Executive summary. Scope and purpose. Introduction

Transcription

1 Executive summary Introduction The Network Route Utiisation Strategy (Network RUS) considers panning issues which require a network-wide perspective. It consists of four separate workstreams in addition to the Network RUS: Stations. Two of these (Eectrification, and Scenarios and Long Distance Forecasts) have aready been estabished. The Passenger Roing Stock strategy has been consuted upon and a fina document is being deveoped for pubication. The fina workstream (Aternative Soutions to Deivering Passenger Demand Efficienty) commenced in September 2010, with a view to pubishing a draft for consutation ater in the current financia year. The RUS is deveoped in conjunction with a range of stakehoders who aso have a network-wide perspective. It is overseen by a Stakehoder Management Group consisting of representatives from: Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) Department for Transport (DfT) Freight Operating Companies (FOCs) Freight Transport Association (FTA) London TraveWatch Office of Rai Reguation (ORR) in the capacity of observer Passenger Focus Passenger Transport Executive Group (PTEG) Rai Freight Group (RFG) Roing Stock Companies (ROSCOs) Transport for London (TfL) Transport Scotand (TS) Wesh Government (WG). A sub-set of these organisations is represented on the Stations Working Group for the RUS, in order to suppy more detaied input and expertise for the document. Scope and purpose A of the geographicay-based RUSs (see have identified that there wi be significant growth in passenger demand across Great Britain, abeit with regiona variations. For the most part, these RUSs have investigated options for deaing with this growth as it affects on-track capacity for exampe by recommending onger or more frequent trains. A few of them have aso highighted the effect of growth on the capabiity of stations to accommodate increased passenger numbers. It is cear that many stations across the network aready suffer from varying degrees of passenger congestion. However, it needs to be emphasised that such congestion is not soey a function of absoute numbers of passengers. Sma stations with comparativey fewer numbers of rai traveers can experience just as much congestion, if not more so, as the major stations in arge conurbations. Congestion is caused by a constraint on the free fow of peope through a system, and it is therefore important to consider the system as a whoe rather than individua eements of it in isoation. Soving the probem at one point in the system may do no more than push the probem further downstream. Why is tacking congestion important? There are severa reasons, incuding: there comes a point where voumes of peope cause a safety and security concern, and passenger comfort and satisfaction can be compromised congested patforms and concourses can make it more difficut for peope who have a variety of impairments to access and enjoy rai trave congestion at stations can risk choking off the demand for rai trave, because it adds to the overa journey time and thus makes rai ess competitive for many peope it is an unpeasant experience which they woud prefer to avoid, again potentiay choking off demand there is an economic and socia cost to the nation if time is wasted as a resut of congestion. 4

2 Network RUS Stations August 2011 This RUS therefore examines congestion in and around stations to identify where the probem aready exists, and where it is ikey to manifest itsef in the future. It then considers a range of possibe soutions, or a tookit of interventions, which may be depoyed to reieve congestion. The tookit incudes a hierarchy of possibe soutions, ranging from those with itte or no capita cost, to those which may require more significant interventions. In a cases, the vaue-formoney of any proposed soution shoud be taken into account. However, the RUS does not seek to recommend or impose specific soutions for individua stations, because each ocation has its own unique set specific characteristics. Nor does it consider how the rai industry shoud be structured to deiver these improvements. The RUS focuses instead on the potentia means to address congestion at stations. It is far more appropriate that bespoke soutions are found and deveoped at oca eve, invoving a stakehoders in the process, but making use of some or a of the interventions suggested by this RUS. Defining the baseine The RUS commences by anaysing exacty who uses the stations on the network and for what purpose. Apart from rai traveers, typica users might incude: those meeting peope off trains those bidding farewe to passengers those seeking information about rai services raiway staff other pubic transport staff taxi-drivers empoyees of retai or catering outets customers of retai or catering outets contractors providing goods or services to the station emergency services raiway enthusiasts. Sady, (but it is peasing to report decreasingy so with the spread of CCTV and other security measures 1 ), some stations can attract peope participating in antisocia behaviour or gathering without any purpose reated to the rai network or the station and its faciities. The station environment can be divided into three distinct zones: The Access Zone this is the area of (and surrounding) the station where departing rai traveers arrive at the station, or where peope who have just arrived by train commence the next eg of their journey. The Faciities Zone this is the area of the station (typicay, but not excusivey, the concourse or booking ha) where users gather information, make purchases, or otherwise avai themseves of the faciities on offer. In many stations the Faciities Zone may aso incude a waiting area. The Patform Zone in this area, users aight from trains, wait for and board trains, or interchange between trains. At many stations there may be overaps between the three zones. For exampe, the faciities zone may actuay be on the patform in many cases. The various categories of users described above wi not necessariy need to use a of the zones whist undertaking their activities at the station, but may nevertheess contribute to the tota footfa and potentiay come into confict with other users. The RUS then considers how to assess the numbers of the different types of users at stations. For passengers, the main source of data is that based on ticket saes, suppemented by a range of passengercounting surveys. Each data source has certain strengths and weaknesses which are discussed further in Chapter 3. What is cear, however, is that these data sources do not provide a compete, comprehensive and up-to-date picture of exacty how many passengers are at a station at any given time of day, day of the week, or time of the year. The industry does not routiney or systematicay count the numbers of non-traveers at its stations. Counts tend to be done on a one-off basis, often because a significant redeveopment is panned to take pace. In such circumstances, data on a station users are coected and input into both static and dynamic modes of passenger movements in order to predict how certain changes to the physica space in the station wi impact on the fow of peope around the buiding. Ony a sma number of stations have had such modes constructed, so again, therefore, there is a gap in the information avaiabe. As mentioned above, there is not a direct correation between the number of station users and the eve of congestion observed. So merey anaysing which stations have the greatest number of users wi not of itsef highight where crowding is a particuar difficuty. 1 See the British Transport Poice Statistica Buetin 2009/10 5

3 Executive summary Therefore to understand where congestion at stations is deemed to be an issue, the RUS drew on two main data sources. First, it compied a ist of stations which severa of the geographicay-based RUSs had cited as aready having, or ikey in the future to have, significant congestion. Secondy, our industry partners were asked to nominate their own stations at which they considered congestion to be a current or future probem. The next question to consider was the definition of congestion, as it is apparent that there are regiona variations in what peope consider to be a congested station. It seems, for exampe, that rai users in London and the South East are more toerant of eves of crowding than those esewhere in the country. A measure of the degrees of pedestrian congestion has been used, known as Fruin Leves of Service (named after its inventor). It seeks to ascribe one of six eves of service to crowding situations depending on space per passenger and rates of fow. These eves of service range from free and unconstrained movement through to amost compete standsti. Each TOC was then asked to compete a simpe questionnaire in order to identify what eves of service were encountered at their nominated stations (both peak and off-peak) and in what area of the station this congestion occurred. In tota, some 118 stations across the network were nominated as having issues with passenger congestion. However, it is cear from the questionnaire responses that there is considerabe variance within the sampe, with some of the stations having no discernibe congestion at a. Drivers of change In its 2007 White Paper Deivering a Sustainabe Raiway, the previous UK Government set out its vision for the future of the raiway in Engand and Waes. It sought a raiway which over the foowing 30 years: wi hande doube today s eve of freight and passenger traffic wi be even safer, more reiabe and more efficient than now wi be abe to cater for a more diverse, affuent and demanding popuation wi have reduced its own carbon footprint and improved its broader environmenta performance. Ministers in Scotand pubished Scotand s Nationa Transport Strategy in 2006, which had the foowing strategic objectives covering the subsequent 20 years: improving journey times and connections reducing emissions improving quaity, accessibiity and affordabiity. A theme for both Governments during the current Contro Period (CP4, ) has been increases in capacity, as aid down in their respective High Leve Output Statements. In Engand, this aso incuded specific station improvement schemes such as at Reading and Birmingham New Street. 6

4 Network RUS Stations August 2011 As stated earier, going forward to CP5 and beyond, a the geographic RUSs have indicated that passenger growth wi continue, abeit at different rates across regions and market sectors. A of these macro-eve factors wi resut in increased passenger numbers at stations across the network. However it is not ony macro-eve factors which infuence the numbers of peope using stations, and eves of congestion. Changes to train service patterns, oca housing or empoyment deveopments, modernisation of stations, instaation of automatic ticket gates a of these oca factors, and more besides, are potentia causes of increased congestion. The rai industry is seeking to accommodate growth in a cost effective manner. Since the pubication of the Draft for Consutation, the Rai Vaue for Money Study ed by Sir Roy McNuty, has pubished its findings. The Government is now considering its response to the recommendations and deveoping a White Paper. The RUS is consistent with the key eements of the McNuty review as its recommendations seeks to promote soutions to manage demand rather than incur capita expenditure uness it is absoutey necessary. The RUS recognises that the rai industry as a whoe has a substantia chaenge to reduce the cost of running the raiway whie catering for growth and maintaining quaity. Gaps and options Two different categories of gap were identified: information gaps, and congestion gaps ie ocations where congestion is, or wi become, a critica issue uness interventions are made. The RUS considers how the industry might gain a better understanding of the actua numbers of peope using its stations. Ceary, to obtain comprehensive and meaningfu data on station usage at a 2,520 stations woud be an expensive exercise, and in many cases the cost of obtaining the data woud far outweigh any vaue to which such information coud usefuy be put. However, and especiay at the arger stations, such information wi be hepfu in: ensuring that congestion eves remain within safety toerances improving customer experience by easing congestion identifying congestion hot spots providing evidence to support the setting of station rents identifying trends over time predicting what eves of growth wi cause the station progressivey to fai supporting investment decisions. One mechanism for coecting this data woud be through the concept of Station Master Panning, whereby stakehoders aim to achieve a ceary articuated and agreed vision for the station concerned, describing what the station is now and what it needs to be in the future. Such an approach woud require a cear understanding of the capacity and demand for rai (and other modes) at or near to the station. A further initiative woud be to extend the scope of Station Trave Pans beyond the present 24 piot stations (together with those on the Southern franchise). The RSSB is currenty reviewing the outcome of these 24 piot stations. Station Trave Pans articuate a strategy for managing the demand for trave to and from a station, with the aim of reducing its environmenta impact; typicay this woud invove support for waking, cycing, pubic transport and car-sharing. For the process to be effective, it is necessary to coect accurate and upto-date information on station usage. Automatic counting systems can be used to count individuas moving through open spaces, and Network Rai is currenty considering the potentia for this technoogy. Such systems woud enabe a far more comprehensive picture of station usage to be obtained, with the abiity to monitor and measure daiy, weeky and seasona peaks. The information can aso be used as input into both static and dynamic modeing toos without the need for abour-intensive and error-prone manua counts. On-train counting systems aready exist, but with varying degrees of sophistication. Ideay a roing stock woud be fitted with equipment which coud count aighters, boarders, and those on the train automaticay, thereby providing usefu information about both train and station usage. From the assessment of crowding eves at the stations nominated by stakehoders, it was possibe to appy background growth rates in order to predict what eves of crowding woud occur in 2019 and 2031 if no interventions were made. Supported by a set of case studies, the RUS then presents a generic tookit of interventions which coud be considered as a means of reieving congestion. These range from soft options such as encouraging more use of print-at-home ticketing, or reocating information points, to the more expensive options invoving provision of additiona physica space. The options are presented in order of degree of intervention for each type of gap. 7

5 Executive summary Consutation process and responses The consutation period commenced with the pubication of the Draft RUS for Consutation on 6 May 2011 and ran for a period of 60 days unti 8 Juy A wide range of responses was received from interested parties ranging from Train Operating Companies, to a property deveoper and individua station users. This refects some of the diverse array of interests in stations on the network. The responses received recognised the importance of congestion at stations as a potentia barrier to growth. The overa response to the RUS was positive. Support was expressed for the key gaps that have been identified in terms of the congested stations and information on station usage. Respondents wecomed the partnership approach using toos such as station trave pans. A number of respondents gave further usefu information about specific stations such as Chemsford, Cardiff Centra and Cardiff Queen Street. The forma consutation responses that have been received are pubished on Network Rai s website and Chapter 6 summarises the key themes aong with actions taken as a resut of the consutation. Strategy and next steps The RUS recommends interventions at specific stations in the medium term (Contro Period ). However, the ist of stations considered by the RUS is not intended to be exhaustive. For those stations that have not been incuded, a process is proposed which wi enabe the situation to be reassessed in the ight of changing circumstances. This proposed process buids upon the tookit which has been deveoped to provide guidance to those considering potentia means to address congestion at stations. It is aso intended that the process wi provide a focus for the coection of information on station usage. Many of the stations that were nominated as congested by TOCs and stakehoders aready have committed schemes in hand, or panned, which wi resove the issue. For exampe, the Thamesink Programme and Crossrai wi address congestion at Farringdon, and IEP, TfL investment and Crossrai wi address congestion at London Paddington. The RUS therefore ony makes recommendations for investigating interventions at stations which have no committed pans to tacke congestion. As a resut stations ike London King s Cross, Reading and Birmingham New Street do not appear in the recommendations. At a tota of 11 stations, therefore, it is recommended that interventions are investigated to understand and address crowding by the end of Contro Period 5 (CP5) in The stations are as foows: Basingstoke Bristo Parkway Capham Junction Liverpoo Lime Street London Charing Cross London Fenchurch Street London Victoria Preston Surbiton Watford Junction Wimbedon. It is important to note that the scae of intervention to be considered at these stations may vary consideraby. Softer measures (measures that need itte or no capita expenditure) from the tookit may be appropriate at some ocations. During the consutation process a number of the recommendations for specific stations were changed in the ight of further information received. This has resuted in the incusion of Watford Junction in the ist of those stations recommended for intervention in CP5, and the moving of Liverpoo Centra to the continued deveopment category. Current works at Earsfied are ikey to address the congestion probems and as a resut the station has been removed from the recommendations. There are a number of stations with ong term pans which woud address existing congestion issues but which may not be fuy committed or deveoped. The RUS recommends the continued deveopment of existing pans at the foowing 12 stations: Barking Bristo Tempe Meads Chemsford Derby Finsbury Park Gasgow Queen Street (High Leve) Leeds Liverpoo Centra London Euston Manchester Piccadiy (west side patforms) Manchester Victoria Tottenham Hae. 8

6 Network RUS Stations August 2011 At eight stations, there is some uncertainty whether current improvement pans wi fuy address congestion issues in the future, and it is therefore recommended that the situation at these ocations be kept under review. They are: Birmingham Snow Hi Bromey South Herne Hi Lewisham London St Pancras Internationa (Midand Main Line areas) London Wateroo East Orpington Seven Sisters. The RUS recommends that the need for interventions in the medium to ong term shoud be kept under review for a further 23 stations. The recommendation for these stations is that any future panning work shoud incude investigation of the congestion at these stations in greater detai and appraise options for addressing the congestion gaps. As with the ist of stations above, the RUS ony makes recommendations for investigating interventions at stations which have no current pans to tacke congestion. So, for exampe, where the impact of major schemes such as Crossrai, or the Thamesink Programme, are ikey to affect congestion, these stations have not been incuded. It is aso important to note that softer measures from the tookit in Chapter 5 to address station congestion may be appropriate at some of these ocations. The stations are as foows: Baham Birmingham Moor Street Bradford Forster Square Bradford Interchange Cardiff Centra Cardiff Queen Street Coventry Gasgow Centra (Low Leve) Guiseey Haifax Huddersfied Lichfied City Lincon Centra Liverpoo James Street London Maryebone Nuneaton Princes Risborough Saford Centra Shipey Soihu Tamworth Wasa Woking. The RUS emphasises that these ists of stations are the current picture of congestion. However, circumstances might mean that the priority for addressing congestion may change over time. Factors at some stations wi increase congestion, whereas others may see a decine. In order for recommendations to remain reevant a process has been suggested in Chapter 7 to review congestion in future years. The RUS makes no recommendation about who shoud undertake or fund the congestion reief works required at these stations, nor about what specific works are needed. However it is recommended that a combination of measures described in the tookit in the Gaps and Options chapter wi prove hepfu in formuating pans. Simiary, where ack of car parking capacity has been highighted as an issue, the RUS recommends the adoption of Station Trave Pans, and acknowedges that there exists a wide range of poicy choices for generating parking capacity which are determined by oca circumstances. It is, therefore, appropriate that oca soutions are deveoped and appied as befits the oca environment. Next steps This RUS wi become estabished 60 days after pubication uness the Office of Rai Reguation (ORR) issues a notice of objection in this period. The recommendations of the RUS wi be kept under review and (if it is merited) revisited in the future. The RUS has sought to outine a process by which the recommendations of the strategy can be taken forward by the industry. It provides a fexibe approach which wi be appropriate irrespective of any changes in responsibiity for stations within the industry. 9