A memory Transport interchanges. Comment on the TfL report, Interchange plan 2002. John Lindsay Reader in Information Systems Design Kingston University 1. Introduction It is an enormous step forward from either the Serplan report of 1983 or even London Transport in 1996 BUT from the point of view of outer London, it is missing the four points I made at the GLA scrutiny meeting on the Mayors transport strategy for London, most importantly the areas immediately outside London. The act requires the Mayor to be concerned with flows into and out of London, for outer London it is those which create most traffic. So the areas outside London for interchange purposes MUST be included, and this needs to be shouted at TfL as quickly and loudly as possible. Every connector needs to be identified. My second angle is on the importance of walking and green fingers o llinks into the countryside. This is completely missing. Also missing is anything about community participation. The whole method seems to have been them sitting in an office somewhere. The people on the ground who know and use have not been consulted. Id be fascinated to know how many of the officials involved are motorists :) but the four panels I talked in reporting the transport information working group about are needed and urgently to review the proposals. In interpreting the Mayors policies sustainable development and the link to local agenda 21 seems too to have been missed.. there are one or two genuflections, and the absence might be a result of absences of clarity in the Mayors strategy, but the comments on policies are revealing of understanding. Information provision is identified in the executive summary on page i, though green fingers are not. It is predominantly on information and its relation with interchange that I will concentrate. References to the plan will be by paragraph number so at this stage unfortunately, these comments will not be comprehensible without reference to the plan. 1. Identification of types Much of the report is concerned with developing a taxonomy of interchanges, then a method for evaluation, then an evaluation of instances within types. Category A comprises the central London terminii. This seems indisputable. These are a special class of object and need to be treated in their own right. They need not concern us further here. Category B includes other major central London interchanges. From the perspective of outer London, this seems to give unnecessary weight to a particularity, and then those identifiable give question both to the method adopted and to those identified. This is not however worth pursuing in detail except to show that it might represent an idiom of thought? Category C represents major interchanges outside central London. This is where fault emerges. The major interchanges are missing as they lie outside the border of what in 1965, 1974 or 2000 might be considered London. The important ones might be Reading, Slough, Gerrards Cross, High Wycombe, Watford, Potters Bar, Broxbo0urne, Bishops Stortford, Chelmsford, Dartford, Sevenoaks, Purley, Redhill, Gatwock, Sutton, Epsom, Leatherhead, Guildford, (and as Ive done this from memory I might have missed some). These are important because they have fast frequent services into the centre and or because they represent significant nodes in themselves. District interchanges are in Category D. These again seem to be at fault as the role of rail rather than bus or underground is not understood. Surbiton for example, having a fast frequent service and being in its own right an interchange would be major rather than district. Category E is local. This is then worked out in detail for a section of North East London later, but not done equivalently for the rest of the area which is needed. But missing from the method is the issue of which interchanges could have most improvement for least effort, bang for buck and buck for bang. Rather than the elaborate method identified in this report, it would be much more simple to group those which are capable of being identified as interchanges already and are simply not seen as such, those which need simply a yellow line on the pavement, those which need simple improvement and those which need elaborate engineering. This is all argued in interchanges in greenandsmart.org. If you look at an OS map, there are about 73 places where railway lines cross railway lines and could make interchanges. Similarly if you see where motorways cross railway lines, there could be interchanges contributing to traffic reduction. Those for the M25 as they currently exist are given in infosys.king.ac.uk/ISSchool/Research/greenandsmart/pages/m25.htm When it comes to the actual clumping within categories the issue of what comprises an interchange is not addressed. Is it accepted that a 300 metre walk is acceptable? Is this a design issue or are there some identifiable categories? Does it perhaps depend on connectivity? So West Croydon and East Croydon should perhaps be seen as a single Croydon Interchange? or is the dividor the complexity of the representation of the Interchange? Camden Town and Camden Road, Hackney, Walthamstow (see my greenandsmart.org/s6/s6_walthamstow.html ) While on types, I would have thought there is an argument for identifying the areas where huge development opportunities could achieve interchange and network effect. There are five of these in Brent. This needs demonstration but was argued in a paper presented to a conference organised by Brent nearly ten years ago. 2. Green fingers and walking Completely missing is linking walking, interchanges and the countryside. This seems strange as the concept is identified in the urban renaissance report, again in the Select Committee report on walking in towns and cities and in the response of the government. If this was factored in as a component of the method then the identification of interchange classes would change. If it was accepted that rather than going shopping, going for a walk was a criterion, then the identification of those components easily demonstrable could be implemented almost immediately. Health promotion improvement plans, sustainable development plans, local transport plans, unitary development plans and rights of way improvement plans, at the very least, could all be used to achieve these real changes. Simply, the Capital Ring, the LOOP, the Thames National Path, the North Downs Way, the Colne Valley, the Lea Valley and the Ridgeway give the broad structure then these need connecting by opportunities such as the Hogsmill Valley. Protecting and promoting this concept needs to be an important part of the spatial strategy which in its turn needs to see the role of interchanges. Walking then allows for the construction of a different type of interchange which becomes a concentrator and connector in its own right, a major new facility, for example Regents Park, Hampstead Hill, the central parks, Osterley, and eventually the Landscape Gallery, 10,000 sq km around London. All of this is missing from 2.4 - 2.7 or 2.8 - 2.24. It then informs the whole method. 3. Policy objectives The method continues by identifying the policy objectives from the Mayors strategy. It seems however to lose the top level strategic goal from which all others follow: traffic reduction; to achieve an irreversible shift from the private motorcar to public transport. Walking as the sustainable development mode of transport, which then requires public transport and interchanges to give a whole network function to the city in the region. 3.25 at least admits the weakness of the body of knowledge on which the drafters of the report were working. The concept of a network and a network effect seems not to be grasped. Thereafter the method 3.36 - 3.46 raise significant hostages to fortune which would need more detailed consideration than can be given here except to add that community participation is missing entirely. 4. Results There is then some weighting identified without a methodological justification which will distort the results. Given my argument above about bang for buck and green fingers, one would come to significantly different results. The concept of a tidemark is introduced. I understand the concept though not the naming of it. It is recognisable that if you degenerate from a ten trains an hour service to a two trains an hour service then upgrading the two and hour to at least four an hour would be necessary. Putting this in, will change the method and the results. Given the argument about development potential, then the whole categorisation and well as the method would change and then the results significantly. 5. Implementation process 5.1 makes an interesting assertion on the failures in the past which in itself could be elaborated. Given the expense of the Jubilee Line Extension, the weakness of the information involved in interchanging is striking. See my evaluations of them on jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/trip for detail. Since opening there has been no improvement. 5.2 refers to partnerships and then transport providers. This shows the failure to understand that transport and interchange is something done by their victims, and the community must be involved in the process and the partnershp. Information is not identified and my contention is that this will be central. What would be very useful is to identify those interchanges which are already identifed as good practice and work out what makes them work. TfL may clearly work as a catalyst but it will require much more re-engineering the concepts. The Select committee report on walking in towns and cities points specifically to the role of universities. the rest of the implementation process would change were my arguments accepted. 6. Representation Missing entirely is how the network will be represented and how the interchange concept will transform the network. We live in the shadow of the Beck representation. The maps provided are interesting but show the predominance in thinking regarding central London and the stunning absence of thought about outer London and the region. Fig 4.1 could with a felt tip pen be transformed. This would not however help in representation and this needs real novel thinking. Needless to say, I would work on my As easy as 1-2-3. greenandsmart.org/s8/index.html 7. Bibliography It is surprising for a work of this size that no bibliography is given nor any reference to possible works considered, if only to show the progress in the body of knowledge which this report represents. 8. Appendix 2. This represents the shopping list. I will simply note alternative views without numbering or comment. More work on this could be done with interested parties. Euston and Euston Square See Waterloo and Waterloo East as a single interchange then London Bridge, Clapham Junction, Charing Cross, Victoria, Blackfriars, Cannon St., become components, Surbiton, Orpington, Woking, Sevenoaks, all represented as a single line, and you change the shape of Londons transport. Charing Cross with Waterloo as a single interchange and all the criteria change. Notting Hill Gate - not interesting - what is the value of the effort in the method if this is the result? Edgeware Rd., with the recognition of the Bakerloo line becomes interesting, but even more so if Marylebone is understood, recognising that already the underpass exists. If this is combined with Baker St then there is a major new interchange which takes us back to size, representation then spatial strategy and landscaping. Warren St raises the same sort of issue with Euston Square, Gt. Portland St., perhaps Regents Park, but again the inner London fixation. It is only by the C1 grouping that we begin to address outer London significances. Croydon I have covered already. But thereafter the weakness of the method is demonstrated. Why Peckham Rye? It, along with Tulse Hill, Herne Hill and others is already an interchange. The difficulty is simply in the information. Where can you get to from PR? Ditto Lewisham. See my greenandsmart.org/s6/s6_lewisham.html then Clapham Junction appears, followed by Aldgate East. This is risible. But why not make Aldagte East clump with Aldgate, and even perhaps Fenchurch St and Tower Gateway? Elephant and Castle is already an interchange but to where? How do you work out Sevenoaks? Connex not even mentioned. What about the Blackfriars connection? What about Loughborough Junction? or the line right through South London? Vauxhall is an opportunity to raise again major attractors, this time Tate. See my infosys.king.ac.uk/ISSchool/Research/greenandsmart/pages/Tate.html Harrow and Wealdstone raises Harrow total and the whole structure of outer London. Camden Rd raises the whole Bargol - Kingston opportunity. Hackney like Harrow. The fixation with the Underground hides the functionality of the existing services and interchanges which are simply unbecked. Then why New Cross Gate without New Cross and by what logic Rotherhithe? By now one must be convinced that the whole elaborate fixation with the pseudo method is a prefabrication and more could have been achieved simply by taking a map and a coloured pen. Canada Water? Limehouse though is indicative of an information and structure example. Kentish Town raises both West, and Gospel oak with a real development potential. The role of development opportunity seems missing from the method. Wembley will demonstrate this even more. Dalston brings in the orbirail or ring rail? Bethnal Green is an interchange with the central line plus the weakness of the connections into Hackney. Wanstead Park shows the gap in thinking, it is an interchange with Forest Gate which becomes simply an information and yellow line issue, with Woodgrange Park and Manor Park, but only one pair needed. This is a gateway to Epping Forest. Harringey Green Lanes is an interchange with Harringey plus raises Piccadilly Line, manor Park, Finsbury Park or a new interchange. South Tottenham is an interchange with Seven Sisters. Walthamstow I have referred to already, but one wonders whether they didnt even notice the Chingford Line? Upper Holloway with Archway and by this stage one wonders why the method with the emphasis on north east London? I suppose I should then put in some of mine? My categories would be 1. Simply information. 2. Information plus yellow line (another information) 3. Information, yellow line and a bit of fiddling around, perhaps an improved service? 4. Some engineering 5. Major opportunity for development and reshaping of London space. I wont try to do anything major here, simply indicate: How about Sudbury? Just some trains perhaps? A major connector to central London too. Bowes Park and Bounds Green, but a tidemark. Alexander Palace and Wood Green Leytonstone and High Rd Hampstead is referred to South Hampstead and Swiss Cottage White City and Latimer Rd plus the Clapham Junction Willesden Line or perhaps the Shepherds Bush interchange Acton Putney and Putney East Heathrow in totality of course, with Hatton Cross, Waterlside, Central, Terminal 4, Bath rd. Waterloo, East and Charing X, London Bridge Ive referred to and shows the real distortions of Beck. Lancaster Gate and Paddington, Bayswater and Queensway shows the weakness of Beck Tulse Hill, Herne Hill Ive referred to. Brixton, Loughborough Junction, Ive referred to. Balham, pure information, not beck and ten minutes to Victoria,. West Norwood, West and North Dulwich Catford Wimbledon South and Merton Park - tram - this fascinates me - why is the underground connection missing from the tram representation? Morden and Morden South - 100 metres - they have had since 1929 to sort this. Streatham and Common Penge East, and West plus much bigger, the whole of Crystal Palace and Beckenham Junction. and of course Surbiton and Kingston. This again is simply from memory and not from my notes or maps. IK have also not included the out of London components referred to earlier.
Posted on: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 23:48:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015