Page 1

CAN A MODERN PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM BE SENSITIVELY INTEGRATED INTO A HISTORIC TOURIST DESTINATION? This paper aims to stimulate a high level of design when faced with integrating a new public transport system into historic surroundings. It aims to do this by providing an argument for the need for public transport in the historic urban environment - demonstrating this through the use of examples of contemporary solutions and the thoughts and opinions of those in the planning and the conservation of towns. As a result it is hoped that people will be motivated by the proposals of the author and help to bring them to realisation in the future.

MATTHEW DAVID BENBOW PRICE M154ID - Research for Design & Reflective Practice JANUARY 2013

The work contained in this document has been submitted by the student in partial fulfillment of the requirement of their course and award


FOREWORD

The question as to whether a modern public transport system can be sensitively integrated into historic surroundings is of particular interesting to me as I come from an architectural and urban design background. My grandfather, Gordon Cullen, was a key motivator in urban regeneration in the 1960s and published one of the building blocks of what is now considered to be the fundamentals of Urban Design, Townscape. He believed that buildings should interact with their environment “take all the elements that go to create the environment: buildings, trees, nature, water, traffic, advertisements and so on, and weave them together in such a way that drama is released. For a city is a dramatic event in the environment” (Cullen, 1971: 02) England is famous the world over for its quaint little villages and imposing castles perched on hills, overlooking smart towns of Georgian houses and Tudor cottages. The purpose of the town, however, has changed over time and the “21st century demands on a 12th century townscape began to compromise the town’s environment and investment in the historic buildings needed to be matched with investment in their surroundings” (English Historic Towns Forum, 2007). With all the modern social and economic constraints we face, historic towns are subject to becoming museum pieces and their character and value stripped away by urban planners and councils finding ways of saving money and time. I feel, however, that we owe it to future generations to preserve such values and to provide a greater standard of living, not only for the residents of the town, but also those who commute in and come from far and wide to visit its historic and valuable attraction. Public transport’s design has generally remained the same for the most part of the last 50 years. Buses are boxes, trains are tubes. People are crammed into them and nobody particularly wants to be there. Moreover, the majority of vehicles on the road are not designed for a specific town. London seems to be one of the few cities which has a public transport system which is synonymous with its name, but even that was by accident. People have grown to love their big red buses and white, red and blue underground trains.

2


In this paper I discuss and explore the validity of implementing sensitive public transport infrastructures into historic towns. Applying theories and research found through experts in town and transport planning, engineering and design I will begin to find design performance specifications which will eventually lead to a visual outcome.

3


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to say a special thank you to the following individuals who took time out of their schedules to support, make comment on and contribute their knowledge and expertise to the writing of this paper: Dr Martin Lowson, Andrew Rudge, Christine Taylor and Nick Gill. I would like to especially thank Peter Hendy CBE for taking the time to meet with me and discuss some of the issues I faced in the early stages of this project at Windsor House in London.

4


CONTENTS Foreword

2

Acknowledgments

4

List of Figures

7

!

Photographs of Windsor

!

Photographs of Ultra PRT

1.0

Research Summary

9

2.0

Reference List

12

3.0

Bibliography

13

4.0

Appendices

4.0.1

!

Questionnaire #1

15

4.0.2

!

Questionnaire #2

21

4.0.3

!

Interview with Peter Hendy

28

4.0.4

!

Interview with Andrew Rudge

32

4.0.5

!

Correspondence with English Heritage

40

4.0.6

!

Correspondence with Windsor Castle

41

4.0.7

!

Literature Reviews

42

5.0

Figures

5.1

!

Results from Questionnaire #1

45

5.2

!

Results from Questionnaire #2

49

5.3

!

Photographs of Windsor

53

5.4

!

Photographs of ULTra PRT

56

5.5

!

Maps of the Area

58

5


6.0

Final Conceptual Research Framework

62

6.1

Objective A: Sensitive Infrastructure

63

6.1.1

!

Questionnaire to Inhabitants of Windsor

6.1.2

!

Interview with Andrew Rudge

6.1.4

!

Desk Based Research

65

6.2

Objective B: Low Impact Transport

66

6.2.1

!

Questionnaire to General Public about Public Transport

6.2.2

!

Interview with Peter Hendy

6.2.3

!

Desk Based Research

6.3

Objective C: Developing Technologies

6.3.1

!

7.0

Specification

70

8.0

Info-graphic Poster Copy

71

67 69

Information from Industry Source & Desk Based Research

6


LIST OF FIGURES Can public transport be designed to be sensitive to historic surroundings? (Based on 33 Respondents) All data is sourced from the Author’s own findings.

Figure 1 - Age of Responders Figure 2 - Travel on Modes of Transport Figure 3 - Frequency of Travel on Public Transport Figure 4 - Reasons for Travel Figure 5 - Car Ownership Figure 6 - Car Usage in Town Figure 7 - Importance Scale Graph Public Transport Issues & Thoughts (Based on 25 Respondents) All data is sourced from the Author’s own findings. Figure 8 - Age of Responders Figure 9 - Travel on Modes of Transport Figure 10 - Frequency of Travel on Public Transport Figure 11 - Reasons for Travel Figure 12 - Car Ownership Figure 13 - Reasons for Car Use over Public Transport Figure 14 - Routes vs. Frequency Figure 15 - Importance Scale Graph Photographs of Windsor. Photographs are Author’s own work Figure 16 - Eton Bridge Figure 17 - Thames Street Figure 18 - Thames Street/High Street Figure 19 - Windsor & Eton Riverside Railway Station Figure 20 - High Street (Lower End) Figure 21 - High Street Figure 22 - High Street (Showing Congestion) Figure 23 - High Street (Traffic Calming Measures) Figure 24 - High Street (Traffic Calming Measures) Figure 25 - Albany Road (Cobbled Pavements) Figure 26 - High Street (Top End) with Guildhall Figure 27 - Cobbled Public Space next to Guildhall Figure 28 - High Street Figure 29 - Barry Avenue 7


Figure 30 - Across the River from Windsor (Not Very Much) Figure 31 - French Brothers River Cruises Mooring Photographs of Ultra PRT at Heathrow Airport’s Terminal 5. Photographs are Author’s own work. Figure 32 - Ultra Terminus in Car Park Figure 33 - Ultra PRT at Station Figure 34 - Ultra PRT Station Figure 35 - Ultra PRT Guideway Figure 38 - Ultra PRT Safety Barrier Figure 36 - Interior (with fold down seats on right) Figure 37 - Interior (3 seat bench) Figure 38 - Interior (Bench Seat) Figure 39 - Users Controls Figure 40 - Interior Lights & Grab Handles Maps. Maps are sourced from OpenStreetMaps.co.uk and have been downloaded with permission. Figure 41 - Map of Area Surrounding Windsor Figure 42 - Map of Windsor, Clever New Town & Dedworth & POIs Figure 43 - Map of Windsor & Eton Figure 44 - Map of Windsor’s Historic Centre & POIs

8


1.0 RESEARCH SUMMARY The tourist destination that this paper looks at is Windsor because it is a good example of where a new public transport system would be appreciated by the local community, by those who travel in and out of the town for work and, more importantly, by those who travel from far and wide to visit the town’s historic centre. “Historic towns are not museums but living, breathing organisms and must be managed in such a way that they meet the needs of modern living” (English Historic Towns Forum, 2007). Two questionnaires were posted on various transport and Windsor related forums in order to get a better understanding of the requirements and expectations of the public. These made clear that the main reasons the public are wary of using public transport are due to pricing, the frequency of the service and the overall experience and comfort. With regards to pricing of public transport Peter Hendy, Commissioner for Transport for London said, “It’s all about subsidy” (see app. 4.0.3: question 6). The main costs incurred by Transport for London are the need to pay their staff, the price of the fuel needed to run the vehicle and finally the cost of the vehicle itself. One way to cut these prices is to run automated vehicles which use a cheap fuel, such as electricity. From the survey it seems that the general public had no serious objections to driverless transportation and both the DLR in London and Line 14 of the Paris Metro are good examples of routes which operate successfully without a human driver. Further, a study of fuel prices over the next 10 years shows that the cost of running an electric vehicle will remain stable (General Electric, 2011). In order to tackle the problem of frequency Hendy is very supportive of the concept of “on-demand transport” through the use of social medias such as Facebook and Twitter. The public could “tweet” about delays and inadequacies, and through crowd-sourcing the appropriate number of vehicles needed to meet the users’ requirements would be dispatched. One such example of on-demand transport is ULTra at Heathrow Airport (see figs. 32 - 41), which provides an effortless transition between terminal and carpark. In a similar way live timings and routes can now be easily integrated into a public transport system. Probably the most important issue raised by the public was that of comfort and the experience of a journey. A way of encouraging the public to use communal transport, according to Hendy, is to make it an attraction in its own right. Andrew Rudge, Senior Planning & Urban Advisor, English Heritage, accepts this idea within the historic context as long as it does not distract from the attraction itself. Not only this, he argues, but it can enhance the visit through providing information to visitors on the itinerary. Hendy uses the example of the new cable cars brought in for the Olympics. 9


TfL have noticed the same passengers returning throughout the day - not so much to use the service as a means of transport, but as an attraction which encourages its use in the city. The tourism industry in The Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead is worth £578.2m per annum and last year there were 7.3m visitors to the town - more than 270 times the population (The Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead, 2011). In 2011, a study untaken by the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead, showed that just over half the visitors claimed that the main reason for visiting the town was the castle, with only a small proportion visiting Legoland. For the system to be a success, it will need to reach areas of peak volume for the tourist industry and importance for the local community - such as medical centres, schools and recreational areas. Results from Questionnaire 2 showed that connections to transport hubs were of greatest importance (see fig. 15) meaning that links to the railway stations and the river are empirical to the positive reception of the concept. Looking at this data one can start to understand how to organise the routes - with the main focus being on the historic part of Windsor, and with some links to attractions and amenities outside of the town.

Figure 15

A choice of three vehicles indicated the public’s preference for a known method of transport - the tram - followed by the PRT (Personal Rapid Transit) for its privacy and finally the cable car for the experience. It seems as though where a transport system is successfully integrated into an urban context it can become an icon in its own right. Public transport needs to be “integrated and sometimes radical, and always respect and enhance the unique character of historic towns for generations to come” (English Historic Towns Forum, 2007). Hendy cites the London Bus but one can also look at the Bordeaux Tram (Rail Page, 2006) or the Shinkansen in Japan. Many transport systems and roads have evolved around man’s need to trade and convey provisions. In Windsor, for example, one of the earliest routes was from the river, the main link to the capital, up the hill to the castle (see figs. 19-21). This is now one of the main tourist routes, but the overuse of cars has been detrimental to the setting. “Good transport links are key to our social and economic well being and most transport improvements do no significant harm to the historic environment and can sometimes enhance it” (English Heritage, 2004). Furthermore a managed public transport system in a historic setting can be preferable to the ad-hoc movement of cars together with the inherent traffic jams, unsightly car parks and signage (see figs. 22-24 & 28)

10


Rudge argues that it is possible to implement modern technology into the historic setting. Care must be taken not to disturb historic elements but components such as surface materials can, he says, be relaid over modern infrastructure. In conclusion, it is possible to see that there is an opportunity to enhance a historic tourist destination by providing a modern network which is sustainable and has the ability for future development. The research undertaken points towards an automated on-demand personal rapid transit system which replaces the need for individual transport in the town centre but can work alongside vehicles in the wider area. The layout of the town (fig. 5.5) suggests that the distance between stops would be limited making inductive charging a possibility (Siemens AG, 2012) thereby reducing running costs and emissions. A sophisticated forward-looking design would improve the transport requirements and quality of life of the inhabitant and enhance the experience for the tourist.

11


2.0 REFERENCE LIST Cullen, G. (1971) The Concise Townscape. 2nd edn. Oxford: Architectural Press English Heritage (2004) Transport and the Historic Environment English Historic Towns Forum (2007) Transport Innovation in Historic Towns, Shrewsbury 28-29 March 2007 General Electric (2011) Charging Ahead - EV Marketplace 2011 International Energy Agency (2011) Technology Roadmap: Electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2010) London: Greater London Authority Open Street Map (2012) OpenStreetMap [online] available from http:// www.openstreetmap.org/ [4 December 2012] Rail Page Forum (2006) France - Bordeaux LRT Statistics [online] available from http:// www.railpage.com.au/f-p705580.htm [3 December 2012] The Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead (2011) Visitor Economy Statistics and Data [online] available from http://www.windsor.gov.uk/statistics-and-data [22 November 2012] Siemens AG (2012) Inductive Charging Tourism South East (2011) Windsor Visitor Survey 2011 Final Report Transport for London (2011) , Travel in London Report 4

12


3.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY APTA (2007), A Profile of Public Transportation Passenger Demographics and Travel Characteristics Reported in On-Board Surveys

Dunbar, C. (1967), Buses, Trolleys & Trams. 1st edn. London: Paul Hamlyn English Heritage (2001), Building in Context

BDRC Continental (2010),Visitor Attractions Trends in England 2010; Annual Report

English Heritage (October 2005), Easy Access to Historic Landscapes

Breward, C & Wood, G (2012), British Design from 1948: Innovation in the Modern Age. 1st edn. London: V&A Publishing

English Heritage (2004), Transport and the Historic Environment English Historic Towns Forum (2007), Transport Innovation in Historic Towns

Commission for Integrated Transport (October 2009), Planning for Sustainable Travel

European Association of Historic Towns & Regions (2006), Sustainable Cultural Tourism in Historic Towns & Cities

Cullen, G. (1971) The Concise Townscape. 2nd edn. Oxford: Architectural Press

European Commission (September 2007), Sustainable Urban Transport Plans

Curtin, G. (2011) Kenneth Grange: Making Britain Modern 1st edn. London: Black Dog Publishing

General Electric (2011) Charging Ahead - EV Marketplace 2011

Department for Transport (1999), Historic Core Zone: Bury St-Edmunds

Greater London Authority (May 2010), Mayor’s Transport Strategy 2010

Department for Transport (2011), Rail Passenger Numbers and Crowding on Weekdays in Major Cities in England & Wales: 2011

GTZ (April 2009), Transportation Demand Management International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (2001), Sustainable Transportation Options for Protecting the Climate: A Guide for Local Governments

Day, J. Duff, P & Hill, M (1967), Transport Today and Tomorrow. 1st edn. Norwich: Lutterworth Press Department for Transport (1996), Traffic Management in Historic Areas Design Platform Japan (2009), Japan Car: Designs for the Crowded Globe

International Energy Agency (June 2011), Technology Roadmap: Electric and Plug-in hybrid Electric Vehicles. 13


Institute of Historic Building Conservation (n.d), Valuing Historic Places

Tourism South East (2011) Windsor Visitor Survey 2011 Final Report

MIT Journal of Planning (2009), Sustainable Transport - An International Perspective

Transport for London (2011), Central London Rail Termini - Analysing passengers’ onward travel patterns

Living Streets (2012), Street Design and Management [online] available from http://www.livingstreets.org.uk/ professionals/street-design-andmanagement [3 December 2012]

Transport for London (2011), Travel in London Report 4 Transport for London (March 2006), What Modern Trams can do for Cities

Open Street Map (2012) OpenStreetMap [online] available from http:// www.openstreetmap.org/ [4 December 2012]

ULTra Global PRT (n.d) [online] available from http://www.ultraglobalprt.com/ [24 November 2012]

Rail Page Forum (2006) France - Bordeaux LRT Statistics [online] available from http:// www.railpage.com.au/f-p705580.htm [3 December 2012]

University of Oxford (2009), Planning for Sustainable Travel October 2009 University of Washington (n.d), Personal Rapid Transit (PRT), Personal Automated Transport (PAT) and PodCar Quicklinks [online] available from http:// faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/ prtquick.htm [28 October 2012]

Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead (n.d), Our Vision for 2012 & Beyond, Windsor & Maidenhead Borough Council Siemens AG (2012) Inductive Charging

Vectus Intelligent Transit (2009) [online] available from http:// www.vectusprt.com/index.php [30 October 2012]

The Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead (n.d), Our Vision for 2012 & Beyond, Windsor & Maidenhead Borough Council

VisitBritain (December 2007), Visitor Trends in the City of London

The Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead (2011) Visitor Economy Statistics and Data[online] available from http://www.windsor.gov.uk/statisticsand-data [22 November 2012] 14


4.0 APPENDICES 4.0.1 Can Public Transport be Sensitive to Historic Centres? Questionnaire with Answers. All answers written verbatim In order to get an understanding of how the residents and visitors of Windsor & Eton feel about the transport solutions currently available, a questionnaire was devised to ask them general and frank questions, along with text boxes to allow them to write their own answers, rather than answering with multiple choice answers.

15


16


17


18


19


20


4.0.2 Public Transport Thoughts & Issues - Questionnaire with Answers All answers written verbatim In order to get an understanding of how the general public felt about public transport what are their biggest issues when using it and what they would like to see in the future of transport design - the following questionnaire was devised.

21


22


23


24


25


26


27


4.0.3 Interview with Peter Hendy. Written summary of discussion. 6th November 2012 To give my project more grounding the Commissioner for Transport for London was interviewed at his headquarters in London. Some questions and topics were discussed, as shown below.

SUBJECT: “CAN A MODERN PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM BE SENSITIVELY INTEGRATED INTO A HISTORIC TOURIST DESTINATION?”

28


29


30


31


4.0.4 Interview with Andrew Rudge. Written transcript of Interview. 17th December 2012 The understand the wider issues associated with integrating transport solutions into the historic urban context, an interview with Andrew Rudge, the then Senior Urban & Planning Advisor for English Heritage was organised.

SUBJECT: “CAN A MODERN PUBLIC TRANSPORT SYSTEM BE SENSITIVELY INTEGRATED INTO A HISTORIC TOURIST DESTINATION?”

32


33


34


35


36


37


38


39


4.0.5 Correspondence with English Heritage Email from Andrew Rudge, Senior Planning & Urban Advisor for English Heritage

40


4.0.6 Correspondence with Windsor Castle Email from Christine Taylor, Visitor Manager at Saxon Tower, The Royal Collection, Windsor Castle

41


4.0.7 Literature Reviews

Transport and the Historic Environment, English Heritage (2004) The article argues the case that in most examples Public Transport does no harm to the Historic Environment. By showcasing the seven main points English Heritage stands for on Transport, the article makes it clear that it is not opposed to implementing new technology into the historic urban context and that usually it can enhance the experience of the town. The seven points English Heritage believes are paramount in ensuring the positive reception to transport in the historic environment are: • encourage a switch to less damaging forms of transport and promote planning policies that help to reduce the need to travel • seek imaginative solutions to transport problems • ensure that transport appraisal properly assesses the impacts on the historic environment to the appropriate level of detail • take account of the wider historic environment • continue to promote good design and push hard for proposals that recognise local and regional distinctiveness • encourage innovative transport management strategies • minimise the impact of air travel on the historic environment These headings show a broad spectrum of the level of interest and issues English Heritage have on public transport and determine how they look on public transport as a whole. The guidelines are of great importance to the project and will determine some direction to the design and strategy of the project.

Transport Innovation in Historic Towns, English Historic Towns Forum (2007) In 2007 the English Towns Historic Forum hosted a series of seminars surrounding the topic of integrating primarily road based transport through historic towns. The two case studies looked at in the article are those of Shrewsbury and Durham. 42


In Shrewsbury an incomplete ring road had, for years, forced traffic through the town centre and so the issues the council and town planners faced were those of congestion, parking and access. By completing building work on the ring road, planners hoped that the need for vehicles to go through the town would be reduced, and that smaller, less polluting, buses would be able to shuttle passengers around within the ring road, with link interchanges providing better provisions between urban and rural journeys. Results of surveys conducted on the public revealed the diverse needs and requirements of the different sectors that make up the town’s economic wellbeing - businesses, residents and visitors to the town. Issues often arise from the basic fact that many historic streets were not designed around the use of motor vehicles and so this alone limits the access to the town’s businesses and amenities. The panel also asked questions such as “which is worse - indiscriminate parking or signs and lines?”, giving an examples of a single track archway without warning signs in Shrewsbury. The similarities and differences of Shewsbury and Durham were explained but that a “Demand Management Stragegy” has been enforced since the millennium and that it was completely revenue neutral, meaning that it was self financing - something the public saw as a bonus. The lessons to be learned from Durham, the article demonstrates, are that an access charge is preferable to a complete ban of vehicular access and that public transport improvements need to proceed the introduction of such charging. Another key ingredient in the successful acceptance of the scheme is to consult with the public about the plans intended and to use publicity campaigns to stir up emotions about a new transport system in the town. The need for a local solution to a local problem also seemed to have importance to the inhabitants of the town. Other considerations for the city included an enhanced public transport service and better facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, meaning that a coherent and integrated public transport system would be realised as part of the plan for Durham.

Inductive Charging, Siemens AG (2012) A powerpoint presentation from Siemens pointing out the key benefits of using Inductive Charging in the automotive industry explains in detail how the technology works. A primary coil is first connected to the grid - by setting it under the road surface, for example. A secondary coil is integrated into the vehicle. During charging, electricity flows through the primary coil, creating a magnetic field, and exciting an electric current in the second coil. The magnetic field forms only in a precisely predefined space between the coils and is not accessible to the driver or passengers or their electronic devices. Once charging is completed, the magnetic field dissipates and it is safe to walk over the primary coil imbedded in the ground.

43


Townscape Townscape remains to this day as one of the fundamentals of urban design, despite having been first published more than fifty years ago. Although it predominantly focuses on the aesthetics and functions of the town and how its design can lead to a consistent experience in the urban environment, Cullen does mention some areas in which traffic can be redesigned to help better integrate it with pedestrian activity and the visual coherence of the context. Townscape also draws attention to details such as railing, planting and materials used.

Mayor’s Transport Strategy The Mayor’s Transport Strategy is a series of case studies and schemes which aim at making London’s transport services a better experience for all. Chapter 5 is of greatest interest to the project as it show-cases various transport proposals which include passenger comfort such as station congestion relief, cooling the tube and customer care. Also shown are suggestions for better use of Thames passenger services, such as increasing the capacity of riverboats, meaning that demand for other transport services will fall thereby reducing the need for as much road-based transit. Transport for London highlights its emphasis on providing accessibility for all by stating that much progress has been achieved in recent years in ensuring that London’s transport services are available for anyone to use. At present, all buses are low-floor and around 20% of underground stations and a third of national rail and London Overground stations are step free from street to platform. All DLR and Thameslink stations and vehicles are fully accessible.

44


5.0 FIGURES 5.2 Results from Questionnaire 1 (Based on 26 Respondents) Under 18

18-25

26-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

60+

AGE RANGE OF RESPONDERS

16%

20%

20%

28% 8%4% 4%

Figure 1 Travel on Modes of Transport

BUS TRAIN TAXI RIVERBOAT 0

2.5

5

7.5

10

Figure 2 45

SOURCE: AUTHOR’S OWN DATA


Frequency of Travel on Public Transport

DAILY ONCE A WEEK TWICE A WEEK ONCE A MONTH TWICE A MONTH ONCE A YEAR 0

2.25

4.5

6.75

9

Figure 3

Reasons for Travel

SOCIAL EDUCATION WORK SHOPPING TOURISM SPORTS 0

5

10

15

20

Figure 4 46

SOURCE: AUTHOR’S OWN DATA


CAR OWNERSHIP

YES

NO

24%

76%

Figure 5

DRIVE USE IN TOWN YES

NO

39% 61%

Figure 6 47

SOURCE: AUTHOR’S OWN DATA


15 11.25 7.5 3.75 0 SENSITIVITY

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

FREQUENCY OF TRANSPORT

NOT HAVING TO WALK

SPEED

NOT IMPORTANT

FAIRLY IMPORTANT

NEITHER IMPORTANT NOR UNIMPORTANT

QUITE IMPORTANT

VERY IMPORTANT Figure 7

48

SOURCE: AUTHOR’S OWN DATA


5.2 Results from Questionnaire 2 (Based on 33 Respondents)

AGE RANGE OF RESPONDERS Under 18

18-25

26-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

60+

4% 4% 4% 8%

79%

Figure 8 Travel on Modes of Transport BUS TRAIN TAXI RIVERBOAT TRAM METRO 0

5

10 Figure 9 49

15

20

SOURCE: AUTHOR’S OWN DATA


Frequency of Travel on Public Transport DAILY ONCE A WEEK UP TO ONCE A WEEK TWICE A WEEK ONCE A MONTH TWICE A MONTH RARELY 0

1.5

3

4.5

6

Figure 10

Reasons for Travel

SOCIAL EDUCATION WORK SHOPPING CONNECTIONS RESIDENTIAL 0

3.75

7.5 Figure 11

50

11.25

15


CAR OWNERSHIP

YES

NO

22%

78%

Figure 12

Reasons for Car use over Public Transport SPACE NOISE COMFORT SPEED PRICE CONVENIENCE CONTROL 0

2.25

4.5

6.75

9

Figure 13 51

SOURCE: AUTHOR’S OWN DATA


MORE ROUTES

HIGHER FREQUENCY

17%

83%

Figure 14

Figure 15

52

SOURCE: AUTHOR’S OWN DATA


5.3 Photographs of Windsor In order to understand the urban context of Windsor, an on-foot survey was conducted mapping the local characteristics and road layout of the town. The following images are the author’s own showing the various features of the town’s road and architecture, as well as some of the town’s transport hubs.

Figure 16

Figure 17

Figure 18

Figure 19

Figure 20 53

SOURCE: AUTHOR’S OWN PHOTOGRAPHS


Figure 21

Figure 22

Figure 23

Figure 24

Figure 25

Figure 26

Figure 27

54

Figure 28

SOURCE: AUTHOR’S OWN PHOTOGRAPHS


Figure 29

Figure 30

Figure 31

55

SOURCE: AUTHOR’S OWN PHOTOGRAPHS


5.4 Photographs of Ultra PRT at Heathrow Airport’s Terminal 5 Following contact with Dr Martin Lowson, a detailed review of his invention - the ULTra PRT system at Heathrow Airport’s Terminal 5 - was carried out. The following images show the infrastructure and the vehicle’s exterior and interior.

Figure 32

Figure 33

Figure 34

Figure 35

Figure 36

Figure 37 56

SOURCE: AUTHOR’S OWN PHOTOGRAPHS


Figure 38

Figure 39

Figure 40

Figure 41

57

SOURCE: AUTHOR’S OWN PHOTOGRAPHS


    



 



 

 $ - 

, 

  



" & #  & 

 $  # $ 



    

   4 

" ,  # 

   

   .

 "  " $

    



 , %

 * # 2 " 

  

 



# 

,  !

&   

!

 

/  &

   &    

 

     



/ &

   

 "   

 

$



  





   # 

& 

   ! 

    

  





  

 



    

    



   * !    

 ! 

 !  



 %    

! $

 .



  "  



 

    

 $

  

&  







 " 



 $%

 



 &  

 #' &.    

  



   

# $%

   

   

' 

  

 &





,



!   .  !

# &* # 

 #  ( 

!  #  



 

 . 

  

 "! 

 

    !

  

!   '

 

 

 '"  

# !  .   # 

 

 $ 

$   

" , 





  %  



   

    %

  . 

    





 ) 5 )

 



 - & 

( //%  

" ! 

%  



  

 

 

 . 1 !  

 $





  ) % ,  # 

( 

 



  #   !

%  $





   

  %

 # 

  

(  

 

  

)   

     

# 2 *



     

 

&  

 

     

 

 

  

%   

 $ % 

 

-

 



#  

 

  



 !

   

3$# 

3. 

1 



$

  

 

#  *

 

  1



   #  #

#'  

   $

 

    

 



 % #

!  %

 #  *  

0' .





 









    $* # 







  

  

 

  !

(  &

#    

,  #  

  

      

      %  

 ! 





  % 

 

 & 

 





" 



  %

  $  & - 







 

 #'  

! 

& " 

  



 

 

   



 

#

            

# 3 $

   

 

   

 

#$

  





  

  

#

          

"   





# & +

  

$ +!  

    

   

 

#  &

!

 

   

 # & "

. 

  

" 

    

"  

"

%   

  $

#    &

, 



! 



%  

$

 

  



. 

   &

  

  #  





  

!



' ,

    

&       

!   



    

 

 &

 $  

   

!   

  

$ & .       

 . 



 



#    

!  

 !



  

  



 

    %  

  



 ,  

$  & 

/  & 

  !

, 



  



#    $ -     

  # %   *  



  .    



/ & 

 

  "  

 

"   

$  

$ 



 ( 

$

 .  

 .

( 

  

 .   &  $       

" 



!   & 

 

 !  

&  

/' 





( 

   

     

   

#  

 

%

 

 !



# 2   * 

     

  



#   # 

 $* !

 

& %3 

 

 

 $   



    !

!  $

$



  % 

# 

   

#    *   

  

  

   ) *

  .    





* # 

 

 &



  

#   



 % $

# 

 )  % *   

 $ % 

% 



  



  5

  

  # 

  

     

1 %   

    

58

 



 

 

'

  $ 

-  &* 



  

 

  

'

  %  

)   %



$    

! 

    

 (     

    

  

 &  



"$   

  



#  

 



Figure 42    

!  

  (       %   

# *



 % 

     

 - &

  $  

 

$ 

  # " &      & ,

 ,  $

   *#

 % # 

  % 

 

  

" & #   

        " 

   

        #

 

   



       



  #&

   

% ! 

, $/

   

  &

, $ 



&   #   

!  " 

 +!

$

  

  + & #  



      #

5.5 Maps 5.5.1 Map of Area

  

 '"  



     *    

 !

 , 

 "   

SOURCE: OPEN STREET MAP


(  

 

  $

 /  /

  &

 

/ 

    (   

    

  %

  $

&  

4    

    

 

    #



 

 !

   

    

  " 

 $ 



,     " 

 $     

&  

 "   

    

   

    

! 

 

(



   ' !



    

  

'   /

$ 



/

  





  

  $ 

  $



"

   

#% 

  "   

 4   $ 



 

 %   $



"%  

+    (   

+    (  + %   

-! 

   

 %      

    %

    

  

 

   

+    $

'    



 $   







   

 

 % 



0  /

  

   

   

   

  "



   



 

  +  (   

     

' $ 

!   $

!  1

+% 

 ! 

 !  

   



    

 

   

     



     ' !



   



  

!

  *   

   

 "

 %   

   

'     " 

*



  



(

 $ 

$  )   

   .

   

"  

  

! 

 *   (   

 





 '  

2

 

(

  

 *



   

. 

 !

     '    !

    



4     

     

% 



%  

0  "   

   

.  

# +  .&&" 

-    

  !

+

 !    

'  

 , ! ' 

*

   

, ! 

"  

 



  2  

 %   



  

) 

 % % 

 !



 !  

-)/  

   /   

 

1 !   

  

.  

(  

           

  

 

  

 $  

%  

 

!

 

+

   

! ' 

'  

%   

'  !

 /  

   

 

 

  



" 

  

 

   

 '

  

#     



(    $



  ! '

SOURCE: OPEN STREET MAP

     " 

  /

&%  

" $   

 . 

     





  " !

         

 

 !/     

 $ % %

&

+     

% 

.  

   

  

,  $ 

( $ 

,    

   " % 



 

 

1 ! $



       

    

  

    )  

,    

  !

59 $ 

Figure 45 

 

     

 

  

 .

 $ 

' 

  

 

 

 

  

 # 

#



*

    

  

   /

 

$  

   

 

  %

  

$  -  

"    

 .  

 +

*

 

 

     

 

 

%   +    

 

  

  

 !   

   

         !

    "

' 

' !   

  

 

 

  '

   

5.5.2 Map of Windsor, Clewer New Town & Dedworth

Marked are community focal points - schools, medical centres, sports grounds, places of worship, barracks etc

 

 



   

 






!   

  ' 



  

  

# $ 



  

    





" 







"



$ 









  

  

 

 



   

'    

) 

!    

  .

   

 

 !    

$ 

   

$ 

% 

1%- 

  

  

   

.   

# 

   



  

   

 ' 

  +  

  

   

  

!   

  





    



 

  

'   

 ' 









* +



   

  

  

  

 

'  

   &

 

 



 &

 

   0

 6   & 

&

  ! 

   

 " 

3"24 00



$&    

 '

  

!   

$  %



<

 #



(



  "

   



8

 ,   "

? 

   9>

 

5   7"" 

   

      



 

  



 

    



 

    "

 !&+  

   ! "

&

 

(""   

   .

. 

  

 



  

$

 !&+  "

  

  !       "

  '

  (& 

=

=8

  

  

 (

8

  

'  

3"24 &

=

 

  

    

 

 

   



       



  (&



2 

 $ %

89:8;

!  

   

  

, 

' 



 &

 



   

&       

'



   

"   





    

 (

 ' 











' 

2

'   2

   

  

 

'  



$  

 

$  

! 



 &      

  

  

  

# " 

 

  



 

'   2   

  

*   +  

   

   



* +



! 

 

, 

 

60

. 

 '%   

Figure 43

 

  



    ' 

 

 

   

  







  

     

    

 &

      

   ' 

        +   ' 

    

  &





 

  &





 



)      



  



 '" 

1&



/  0

 

   

 (&    . ## '  

  

5.5.3 Map of Windsor & Eton Main Areas of Interest are Shown

   $  & 

   ' 

 (& 

  



  &-

SOURCE: OPEN STREET MAP

.




   

        

 

 

  - 

  

 - 

  

  

  

  

 

  

 

() *    + 

 

    

   





 

+   

$   

  

      1& -2 33

$    

#    



  



  

 

  

$ 

   #



   



;

   

  

$ !/  

  0   % 

#   & 

 



 &  .   

$  

<9



   

 &

    

 $ !/  &

   



    &

  

+

    

  

 

9

     &

   

     

       



     %

  

     

  

   '

   

  ,!

&  8

  

;<

$  

  



  $ 

 

;

       

  , 

!!  "#

9:

   $

9

 



  

    + 

733

,!+  '..$  

 **

  



    

1& -2  !



   

 ,!

  

   

  

$ 

    

!     

       3

  5+   ! 

   

   

  $ 

 ! 

   

   

  

$  



  

$   

#   

61   ! 

 !

Figure 44    !

    

        

   

         

    



     

       

  

  /    

!    

   



   

   

  

   

4   

6&&  

 

  

!

 " 



   &     

   . '.    + ! ,

     

  

  &  

( !

5.5.4 Map of Windsorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Historic Centre

Marked are Points of Interest based on volumes indicated in the Windsor Visitor Guide 2011 Final Report. Transport is shown in red



  

 %  !



  

SOURCE: OPEN STREET MAP


6.0 FINAL CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Sensitive Infrastructure

Low Impact Transport

Developing Technologies

Public Spaces Routes/Frequency Planning Volumes/Flows

Design Language Passenger Needs Town Study Passenger Experience

Power train Power source Materials Technology

Interview Published Data Questionnaire

Interview Published Data Questionnaire

Interview Published Data

Transcript/ Written Report

Analysed & Data Collected

Analysed, Data Collected & Written Up

62


6.1 Research Objective A: Sensitive Infrastructure 6.1.1 Questionnaire to Inhabitants of Windsor

A questionnaire was written as part of research into residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; thoughts and experiences on public transport in and around the Windsor area. They were asked what sort of transport they took, how frequently they took it, as well as the challenges they face when using public transport. The questions asked were written to gain an insight into the decisions and problems residents and commuters face when using public transport in Windsor, as well as the intentions of using private transport as opposed to communal transport. Respondents were given the opportunity to write their own thoughts and ideas in text boxes throughout the questionnaire, which gave them the freedom of giving more thorough responses (see fig. 5.1 for questionnaire data graphs). The respondents were shown different modes of urban public transit and asked to select their preferred mode and give an explanation as to why they chose it. These answers gave a direction towards views on various types of public transport and therefore a direction for the project.

6.1.2 Interview with Andrew Rudge, (the then) Senior Urban & Planning Advisor, English Heritage To gain a greater understanding about the wider issues associated with public transport in the historic context, Andrew Rudge, the then Senior Urban & Planning Advisor for English Heritage was interviewed. Rudge spoke about English Heritageâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s stand on public transport and his thoughts on how it can complement the historic urban context. The conversation continued on the subjects of implementing modern guidance systems underneath historic road surfaces, the design language he feels would work well against landmarks in the town and parts of the historic landscape which may not be obvious, such as hedges, scheduled monuments and ancient trees.

63


During the interview it transpired that English Heritage are very supportive of public transport due to its replacement of private transport in the town. The overuse of cars, he says, is detrimental to the historic urban context as is everything which goes with the car, such as signage, parking and even the need for parking in the first place. By removing cars and replacing them with a coherent and modern service, it is possible to add value to the environment. The design, therefore, should suit the context of the vehicle and should try not to distract from the environment - in this case the castle and other historic structures in the town centre.

6.1.3 Desk Based Research

Desk based research surrounding Objective A was focused primarily around three main publications - Transport in the Historic Environment, from English Heritage; Transport Innovations in Historic Towns from the English Historic Towns Forum and finally Townscape by Gordon Cullen. The purpose of this research was to determine whether the approach of expert bodies to transport in the historic environment. English Heritage are serious about minimising the effect of 21st century living in historic towns, and one of the best ways of ensuring this is by encouraging the use of public transport over the car. The overuse of the car in towns has been harmful to the historic environment and obtrusions such as signage and parking have meant that landmarks and buildings of significant importance have begun to disappear behind the requirement for the motor car. The English Historic Towns Forum hosts seminars - and in 2007 the conference looked at how transport - vehicular, in this case - can be sensitively integrated into a town. The two towns looked at in the article documenting the symposium are Shrewsbury and Durham. In Shrewsbury, the paper concluded, the completing of a ring road would diminish the need for transport in the town centre, whereas in Durham by charging access to vehicles wishing to get into the city centre congestion was, in some cases, reduced by 90%. In Townscape, Cullen uses the analogy that traffic inside buildings is primarily made up of pedestrians and that collisions are rare and fatalities even more so. On a forecourt a car may realise its intrusion to the world of the pedestrian and make or give way to him. However, when a pedestrianâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s world is reduced to pavements problems start to emerge. He agrees that cars create a visual intrusion but also points

64


out that they take up the reserve of the pedestrian, which, in essence is who the street was originally intended for. Cullen also demonstrates how different surfacing materials on roads can be used to create conventions. An examples given is â&#x20AC;&#x153;A street or square limited to pedestrian use would be protected by a stretch of cobbles across its access. Convention: no car may drive across cobblesâ&#x20AC;?. This removes the need for signage and painted lines, making them as part of the road and therefore a way of enhancing the surrounding environment. From talking with Andrew Rudge, it emerged that there was such an organisation which aimed at realising some of the ideas and theories set out by Gordon Cullen. The charity, Living Streets, was founded in 1929 and helped to introduce the driving test and the highway code. Today the charity has organised campaigns such as Walk to School and works towards making the street a better environment for pedestrians. In conclusion it is possible to see that streets and pavements are vital to the visual coherence of the town and need to be taken into consideration in the overall design and that in order to receive a positive reception to the proposal for Windsor the design of the vehicle will need to complement the roads it passes.

65


6.2 Research Objective B: Low Impact Transport 6.2.1 Questionnaire to General Public about Public Transport

As part of research into the general publicâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s thoughts and decisions when using pubic transport, a questionnaire was created. They were asked which types of public transport they used, how frequently and why. It asked questions which gave insight into the issues the public faces when using communal transport services and the reasons why some preferred using their own private car. By providing respondents with the ability to write their own answers in text boxes, those who took part in the survey were able to give far more diverse and comprehensive answers. Results show that despite the majority claiming to use public transport everyday, for tasks such as shopping and for social reasons, a greater proportion of respondents also claim that they drive a car into town as well (see fig. 5.2). The main reasons for the decision to use a car in town were the cost of public transport, its frequency and the overall comfort and experience of the journey. This shows that there is a need for personal transport in the town, however through the use of PRT public transport can be made to seem personal due to its small size, on-demand characteristic. It would also lower the running cost due to inexpensive fuel and increase accessibility in the town by allowing the elderly and disabled, in particular, to move around the town without hassle. Congestion would no longer be a problem and emissions in the town would be significantly reduced.

66


6.2.2 Interview with Peter Hendy, Commissioner for Transport for London As the first expert interviewed for the project, the questions set for Peter Hendy differed from being fairly broad to quite specific in order to understand how to plan and run a widespread transport network, such as TfL. Hendy spoke about the importance of consistency in the planning of a system and to use as few routes as possible to aid against the confusion of passengers. Over the course of the interview subjects such as PRT, pricing and future developments in public transport came up and he even provided some useful contact information which helped further some research topics in the project. By using social media, it would be possible to crowd source data and dispatch the appropriate number of vehicles to a given location at a given time which in turn would decrease waiting times. Overall Hendy agrees that PRT is cheaper to run and more environmentally friendly than using buses, but that they do carry fewer passengers. They wouldn’t work so well in London, for example, which has a population of just over 8 million inhabitants and which sees more than 24.8 million journeys made to, from or within London everyday (Transport for London, 2011). But in a town such as Windsor which has a population of only 27,000 and, at its peak, 7,000 daily visitors to the castle (see app. 4.0.6) the demand would not be as great. Due to PRT being ondemand, passengers would be able to have a customised route based upon their desired destination. For example, if a group of tourists wished to see the town they would be given announcements centered around visiting Windsor. Passengers needing to get to the hospital, however, would not, even if they were to pass the castle.

6.2.3 Desk Based Research

In terms of the design language, as Rudge pointed out, it really depends on where the vehicle is to be used. The design has to complement, and not distract from, its surroundings. Therefore, much of the desk based research gathered during the length of the module looked at how public transport can reinforce a town’s appeal to tourists wishing to see the area. The purpose of sifting through these articles was primarily to see whether public transport had been successfully integrated into a historic town before and whether this had been achieved recently. Articles and journals looked at include the article “What Modern Trams can do for Cities”, which highlights the success of the trams in Croydon, Nottingham and Manchester.

67


The majority of articles looked at were PDF documents, however there were also some web-based and printed articles. One such case study looked at, which has influenced the project somewhat, is the proposed city of Masdar, south of Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. The city is to have zero emissions and so conventional ICE (internal combustion engine) vehicles would be banned from inside the city walls, meaning that all need for travel would be carried out using PRT - including the transporting of freight. Passenger vehicles are small pods which carry around 4-5 people on either elevated or ground based guideways. Other methods of urban rapid transit can be found in the town of Medellin, in which a comprehensive integrated transport network operates - moving the 2.7 million inhabitants daily. One of the more interesting vehicles is the cable car which carries passengers up to the suburb of Santo Domingo Savio in the Central Anden mountains. Due to the topography of Windsor, a cable car is not an obvious mode of transport however due to their capability of traveling long distances it could be a viable option for traversing the river and getting passengers to the outskirts of the town - such as Eton Dorney, Legoland and Windsor Great Park. The majority of new public transport proposals have worked well in their towns and therefore there is no reason why Windsor should be an exception. By using PRT in the town, users would feel more independent than other transport modes (such as a bus or tram) and more like in their own vehicle, except without the need to concentrate on the road and knowing that they are not causing any harm to both the physical and aesthetic environment. Because of the nature of Windsor - being a popular tourist town - viewing outside of the vehicle is paramount and so it will need to be transparent in some form or other.

68


6.3 Research Objective C: Developing Technologies Information from Industry Source & Desk Based Research

In order to find some solid information about developing and future transport technologies, a source in the automotive industry was used. The source provided some powerpoint presentations and PDF documents covering technologies such as hybrid drive, electric battery technology and inductive charging, all of which are available publicly. The direction of the project already pointed towards the use of inductive charging technology at stops and so the information provided helped to support the argument for a modern transport system in Windsor. By using inductive charging, fewer batteries would be needed onboard the vehicle as the range would be split up into smaller sections. One journal which also had significance in the project is a roadmap of future technologies and projects up to 2050. Although it is aimed towards automotive technology, it still shows that demand for fossil fuels will start to diminish around 2020 and that electric, hybrid and plug in hybrid technology would start to become the norm for mid to long range journeys. By the year 2040 hydrogen technology would be developed and by 2050 it would be the third most popular form of fuel along with electricity and plug in hybrid powertrains. Battery technology at present is still in its early forms, but by the year 2026 - the year the project is set around - it is expected to be fairly grounded. By studying different lithium ion battery types it is possible to see that nickel-maganese-cobalt would be the best performing, however as these are still developing technologies this is only an estimate. Safety, therefore, is going to increase and the charging cycle is going to become more reliable.

69


7.0 SPECIFICATION

The proposed modern public transport system must deliver the following points to ensure its positive reception and smooth operation in the town. The vehicle must... • not distract from the historic surroundings. • accommodate enough passengers to make the service viable, but still feel individual and personal. • focus on being an on-demand service which provides users with customised announcements based upon their itinerary. • feature on-board luxuries such as internet connectivity, live timings & arrivals and routes. • be an attraction in its own right. • provide ample opportunity for the viewing of local attractions. • give residents and commuters a better experience than driving through the town. • be comfortable, even if the journey is short. • accommodate the disabled, push-chairs and shopping.

The system must... • integrate easily into the historic surroundings. • serve local amenities such as hospitals, schools and sports grounds. • serve points of interest including historic landmarks, parks and the river. • provide easy interchanges with transport hubs - i.e, the two railway stations and the river boat mooring. • provide inter-rural and urban access for residents and commuters. • allow for future growth and development to the wider area. • be economical to run, providing an affordable service to users. • accommodate varying sizes of vehicle to cope with journey types and peak hours. • deliver a consistent flow of vehicles to reduce waiting times.

70


8.0 INFO-GRAPHIC POSTER COPY Please consult the info-graphic poster which accompanies this paper for more information

71

Sensitive Transport in Historic Towns  

This paper aims to stimulate a high level of design when faced with integrating a new public transport system into historic surroundings. It...

Sensitive Transport in Historic Towns  

This paper aims to stimulate a high level of design when faced with integrating a new public transport system into historic surroundings. It...

Advertisement