Profit or people: what is public transport for?

Public Transport-wise, I am fortunate to live in london as there is so much choice. I am even more fortunate that I don't have to use it too much because I can ride my bike for many of my journeys (despite it being the cycling hell-hole that is outer-london!)

OK, that is a strange statement. It is great that there is so much public transport choice to get around, but it is expensive. I am glad I don't have to pay for the annual multi-thousand pound ticket to stand on a train every day like so many people have to.

Sheep and llamas grazing peacefully in front of Canary Wharf.
Not doctored, this is Mudchute Farm!

Small example. I took Ranty Junior and Ranty Mini for a day out this week as there was a brief lull in the rain and we needed some fresh air. They love travelling on trains and so we got ourselves to Stratford and then onto the DLR down to Royal Victoria. We had a return trip on the Dangleway (as tourists rather than commuters!) and then on to Crossharbour for a visit to Mudchute Farm (one of London's little gems). We went back on the DLR and picked up the Overground from Shadwell making our way to Camden for a late lunch (Mexican as it happens!).

The fares were as follows;

Adult off-peak Travelcard - £8.90

Child off-peak Travelcard - £3.40 (we needed two!)

Airline adult (with Travelcard discount) - £6.40

Airline child (with Travelcard discount) - £3.20 (again, we needed two).

This gave a grand total of £15.70 on Travelcards and £12.80 on the cable car - getting on for 30 quid for travel, without stopping for lunch! That is half a tank of petrol or about 180 miles of driving by way of a comparison.

A massive white elephant for public transport, but great as a piece
of civil engineering - I bring you The Dangleway

Fine, the cable car was a treat and for a tourist attraction it is a bit of fun. It is a great bit of civil engineering, but it is laughable as a piece of public transport on the cost of the fare alone, not to mention how little used it is for regular commuting. It should have been a bridge which would have not been affected by the wind and could be open 24-7; the cable car closes at night, but at least it takes bikes!

The Travelcard has been around for as long as I can remember and it gets you on mainline trains (within Zones 1 - 6), the Underground, the Overground, the DLR, London Buses and Tramlink (which I have yet to try) and so for a city the size of London, the off-peak fare is good value, although at peak times it pretty much doubles, not to mention the peak fares for those coming in from outside of the Capital to work.

Bike hire docking station, East Ferry Road,
Isle of Dogs

We also have the London Cycle Hire scheme which now covers a huge part of the central area of London. The scheme has access charges, plus time charges for over 30 minutes of use.

Again, not something I have used as it hasn't made its way to outer London (and I doubt it will) and if coming into central London, I will either be coming by train or cycle in (for a leisure/ train run).

All of these transport modes are classed as "public" transport, which essentially means you just turn up and use it for a charge. Taxis (Black Cabs) are also kind of public transport as you flag one down as and when you use it, but they are priced out of use by most people in my view.

So what else do we have. Well, that would be the car, walking and cycling. In terms of access to infrastructure, walking is free (well, you need shoes I suppose), apart from cycle hire, you will need a bike to cycle and for driving, there is the cost of getting/ hiring a car and all of the running costs. This is the interesting thing. The infrastructure for "public" transport to run on has essentially been paid for from the public purse (forget about sponsorship, there is no such thing as a free lunch) but users pay to access.

Compare this with driving, walking and cycling, these modes are essentially "private" or "personal" transport, but you can access the infrastructure for free. This does seem a bit perverse to me and I wonder if rather than say, the government trying to reduce the public subsidy of running rail services, this "public" transport should be made cheaper to that it can be accessible to more people financially as moving lots of people around a city is surely what transport should be for?

The inevitable conclusion of this rambling is to get round to ideas such as the Foster + Partners' regurgitation of the SkyCycle proposal for elevated cycleways above railways. I think it is pie in the sky, but I won't be rude about it. The thing that has got my brain working is that it would end up being another piece of so-called "public" transport in that users will be charged for access. I can imagine it now, tap in and out with Oyster; sponsorship even. Forget the technicalities, the planning issues, this could be a money spinner.

Or we could have charges for "private" cycling such as a London-wide cycling charging zone where users have to display a number plate. How about for pedestrians; we could have a two-tier system for pedestrian crossings. The basic service would be as now, but with a longer wait for a green man. For those who could afford it, they can put their 50p in the slot and the light would change for them straight away. Of course, attendants would be required to make sure the poor scum are held back for the cheapskate phase!

OK, I am getting silly. On our trip this week, we were in areas very well served by public transport and yet there was still a lot of traffic. Crossing the road by Camden Lock Market was horrible and a driver jumped the red light of the pelican crossing near Crossharbour DLR. 

I am not an economist or a transport planner, but in my opinion, if London is to deal with the transport problems it faces, then in my view, it lies with cheaper and denser public transport and more priority for walking and cycling to help with local and shorter journeys. We also need to get away from giving any oxygen to projects such as the cable car and SkyCycle as they take effort and indeed resources away from what we really should be doing.

David Cameron is a disingenuous git!

How much cash do you have in your wallet or purse right now? Go on, have a look, I will wait. OK, how many days food will that buy you and your family?

I was once a member of a group of people attending a training session about civil resilience and this was the first thing the trainer said. Most people had £50 or less, I may have had £20 at the time. The theme of this part of the session was all about how quickly so called "civilised" life can break down.

The reason the question was about cash was on the basis that if the electronic finance system went down and the only money you had access to was whatever you were carrying, how many days would it be before things went wrong in a major way. Actually, because so many supermarkets have such a high turnover of goods, there isn't a great amount of food stocked up and so those with plenty of cash won't be able to buy food, it will be gone so quickly. Imagine, no ATMs, no credit/ debit transactions, no stock control and so on. If you think this is cloud cuckoo - how many times has RBS been hit by electronic banking problems recently? I will return to this thought experiment at the end of this post.

So, we have had floods over the last few days in the UK which has seen people losing everything within their homes to the waters, power out for thousands of people for a few days and roads and railways affected by the weather. But, in a few days time, this will be old news and apart from the poor souls having to deal with their flooded homes, it will be business as usual for the rest of us.

In the midst of this, we have the the Prime Minister, David Cameron (as if you didn't know) visiting those hit by the storms. On his visit to Yalding in Kent, Cameron was berated by a woman upset about how long it was taking to get power back on and that the "council had gone on their holidays". He was of course very sympathetic and in order to make sure that the ruined furniture and carpets could be dumped, he said would get onto the council himself to make sure some skips were brought in. In the interview at the end of the piece, he said:

"and then we need to learn the lessons; we are seeing these events take place more often. Now the government is spending more on flood defences over the next four years than over the last four years. There is a lot of flood defences being built, something like 80,000 houses were protected this time, but we've got to do more and so we need to work with the Environment Agency and see what more we can do to learn any lessons from this flood and other floods."

It has also been reported that Cameron has urged councils to draw up "robust plans in case of bad weather and flooding over New Year". So that's it, job done and off the the next photo call.

We had big floods during the summer of 2007 (the only people to remember will be those affected) and as a result, the Labour government of the time appointed Sir Michael Pitt to investigate the issues and indeed produce a report on the lessons which should be learnt. Why Cameron thinks we need to learn them again is beyond me as the Pitt Review was rather comprehensive! At the very least, read the executive summary and you will note that Pitt made 92 recommendations!

The government responded to the review at the end of 2008 and broadly accepted the findings. One important decision was to make many local authorities responsible for the coordination of flood prevention and preparation which fitted in with general local authority responsibilities for civil emergency planning. Flood risk from the sea and main rivers (which are designated) stayed with the Environment Agency, but the rest became the responsibility of the Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFA). These LLFAs are essentially unitary authorities or counties and it was all rolled up in the Flood & Water Management Act 2010. Much of the approach is risk management, investigation of incidents and ensuring the right people work together (such as sewer authorities). So, the "robust plans" are already there, Dave.

The F&WMA2010 came into force in April 2010 and then a month later we ended up with a Con-Dem coalition government which instigated a huge programme of public spending cuts which hit local authorities and the Environment Agency hard and more recently, has filtered down to the emergency services. In essence, the bodies which work to prevent flooding, but deal with it when it happens. Of course, the cuts continue (I know there are often "savings" to be had in organisations, but I think we are now talking about cuts).

Those that follow this blog will know that I am a highway engineer by practice, but I also lead a double life (OK, triple life including the blog). I don't post about my day job, but I will briefly mention my second job as a Local Authority Liaison Officer (LALO). The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 makes local authorities, the emergency services, health services, the Environment Agency, utilities and transport authorities responsible for planning for emergencies and indeed preventing and mitigating them occurring. In the context of a local authority (and in common with the emergency services), they will have a command structure in place which is enacted during times of civil emergency, like major flooding.

The command structure has Gold (strategic), Silver (tactical) and Bronze (operational) staff reacting to and managing the incident. LALOs being designated as Silver, are essentially "the face of the council" and empowered to make quite large decisions in deploying council resources to shelter displaced people, close roads, assess building damage and so on. For my employer, we have have a weekly rota where a LALO is on standby weekday evenings and weekends, along with other council services which we are able to call on out of hours (emergencies during hours being relatively easy to deal with!). I am paid a little extra to be on call  and I need to be close-ish to the office (and sober of course). The way things are organised across the country vary, but the Gold-Silver-Bronze set up is consistent (but that is enough on emergency planning for an engineer's blog!).

We LALOs are trained and we regularly participate in multi-agency exercises with a variety of scenarios such as terrorism, major fires, floods and so on. Our counterparts in the emergency services, transport authorities, utilities, NHS and the voluntary sector (who are often contracted to assist) exercise and train together and all have physical (equipment/ supplies) and staffing resources which can be called on 24-7, 365 days a year. Unsurprisingly, people, kit and contracts cost money, even if they are not being used in response to an incident - insurance if you will. I have been on call all week (including Christmas Day) and although I am fortunate not to have been called out, the fact that I was on stand by comes with a cost.

With the floods over recent days, the woman from Yalding was quite wrong when she said that the council was on its holidays. While many people will have been on holiday (it was Christmas for goodness sake), there were people in the background providing the humanitarian response once the emergency services had done their jobs. The utility companies (those transporting power, gas etc) also had people working hard to get services restored - often not a simple job.

The reason I suggest that Cameron is disingenuous is that he will know full well how things are set up across the UK (he often chairs COBRA for goodness sake), he will know how things have been and will continue to be cut and he will know that we don't need to learn any more lessons, Pitt did that for us.

Back to your wallet or purse. This could extend to most vestiges of modern life such as power, water, gas, phones, sanitation, transport etc. A flood will not only damage homes, but it can take out all of the utility services. A loss of power can lead to no ATMs, roads do become impassable, railways close. People need to remember that civilisation is backed up by many things and the loss of them means we descend into chaos. Cameron had best remember this.

Update 30/12/13
Now Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, has thrown in his views as reported by the BBC;

Mr Paterson said it was important that power companies and local councils had "adequate staff" to cope with any emergencies that might crop up.

He added: "We've made it very clear they have clear responsibilities to their customers and to their electors and we expect them to perform."

Well, he can get stuffed too. This is all about shifting the blame from where it should lie and that is at the Government's feet. 

In terms of the power outage, we are looking at a peak of 150,000 homes out of some 26.4 million households in the UK (or 0.6%) and so was power the real story here? No, it was the flooding, but power can be blamed on private companies and what is not being reported is of course this is the transmission companies (who own the kit), rather than the person you pay your bill to.

Boris: Engineer Blaming?

i may be over sensitive, but london mayor boris johnson has made some comments about a lack of UK cycling infrastructure design skills which I find a bit insulting. But perhaps it might be a good point clumsily made?

The comments were reported by on the TransportXtra website as follows;

"I think cyclists and I agree on almost everything we need to make the roads safer. The only difference between us is timing. I would love to see change overnight. The reason why it will take a little longer is not lack of money, or lack of will - but lack of capacity.”

"There just aren't enough people in Britain who can design good cycle routes - and we are hiring most of them. We also have to agree changes with the boroughs. As I promised, we will do things properly - not repeat the mistakes of the past."

I am not here to bash Johnson (plenty of others can do that), but I cannot agree with his suggestion that we don't have enough people who can design good cycle routes, but I will return to the point later.

He makes three key comments;

(i) Lack of capacity,

(ii) TfL hiring those (by inference) who can design good cycle routes,

(iii) Having to agree changes with the boroughs.

I have been in the civil engineering game for over 18 years since getting my degree and there has always been talk of a "skills shortage" in the industry, but things seemed to have carried on. I started "proper" work in 1995 which was at the tail-end of a recession where many professional engineers and technical people in construction and civil engineering were out of work. Pay was poor, hours were long and it was an employer's market.

Things improved and by 2000, life was pretty good for a few years (local authority pay even caught up with the private sector!) until the economy went wrong in 2008 and savage cuts were made in public spending in 2010. Yet again, professional and technical people were on the scrap heap as public and private sector alike ditched the qualified and experienced, but expensive staff. 

The skills shortages and therefore lack of capacity are as a result of boom and bust. With each wave of people losing their jobs, retiring or moving on, their knowledge and experience went with them and those left have to spend proportionally more time playing catch up. TfL was not immune and since Johnson became Mayor, an awful lot of technical staff have got the boot from TfL.

Consultants have suffered too, especially where government work was concerned. Excellent people got laid off and the quality of service from consultants suffered. The trouble was, that many local authorities had run down their in-house technical departments and consultants were relied on. A perfect storm for not being able to get things done.

So, with less technical people around, TfL is now looking to take staff on to deliver the Mayor's Cycling Vision and so he will suck people in from the boroughs and in some cases, their consultants, many of whom have pretty slim levels of staffing as it is.

Johnson recognises the need to properly engage with the boroughs, but if TfL has got their staff, how is that going to work and who will be left who can actually deliver on non-TfL roads? Perhaps as with the extension to Cycle Superhighway 2 to Stratford (on Newham's roads), TfL will do the design for the boroughs and construct the schemes using TfL's LoHAC contracts. 

Those left at the boroughs will just spend their time being a liaison between TfL and local politicians and so technical skills will further erode or be dispensed with altogether. The LoHAC approach is being pushed hard by TfL and there are some merits with certain kinds of work (mainly large schemes), but a great deal of the Vision will surely rely on small, local interventions which the LoHAC consortiums will not be interested in.

Back to the original point. Good engineers are adaptable and resourceful people. Their job is to solve problems, but this skill needs to be constantly developed. An expert in cycling infrastructure 5 years ago is not going to be properly competent unless he or she has kept up with new developments. Good engineers want to develop and need to be trained; so if the Mayor and indeed the boroughs want to increase capacity, they need to invest in their staff so that they can adapt their skills to the new infrastructure challenges ahead.

Building capacity takes time and keeping capacity takes hard work and needs stability to be successful. The last few years have not been stable and that is why we have lost so many staff. The Mayor is being pushed hard to deliver, which is good and he is right to raise the capacity issue. However, he needs to offer leadership. 

In parallel to what he wants to do infrastructure-wise, he needs to really support the boroughs in terms of making the case for employing professionally-qualified technical staff and creating a pan-London training programme based on the forthcoming London Cycling Design Standards to ensure consistency across the Capital. He needs to ensure that this is an ongoing programme with different levels of training from the introductory to the refresher. 

Additionally, TfL needs to back off pushing LoHAC so much and recognise that boroughs may wish to do things their own way. The Mayor needs to be coming out to the boroughs and really selling his vision to senior officers and councillors so that local leadership can take root. I am still waiting for a local councillor to invite me to cycle with them to look at an issue!

So, in answer to Johnson's point; there are plenty of engineers out there who can design good cycle routes, it is just that many of them have lost their jobs, don't have access to decent training programmes, don't have senior officer or councillor support, are not paid very well, are overworked and frankly, feel very undervalued.

Underground, Overground: Should We Be Building Underpasses & Bridges Again?

a few years back, i was working on a project to refurbish an underpass which was to be used for walking and cycling to avoid crossing a busy dual carriageway.

OK, we probably need to wipe the walls with a damp rag.

The underpass had been built years before in anticipation of a development which didn't happen and so it was blocked off and left to rot.

When we opened it up, apart from being waist deep in stinking water, it was in pretty good condition. It needed to be cleaned out, required rewiring and new pumps put in, but was structurally fine. New underpasses (subways) have not been in fashion for a few years because of maintenance problems, antisocial behaviour and personal security. These are real issues, but often a result of the design. 

CS3 gently dips as the A13 rises to meet the A406 to this pretty
good underpass which has a clear view through and no easy
hiding places for those up to no good.

On the positive side, they can be used to cross a road without having to wait for traffic signals and they don't hold up traffic (both of which may well be valid issues). They can also be more direct for pedestrians and people on bikes negating the need to divert to a surface level crossing which may well be staggered.

In high speed situations (50mph and higher) stand alone signalised crossings are not safe (in my opinion) because despite vehicle detection, the risk of a driver jumping the signals is high. Additionally, there is a risk that crossing users see the green man/ bike and assume it is safe to cross (it is an invitation to cross and people still need to remain aware of traffic conditions, regardless of the green signal) and so underpasses (and bridges) may well be the only safe option.

Pedestrian and cycle bridge over Rotherhithe New Road which
provides pretty much a level route high above a very busy road. 

Bridges solve the same issues and are perhaps less likely to be secluded compared with underpasses. They work best when coincidental to the route, in other words, they are part of the route and users don't have to deviate to access them and there are not any steep slopes. Like well-designed underpass, the roads being crossed will be the part of the infrastructure changing level as vehicles have engines and are not affected by level change as person power is!

The A406 in North London. Just one of a switchback approach ramp
to a footbridge which creates a route perhaps five times as wide as
the road being crossed.
Image from Google Streetview.

Of course, there are huge roads around the country which have severed continuity for pedestrians and people on bikes. Where bridges or underpasses are provided, they will have long, sometimes zig-zagging ramps and will not be conveniently following desire lines.

The general term to describe underpasses and bridges is "grade separation" - a regime where we are really separating people and traffic by space. Grade separation of this nature does come with problems;

• If the crossing is arranged with long ramps this is an access issue for all users, but especially people with reduced mobility. Some users may just take their chance at road level, which is an issue where drivers simply do not expect to see people crossing.

• Personal security can be an issue with underpasses and sometimes bridges where natural surveillance is not possible, again leading some to ignore the provision.

• A great deal of space might be needed for the footprint of the structure, especially is ramps are being provided. Underpasses are not particularly intrusive in the streetscene, but bridges can be.

• Bridges and underpasses are costly to build (underpasses more so as drainage often needs pumps) and maintain.

If a new road layout is being planned, then it is of course much easier to design grade separated crossings from the start. But what if we are faced with a multi-lane, high speed dual carriageway that needs crossing and we have to use ramps? What things can we do make things a little easier?

• Make the underpass or bridge wide enough to be used by both pedestrians and people on bikes - people will cycle through them anyway, so assume they will and design this in from the start,

• For an underpass, rather than provide one ramp and one set of steps each side of the road which is often the way things are done, provide two ramps which will cater for the desire lines of all users,

• For people cycling, remember that they have handlebars and so design in protection to reduce the risk of clipping the underpass wall or bridge sides as this can easily throw people off.

• Regardless of the quality of the route either side of the bridge or underpass, it is worth designing to provide separation - a kerbed footway at a level higher than a cycle track would be good practice as especially on ramps, cycling speeds can be a big issue for pedestrians.

• Don't forget that people on bikes need more headroom than pedestrians. 2.3 metres is a minimum, but how about 2.5 metres or perhaps more to try and give a feeling of openness. Any lighting needs to take headroom into account!

Like any piece of infrastructure, some good thought at design stage can really make a difference and getting a bridge or underpass wrong will spend a great deal of money for something which doesn't get used and even worse, people will just cross the very road we trying to help them avoid.

There are many locations where people struggle to cross and indeed, designers struggle to accomodate people safely at road level. For me, the answer is grade separation and this something to  be tackled head on, even though it will need a substantial budget.

A Bicycle Is A Vehicle Capable Of Speed

not my sage words, but those of john parkin, professor of transport engineering at the university of the west of england.

My blog is a year old and as is tradition, I have been thinking what has been the highlight of the year for me. I did do an end of summer round-up and so not wishing to repeat myself, I thought I would share these words as being something a little different from a round up.

Prof. Parkin was presenting at an Urban Design London "London Cycling Design Standards" seminar a few weeks back (along with Brian Deegan and  Phil Jones) where the assembled were eagerly anticipating snippets of the forthcoming guidance. 

He said whatever we remembered from the seminar we should remember this;

"A bicycle is a vehicle capable of speed"

Closing a road to through traffic? You can still allow cycles to pass.

The reason this is sticking in my mind is that it rather elegantly sets out how we should design for cycling, but it warns about the impacts on people walking.

A bicycle is a vehicle for a fair bit of of highway law and when we are formulating Traffic Regulation Orders (Traffic Management Orders in London), we need to remember that people on bikes are also subject to them. 

So, when looking to manage motorised traffic, the default position should include an exemption for pedal cycles at road closures, banned turns, one-way streets, no entries and so on.

Red signals (lights). Whatever the wider views on red vehicular traffic signals and the debate which I may stumble into, the fact is that people on bikes must obey them. This does not extend to toucan crossings where the red man/ bike is an indication that people should not cross and the green man/ bike is when people may cross (the language used is not "must not cross" on a red man/ bike). Even where vehicular signals are used within a cycle stage (which is not a toucan) they must be obeyed. 

I know, a red light to an argument!

If we can, perhaps we should design bypasses to avoid signals altogether, but we must remember how the law is applied to the user. When the small cycle signals are approved for use in the UK (I reckon early 2014) I imagine that they will be regulated in the same way as for vehicular signals and so they will have to be obeyed.

Bikes are capable of speed. I probably bumble along at about 12mph on average, depending on the conditions. Compare this with people walking at perhaps between 2mph and 4mph and the speed differential can be an issue on shared facilities. Pedestrians can feel intimidated by bikes and cyclists annoyed by pedestrians in their way - is it really an appropriate way to design things? Perhaps an interurban link with very low pedestrian use is an acceptable situation for people to share.

With speed there is a need to make sure we provide intervisibility between various users. It also takes time and space to slow a bike to a halt, so forward visibility is needed. Putting in crazy metalwork to stop cars and motorbikes getting access only serves to hinder people on bikes, people using wheelchairs/ mobility scooters and people pushing buggies. The faster one goes round a corner, the wider the turn will be and so it is no good expecting people riding bikes to be able to turn on a pin head.

When making trips, it would be good to be able to park the bike securely at the journey end, the shops, school, work or whatever. While Eric Pickles MP goes on about "aggressive parking policies" yet again, perhaps some of his energy could be put into helping people provide cycle parking as a far greater capacity can be provided for bikes in the same place as for cars.

Things have moved on a bit in the last year, but some things stay the same! I shall take Prof. Parkin's words that a bicycle is a vehicle capable of speed as a fundamental design principle and with it, I don't think we can go too far wrong.