The impact of population change and demography on future infrastructure demand

[whole diary]

[grahame]

From the National Infrastructre Commission published on 22nd December 2016, a report The impact of population change and demography on future infrastructure demand; elements of the report should help inform us as to the future shape and volume of demand for travel, and indeed how the provision of travel opportunities in itself might help shape that demand.
 

Patterns of service use can also vary significantly by location. In particular, transport use varies significantly between big cities and more rural or suburban areas. London and other big cities have more public transport, and often high levels of road congestion, which make driving less attractive. For example, in 2014/15, people in London used cars for 38% of their trips and public transport for 31%, whereas people living in rural areas used cars for 77% of their trips and public transport for only 5%. A number of studies have shown that population density has a statistically significant effect on reducing road travel per capita.

[also]

Access to transport infrastructure also makes areas more attractive. This can be observed by higher house prices in areas near major transport corridors. One study found the Jubilee line and Docklands Light railway extensions in South East London in the late 1990s increased house prices in affected areas by 9.3%, and that people were willing to pay 1.5% more for a house for a 1km reduction in distance from a station on the line. When asked why people have chosen to live where they do, availability of public transport and being close to the workplace commonly emerge as some of the most important factors. However, people also value lower congestion and lower levels of transport-related noise.





"Weekday trips in progress by time of day, by age group" ... units on LHS^▸ (Locomotive Hauled Stock) not clear

That last diagram reminds me so much of the "society" issues surrounding (public) transport planning and load balancing. It's close to where I started 10 years ago, showing how the supposed "peak time only" service on the TransWilts was not running at peak demand time ... markers are the times of the trains that were offered:



We can do very well to be informed by the data in Andrew Adonis's report - using the royal "we" to include government (national and local) and infrraestructure and sevice providers and operators.

[grahame]

One of the suggestions from Lord Adonis's Commission is that where existing transport systems are underutilised, they should be more utilised - there are a number of stations around which are set amongst countryside which offers only sparse traffic.    Imagine public transport minded (green / sustainable) communities build around these existing stations.  You're setting up a new lifestyle for people who wish to live there with great countryside access and easy commutes to  London / Plymouth / Exeter / Bath / Bristol (one of each illustrated below), you're providing a reason for existing trains to stop and indeed for more of those that pass none-stop to call - thus helping the economics of both the line and the station. And you're reducing the need for new build public transport.

Here, with place names intentionally removed, are five GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) managed stations which could cope with a few more passengers from their immediate hinterland:

[SandTEngineer]

Is this a quiz? 

No.4 = Menheniot

[stuving]

Having a station with few houses nearby would seem to be a prime reason for building one of those garden villages as announced today. The only one I can see that fits is Longcross, which never had any sort of village. It doesn't even have a road.

Others might qualify too, but as most have invented names it's hard to tell without tracking down the proposal to see where it really is to be built.

[broadgage]

Those very little used STATIONS could no doubt cope with significantly increased passenger numbers, but can the TRAINS cope with more people, travelling to/from London, Bristol, Plymouth, and other popular destinations especially at peak times.
A fair amount of the discussion on these forums refers to overcrowding and the inadequacy of the present trains to handle the present numbers who wish to travel.

Some respected members have stated or implied that the frequently reported overcrowding is the fault of the passengers for choosing to travel to work during working hours, or choosing to visit holiday destinations at holiday times.

It will be an uphill struggle to persuade residents of these new towns to use the train if they seldom get a seat and are told that this is their fault for "choosing" to travel at popular times.

To persuade more people to use public transport, capacity needs addressing. An absolute guarantee of a seat would be unrealistic, but an undertaking to at least aim to provide enough seats for all would be a start.

[ellendune]

No 5 is Pilning. Would need a few more trains!

[grahame]

Is this a quiz? 

No.4 = Menheniot

Not intended as a quiz - more intended to give some examples of country layout around the less used stations in our area without drawing them down to a specific case.

No. 4 shows a station at one end of a short village street with a sprinkling of houses that could form the centre feature / bond / element of a new community. And you'll note a trunk road at the other end of the village street, giving bus and car options too.   And, yes, it does happen to be Menheniot.

[TonyK]

Bristol has it all sorted out. MetroBust will be with us by autumn 2015 2017, to solve all of our problems.

Why publish such a report two days before the country closes for a fortnight? It gives the impression the National Infrastructure Commission doesn't want anyone to notice.

[ellendune]

Why publish such a report two days before the country closes for a fortnight? It gives the impression the National Infrastructure Commission doesn't want anyone to notice.

Because they wanted it off their desks before Christmas. A convenient deadline?

[grahame]

Those very little used STATIONS could no doubt cope with significantly increased passenger numbers, but can the TRAINS cope with more people, travelling to/from London, Bristol, Plymouth, and other popular destinations especially at peak times.

I said nothing in my post about the trains ... but take a look at the suggestions / proposals in http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=17809.0 where I've suggested that 2 car trains are all stepped up to 4 or 5 cars.   In all five cases,  longer trains would be passing and in several cases more and longer trains in a few years from now.

Where I have not (yet) written up my looking ahead thoughts is in infrastructure and systems, and one element of that is the capacity of the stations (in this case at the other end of the journey from the new village) to handle the passengers.  Even without the new village traffic it needs to be done. I've seen and been involved in significant delays at both Temple Meads and Paddington due to having to opportunity to buy a ticket before I got there, and I would suggest that an "on time arrival" should only be declared for performance and bonus purposes if there are no delays getting off the platform.  Passengers queue for 10 minutes to buy a ticket they should have been able to purchase earlier?   Then their final arrival was not on time - it was 10 minutes late!

Then there's the question of the 'road side' facilities coping with all the passengers ... car park capacity (though I hope that not too much would be need at the station at these new villages) ... kiss and ride and taxi spaces, buses, adequate walkways and lighting.  And information systems ...

Some respected members have stated or implied that the frequently reported overcrowding is the fault of the passengers for choosing to travel to work during working hours, or choosing to visit holiday destinations at holiday times.

 

I read those more as pointing out that the way our society works is pretty darned inefficient in the peaks it produces, and social change encouraged by peak ticket pricing would be helpful.  I don't see any fault bing inferred.  Just as I see cars with an average of 1.25 people in them but five seats blocking the roads and think "if only we trusted each other enough to hitch hike and to pick up hitch hikers".  But car sharing (and has anybody thought of "groupsave clubs"?) are against human nature.

To persuade more people to use public transport, capacity needs addressing. An absolute guarantee of a seat would be unrealistic, but an undertaking to at least aim to provide enough seats for all would be a start.

Couldn't agree more for journeys of over 15 minutes.

[grahame]

No 5 is Pilning. Would need a few more trains!

The trains are there on most of the stations; a few more stops would be necessary and (in the case of no. 5) improved platform access.  Logic would be to fund this, and also the additional train calls during the period of the first few residences being occupied but the village being incomplete, via section 106 or CIL funding.

This business of getting public transport running before residents move in and buy (second) cars, even if it's running at a temporary financial loss, is critical to achieving high public transport use in the medium term. I have examples of BaNES getting it right - I can recall the fury of one person at a Bath Bus User Group meeting at near-empty buses running around a new estate, and having the longer game explained to him.  And I can point you to a very sad case in my home town of Melksham where the very last thing in the build was the bus stops, long after virtually every house was occupied and the bus at present (and for another year or so?) runs around nearly empty. 

[CyclingSid]

On the subject of Longcross, it will be interesting to see if it finally comes to fruition. It was originally the home of the Military Vehicles Experimental Establishment (MVEE), hence the test track. MoD sold it to a developer years ago, and the "locals" have fought the plans for housing every inch of the way.

The artists impression in the paper the other day showed numerous multi-storey buildings, so hardly a village in the traditional sense. The other interested party is through the locked gate on the platform opposite MVEE. This is Wentworth Golf Club who wanted to up annual subs to a six figure sum.

So will NR^» (Network Rail - home page)/SWT^▸ (South West Trains) finally get a return on stopping about four trains a day for the dozen or more years since MVEE closed?

[Bmblbzzz]

I read those more as pointing out that the way our society works is pretty darned inefficient in the peaks it produces, and social change encouraged by peak ticket pricing would be helpful.  I don't see any fault bing inferred.  Just as I see cars with an average of 1.25 people in them but five seats blocking the roads and think "if only we trusted each other enough to hitch hike and to pick up hitch hikers".  But car sharing (and has anybody thought of "groupsave clubs"?) are against human nature.

Back in the 1980s and possibly earlier, the cash-starved government of Poland had a policy of state-encouraged hitch-hiking. I think the way it worked was that hitch hikers got coupons from a state agency, which they gave to drivers, who could then hand them in for a petrol ration. Or something similar. During the same era, various food products were rationed, as well as furniture and clothing, and to get toilet paper you sometimes had to hand in old newspapers for pulping, which gives you an idea of the state the economy was in. When I arrived there in 1998, the economy had changed considerably, but you still saw many people hitch hiking, particularly on the outskirts of cities; it was an urban thing, commuting. By the time I left in 2007, the only hitch hikers you saw were students going on holiday.

On the subject of Longcross, it will be interesting to see if it finally comes to fruition. It was originally the home of the Military Vehicles Experimental Establishment (MVEE), hence the test track. MoD sold it to a developer years ago, and the "locals" have fought the plans for housing every inch of the way.

The artists impression in the paper the other day showed numerous multi-storey buildings, so hardly a village in the traditional sense.

Somewhat outside the scope of this thread, but as it's about population, perhaps not too far outside. Multi-storey housing is by far the most efficient in terms of land use (obviously) but also energy use and construction materials. But it does need to be done well so that people don't feel simultaneously 'cut off' and crowded together.

[eightf48544]

Has any thought been given to prevent commuting from these new villages towns whether by car bus train or cycle by providing jobs close by?

[stuving]

Has any thought been given to prevent commuting from these new villages towns whether by car bus train or cycle by providing jobs close by?

I don't think that works any more - it's probably out of date by several decades. In effect, employees and employers are so selective that you can't order up or otherwise arrange "jobs, general purpose, 2000 off". That's part of the reason why there is so much awkward and often long-distance cross-country commuting - especially when you consider a couple needing to reach two jobs from the same house.

Then again, it's a long time since we had a government that believed it could/should do more than encourage and facilitate. Some other countries in Europe are keener on the idea - and they haven't had much success with it, in the sense that they have more unemployment that we do.