ANNEX B
Transport Sub-committee's visit to Singapore,
Sydney and Adelaide:
2 to 11 February 2000
1. The Transport Sub-committee departed London on
1 February 2000, and returned on 12 February. The following members
of the Sub-committee participated in the visit: Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody,
MP (Chairman), Mr Andrew Bennett, MP, Mr Brian Donohoe, MP, Mr
Clifford Forsythe, MP, Mr James Gray, MP, Dr Stephen Ladyman,
MP, Mr Bill O'Brien, MP, Mr Bill Olner, MP, and Mr George Stevenson,
MP. We were accompanied by Mr Gavin Devine, the Sub-committee's
Clerk, and by Mr Kevin Lee, our Committee Specialist.
2. Although the primary purpose of our visit to Singapore,
Sydney and Adelaide was to examine the systems of light rapid
transit (LRT) in each city, our discussions inevitably strayed
onto other topics. In particular, in Singapore we heard a good
deal about the Mass Rapid Transit system (MRT), as well as the
measures used by the Government to manage road traffic and congestion,
including the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) scheme; in Sydney
we talked about transport, tourism and other business matters
generally, and particularly the State Government's ten-year plan
for public transport; and in Adelaide we discussed the provision
of bus services in some detail, and also the Southern Expressway
project. Such matters were extremely interesting, and they put
our inquiries about LRT in their proper context, but are not related
in detail here. In this concise report unless it is essential
to include information about other matters to make sense of the
situation in each place, we concentrate exclusively on what we
learnt about LRT systems.
SINGAPORE
3. During its visit to Singapore, the Sub-committee
met Dr John Chen, Minister of State for Communications and Information
Technology, and officials of the Land Transport Authority. We
visited the Land Transport Authority's offices, as well as the
control centre of the Bukit Panjang LRT System, and met senior
officials from Singapore LRT Pte Ltd. We also benefited greatly
from the opportunity to discuss matters with Government Ministers
and senior officials informally at a dinner hosted by the British
High Commissioner. We are most grateful to all those who assisted
us in Singapore, and particularly to the staff of the High Commission,
who organised our visit.
Bukit Panjang LRT
4. The decision to build Singapore's first LRT system
in Bukit Panjang, to link the new town with the Mass Rapid Transit
(MRT) system at Choa Chu Kang station, was announced in February
1996. The budget for the project was set at S$285 million (£108
million). Work, which was contracted to ABB Daimler Benz Transport
Systems (now Adtranz), Keppel Integrated Engineering of Singapore
and Gammon of Hong Kong, had begun by the end of 1996. The system
was completed within budget, and on time, although the original
opening date in July 1999 was postponed due to the additional
construction work which resulted from integrating two floors of
commercial development at the system's depot. The 8kilometres
route, along which lie thirteen stations, was eventually opened
on 6 November 1999.
5. LRT services run from Choa Chu Kang station to
Bukit Panjang station, and then in a loop either clockwise or
anti-clockwise around the development.[170]
A round trip lasts about 30 minutes. At the time of our visit,
there was a three minute interval between services during peak
periods, falling to six minutes at off-peak times: headways have
the potential to be reduced to 90 seconds. A service also operates
between Bukit Panjang station and a station at Ten Mile Junction,
which is adjacent to the depot and control centre of the system.
The project has been designed so that most of the stations are
less than 400 metres from the housing developments that they serve.
Where the line passes close to residential developments, special
'misting windows', using liquid crystal films, have been installed
in the vehicles to protect the privacy of residents. The system
feeds from, and into, bus routes, and a 'linkway' at Choa Chu
Kang station provides an easy interchange with the existing MRT
network. Ticketing for the LRT is integrated with other modes
of public transport.
6. The LRT vehicles run on rubber-tyred wheels along
an elevated concrete twin-track segregated guideway, with guide
wheels fixed to a steel guide beam. As a consequence of this form
of operation, the vehicles are quieter than trains, which normally
have steel wheels running on steel rails. The system's average
speed is approximately 25 kilometres per hour. Each of the 19
vehicles currently in service is air conditioned and can carry
22 seated and 83 standing passengers. Services can be operated
with one- or two-car trains according to demand.
7. The trains are fully automated, although regular
inspections are made by roving members of staff. At the time of
our visit, there were six 'rovers' per shift, covering two stations
each, who were responsible for assisting passengers and for attending
to mechanical failures. The stations were also monitored by the
operations control centre using closed circuit television (CCTV),
and it was also possible to contact the control centre using a
communications system on the trains and at the stations. About
100 staff were employed to operate the network.
8. Unlike other LRT projects planned for elsewhere
in Singapore, which would be constructed in advance of related
housing and commercial developments, the Bukit Panjang system
serves an existing, although expanding, township. Officials told
us that high density developments were needed to provide a sufficient
number of passengers to justify investment in such a system. In
Bukit Panjang, 200,000 people live within 400 metres of their
nearest station. Moreover, it is intended that sites along the
'loop' section of the route, which had originally been left undeveloped,
might be allocated for non-residential land uses, and existing
developments close to the system are also to be expanded. The
site of the LRT depot at Ten Mile Junction, for example, was originally
dedicated only to the needs of the LRT system: now two floors
of commercial development have been added, and there is further
provision for a 14-floor residential building to be constructed
above the depot. Despite the on-going investment in housing and
commercial properties around the LRT, the project does not attract
betterment payments from developers, since most investment in
Singapore, both in the LRT, and in commercial and housing developments,
is directly funded by the Government.
9. Although the LRT was originally expected to carry
up to 72,000 passengers per day, at the time of our visit it was
carrying only 40,000. This was because not all of the flats within
its catchment area were occupied: as the population grew patronage
was expected to rise, reaching 54,000 by the end of 2000. As a
consequence of lower than anticipated usage, the LRT was making
a small loss, but its existence generates additional traffic for
the MRT, which has experienced increased revenues: the number
of passengers changing onto the MRT at Choa Chu Kang had risen
by four per cent since the opening of the LRT, compared to a two
per cent increase in passengers over the whole MRT network during
the same period.
10. The level of fares on the LRT is set to reflect
the fact that passengers using the system would previously have
travelled by bus. Bus services in the Bukit Panjang area were
restructured after the LRT opened to avoid any duplication of
services. As a result, some concern had been generated because
of the withdrawal of well-established bus routes. Nevertheless,
the LRT had been successful in attracting customers from buses:
officials thought that the vast majority of passengers were likely
to have travelled by bus in the past. The system had also attracted
about ten per cent of its customers from cars. In the view of
LRT officials, the system had proved attractive to passengers
from different socio-economic groups.
11. The particular form of LRT system chosen to serve
Bukit Panjang was selected because of constraints on the amount
of land available. Insufficient land was available in the township
to accommodate a guided bus system or a conventional light railway.
The benefit of the LRT's elevated trackway was that it took up
very little land at street level: its supports had very small
'footprints'. The only other alternative, putting the system underground,
would have trebled the cost of the project.
12. Construction of two further LRT systems to serve
the new towns of Sengkang and Punggol is already underway. The
two systems will have a combined length of 23 kilometres, serving
33 stations. In each case the new LRT system will feed the MRT,
as occurs in Bukit Panjang. The S$656 million contract for constructing
the new systems has already been awarded, in July 1998, to a consortium
of Singapore Technologies Industrial Corp and Mitsubishi Heavy
Industries.
SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA
13. The Sub-committee held a wide range of meetings
during its visit to Sydney. From the State Government of New South
Wales we met the Minister for Transport and Minister of Roads,
the Hon. Carl Scully MP, as well as Mr Jock Murray, Director General,
Mr Ian Robertson, Deputy Director General, and other officials
of the New South Wales Department of Transport. We also met Councillor
Frank Sartor, Lord Mayor of Sydney, Ms Katie Lahey, Chief Executive
Officer of the New South Wales State Chamber of Commerce, Mr Christopher
Brown, Chief Executive of the Tourism Task Force, and Mr Kevin
Warrell, General Manager, and other officials of Metro Light Rail
and Metro Monorail, who organised visits to the Metro Light Rail
and Metro Monorail projects. In addition, we benefited from more
informal discussions at a lunch hosted by the Deputy Speaker of
the Legislative Assembly of New South Wales, and at a reception
hosted by the British Consul-General. We are most grateful to
all whom we met, and particularly to the staff of the British
Consul-General in Sydney for organising such an interesting and
challenging programme.
Background
14. Responsibility for transport in Australia lies
mainly with state governments: in New South Wales, the State Government
owns and manages the State Transit Authority, which provides local
railway services, known as CityRail, bus and ferry services. The
Federal Government is mainly involved in the aviation and maritime
sectors: for example, it is responsible for all airports in Australia,[171]
directly operating the largest, Kingsford Smith Airport, Sydney.
It also operates rural passenger and freight rail services.
15. New South Wales has the largest population and
most substantial economy of all the states of Australia. Its capital,
Sydney, is the country's most populous city, and the number of
inhabitants of Greater Sydney is expected to reach 4.3 million
between 2011 and 2016. While Sydney's population grew by 20 per
cent between 1981 and 1997, car ownership and car use increased
even further, by 48 per cent and 58 per cent respectively. The
proportion of journeys to work made by car also rose, so that
now only 20 per cent of such journeys are made by public transport
in Greater Sydney, although 73 per cent of journeys to the central
business district are made by such means.
16. The growth in the use of private cars has resulted
in congestion, poorer air quality and social exclusion. To tackle
such problems, the New South Wales Government has announced a
25-year air quality management plan, Action for Air, which
aims to reduce the growth in vehicle kilometres travelled between
1991 and 2021. In addition a 10-year plan, Action for Transport
2010, which was adopted by the state government in late 1998,[172]
has set out fully-funded proposals to address network expansion,
service improvement and the management of travel demand. Current
and future public transport projects in Greater Sydney include
the Airport Rail Link (due for completion in May 2000), the Parramatta-Chatswood
rail link (planned for opening in 2006), the extension of the
Metro Light Rail service to Lilyfield by 2001, and the construction
of 90 kilometres of bus-only transitways, connecting four regional
centres in western Sydney, by 2010. These projects have generally
received widespread support, although many people have asked why
the transitway project will not be based on light rail.
Light rail
17. The Sydney Light Rail System, now known as Metro
Light Rail, opened in 1997. Its double track runs for just over
3.5 kilometres through Ultimo-Pyrmont, an area of new development
to the west of the city centre, from Central Station, which is
on the southern periphery of the central business district, to
Wentworth Park. Its objective was to improve public transport
links in the Ultimo-Pyrmont area, which had previously been poor,
and to stimulate redevelopment in the area, following the pattern
of the London Docklands. For just under one kilometre of Metro
Light Rail's route it runs on-street, and the remaining three
kilometres run on segregated track along a former freight railway
alignment.
18. The system was designed, constructed and commissioned
by the private sector, which will be responsible for operations
until 2028, when ownership will pass to the public sector. Of
the project's total cost of A$87.5 million, A$66 million, or three-quarters,
was raised by the private sector, with the remainder granted from
the Federal Government's Better Cities Programme. Land was provided
by the State Government at no cost to the promoter. The process
to gain powers to build the line was extremely complex, and, as
a result, legal fees eventually were only slightly less than the
project's capital cost. Metro Light Rail is currently operated
by CGEA Transport Management Sydney, a subsidiary of the French-owned
Vivendi group, which has accepted all risks associated with the
patronage of the system.
19. Metro Light Rail operates fully-accessible low-floor
trams, each capable of carrying up to 200 passengers. Seven trams
provide a 24-hour service, operating at 7-15 minute intervals
during the day and every 30 minutes at night. The system has the
capacity to carry 5,600 passengers per hour, and it was originally
forecast that it would carry 8 million passengers each year. Initial
patronage, however, had been very low, although the involvement
of CGEA Transport Management had improved the situation to some
extent: the company had improved reliability and replaced the
automatic ticketing system with on-board staff. As a result, during
1999 approximately 2.5 million trips were made on the system,
revenue had risen by 20 per cent following the reintroduction
of staff, and the system was now profitable before financing charges.
The operator told us that currently around one quarter of the
line's users are commuters, 40 per cent are leisure travellers
and 35 per cent are employees of the Casino development which
is directly served by the route.
20. The State Department of Transport told us that
it did not believe that many of the passengers on the Metro Light
Rail had previously made their journey by car, although the potential
for modal shift would increase as the service penetrated further
into the suburbs. Some of the existing users were thought to have
transferred from bus services, while others in the past may have
walked. Many of the journeys taken on the system were not, and
had not been undertaken before, reflecting the fact that the line
serves a developing area: for example, those journeys undertaken
by employees of the Casino development had not previously been
needed.
21. The fact that the system is currently under-performing
compared to its capacity has been attributed to several factors.
For example, there have been delays in the construction of further
residential and commercial developments in the area served in
Ultimo-Pyrmont, although further development was going on at the
time of our visit. There are particular operational difficulties,
especially relating to the ticketing system, which is not integrated
with those of Sydney's bus and rail networks because of technical
difficulties and resolved arguments over revenue-sharing. Travel
on Metro light Rail is relatively expensive, since although bus
and rail fares are heavily subsidised by the State Government,
the same subsidy is not offered to light rail in spite of the
operator's requests, and in spite of the fact that the State Government
has contributed to the project. Moreover, Metro Light Rail has
not been given priority by the State Government along the on-street
section, which has undermined journey times. There is also a perception
that the Light Rail system is not very well integrated with other
modes of transport: certainly we observed that the system was
not well sign-posted at Central Station. Finally, and perhaps
most importantly, as several of those we met pointed out, the
system is very short, and serves a limited area.
22. To address this last concern a westward extension
of the line to Lilyfield, following the route of a former freight
line, is already under construction. The State Government has
contributed A$15 million of the total cost of A$20 million. Further
extensions to the west, to Leichhardt and Ashfield, have been
studied, and await a decision by the operator and the State Government
with respect to funding. An assessment of the potential for a
light rail line in the eastern suburbs, however, has found the
proposals to be unviable at present.
23. Most important is the planned extension of the
system through the centre of Sydney to Circular Quay. This formed
part of the original proposal to construct a light rail system,
but was deferred following objections from retailers about disruption
to their activities as a result both of the construction and the
operation of the Light Rail system. It had been decided that some
respite for the city centre was required after the construction
work associated with the cross-city road tunnel and the Olympic
Games, and so the project had been delayed. Moreover, concerns
remained about the use of already limited road space by the light
railway. The Lord Mayor of Sydney pointed out that Sydney's original
tram system had been dismantled in 1961 mainly because of the
delays it caused to other traffic.
24. Nevertheless, support for the extension to Circular
Quay remained strong: both the Lord Mayor and the Chief Executive
Officer of the State Chamber of Commerce, as well as the Tourism
Task Force, believed that it should be constructed, although some
doubt was expressed about the currently-planned route. In fact,
it seems likely that the route through the city might be revised
to skirt the edge of the central business district rather than
running directly through it. Nevertheless, Metro Light Rail's
operator believed that the extension to Circular Quay would be
completed by 2005.
25. As we have said, the operator of Metro Light
Rail pointed out that the State Government's attitude towards
light rail appeared ambivalent, on the one hand contributing land
to the original route, and capital to its extension, but on the
other refusing to subsidise tickets, and not encouraging integration
between light rail and other public transport modes. The Tourism
Task Force speculated that the Government's views were tempered
by the fact that light rail was in competition in places with
State-run buses and heavy rail. For his part, the Minister told
us that he was not convinced of the merit of light rail. He agreed
that Metro Light Rail enjoyed some advantages over the bus, and
was generally regarded favourably by the public, but pointed out
that it was expensive: one kilometre of on-street double track
had been A$18 million (at 1998 prices). For that reason further
light rail development in New South Wales could not be assured
of state support, and is likely to require private sector finance,
although some public funding might be available.
26. The Department of Transport told us that it did
not think that there was any fixed formula for deciding what density
of development was necessary to justify the construction of a
light rail scheme as opposed to relying on buses, or perhaps constructing
a heavy railway. The decision on what would be the most appropriate
mode of transport for a corridor would depend on individual circumstances,
and should particularly take account of current use of existing
forms of transport.
Metro Monorail
27. The Metro Monorail system was built in 1988,
at a cost of around A$70 million. Its route consists of a 3.6
kilometre circuit of elevated track, along which lie seven stations
linking Darling Harbour, Chinatown and the centre of the city.
Six trains run around the circle in an anti-clockwise direction
at three minute headways. The system, which is unsubsidised and
profitable, can theoretically carry up to 5,000 passengers per
hour, although it currently has an average peak loading of 1,500
passengers per hour. Approximately 3.5 million passengers are
carried annually. The operator of the system told us that twenty
per cent of passengers are commuters, 40 per cent local leisure
users, and the remainder tourists.
28. Amongst those we met, it seemed that the very
existence of the monorail is a source of controversy. Several
of those we met said that it was despised by Sydneysiders, and
a number thought that it should be torn down. Even Metro Monorail
admitted that it is not liked by everyone in Sydney. At the time
of its construction there were strenuous objections, principally
from those who felt that it intruded on the more attractive and
historic parts of the city. Such feelings have apparently not
been ameliorated by the Monorail's operation during the past decade,
and other concerns, such as the system's limited route, and its
small capacity, have also been expressed. Nevertheless, the operator
of the Monorail, in correspondence after our visit, pointed to
independent market research across the Sydney area which showed
that only 33 per cent of people partly or strongly agreed that
"the monorail is an eyesore": he concluded that "clearly
67 per cent did not".
29. Aside from its alleged lack of aesthetic appeal,
the Monorail's main weakness is its limited route. It was originally
intended that the system should extend through the centre of the
city to Circular Quay, but such plans were rejected in the wake
of opposition from bus and taxi interests. Despite the continuing
strong economic case for the extension, and the current operator's
agreement to meet its cost, it is accepted that it is unlikely
to receive planning approval. According to the operator, there
is no political support for the extension, and, in its view, the
State Department of Transport is more sympathetic to more conventional
forms of public transport. However, we observed that there was
one very attractive feature of the monorail, which is that it
has a very small 'footprint' at ground level.
Bus transitways
30. Bus transitways are a relatively simple technology,
consisting of narrow tarmacked roadways, quite separate from other
roads, on which normal buses operate. The State Department of
Transport, and particularly the Minister, believes that such transitways
are attractive for a number of reasons. For example, a transitway
system can reach areas not served by the regional rail network,
and where passenger numbers are insufficient to support heavy
rail: the concept is particularly suited to low-density suburban
areas. Each transitway will be purpose-built, and, by giving buses
travelling on them the exclusive right of way, will provide high
quality, reliable and rapid travel between centres. The intervals
between 'stations' on the transitways will be such that average
speeds on the network will be increased. Frequency of service
would be ensured by average headways of approximately 5 to 10
minutes on the transitway. Significantly, the transitway offers
many of the benefits of light rail, but is cheap to construct,
and can become operational very quickly.[173]
It is intended that the first transitway, linking Liverpool and
Parramatta, will be operational in 2003. It will be 30 kilometres
long, have thirty-four stations, and will cost A$200 million,
or less than A$7 million per kilometre.
31. In any case, the Minister did not believe that
there was an alternative to the introduction of a bus-based transitway
system in the western suburbs of Sydney, since passenger numbers
are too low to justify the use of rail-based modes. Hence the
transitway project is the only sensible way of providing north-south
links in the area, and will meet travel needs which are not served
by existing rail services, focussed on radial routes into the
centre of the city. Thus, while the transitway schemes are currently
experimental, the Minister told us that he felt that they have
considerable potential to stimulate the use of public transport,
and he was confident that existing journeys made by car would
in future be made by bus.
Limiting car use
32. Although the State Government has made clear
its intention to address concerns about congestion and poor air
quality through the expansion of public transport, some measures
to limit car use have also been considered. Already in place is
an annual charge of A$400, levied on all non-residential car parking
spaces in the city centre: this measure raised A$17m for public
transport improvements in 1999. Consideration is being given to
extending car-parking charges to the other main business districts
in the city.
33. Charging for road use has also been introduced.
For example, there is a toll for crossing the Sydney Harbour Bridge
to enter the city centre, and tolls have been introduced on two
other roads into the city. More widespread charging has for a
long time been the subject of debate in New South Wales: there
was some support for charges for travelling on inter-state highways
and thereby recovering the costs imposed by the use of heavy lorries.
The Lord Mayor of Sydney supported the concept of 'dynamic tolling'
for motorists coming into Sydney, by which the level of charges
would reflect the time of day the journey was being made, and
thus the availability of alternative forms of transport. He believed
that between A$300 million and A$500 million might be raised each
year in this way, and if hypothecation of the revenue for investment
in transport was put in place, he believed that it would prove
politically acceptable.
ADELAIDE, AUSTRALIA
34. In Adelaide, we again met a wide range of people
engaged in delivering public transport to the city. Those that
we met included the Hon Diana Laidlaw, MLC, Minister for Transport
and Urban Planning in the Government of South Australia, the Chairman
and officials of the Passenger Transport Board, which organises
the system of public transport in Adelaide, officials from TransAdelaide,
the company owned by the State Government which delivers rail
and bus services in the city, and Ms Sue Dunn, President of People
for Public Transport. We visited both the 'O-Bahn' guided bus
system, and the Glenelg tramway. We also had the opportunity to
meet officials and others at a reception hosted by the British
Consul-General. We are most grateful to all those who took the
time to meet us, and to escort us on our visits, and particularly
to the staff of the British Consulate in Adelaide for organising
such an enjoyable visit for us.
Background
35. Adelaide is bounded on its western side by the
Gulf of St Vincent, and on its east by the Mount Lofty Ranges.
There is no geographical restraint to the north and south and,
as a result, the city has sprawled in those directions as it has
grown. The metropolitan area measures 80 kilometres from north
to south, and only 20 kilometres from east to west. Population
density is low, since the city's total population is only 1.1
million people.[174]
Car ownership is growing at one or two per cent each year: there
is now one car to every two people. Nevertheless, the city's low
population density means that traffic congestion is not a significant
problem, and the average speed, even on the busiest roads, is
30 kilometres per hour.
36. Under these circumstances, it is perhaps not
surprising that during the 1980s and early 1990s the number of
passengers carried by public transport fell, at times by up to
9.5 per cent per annum, a decline that was only interrupted when
students were granted free travel. Operating subsidies rose from
A$55.4 million in 1981-82 to A$136.1 million ten years later,
and although some action was then taken to reduce subsidy levels,
public transport in the city remains heavily subsidised: each
rail trip is subsidised to the tune of A$8, and each bus trip
by A$2.50, reflecting the relatively long distances travelled
and the low population density in the city. The average fare paid
by passengers is between A$1.10 and A$1.20.
37. Despite the high cost of subsidising the public
transport system, the State Government remains committed to maintaining
and expanding it. Although congestion is not a general problem,
in certain places it does reach levels such that segregated public
transport becomes an attractive alternative to the car. Moreover,
the threat posed to revenue, and thus funding, of the public transport
system by declining patronage of the system, raises concerns about
social exclusion amongst those unable to afford a car, especially
the elderly. The Government also wants to address future difficulties
before they arise rather than react to existing problems. Therefore,
although the triggers to improving the public transport system
that exist in places like Sydney, or London, such as congestion
and poor air quality, are not significant issues in Adelaide,
the State Government remains determined to continue to invest
in the public transport system.
38. Adelaide therefore has an extensive, and diverse,
system of public transport. Its network includes approximately
1,150 kilometres of bus routes, 120 kilometres of railway line,
11 kilometres of tram track (running from the city centre to the
coastal town of Glenelg), and 12 kilometres of guided busway track
(the 'O-Bahn'). Despite the decline in patronage of the system
during recent years, around 44 million journeys were made in the
city by public transport in 1997-98, the vast majority of them—65
per cent—by bus, 18 per cent by train and 13 per cent using
the O-Bahn system.
Competitive Tendering for Bus Services
39. In an effort to reverse the decline in patronage,
and the corresponding rise in subsidies, management of public
transport was handed over in 1994 to the Passenger Transport Board.
The Board's response to the problem was to seek to introduce competitive
tendering for bus services on the basis of contracts to operate
in specific areas and along designated routes (rather than adopting
a policy of deregulation). The first and second rounds of tenders
were awarded in 1995-96, and left the State-owned bus company,
TransAdelaide, in charge of 75 per cent of services.
40. The results of the third, and more significant,
tendering round were announced in January 2000. The new tenders
were for five-year contracts, each with an option to extend them
for another five years. Private sector companies have now taken
over responsibility for six of the seven area contracts: Serco
now operates approximately 50 per cent of bus services in the
city. The seventh contract has been awarded to a public-private
sector joint venture. The state-owned operator, TransAdelaide,
has failed to retain any contracts, and although it will continue
to operate the Glenelg tram and local train services, it will
cease to be an operator of buses from the start of the new contracts
later in the year.
41. The latest round of the competitive tendering
process is expected to reduce the total amount paid in subsidies
by at least A$7 million per year,[175]
taken as an average over the lifetime of the new ten-year contracts.
That money will be re-invested in other transport projects. However,
the Minister for Transport and the Passenger Transport Board were
at pains to point out that tenders had been judged on criteria
other than their cost-effectiveness: a company's operating history,
and their commitment to introducing a range of measures to improve
service quality were also very important.
42. The State Government has taken a number of decisions
to make the competitive tendering process as politically acceptable
as possible. For example, the vehicles and infrastructure will
be leased to the operators by the state government, which also
retains fare revenue. The Minister explained that the retention
of these assets by state made competitive tendering more acceptable
to the public. Contracts had not been awarded on the basis of
price alone, with consideration also being given to the quality
of service. There had been much interest in the competition with
87 bids being submitted from 16 companies and consortia.
The O-Bahn Guided Busway
43. The Adelaide O-Bahn is based on a system used
in Essen, Germany. It is a segregated concrete track which runs
between the city centre and suburbs to the north east. Buses using
the O-Bahn are fitted with small, horizontal, guide wheels linked
to their front axles, which, when the vehicle leaves the road
to enter the track, engage with the sides of the track and direct
the bus. As a result, and because the track is segregated from
other traffic, buses are able to travel at up to 100 kilometres
an hour, and are not threatened by congestion. Whilst on the O-Bahn
buses stop at stations which are between 3 and 6 kilometres apart,
and at which the buses can pull into bays so that they do not
block the track. Buses may also leave the track part-way along
its route.
44. Stage 1 of the guideway between the city and
Paradise interchange (6 kilometres in length) was opened in 1986,
with the second stage (also 6 kilometres) to an interchange in
Modbury Centre, adjacent to a major shopping centre at Tea Tree
Plaza, completed in 1989. Substantial facilities for park-and-ride
are provided at these stations, together with a smaller facility
at the third station, Klemzig. Altogether these sites provide
parking for about 1,000 cars. The cost of building the O-Bahn
was A$103.5m including vehicles, but excluding the cost of acquiring
land.[176]
It was estimated that alternative (non-guided) busway or light
rail systems would have cost A$90.7m and A$157.4m respectively.
However, construction of the O-Bahn in Adelaide may have been
peculiarly expensive, since ground conditions meant that the guideway
had to be supported by concrete piles, and because the topography
of the route required large numbers of bridges and other structures
as the guideway crosses and re-crosses the Torrens river. Furthermore,
the State Government chose to construct a linear park alongside
the route as part of the project.
45. The State Government's objective in building
the O-Bahn was to improve public transport from the city centre
to the rapidly developing north-eastern suburbs, which were not
served by a heavy rail route. Originally it had been decided that
a light rail line should be constructed, but the State Government
decided on a guided busway, for two main reasons. First, it was
cheaper, since unlike a railway it does not require a signalling
system, expensive rolling stock and substantial stations, and
unlike a road its alignment can be very narrow, lowering the cost
of infrastructure such as bridges. Second, it is extremely flexible,
since unlike a light railway it permits vehicles to leave the
guideway to fan out on ordinary roads in the suburbs and in the
city centre to serve diverse destinations, which suits better
the sprawling nature of Adelaide.
46. Nevertheless, the O-Bahn system offers benefits
similar to those of light rail, such as similar speeds and frequencies
of service: construction of the O-Bahn has reduced journey times
for buses from some suburbs from 40 to 25 minutes, and during
peak periods an average headway of less than one minute is maintained
with 67 buses per hour being operated. It also provides similar
capacity to a light rail system, since each articulated bus can
carry 100 passengers, thus allowing the system to transport up
to 6,500 people per hour per direction. Engineers estimate that
headways might be reduced further, to 20 seconds, permitting the
system to carry up to 18,000 people per hour per direction. The
O-Bahn also provides a ride quality, and thus a degree of comfort,
which is comparable to that given by a light railway.[177]
47. The O-Bahn is regarded by the State Government,
and they claim, by passengers, as an enormous success. Certainly
it has countered the general decline in patronage of public transport
in Adelaide: those routes served by the O-Bahn carried 4.23 million
passengers in 1985-86, compared to 7.13 million in 1995-96, a
rise which far exceeded the rise in population in the area over
the period. On an average weekday approximately 27,000 passengers
travel on O-Bahn buses, and 4,500 passengers are delivered to
the city centre between 8.00 and 9.00 a.m.
48. The Minister told us that the O-Bahn was well-suited
to a city of low population density, such as Adelaide, where investment
in new light rail projects, and even maintenance of the existing
heavy rail network, was hard to justify in economic terms. Indeed,
we heard the suggestion that O-Bahns might take over heavy railway
routes in some areas: certainly there was no difficulty with constructing
the guideway track on a heavy rail alignment. In any event, the
State Government would like to build a new guided busway in the
south of the city, running down to Bedford Park, to mirror the
service provided to the north-east: the only reason such a system
had not been constructed before was the Government's shortage
of money: although it is possible that private bus operators might
contribute to the cost of the southern O-Bahn, it is likely that
the project will require some public funds. However, the pressure
group People for Public Transport told us that residents of Adelaide
would rather the State Government supported heavy rail and light
rail projects than put its faith solely in the O-Bahn.
The Glenelg Tram
49. Although the city once had an extensive tram
network, only the Glenelg line remained. This was constructed
in 1929, following the alignment of a disused heavy railway, serving
the Victoria Square in the city, the suburbs of Wayville, Blackforest
and Plympton, and the coastal town of Glenelg. As the remainder
of the tram network was removed, the Glenelg service remained,
but it had not been recently modernised: as a result the cars
lack the features of modern vehicles, such as easy access for
passengers with disabilities, and air conditioning.
50. Nevertheless, it was clear that the tram has
become something of a local icon. Moreover, it is needed, since
it caters for amongst others commuters to the city, and leisure
travellers to Glenelg: it had a particular role to play at weekends
and during public holidays. As a result, there is little prospect
of the tram being removed or replaced. The Minister told us, however,
that she did not envisage trams or light railways ever having
a wider role in Adelaide.
170 For a map, see http://www.slrt.com.sg/info.htm. Back
171
Although most are now leased to private companies under the Airports
Act 1996. Back
172 Action
for Transport 2010: an Integrated
Transport Plan for New South Wales, Government of New South Wales,
1998. A companion document was also produced for Sydney. Back
173 Liverpool-Parramatta
Transitway: overview report, PPK Environment & Infrastructure
(1998), pp1-3. Back
174
687.5 people per square kilometre, compared to approximately 2000
per square kilometre in London. Back
175
Meaning that, in total, A$22 million has been saved as a result
of the two rounds of competitive tendering. Back
176
Much of which the State Government had already acquired in expectation
of building a new freeway over the same route. Back
177 Adelaide's
O-Bahn Busway: Guiding Transport into the Future,
Passenger Transport Board, Government of South Australia, 1999. Back
|
