Planning Rules Have Failed To link New Homes To Public Transport - study finds.

[Bletchleyite]

A Runcorn sized town with a figure of 8 segregated electric tramway, the residential developments in 500m radius "beads on a string" along it and parkland in the gaps, as well as good cycle and walking provision, is optimal and requires no buses to supplement the single tram route. You can go bigger by making the town squarer and having a cloverleaf with two figure-8 tram routes. At the intersection should be the town centre with all main shopping facilities and workplaces, and ideally this should be centred on a station on an existing railway line.

Cycle provision should be on the Dutch model of segregation between pedestrians, bikes and cars. This works better than shared use as in Milton Keynes.

Obviously there will be roads but these should be secondary to the public transport and cycle/pedestrian system.

To answer your question on people who don't own cars in MK, it's mostly either cycling or taxis. Local taxi firms are quite cheap because journeys are fast, though Uber and Bolt are also used. The bus service is an absolute joke and is very much a minority mode, and rail is for going to London despite nominally being useful for some internal journeys.

 

[HSTEd]

Would we really need a tram, given that this is a greenfield town and we have total control of the infrastructure?

Surely one of the many off the shelf light metro products is surely more suitable and less constraining?
In greenfield sites, assuming a permissive planning environment (necessary to get the town built to start with!), I don't think a street level solution has many advantages at all.

Segregation of all transport modes should be taken as far as possible, in my view.

 

[Nottingham59]

Segregation of all transport modes should be taken as far as possible, in my view.

So put light rail on a viaduct, like DLR? My thinking is that would be quite expensive but make it easier to automate, with a fully segregated right of way.

 

[HSTEd]

So put light rail on a viaduct, like DLR? My thinking is that would be quite expensive but make it easier to automate, with a fully segregated right of way.

There are various products available for all sorts of requirements, spanning across multiple technologies.
To name but a few, Hitachi have the ex Ansaldo product (used in Copenhagen and elsewhere), there is always the rubber tyred solution (VAL et al) or even an urban ropeway solution if you are worried about capital cost and build time.

I think segregation is essential in building a system that is attractive to users and cheap enough to operate at the high intensities (and long hours!) required to make it attractive.

 

[signed]

Surely one of the many off the shelf light metro products is surely more suitable and less constraining?

Probably not, you don't know where the demand is. You may know where the hospital, business park is going to be but that's not enough to setup such a project.

Nothing however prevents the planner for making the provisions to make such constructions as easy as possible when demand arises (like routing pipes and al. with space to run such a system)

Make the cycling/walking provision as segregated as possible and :

- As least as possible of urban bus route, and for the interurban traffic, make them start from the outskirts
- Run a battery tram network to cover as much as possible while limiting the requirement to setup power systems. Run it 24h a day to make it as attractive as possible.
- Have everyone not more than 250m from the trams
- Make the central portion underground with the possibility of conversion in mind.
- If possible, don't run a hub and spoke model and allow going from outskirt to outskirt with a circle line (a bit like the T3 or Line 15 in Paris)

 

[HSTEd]

Probably not, you don't know where the demand is. You may know where the hospital, business park is going to be but that's not enough to setup such a project.

Nothing however prevents the planner for making the provisions to make such constructions as easy as possible when demand arises (like routing pipes and al. with space to run such a system)

Unfortunately, once the town is built and local government is operational it will just become just as controlled by NIMBYs as local government everywhere else.
Any project constructed later will have to fight ten or a hundred times harder to get anything done, and costs will go through the stratosphere.

"You want to take away our precious green space for a noisy train noone will use?!"
"How dare you ruin my view with your viaduct?!"

The public transport system that goes in at the start is probably going to be the one they are stuck with for at least one generation, additionally any future system will have to be one used for similar already extant towns - the "goes in first" cost advantage will have been lost.

- Run a battery tram network to cover as much as possible while limiting the requirement to setup power systems. Run it 24h a day to make it as attractive as possible.

A tram system will impose major ongoing costs that a segregated light metro will not. Without segregation it will likely never get permission to run driverless.

These sorts of transport systems are marginally economic in such small settlements (as expected for a new town programme) as it is.

Given that this is a new town, we also have total freedom to design the electrical supply system to our own requirements - there will no one off grid reinforcement works or anything like that.

- Have everyone not more than 250m from the trams
- Make the central portion underground with the possibility of conversion in mind.

Even cut and cover underground construction in the pre-town environment is going to be quite expensive, and again imposes significant additional operational costs.
Underground stations alone impose major costs in terms of onerous staffing requirements.

 

[The exile]

How should people planning New Towns today design local transport?

Assume you are in overall charge of the design of a New Town as part of Labour's drive to build 1.5 million new homes within five years. I'm thinking of large settlements, with as many people as Milton Keynes (pop 300,000), but built at a higher density and thus occupying less land.

The premise is that the towns are based around existing railway lines with spare capacity. Think Greater Cheddington (4-platform station on WCML) or Polesworth Magna (with a new exit off the M42 and an interchange station serving both WCML and HS2 East). Possible locations were discussed in this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ns-that-already-have-rail-connections.262579/

But having a central railway station and a commitment to reduce car use doesn't address how people should get to and from that central station.

This thread is to discuss what decisions a town planner should make today about how local transport should work in such a town over the next twenty to forty years..

For what it's worth, these are my initial thoughts:

• Footpaths and bike lanes. Yes, obviously. There should be a traffic free route from all properties to the city centre. Should bike lanes have canopies to encourage use in winter? How do you deal with road crossings: Underpasses or pedestrian crossings? Should bike lanes include provision for Pedelecs (top speed 25-30mph, compared to (legal) e-bikes currently limited to 15mph? Where should you park your bike? Or should you take it with you on the train?
  
  
• Trams / LRT. Trams work very well in places like Karlsruhe and Manchester, but they are expensive and inflexible, with many single points of failure. My experience from Nottingham is that the tram system needs a large local bus network to provide tram replacement buses when a tram line gets blocked. If you go for trams today, should they be traditional with a driver? Or semi-autonomous with tram captains, like DLR? Or fully autonomous from the start, like the Luton Airport Shuttle? Should they be at street level like Nottingham, or on segregated viaducts like DLR and much of Metrolink? How do you plan today for autonomous tram operation when that becomes feasible in ten or twenty years time?
  
  
• Buses. Buses are great in a biggish city, but they do get held up in traffic and are expensive to run late at night when patronage is less. But if one bus breaks down, other buses can simple drive past, rather than getting stuck for hours like a tram. What would a good bus network look like? How should you design bus stops, bus lanes and dedicated busways to enable autonomous operation if and when that becomes feasible? How should electric buses get recharged?
  
  
• Roads and cars. How should your New Town plan its road network? The grid system in Milton Keynes seems to work very well, and every part of the city is within a few minutes drive of every other, but this layout undermines effective local public transport and requires a lot of space for roads and for parking. I don't know how people in MK who can't drive get about.
  
  Will people still have and want cars in twenty years time when full autonomous driving becomes common? Will future provision be autonomous taxis like Waymo? (Except at peak times when autonomous busses would be able to carry more people in limited road space?)
  
  
• Battery trolley buses. These are probably my prefered solution for local transport. With wires in the city centre, they can recharge on the move, rather than plugging in like an electric bus. They can go round obstructions in the street, or come off the wires entirely and take a detour if necessary. Will autonomous trolley buses be feasible one day? When? How should you design bus stops, bus lanes, segregated busways and legal frameworks to accommodate autonomous trolley buses when they become feasible? And how to enable them sooner?

I don't know the answers to these questions. Which I guess is why I'm asking them. What do you think?

A properly built tram network will only have single points of failure (in terms of the whole system) on single branches / routes as it will have multiple lines in the central area.

 

[miklcct]

Roads and cars. How should your New Town plan its road network? The grid system in Milton Keynes seems to work very well, and every part of the city is within a few minutes drive of every other, but this layout undermines effective local public transport and requires a lot of space for roads and for parking. I don't know how people in MK who can't drive get about.

Why does a grid layout undermine local public transport? Having a grid layout should benefit public transport instead of curvy cul-de-sacs because a bus can run in a straight line.

I can imagine a grid layout can support a grid bus network, such that everyone can go to everywhere with at most one change at a grid junction on the same route as a taxi.

 

[Bevan Price]

I would suggest an "X" shaped tram route, with the town centre and railway station close to the centre of the X.
All housing developments would be parallel to, and within walking distance of the "arms" of the X.
The length of the arms of "X" would depend on the target population.
Any "industrial" developments would be either towards the outer ends of the X, or close to the railway if they were likely to need rail transport.

 

[telstarbox]

For a completely planned settlement, automated small pods on their own right of way will be better value than a legacy bus or tram system.

 

[HSTEd]

I think we need several transport systems overlapped, with maximum segregation.

Pedestrians, bicycles, road vehicles, light metro, delivery robots.

Some systems can, to some extent, share but things like light metros and delivery systems probably need maximum segregation to be truly effective.

Luckily the right of way for things like delivery robots is extremely compact and lightly loaded (in weight terms).
The layout of the town is going to have to be carefully thought out to reduce the cost of construction whilst achieving the necessary segregation however.

 

[Nottingham59]

I would suggest an "X" shaped tram route, with the town centre and railway station close to the centre of the X.
All housing developments would be parallel to, and within walking distance of the "arms" of the X.
The length of the arms of "X" would depend on the target population.
Any "industrial" developments would be either towards the outer ends of the X, or close to the railway if they were likely to need rail transport.

I've seen ideas for an X or a three-arm X, with the end of each line being a loop. so that the tram can return to town without reversing. This provides a wider geographical coverage, but then limits the ability to extend the tram line as the town expands.

The space between the transport corridors - the arms of the X - is used as parkland and flood relief areas, so that the residents can live close to transport and also have ready access to green space.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Honestly instead building new towns they should be making existing towns and cities bigger to increase the agglomeration effect.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Honestly instead building new towns they should be making existing towns and cities bigger to increase the agglomeration effect.

Trouble is that building on fringes typically means car dependency. You can get the effect you suggest by building ecotowns around railway stations near existing towns - Cheddington is a prime example of an ideal location.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Trouble is that building on fringes typically means car dependency. You can get the effect you suggest by building ecotowns around railway stations near existing towns - Cheddington is a prime example of an ideal location.

I take your point, but surely we could built around existing rail corridors in Metroland style? Or connect new outlying suburbs with tram system of a sort?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I take your point, but surely we could built around existing rail corridors in Metroland style? Or connect new outlying suburbs with tram system of a sort?

A Runcorn sized small ecotown centred on a station like Cheddington (in that case well connected to MK and London) would be the ideal form in my book. You could, if you wanted to do a new city, do figure of 8s around a larger figure of 8 I suppose.

 

[Nottingham59]

A Runcorn sized small ecotown centred on a station like Cheddington (in that case well connected to MK and London) would be the ideal form in my book.

In Runcorn, what do you mean by a figure of 8? Is it the shape bounded by Halton Road and Boston Avenue on the East side of town, and Greenway Road and Moughland Road to the West? These seem to be the main bus routes. Or do you mean the A533 / A558 Expressway which also forms a figure of 8, but doesn't seem to have any bus stops?

You could, if you wanted to do a new city, do figure of 8s around a larger figure of 8 I suppose.

For a tram route, I'd prefer a dumbell shape. This gives the same connectivity as a figure of eight, but gives some redundancy on the main spine, which could support a shuttle service across town if one track on the spine ever got blocked or needed maintenance.

 

[urban]

Honestly instead building new towns they should be making existing towns and cities bigger to increase the agglomeration effect.

We could just build up our cities instead of out. Our cities are so low-rise compared to Europe. Look at inner city Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool - so much wasteland and suburban sprawl, where hundreds of thousands of people could be housed in mid-rise flats. Instead we build car-dependent estates on the greenbelt.

 

[deltic08]

Town planners in Leeds do not give a fig about local transport The East Leeds new town of eventually 40,000 on a greenfield site have planned to have loops of roads with multiple cul-de-sacs off them unable to provide really local bus routes.
I tried to alter this at the planning hearing but my suggestion of an extension of the proposed Leeds trolley bus system was shot down. The houses are being built across the disused trackbed of the Leeds-Wetherby line and not being future proofed. A reopened line could provide thousands of seats an hour into/out of Leeds in the peaks but LCC would rather bus commuters into an already grid locked Leeds city centre using hundreds of double decker buses per hour with all the pollution that causes.
Even an appeal to the County Mayor, Tracy Braben, before the trackbed is eliminated fell on deaf ears. Greater Wetherby is expanding rapidly as a satelite town of Leeds that a reinstated rail link is desparately needed now'

 

[Bevan Price]

Sensible suggestions often fall on deaf ears. "THEY" always know better -even when "THEY" are wrong.

("THEY" = The people with the power.)

 

[158756]

Why does a grid layout undermine local public transport? Having a grid layout should benefit public transport instead of curvy cul-de-sacs because a bus can run in a straight line.

I can imagine a grid layout can support a grid bus network, such that everyone can go to everywhere with at most one change at a grid junction on the same route as a taxi.

A grid layout could be good for public transport if the houses are built around the main roads, but the grid as built in Milton Keynes is made up of big, fast, pedestrian-unfriendly roads, and the estates turn their backs on the grid. So buses on the main roads don't serve most of the housing well, and any bus that ventures into the estates will have uncompetitive journey times against the cars zipping past on the grid.

This sort of design is a common feature of new build housing in the UK. Modern developments often seem to try to build as many houses as far away from the main road as possible, and with lots of winding roads and cul-de-sacs making walking routes to bus stops as long as possible.

 

[Akela]

First and foremost, all New Towns should have their own railway station, ideally in the centre of town - either a new station built on an existing line or an existing station that’s underused due to the lack of housing around it. There’s more than enough rural space that mainline railways pass through that could be built on, or small villages that could be upgraded to town status.

 

[HSTEd]

A grid layout could be good for public transport if the houses are built around the main roads, but the grid as built in Milton Keynes is made up of big, fast, pedestrian-unfriendly roads, and the estates turn their backs on the grid. So buses on the main roads don't serve most of the housing well, and any bus that ventures into the estates will have uncompetitive journey times against the cars zipping past on the grid.

Personally, I think the solution to this problem is to provide the public transport system with its own grid or gridlike system, so that it doesn't have to use the road network.

If we have two overlapping grids, with the pbulic transport one offset by half a cell, we can get the best of both worlds.
I doubt many residents would actually want a house that backs onto a major road after all - all that traffic noise.

Likewise, I don't think deliberately not providing a good road network to housing is a good idea either - the modern economy is increasingly reliant on rapid road vehicle access to properties for deliveries etc.
The competition from a good road system will require the public transport system to have very low operating costs, high frequency and at least nominally competitive journey times - which is a rather challenging combination but I think it can be done.

 

[Metrolink]

We could just build up our cities instead of out. Our cities are so low-rise compared to Europe. Look at inner city Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool - so much wasteland and suburban sprawl, where hundreds of thousands of people could be housed in mid-rise flats. Instead we build car-dependent estates on the greenbelt.

Advocating for the displacement of the poorest who live in the inner city to replace with mid-rise blocks is the very opposite of what we should be doing. In an idealistic transport sense it would have been nice for it to be built that way in the first place. Replacing mid-rise where there is suburban sprawl drives the cost of living higher and isn’t the best option in context (though neither is building out on the greenbelt).

 

[Dr Day]

Advocating for the displacement of the poorest who live in the inner city to replace with mid-rise blocks is the very opposite of what we should be doing. In an idealistic transport sense it would have been nice for it to be built that way in the first place. Replacing mid-rise where there is suburban sprawl drives the cost of living higher and isn’t the best option in context (though neither is building out on the greenbelt).

Sorry but can you please expand on this? Inner-city living, poverty and higher density living can coincide but one doesn't necessarily cause the other.

How would converting the plot of a pair of 1930s 3 bed suburban semis with a front and back garden housing 2 families into accommodation for say 4 families over 4 storeys increase the cost of living?

 

[BlueLeanie]

How should people planning New Towns today design local transport?

Plan it entirely around self-driving electric cars for longer journeys and weatherproof self-driving electric personal pods for local journeys.

Active travel is good, but in reality the human body is wildly inefficient at converting food to energy.

 

[Metrolink]

Sorry but can you please expand on this? Inner-city living, poverty and higher density living can coincide but one doesn't necessarily cause the other.

How would converting the plot of a pair of 1930s 3 bed suburban semis with a front and back garden housing 2 families into accommodation for say 4 families over 4 storeys increase the cost of living?

Simply the idea that all regeneration and development is simply for profit, and drives the poorest in the aforementioned 'wasteland' of the inner city, which in some respects is true.

The inner city I'm thinking of doesn't have 1930s 3 bed suburban semis (again in the given 'wasteland' experience), and the areas that do tend have a higher median income and are suburban, and aren't particular ineffective and therefore shouldn't be replaced. Suburbs are not the issue. If the Inner City wants to be redeveloped that is okay, but must protect those who rely on the affordable communities that are there.

 

[telstarbox]

The revised NPPF which came out yesterday now has stronger requirements for bus-friendly design:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/675abd214cbda57cacd3476e/NPPF-December-2024.pdf

117. Within this context, applications for development should:
a) give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas; and second – so far as possible – to facilitating access to high quality public transport, with layouts that maximise the catchment area for bus or other public transport services, and appropriate facilities that encourage public transport use;

 

[yorksrob]

The revised NPPF which came out yesterday now has stronger requirements for bus-friendly design:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/675abd214cbda57cacd3476e/NPPF-December-2024.pdf

I'm glad they included 'other' public transport in that. Hopefully this will see rail to Tavistock finally.

 

[stevieinselby]

Why does a grid layout undermine local public transport? Having a grid layout should benefit public transport instead of curvy cul-de-sacs because a bus can run in a straight line.

I can imagine a grid layout can support a grid bus network, such that everyone can go to everywhere with at most one change at a grid junction on the same route as a taxi.

It depends what your grid layout is.

In Milton Keynes, you have a grid made up of fast segregated roads that have little or no connection to the actual urban bits of housing, industry, retail and education that live within the squares. So running buses up and down the grid roads means they serve the places where people want to travel to and from poorly, giving people a long walk to get to a bus stop (because the alternative would be the worst kind of meandering bus service).

A grid like you find in the centre of most American cities (or Glasgow!), where the road lattice is fronted onto by properties all along, is a lot better inasmuch as the buses have direct routes that actually serve the places people are travelling between, but that's the opposite of what we've got in Milton Keynes.

For a completely planned settlement, automated small pods on their own right of way will be better value than a legacy bus or tram system.

Pods will never be better value than any kind of mass transit for an urban system. They have low capacity, they are expensive to build, run and maintain, and because they are inevitably bespoke systems they are setting up problems for the future by using non-standard technology. It's the Tesla Tunnel from Las Vegas all over again – if all you're proposing is taxis on demand, you can run the system a lot cheaper by just buying a fleet of taxis and hiring a load of drivers, rather than pumping a load of money into a gadgetbahn that does the same thing but with costly novel tech.