Intelligent Transport Systems for Urban Areas- Brussels

Steve Kearns - Technology Delivery GroupTransport for London

Contents

• London Context – Mayor’s Transport Strategy

• Congestion Charging in London

• London – Managing Road Network

Current travel patterns in London

Current travel demand in London

Mode share

London Plan population forecasts

Distribution of population growth by 2031

Managing demand f or transport

Prov iding f urther transport capacity

Better coordination and integration of planning

3 key aspects to MTS policies

9Existing lines

Crossrail

Heathrow Docklands

Tunnel

Orbital connectivity: public transport integration

• Improve interchange opportunities to make orbital journeys by public transport easier

• Provide better information on existing orbital journeys

Better streets, walking and cyclingProposals for ‘making walking count’•Better streets•Making it easier to plan journey s on f oot•Dev elopment of the Key Walking Route approach

Bringing about a revolution in cycling in London•Working in partnership•Raising awareness and ‘mainstreaming ’ cycling•Improv ing cy cle inf rastructure, cycle training and saf ety•Superhighway s and cycle hire

Forecast mode share

Assum ing no s ignificant changes to road user c har ging apart from remov ing the c har ge in the W ester n Extension

Congestion Charging in London

14

London’s transport problems

15

Westminster Bridge – End of 19th Century

Central London Congestion Charging Zone

Central London Congestion Charging Zone

Charge payment• Daily, weekly, monthly or annual payment for individual vehicle

registration number

• Flat charge of £8 per day (was £5 until July 2005) until midnight

• Monday – Friday, 7am – 6pm (was 6.30pm until February 2007)

• Pay Next Da y introduced June 2006

• Increa se planned to £10 per day (£9 for automatic accounts) in December 2010

Traffic impacts of Congestion Charging

Central zone• 25% reduction in traff ic (4 or

more wheels) entering the zone – has remained constant

• 70,000 f ewer v ehicles per day

• Bus patronage up, bus serv ices perf orming better

• Little change in trips to central area with 50-60% mov ing to public transport

Western extension• 19% reduction in traff ic entering

extension

• 30,000 f ewer v ehicles per day

• Increase in bus passengers

Average daily traffic entering original charging zone*

Normally Charge Pa ying Normally Non-Charge Pa ying

* During charging hou rs (07.00 -18.00 )

Average daily traffic entering original charging zone*

Normally Charge Pa ying Normally Non-Charge Pa ying

* During charging hou rs (07.00 -18.00 )

In 2002, bef ore Congestion Charging began, there was an av erage of 185,000cars entering the charging zone ev ery charging day

Average daily traffic entering original charging zone*

Normally Charge Pa ying Normally Non-Charge Pa ying

* During charging hou rs (07.00 -18.00 )

In 2003, af ter charging was introduced, this f ell to an av erage of 124,000 cars entering the charging zone ev ery day

Average daily traffic entering original charging zone*

Normally Charge Pa ying Normally Non-Charge Pa ying

* During charging hou rs (07.00 -18.00 )

In 2008 an av erage of only 106,000 cars entered the charging zone ev ery day - a decrease in cars between 2002 and 2008 of some 43%

Between 2002 and 2008 there has been a steady decline in traff ic v olumes, with little impact caused by the shift f rom £5 to £8 in 2005

Average daily traffic entering original charging zone*

Normally Charge Pa ying Normally Non-Charge Pa ying

* During charging hou rs (07.00 -18.00 )

Similarly there has been a 16% f all in v ans and 5% f all in lorries entering central London since the introduction of Congestion Charging

Average daily traffic entering original charging zone*

Normally Charge Pa ying Normally Non-Charge Pa ying

* During charging hou rs (07.00 -18.00 )

In comparison v ehicle ty pes that would not normally pay the charge hav e remained broadly stable or increased –with buses up 29% and bicy cles up 90%between 2002 and 2008

Average daily traffic entering original charging zone*

Normally Charge Pa ying Normally Non-Charge Pa ying

Congestion Charging led to a dramatic and immediate reduction in the v olumes of traff ic in central London – and prof oundly changed the pattern of v ehicles seen

Fiv e y ears on the eff ects of Congestion Charging on traff ic are more signif icant than they were when the scheme was f irst introduced

* During charging hou rs (07.00 -18.00 )

Congestion

• Congestion in central zone was initially down, but has graduallyincreased de spite reduced traffic levels:– 2003: 30% down– 2005: 21% down– 2006: 8% down– 2007: no change– 2008: no change

• In early months of the WEZ, significant congestion reductions, but recent results show congestion now similar to pre-extension levels

• Traffic levels sti l l reduced - increased conge stion due to decrea sed effective capacity as a result of road works and road space allocation to improve conditions for other use rs

So why has congestion returned?

• Reflects a reduction in effective capacity of road network for general traffic– Urban realm improvement

schemes (e.g. Trafalgar Square)

– Pedestrian, cyclist and bus priority measures

– Increased road works by utili ties (particularly water mains) and major developments (e.g. Scotch House Corner development in WEZ)

• Important to balance priorities –activity being undertaken to address congestion levels

Other impacts

• Economy– Broadly neutral impact overall on business

• Environment– Improved vehicle technology and the introduction of charging

have led to reductions in CO2, NOX, & PM10

• Road safety– Reduced numbers of cars have led to less personal injury

road accidents in the central zone

Revenues

• Net revenue s by law must be spent on transport

• Raised total of £268m in 2007/8– Scheme costs totalled £131m– Net revenue s therefore £137m

• Allocation of 2007/08 revenues wa s – £112m - Bus improvements– £13m - Roads and bridges– £4m - Road safety– £4m - Walking and Cycling– £2m - Borough plans– £2m - Environment

WEZ Consultation

The Mayor’s election manifesto included a commitment to hold a consultation on the future of the Weste rn Exten sion of the Congestion Charging Scheme.

Managing the road network

Mitigation of increased roa d congestion through a range of policy lev ers

London – Managing Road Capacity

Case study - Managing the road network

The Mayor’s Transport Strategy –Smoothing Traffic Flow

• Smoothing traffic flows to better manage congestion

• Maximise efficiency of road network

• Increa sed focus on journey time reliabil ity

• Selection of routes where percentage of journeys to be completed within 5 minutes of specified, typical time

• Ultimately reduce CO2

emissions a s flow of traffic will be constant

• Journey Time Reliability and Smoothing Traffic Flow’

• Capacity and resilience

• Safety

• State of good repair

• Better streetscapes

• Environmental outcomes

• Customer outcomes

• Efficiency

Managing the Road Network : key elements

ITS has a considerable role to play

Smoothing Traffic Flow –6 Major Elements

Traffic Operations in London• London’s Traffic Signal Authority

• 6,000 sets of signals (50% computer controlled)

• London Streets Traffic Control Centre – real time intervention, 24/7

• 1200 CCTV

• 1900 ANPR monitoring and enforcement cameras

• 135 variable message signs

Local c ontrol (51% )

Computer contr olled fixed time (19% )

Computer contr olled dyna mic SCOOT (30% )

Traffic signal coverage

Traffic Signal Timing Reviews

• Year 2000 = timings reviewed once every 27 years

• Year 2009 = UTC signals and other critical sites reviewed once every 3 years

• Timing Review :– re sponds to local feedback– balances local demands – accounts for local land use changes– tackle s persi stent congestion

Timing Review – Road Traffic Goals

• Network stability and resilience

• Target degree of “saturation”

• Practical limits on signal cycle time

IRID - Image Rec ognition and Incident De tection

Measuring Smoothing Traffic Flow

Definition:The Mayor’s aim in smoothing traffic flow is to:

‘Increase the reliability and predictability of journeys, including by tackling “stop-start” traffic conditions which increase

emissions of harmful pollutants’

The aim of the work is to improve conditions for exi sting road users (including cyclists and pedest rians), not to create additional capacity that would increase car journeys

Why journey time reliability is so important

• Cost to the economy – lost productiv ity due to de lay s and mitigations (e.g. allowing more trav el time to compensate f or delay s)

• CBI London business surv ey (December 2008) reported that 78% of respondents thought the quality and reliability of the road net work was less than satisf actory or poor. Source: http://www.cbi.org.uk/pdf/20090218-CBI -Time -to-Change -Ge ar.pdf

• Unreliabi lity can aff ect the supply chain and signif icantly increase costs for the f reight sector (especially just-in-time deliv eries)

Measuring Smoothing Traffic Flow

Journey Time Reliability:The new draft MTS identifies the need for such a measure, and defines it as:

‘...the Percentage of journeys completed within 5 minutes of a specified typical journey time’

(This ‘specified typical journey time’ has been assumed to equate to an average 30 minute journey, repre sentative of all journeys across London)

Journey time reliability is the KPI for smoothing traffic flow

Av erage Journe y Time and ‘Allowable’ Variation from the Mean

80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%

100%

00:0

0

01:0

002

:00

03:0

004

:00

05:0

0

06:0

007

:00

08:0

009

:00

10:0

011

:00

12:0

013

:00

14:0

0

15:0

016

:00

17:0

018

:00

19:0

020

:00

21:0

022

:00

23:0

0

Period 1

Period 2

Period 3

Period 4

Period 5

Percentage of journeys on major roads in London completed within an allowable excess of 5 mins for a 30 min journey

Measuring Smoothing Traffic Flow

London Congestion Analysis Project

A system that take s ra w data from available source s of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera s and turns it into valuable journey time information

45 mill ion v ehicle record s

1800 cameras

400 cameras

~950 active links2.2 mil lion record s

per day

What is LCAP?

0

5

10

15

20

25

00:0

0

01:0

0

02:0

0

03:0

0

04:0

0

05:0

0

06:0

0

07:0

0

08:0

0

09:0

0

10:0

0

11:0

0

12:0

0

13:0

0

14:0

0

15:0

0

16:0

0

17:0

0

18:0

0

19:0

0

20:0

0

21:0

0

22:0

0

23:0

0

Jour

ney

tim

e (m

inut

es)

Time o f Day

90th

Me an

10th

An example LCAP 24-hour profile

Walking and cycling

– Detection of pedestrians– Detecting cyclists at signals– Reliable detection of cyclists at automatic traffic counts– Pedestrian countdown at traffic signals– Enhanced walking and cycling travel planning facilities and

mapping– Cycle superhighways– London Cycle Hire Scheme...

49

London Cycle Hire Scheme• Launches Summer 2010 • Cashless - Payment vi a account

(use of debi t/cr edi t cards)

• Available 24 hours a day• Chip- enabled member shi p keys

will provi de faster and easi er access to cycles

• 400 docki ng s tations , spaced appr oxi matel y ever y 300 metr es

• 10,200 docki ng spaces • 6,000 bicycles

Pedestrian Behaviour at Traffic Signals research results• Published at http://londonroadsafety.tfl.gov.uk/

• Nine signal sites in London (all-red junctions) where Green man reduced (9 / 10sec to 6 sec) and time re-allocated to traffic green

• Pedestrian s ob served (video analysis), on-street interviews, accompanied walks with impaired road users

• Conclusion s– Safety neutral, even with increasi ng non-compli ance– 2/3 confused about what bl ackout means– More i mpaired pedes trians noticed the chang e (felt mor e r ushed, unsafe)– General popul ati on di d not notice the change– Pedestri an speeds wer e unaffected– Impr oved tr affic throughput

Timing Review – Pedestrian Goals

• Pedestrian ‘degree of saturation’(ov er crowding)

• Duration of the inv itation to cross (green man)

• Signal Cy cle time

Pedestrian Countdown

An example from Auckland

Freight – loading and parking

Loading bay reservation system

• Cooperativ e Vehicle Inf rastructure Sy stems (CVIS) trial of booking system f or a f reight loading bay

Freight specific sat-nav information

• Exploring how size / weight and stopping / loading restrictions can be made av ailable through sat-nav databases

• Improv e av ailability of dy namic data such as congestion and journey time

54

CVIS Trial in London

PTZ

OBS IRID Video

RSU log

VolvoBooking Server

ThetisPZO

Operator

OBU

CVIS Roadside Signage

CVIS Enforcement

57

Driver training

• First Group trial in 1,000 buses in London using in-vehicle monitoring devices

• Real-time feedback on driving style and driving reports to focus training

• Around 5% fuel saving

• Explore possibility of similar applications for other profe ssional drivers

58

Future development / Issues for Discussion

Congestion Ch arging – Primar y i ssue concer ns public acceptability– ITS rol e in refini ng charging sys tems to make them mor e equitable– Political suppor t is critical – rol e for EC ?

Traffic M an ag ement – role for IT S – Impr oved tr affic management tools for rapi d detection and response to

disrupti on – r eal ti me infor mati on– Impr oved detec tion of pedestrians and cyclists– V2V and I2V communicati ons– Situational Awar eness ; leadi ng to a pr edic ti ve capability

Input from EC– More focused towar ds needs of ( big) citi es eg ITS Action Pl an– Facilitati ng rol e to bri ng comparabl e citi es together– Encouragi ng citi es to become more invol ved with call writi ng – Industr y needs to full y take into account tr ansport needs of cities– Less bureaucracy, pl ease ! ! !

www.tfl.gov.uk