1. An independent view of the transport issues Malcolm Buchanan Colin Buchanan and Partners

2. Limited experience Park and ride for Cambridge 1985? Cambridge Transport Plan Study 1991 Expansion at Haverhill 1999? Cambridge sub region study 2001 Reading: - CHUMMS - Cambridge Futures

3. Local Plan Study 1991

4. LPS Buses

5. Mode choice 1991

6. Local Plan Study Proposals 1991

8. CHUMMS Study Area

9. CHUMMS Recommendations

10. Transport Objectives within a Regional Plan Increase accessibility Ditto for freight Reduce environmental impacts Improve safety Equity / social inclusiveness Contribute to achievement of planning aims Integration??? Minimise public sector costs in achieving above

11. What are the planning goals to which transport might contribute? Preserve the special character of Cambridge Control of urban expansion Prevent coalescence of communities Capitalise on the job and wealth creation potential Accommodation of housing and jobs etc.

12. What sort of transport system does this require? Good connections to jobs? Right lifestyles/image? Attention to needs of young families? Access to brownfield sites? Capable of serving small communities?

13. The Cambridge Futures Options Minimum growth Densification Necklace Green Swap Transport links Virtual corridor New town

14. The sub region study options Cambridge centred Mixed (city, green belt, market towns) Market town/corridor A (Huntingdon, St Neots, Newmarket, Royston) Market town/corridor B (Haverhill, St Neots, Newmarket, Royston)

15. Travel times (1991=100) Virtual highway 105 Transport links 141 New town 158 Densification 176 Minimum growth 179 Necklace 184 Green Swap 187

16. Mode shares Option Car Bike Bus Rail

17. So is transport an issue? No? Transport is insufficiently built into the options? The models do not reflect transport differences sufficiently? - Car ownership/land use? - Parking policy? - Mode choice?

18. Guided Busways?

20. Cycling and mopeds

21. Design for sustainability Density? Layout Land use mix Access priority The sustainable village?

22. What travel markets can be served by conventional public transport? Trips to/from city centres: - bus - rail - tram - P&R Long distance trips Trips to other major trip attractors

23. Unplanned P&R

26. RAIL JOURNEY SPEEDS NON-LONDON 49 42 48 52 51 83 160 77 75 91 Manchester-Nottingham Cambridge-Worcester Southampton-Bristol Oxford-Bristol Grantham-Hull Running speed mph Distance (over track miles) Journey

27. LONDON REGION NON- RADIAL RAIL JOURNEY SPEEDS 32 26 36 40 49 170 140 135 130 165 Canterbury-Brighton Milton Keynes – Basingstoke Oxford – Croydon Guildford – Luton Bedford – Southampton Speed (mph) Time (mins) Journey

31. Essentials of 19 th Century Technology Locomotives or powered rail cars Friction drive Power supplies (diesel or electric current) Trains Wheel flanges Points Signal systems Drivers

32. NBP 21 st Century Rail Technology? Linear induction motor Single modular shuttles Non-stop journeys origin – destination Contactless “trains” at 100mph Freezing of points/steering of vehicles Mixed passenger and freight “trains” Car technology suspension Tilting No signals or drivers Use of existing (and augmented network) 160kph(100mph) station-station journey speeds

33. Conclusions 1 An interesting contribution to the debate Models don’t tell you everything Conventional public transport can beat the car in only a few circumstances Plan for the car where you can’t beat it We need a technical breakthrough There is one coming

34. Conclusions: what transport for the region? Layout and design for: Walk everywhere Cycle and mopeds/electric bikes everywhere in range (SAFELY) Bus to city and major destinations (viability) Bus as rail (longer distance necklaces) Rail P&R Car: restrict where alternatives exist; plan Seek new alternatives