and social choice between greater expenditure and greater submission to control of individual freedom.

A similar economic analysis of the rail net- works was carried out. This showed a much smaller rate of return when comparing sub- stantial new investment in new cross-London links costing some additional £175 million with the improved rail system described earlier. There are a number of reasons for this poor return. Firstly it is likely that investment which improves the existing system would show much greater benefits as compared with relatively small capital costs. Secondly when there already is a substantial network in existence it is very difticult to measure benefits from new links in the system which merely re-route existing traffic with improved comfort but little improvement in travel time. Thirdly, a technical point, not enough account was taken in the Study of the benefits of reducing interchange in the system.

C O N C L U S I O N S

Sweeping conclusions from Phase III of the Study are rather dangerous where there is the need for qualification on technical grounds. Nevertheless, the authors suggest the following on the basis of the assumptions made

1. No road network which seems feasible either financially or politically would meet in full the potential demand for movenlent by road.

2. Whatever investment is made in the road system a substantial degree of control of movement will be advantageous.

3. Opportunities for the improvement of public transport by major new links exist but they are limited in number; benefits are likely to result from improvements of the existing rail system and in improving the operation of buses.

4. The overall use of public transport is not expected to fall, given expected levels of investment in roads and public transport; this is on the assumption that, with control of movement by road, car owners will still be prepared to make their desired trips by public transport.

5. Because car ownership is increasing very rapidly, even with substantial investment in roads, there will not be any increase in the freedom of an individual car owner to use his car; furthermore, if investment in roads is severely curtailed the degree of control of the use of the car which would be necessary is much more severe than the public has yet contemplated and might be prepared to accept.

The above conclusions are based on the exam- ination of the results of the London Transporta- tion Study and seem reasonable regardless of the qualifications which might be placed on the numerical results. They are very much generalized and individual proposals are and will be examified on their own merits. What is much more difficult to quantify is the effect of alternative transport policies on urban development.

It is sometimes suggested that as London already has a substantial public transport system and that building new roads is too difficult, new

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

13 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 10: The London Transportation Study and beyond

The London Transportation Study and Beyond 71

investment in transport in London is not justified. Moreover London's population is falling so the money would be better spent where it is rising.

Surely this is a dangerous argument. People move out of big cities for many reasons. One reason is to gain freedom of easy movement. The problem for London is to improve to the utmost the accessibility of home to work, shop,

school and leisure and between businesses, within financial constraints and without destroying its environment. Its future health as an economic unit and as a place which can provide for the needs of a changing population with new tastes may well depend on the provision of a modern, fast transport system vastly superior to that which exists today.

R E F E R E N C E S

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (1964) The London Traffic Survey, Volume I. MARTIN B. V. (1968) Transportation Studies: London. Proceedings Transportation Engineering

Conference, Institution of Civil Engineers, London. GRr~TER LONDON COUNClt (1966) The London Traffic Survey, Volume II. TI~SIDDm~ J. O., M~YEaS D., BImR~rL J. and POWEtL T. (1968) The London Transportation

Study: Methods and Techniques. Proc. Inst. civ. Engr. 39.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

15:

13 2

9 O

ctob

er 2

014