Spatial City Park and Ride Transport Planning - Essay Example

?Q2 Spatial Park and Ride Transport Planning Spatial planning calls for taking into due consideration the amount of space available and themany functions this space is supposed to serve. One of the areas of consideration is Park and Ride transport system. The system is meant to have people park their cars, motorcycles and bicycles at a given place the take a ride in larger vehicle like a bus to complete their journey. The destinations include offices, market places, banks, schools, hospitals, residential areas, entertainment spots, leisure parks, airports, railway stations and city exit highways among others. The transport system must therefore be designed in a way that enables a smooth transition from a personal to a collective mode of transport (Rondanini, 1981, 42). It is important to note that buses used for this purpose are big and clumsy vehicles that need lots of space to turn, park and take off as the services they offer may demand. The main advantage of buses is that they are cheap to move in because they carry a lot of people at a go thus the passengers benefit from economies of scale. Moreover, despite their clumsiness, they are far more versatile than trams and trains which need more room and rails in order to run. They are therefore an integral part of city transport planning (Le Corbusier, 1985, 81). All the same due to their clumsiness, one of the things to avoid in planning is the idea of the Park and Ride buses moving everywhere in the town thus causing snarl ups and a general bad temper among motorists and pedestrians alike. Buses must have specific routes that they use so as to avoid this unpleasant eventuality. However, these routes will prove to be of little use if they do not get the passengers as close to where they wish to go as possible (Le Corbusier, 1985, 81). The London Park and Ride System Plan A close look at the London Plan reveals that all these factors were taken into consideration when the transport system was being designed. Though it is not a building, a road design still has to adhere to the three tenets of architecture identified by the Roman architect Vitruvius being firmitas, utilitas, venustas (durability, utility and beauty) (Rowland & Howe,1999, 2). For the transport system, durability depends on utility in that the roads must continue to serve their purposes without the need to change them. The system also needs to be well made overall for aesthetic value (Rowland & Howe,1999, 2). The London bus plan seen in Fig 1 below was actually set up to ensure that all the major areas were either served directly by bus and other light transit forms such as small goods trucks or the transport was available as close to them as possible. The main transit line cuts right across the city from Notting Hill in the west to Liverpool Street in the east across the river Thames. Links were created along this main line connecting other parts of the city northwards and southwards. The East London transit phase connected the transit lines in the east of the city while the several extensions that were made later connected other areas to the north and south. Tramlinks at The Bus Route System Fig. 1 London Bus Routes (Courtesy of Maps of the World, 2011, Croydon, Purley and Sutton to the south served a similar purpose of connecting the southern areas of the city (The London Plan, 2011). As seen in Fig 1 above most of the bus routes are concentrated around the center of the city between the Marble Arch and Trafalgar Square. This is because the center of the city is naturally where most of the business and tour activities take place hence a high number of visitors. As stated earlier, the design of these transport system cannot fail to take into consideration the aesthetic value and general heritage of the city. The routes were strategically designed to pas as close as possible to the major landmarks of the city. The landmarks include the Buckingham Palace, Westminster Cathedral, Trafalgar Square, The London Bridge and the three parks of Regent’s, Green/St. James and Kensington/Hyde. Others are the Tower Bridge, the London Bridge, museums, theatres, the Big Ben and the Barbican Center among others (The London Plan, 2011). The purposes of this kind of design are as follows. First there are obviously a large number of visitors who wish to visit these areas and consequently it is only convenient that they are dropped as close as possible to their destinations by the cheapest available road transport means. Moreover, there are those who are heading elsewhere by do not mind catching a glimpse of some of these outstanding features while in their way. The sights obviously enrich their experience while traveling in the city. Furthermore, because of the large number of people who visit these places, buses are a more efficient mode of transport as they carry more passengers and occupy relatively less space than if cars carried them (The London Plan, 2011). Another outstanding thing about the London bus transport system is the setting aside of special lanes for buses different from those used by other vehicles. This was aimed at creating transport efficiency by allowing the buses to use their own lanes. This bus lane system is also used in cities such as Hong Kong, New York and Santiago. London itself has a total of 240 kilometers of road set aside for some 2, 800 buses. These bus lanes have undergone a lot of redesigning to increase both their beauty and eco-friendliness. The roads are reduced to two parallel tracks with well trimmed grass growing in between. This has greatly increased the aesthetic value of the road designs and made the mode of transport more attractive. But this design is only possible so far in exclusive interconnecting bus lanes without any parallel roads used by other traffic forms (Menzies, & Campbell, 2006, 4). The Park and Ride system encourages motorists driving into town to park their cars in secure areas outside the city center areas then ride on buses and in some cases trams into town. This is a highly efficient method of reducing traffic congestion in the city. The logic of it is that one 50 seater bus can replace 40 or so vehicles that would otherwise be clogging the road (Menzies, & Campbell, 2006, 4). This system was made more attractive by ensuring that the parking areas are conveniently close to the Park and Ride buses that would then carry the persons who left their cars conveniently into the town. Moreover, a well set up Closed Circuit TV system ensures that all the vehicles are kept under tight security watch as the owners go about their business (Menzies, & Campbell, 2006, 6). In terms of costs it is cheaper to move around in the cars with their low and stable fares. The prospect of driving around in the London jam with the high costs of vehicle parking in the town plays a great role as a deterrent to all who wish to hang around town in their cars. And to make the system more efficient, priority is given to bus transport all a round the town to enable the buses to have right of way in traffic. Furthermore, modern buses that are both attractive to look at and comfortable to ride are used to replace the good old Routemaster double-decker buses that have been the most recognized face of London for years (Menzies, & Campbell, 2006, 8). The efficiency of the Park and Ride system is also further enhanced by the availability of a large number of staff members to serve clients at all the sites. The staff is available for 24 hours thus ensuring that adequate service is offered to make it convenient for all potential clients going for it. This is part of the effort that is made to make the ride an attractive and viable alternative to motoring. A good example of a Park and Ride service is the Babraham Center in Cambridge (Menzies, & Campbell, 2006, 9). So this method has largely achieved its overall objective of securing a modal shift towards public transport in order to contain congestion and be environmentally friendly as well. It has also greatly uplifted public transport and reduced congestion in the city to a great extent. Nevertheless, it is still far from the panacea of London traffic snarl ups but it is a great step in the right direction in terms of making an effort to solve this pesky menace of modern cities (Menzies, & Campbell, 2006, 14). References Le Corbusier, 1985, Towards a New Architecture, New York: Dover Publications. Menzies, Bob & Campbell, Andy, 2006, Delivering Step Changes in Public Transport, Cambridgeshire: Cambridge County Council. Rondanini, Nunzia, 1981, Architecture and Social Change Heresies II, Vol. 3, No. 3, New York: Neresies Collective Inc. Rowland, D. & Howe, T.N., 1999, Vitruvius. Ten Books on Architecture, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. The London Plan, 2011, Retrieved 27/7/2011, from Q 3 3. second question Q3: you need to talk about something named core strategy or local development framework. Planning a city is a complex process that includes a lot of elements which all have to go into the plan. The elements to consider include the historical heritage of the city, development, population and economic growth projections, transport systems and sub regional organization among others. Ultimately, all the spatial plans have to fit into a core strategy for the city. A strategy that takes into consideration what the city should be like in the foreseeable future (Strategic Plans, 2011). This paper analyzes the core strategic and transport planning of a city in relation to all the related aspects including housing and infrastructural development. Close reference is made to the processes involved in the planning of the city of London. Of particular interest is the bus park and ride system. The paper explores the strong points and the weaknesses of transport plan and gives recommendations on how these could be improved. The London System The plan of the city that is usually approved by the Mayor of London at every renewal is also great in the sense that it offers interconnectivity with underground and surface rail transport. From the map above it is quite noticeable that there are several such interchanges. Among the interchanges are those around Regents Park in places such as Mornington Crescent, Bond Street and Oxford Circus to the north of the city. These interlinked transport systems ensure efficiency that augments the utility value of the transport system design (Strategic Plans, 2011). As a result of this interconnectivity, people can efficiently switch from one mass transport system to another without any problem at all. This contributes greatly towards the efficiency of the transport design (Strategic Plans, 2011). For a long time between the 1960s and 2010 the London strategic planning process was left in the hand of Regional Spatial Strategic (RSS) planning committees. The RSS system was the local development framework inspired by the need to include local concerns into the planning process rather than rely on an overall National plan that covered a larger area such as the whole country. These plans included residential and commercial housing developments, parks, schools, playgrounds, hospitals, markets, roads and all other social amenities. These had to be in sync with the projected needs of the communities living in these areas. The plans had to take into account convenience, accessibility and utility of the various aspects of the plans (Local Enterprise, 2011). The objectives of the RSS authorities were as follows. First, they were to transform and regenerate cities and towns into modern ones. This involved keeping up with developments in urbanization that is an on-going process worldwide. Secondly, they were supposed to diversify urban and rural economies to the extent that these would be competitive and develop progressively (Local Enterprise, 2011). Third, they were meant to fortify towns as focal points for business and services in rural areas. Fourth, they were meant to reduce inequalities between persons creating opportunities for the less privileged, improve health services and the general welfare of the people under their jurisdiction. Next, they were aimed at improving accessibility and public transport by recommending, planning and overseeing the construction of the required transport infrastructure. They were also meant to raise environmental quality and reduce the demand especially on natural resources. At the same time they had to respond to climate change in a proactive rather than reactive manner. Finally, where it was not immediately possible to expand the existing infrastructure, they had to make good use of what was existing at the moment (Local Enterprise, 2011). The priority areas of these committees were as follows. The first was to take national policy, modify it and apply it spatially to the local area without substantially changing it. This means that the national policies had to be made to fit in with the immediate needs and aspirations of the local community. This ensured that representatives of the local population were involved in the local planning process thus they had a sense of participation and ownership. National plans on their own were at times alien and inconsiderate of immediate local conditions (Local Enterprise, 2011). Secondly, they were charged with the strategic allocation of resources ensuring that they were helping areas which needed these resources while protecting others that had them. This ensured a balance in development in all the targeted areas. This was opposed to national plans which tended to treat all areas in the same way (Local Enterprise, 2011). The third was housing allocation between local authorities which had to take into consideration affordable housing targets for the local population. This ensured that the houses developed conveniently served the purposes of the local who needed to utilize them. The fourth was planning for infrastructure requirements including roads, rail and where necessary airports. These would enable the locals and visitors to fulfil their mobility aspirations (Local Enterprise, 2011). Also to be taken into consideration were water and sewerage requirements. The RSS authorities had to plan carefully for drainage and catchment areas for the release of sewerage and conservation of catchment areas to ensure the continuity of water harvesting. The plans also had to take into consideration renewable energy such as the use of wind and solar energy so as to ensure the continuity of energy use beyond the traditional sources such as hydro-generation and petroleum (Local Enterprise, 2011). The regional RSS authorities also had the overall duty of synergizing with the overall regional economic strategies to be incorporate into national planning. The synergies would have to incorporate the input of the local communities in order to come up with an all inclusive plan. This plan would then implemented by the local authorities under national supervision for the purposes of accountability (Local Enterprise, 2011). Their processes had to integrating transport and the planning of land use through trip generating activities that would see individuals and families venture outside on foot, bicycles and public transport. They also had to protect existing strategic highways while increasing choice of travel modes such as rail in addition to roads. They also had to endure the integration of road, rail and water systems for freight transportation. They were the providers of Park and Ride services as well as imposers of parking and road use licensing fee to control traffic in their vicinity. They also had the responsibility of improving accessibility to airports and public transport for the sake of enhancing economic competitiveness. In addition they had to focus on large scale schemes that would generate economic benefits and social and environmental benefits as well as better health services (Local Enterprise, 2011). To succeed in this work, the authorities had to constantly discuss with government issues to do with the coordination of public investment as well as that of the private sector. They also had to improve rail services linking the rural areas with London, create high speed rail links and work on a demand management while creating new revenue collection schemes (Local Enterprise, 2011). Disadvantages of the London System One of the glaring weaknesses of the London bus system is its inability to smoothly accommodate disabled persons. Any disable d person on a wheelchair, crutches or suffering from other such problems finds it very difficult to operate freely using London buses. There are always high platforms to climb onto instead of rumps on which wheelchairs can be rolled easily. The stark oversight concerning the welfare of disabled persons is quite evident in bus parks as well as the buses themselves. There is nothing more embarrassing for example for a person on a wheelchair to have to be carried onto a bus like a child. Such areas as the design of buses and bus stations to be able to accommodate disabled persons more smoothly have featured frequently in the modern day improvements to the original London plans and in the plans of other cities as well. Another regular joke about the London road system is that modern vehicles are designed to move and high speeds yet their progress on the road is much slower than the original horse drawn stagecoaches used more than a century ago. The problem is traffic snarl ups that hold vehicles hostage on the road, especially during rush hours. The traffic jams became so bad that in 2006 the mayor of London introduced traffic congestion charges in which vehicles had to pay extra for driving into town. Another measure that was introduced in 2008 by the then Mayor Boris Johnson introduced a rule that required motorcyclists to use bus ways in order to reduce congestion on the roads. The success or otherwise of these systems is more of a political than architectural problem. However, what is clear is that the highways designed years earlier did not envisage the growth of the number of cars to the levels using the road today. The roads therefore have substantially failed in the long term to adhere to the architectural tenet of durability. The RSS in London was also faulted for not being able to coordinate it s activities nationally. Instead they concentrated too much on their areas of jurisdiction. This lack of coordination is what led to the demise of the RSS services as a more integrated system was sought for a better coordination on a national scale. Consequently, the RSS system ceased to exist in 2010 but some of its ideologies are still in use right upto this day. References Local Enterprise Patnerships in England, 2011, Local Government Improvement and Development, Uk. Strategic Plans, 2011, Buckinghamshire County Council, retrieved 27/7/2011 from: Read More