FEATURE: DAVID TAYLOR PLANNING Words: David Taylor O
ver the summer, London and the UK’s public transport network were challenged with delivering spectators, athletes and officials to the largest sporting event in the world – and public transport passed with flying colours. Rail was fundamental to the success of the Olympic and Paralympic Games: more than 80% of journeys were by rail, and its attractiveness was underlined by the many ‘Games Family’ members who chose to travel by rail rather than on the Olympic Route Network designed for them.
One of the components contributing to the success of the rail operation was the development of the event day station operations plans, or ‘overlays’, to manage crowds, particularly at major stations.
Lessons learned from London’s approach are likely to inform transport planning for future events, including the upcoming Commonwealth Games, Rugby World Cup and World Athletics Championships in the UK. In this article I outline a process to develop event day overlays, based on the Olympic approach.
Where is an event day overlay needed?
The first phase of the process looks at which stations need intervention. Which need investment in infrastructure, a management overlay, a targeted Travel Demand Management programme, or a combination of these solutions – and which can simply rely on the existing management plan. This analysis is driven by the transport forecast arising from the event demand forecast by the event organisers. Stations such as those
50 RailCONNECT
Flexible quantitative tools can support qualitative assessment by testing options, parameters and scenarios to discount poor options and refi ne good ones. Crucially, I have seen such tools support workshop discussions – providing the evidence base and focus to support collective decisions across organisations.
nearest to venues might be obvious problem cases, but more remote interchanges could also experience crowding far above normal conditions.
There might also be one further consideration at this stage – how stations are inter-related: the overlay solution may need to cover more than one station. This was the case during the Olympic events at Greenwich Park, where co-ordinated train and station operations at London Bridge, Bank, Cannon Street, Charing Cross and Waterloo East were needed to deliver sufficient capacity to serve spectators as well as commuters and other users.
Event day concept of operations
Once the requirement for an event overlay has been identified, the Concept of Operations should be determined and several options may be considered. Where possible, this should draw upon existing plans and the knowledge and inputs from station staff and the other stakeholders who will deliver the plan.
Early stakeholder engagement is particularly important at those stations with multiple operators, or interchange with metro, light rail or bus operations. Also, where the management of demand may require use of land outside the station footprint, neighbouring landowners should be consulted. Input from all parties helps to avoid the consideration and testing of options that will not work, and also results in buy-in to the plan by those who ultimately will be responsible for its delivery.
Consideration of the benefits and disadvantages of the different options with the stakeholders can help come to a preferred option or a short list, which can then be tested quantitatively.
Quantitative Analysis
Flexible quantitative tools can support qualitative assessment by testing options, parameters and scenarios to discount poor options and refine good ones. Crucially, I have seen such tools support workshop
WWW.THECONNECTSERIES.CO.UK
AND MANAGING FOR EVENT DAY CROWDS
Movement Strategies was involved in developing the event day transport plan for a number of major stations important to the 2012 Games, in support of a range of stakeholders critical to ensuring the success of the rail network throughout the summer.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84