Memorandum by D. Scott Hellewell, Esq.
(RT 03)
LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This Memorandum seeks to discuss the
four items that the Transport Sub-Committee wishes to investigate.
Each question is dealt with in the next four sections and the
Conclusions are set out in Section 6. There are also three appendices
giving further information.
1.2 However, before going into the main
body of the Memorandum it is felt appropriate to make some general
opening remarks and these are set out below.
Light RAPID Transit
1.3 Light RAPID transit covers both rubber-tyred
and steel-wheeled transit systems, ie conventional buses running
on special roads (eg Runcorn) or guided buses running on dedicated
guideways (eg the short lengths in Leeds or the longer sections
in Essen (Germany)). Propulsion may come from either conventional
Diesel engines or from natural gas power or electric traction
may be used (trolley buses or dual systems as in Seattle, for
instance).
Light RAIL Transit
1.4 The International Union of Public Transport's
(UITP's) International Light Rail Commission defined Light Rail
(in 1983) as:
"A rail-borne form of transport which can
be developed in stages from a modern tramway to a rapid transport
system operating on its own right-of-way, underground, at ground
level or elevated. Each stage of development can be the final
stage, but it should also permit development to the next higher
stage."
1.5 In Germany where the development of
light rail was pioneered in the 1960's, they had rebuilt their
tramways conventionally after the War and thus their upgrading
to light rail started with a tramway base. In Britain (and many
cities in France and North America) there were no tramways and
thus light rail systems had to be built ab initio.
1.6 In the foregoing definition the points
to stress are:
|
| "rail-borne": | it is steel-wheeled and steel railed not rubber-tyred.
|
| "developed in stages": |
the capacity can be developed to suit demand which, in turn, may be influenced by land-use developments.
|
| "operating on its own right-of-way":
| this means segregated from other transport. By this means journey times are reliably achieved.
|
| "underground, at ground level or elevated":
| this Flexibility enables it to be threaded through mature urban areas.
|
"each stage can be the final stage, or it can be
developed further":
| each discrete stage can be planned and financed but if care is taken, the initial scheme can be developed (ie as is now happening with Metrolink in Manchester and most of the French and North American schemes).
|
|
Worldwide Scene
1.7 Worldwide there are some 350 light rail systems and
the number is growing. Some have developed from tramways, others
have been developed from scratch. Nearly all of them are being
expanded. In nearly every case they form part of an integrated
transport scheme, a point to which we will return in Sections
3 and 5. Virtually all schemes (outside Great Britain) are built
with public grants and operate with an annual subsidy (reflecting
the Political and transportation policies of the Countries or
Cities concerned).
1.8 In contrast British LRT schemes are built with substantial
tranches of private money (eg Manchester and Croydon) or are entirely
privately funded, eg Nottingham. In all cases there are no operating
subsidies, operations, maintenance and remuneration of capital
having to come from the farebox. Furthermore, this income is subject
to competition from other operators—notably buses.
1.9 Light rail transport combines very nearly the best
attributes of both the bus and the train:
— from the bus: accessibility, frequency and convenience;
— from the train: reliability, speed and safety.
Essentially, LRT is a RAIL mode serving a BUS market. There
are many objectives for promoting an LRT scheme; some of them
are set out in Appendix "A".
British Schemes
1.10 British schemes tend to have developed either to
reduce the costs of an existing heavy rail operation or to provide
improved capacity, in addition to incorporating some of the features
referred to in Appendix "A". More specifically British
schemes:
— either took over under-used or former railway
lines or alignments and upgraded them by converting them to light
rail;
— or created new infrastructure to provide additional
capacity over the bus services currently existing.
1.11 Manchester Metrolink and Midland Metro fall into
the first category, the former taking over existing, but outdated
and heavily subsidised suburban services and replacing them with
a modern LRT providing new links across the city centre, thereby
improving access. Midland Metro took over a redundant railway
alignment and provided additional new capacity to stimulate the
redevelopment of the area. By contrast Sheffield Supertram falls
into the second category—new capacity on (mostly) new alignments
in heavily-trafficked corridors. (The modification of this original
concept is dealt with in para 4.3).
1.12 Croydon Tramlink and Greater Nottingham schemes
incorporate both features by taking over under-used or dis-used
railway lines and providing new links and additional capacity
in presently bus-served corridors. Of significance in the Croydon
Scheme is the re-focussing of activities on Croydon rather than
on London. Whilst all schemes have as one of their objectives
the encouragement of development or redevelopment, this was quite
clearly the main objective of the DLR scheme. It achieved its
objective in such a spectacular fashion that the system could
not cope with the number of passengers using it and it had to
be virtually rebuilt.
The Pro's and Con's of Bus-based and Rail-based LRT systems
1.13 With a bus-based system the investment in the busway
can be focused on where it will bring the greater benefits to
the operation. It can then be expanded, or separate sections linked
as demand or funds require. Furthermore, it can be used by conventional
buses, although if guidance is adopted the vehicles will have
to be modified (at a cost of about £3000 per vehicle) and
there will have to be some additional driver training. No new
garage facilities will be required unless articulated, gas-fuelled
or electrically-powered vehicles are used.
1.14 However on the downside, a bus is still a bus in
image and perception terms. Whilst it will be segregated on the
guideway and may have a degree of priority, it will still have
to make its way through urban traffic congestion once it returns
to ordinary roads. Bus-priorities on ordinary streets are notoriously
difficult to keep free-flowing (eg London's Red Bus Routes) and
thus the benefit of the guideway can be quickly dissipated once
the bus leaves its confines (as has occurred in Adelaide).
1.15 With a rail-based system purpose-designed vehicles
have to be supplied together with the infrastructure, maintenance
depot and control arrangements. This is a "minimum package".
It brings with it a substantial "overhead" in the form
of the Operations and Maintenance Centre. This 'overhead' decreases
as the system expands. However, because light-rail is a system
all aspects have to be thought through and a superior level of
quality will be delivered. There is no doubt that trams can attract
car users back to public transport.
1.16 When you 'buy' a light rail system you also get:
— electric traction (environmentally friendly);
— vehicle location and passenger information systems;
— in-built priority on city streets; and
Many of these features are extras to a bus-based system.
Light rail is more expensive than a bus-based RT system but it
also brings with it greater benefits.
Disclaimer
1.17 In writing this Memorandum, it is assumed that light
rapid transit operators will be making their own detailed responses
to your investigation. These submissions will include the relevant
facts and figures concerning their systems' infrastructure, operating
performance and passenger carryings. Such information is not,
therefore, included in this submission.
2. EXAMPLES OF
RAPID TRANSIT
SYSTEMSGREAT BRITAIN
Light Rail Systems
2.1 Light rail systems are operating in Docklands (DLR),
Manchester (Metrolink), Sheffield (Supertram) and the West Midlands
(Midland Metro). The Tyne and Wear Metro (TWM) may also be considered
as LRT although it is at the "heavy" end, entirely segregated
and fully signalled. But DLR Docklands Light Railway is entirely
segregated and automatically operated! This is another aspect
of the flexibility of light rail.
2.2 Croydon Tramlink is nearing completion and will open
in the Autumn. Greater Nottingham LRT has been authorised, preliminary
works are in hand and construction is expected to start in earnest
in the New Year. DLR, Metrolink and Tyne and Wear are all being
extended.
2.3 There are a number of schemes at an advanced stage
of planning. South Hampshire (Portsmouth-Gosport), Leeds and Bristol.
There are other schemes at different stages of development, eg
a private light rail scheme for Liverpool; a similar scheme for
Edinburgh, a tramway from St. Pancras to Waterloo and extensions
to Croydon Tramlink.
Light Rapid Transit Systems
2.4 Runcorn Busway, which has a length of about 12 miles,
has been operating for nearly 30 years, but its pioneering efforts
have never been copied. It has suffered from the economic problems
of the area and from the general decline in bus usage. Three lengths
of guided busway have been developed in Scott Hall Road, Leeds
and extensions to the east of the City are under active development.
There are numerous examples of Bus Gates (Sheffield) or Bus Only
Roads (Ipswich) and extensive bus priority measures (Oxford) but
few examples of SYSTEMS.
2.5 One of the reasons for this is the very nature of
the bus and bus operations. The bus is highly flexible (which
has both pluses and minuses), and congestion problems tend to
be addressed at points rather than by a corridor or system approach.
Guided buses or trolleybuses (as with light rail) require a more
systematic and corridor approach. A list of Current Bus Way Schemes
is set out in Appendix 'B'.
WORLDWIDE
Light Rail Systems
France
2.6 After the war France and Britain pursued similar
policies with regard to scrapping trams. Similarly both countries
became aware of the development of light rail in the late 60's/early
70's. The first LRT scheme in France was in Nantes. The majority
of the first line was on new construction and LRT took over from
heavily loaded bus routes which incorporated significant amounts
of bus priority. Subsequent schemes have been developed in Grenoble,
Strasbourg, Rouen and Paris (suburbs).
2.7 Nantes was a pioneering scheme, much as in Manchester
with Metrolink, and used a high vehicle floor/high platform solution
which has been continued in their extension. Grenoble introduced
low floor vehicles (pioneered in Geneva) which have subsequently
become the 'French Standard Tram" being used in Rouen and
Paris also. (Low floors ease boarding and alighting and simplify
the construction at street level).
2.8 In Strasbourg the promotion of LRT was a Political
Statement by the then Mayor. Trams were to be used to revitalise
and re-invigorate the city—an approach which had been pioneered
in Grenoble. However, the Strasbourg tram was (at the time) of
unusual design and construction (Italian design/British built)
and made a major visual statement. Lille also upgraded its "Mongy"
tram network using another (Breda) design from Italy.
2.9 Some French cities have gone for the VAL (Véhicule
Automatique Leger) system: namely Lille and Toulouse, with others
possibly to follow. Bordeaux has had an on-off relationship between
the supporters of a VAL-system or a conventional "Standard"
French tram. A similar debate goes on in Caen between supporters
of a tramway and those of a Guided Light Transit (GLT/TVR) system.
(This is a rubber-tyred system with a single, central guiderail).
North America
2.10 Most North American cities gave up their trams (street-cars)
after the War. They, too, noticed what was happening in Europe
and a number of Western American cities promoted LRT schemes:
San Diego*, Denver, Portland, Los Angeles, Salt Lake City* and,
in Canada, Edmonton* and Calgary*. Those marked with an asterisk
(*) even adopted a Standard car design, built by Duwag (now Siemens),
based on that company's U2 design for Frankfurt-am-Main. As in
Britain both under-used or former railway lines or alignments
were used as well as those built on completely new alignments,
often in the central reservation of dual carriageways.
2.11 The objectives and individual characteristics of
these schemes cannot be dealt with in this short submission. However,
it is interesting to note that it is the environmentally-conscious
and prosperous Cities of Western America, where the car has been
dominant for so long, that have gone for LRT in a big way. Systems
are usually built from funds raised by sales or gasoline taxes
(raised for the purpose) and are in receipt of substantial operating
subsidies (between 60 and 80 per cent).
Light Rapid Transit
Adelaide (South Australia)
2.12 It is understood that the decision to build a guided
busway system (O-Bahn) to serve the north-east corridor of this
city, rather than to use conventional light RAIL transit, was
a Political one. (One Party was for O-Bahn, the other for LRT).
It was claimed the O-Bahn infrastructure costs are 40 per cent
lower than those for LRT. The system has been a great success,
but reliability on the busway has been compromised by the buses
having to run on the streets downtown. This system uses kerb-guidance
and conventional Mercedes-Benz buses. The 12 km scheme was completed
in 1988.
Ottawa (Canada)
2.13 This City built its first section of busway ("Transitway")
in 1983. It uses segregated transit roads and conventional (unguided)
buses, and has been expanded continuously. Today it has a length
of 29.3 km and 24 Transitway stops. It carries 200,000 passengers
per week.
Curitiba (Brazil)
2.14 Since 1992 this South American city has pioneered
a network of segregated busways (unguided) operated by specially
developed buses. (They are 25 m long, have four axles and three
articulated sections and carry 270 passengers.) They have dedicated
high platforms at the bus stops they serve so that there is level
boarding and alighting and the bus stops are tubular and completely
enclosed. Passengers pass through a turnstile and pay their fare
and queue whilst waiting for the bus.
3. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED
BY LRT SCHEMES
Objectives
3.1 The promoter's objectives must be clear and focused
if an LRT Scheme is to be successful. These objectives must have
a wide degree of public support. Leeds got off to a false start
and Bristol has had a chequered progress because the objectives
of their respective schemes were unclear.
Justification
3.2 The justification of an LRT scheme will flow from
an evaluation of the objectives. Many of the benefits of a scheme
are either social or environmental, dependent upon actions of
others or will only come later in the project or after the completion
of the first stage. Yet the majority of the funding must come
from the private sector.
Passenger forecasts and competition
3.3 Accurate forecasts of the number of passengers likely
to use an LRT scheme are difficult in any circumstances because
of the number of externalities which can affect the base assumptions.
This difficulty is compounded (outside Greater London) because
of the competitive regimes that exist. The promoter of an LRT
scheme has little idea how competitors will react. Even if a major
operator is involved in a scheme he himself has to "watch
his back" for competition.
3.4 Elsewhere in the World LRT schemes have formed the
backbone to an integrated public transport system. This was the
concept behind Tyne and Wear Metro, Manchester Metrolink and Sheffield
Supertram. However, all these schemes have suffered to a greater
or lesser extent because of competition and their failure to achieve
(in the Sheffield case) the passenger forecasts. The financial
backers of any LRT scheme require comfort as to the accuracy and
reliability of passenger forecasts and hence income flows. Their
answer to the competitive regime is to price up the risk they
perceive. One reason why LRT schemes in Britain cost more than
they need to.
Contractual
3.5 Current British schemes tend to be built under single
DBOM-type contracts. The complex issues involved are dealt with
in an Appendix "C" to this Memorandum.
Construction
3.6 In part these problems relate to the form of contract
(see Appendix "C") but they also relate to the lack
of realisation that LRT schemes tend to be built in congested
and built-up urban areas, as opposed to green-field sites often
associated with by-passes and such like. Whilst it is inevitable
that there will be some disturbance and inconvenience during construction,
this can be minimised by good planning, project management and
consultation. However, this all takes time—which is money
under a DBOM contract.
Legislation
3.7 Before an LRT scheme can proceed an Order under the
Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA) must be obtained. This is an
expensive, time-consuming and uncertain procedure. Dependent upon
the scheme the costs of promoting such an Order are likely to
be between £½ million and £1 million, the timescale
2-3 years (after allowing for a gestation and consultation period).
Even with clear objectives, the big imponderable is the Public
Inquiry. Whilst the decision to hold such an Inquiry lies with
the Secretary of State, it must always be assumed that he will
call for such an Inquiry. The outcome of such an Inquiry is highly
uncertain, as exemplified by the Merseyside Rapid Transit case
which has been thrown out as a result of the Inquiry—in
spite of it being a bus-based scheme.
4. SUCCESS OF
LRT SYSTEMS
4.1 Worldwide LRT schemes have been a success in achieving
their objectives (see Appendix "A"), whether the schemes
are light-rail based as in North America or Continental Europe
or the rubber-tyred systems in North or South America. At home
the Tyne and Wear Metro was a great success until the advent of
deregulation which challenged its "raison d'être".
4.2 Metrolink has been a great success exceeding the
passenger forecasts so that it now carries more than double the
previous BR carryings at no subsidy from the tax-payer and yielding
profits to the operator. However, it is now a victim of its own
success with substantial overcrowding in the weekday peak periods.
The new operator has made alterations to the infrastructure so
that a more frequent timetable can be operated requiring 92.3
per cent tram availability. Unfortunately neither GMPTE nor ALTRAM
(M/cr) can devise a method to fund additional vehicles or capacity.
4.3 Conversely, Sheffield Supertram has not been a commercial
success although, technically, it is a good system. It had a difficult
gestation with different views being taken by South Yorkshire
PTE (the Promoter) and the City of Sheffield; the alignment was
changed and insufficient priority has been given. However, it
was the bus competition and some inept marketing that badly affected
the passenger forecasts. Unlike Metrolink, it was mainly street-based
and therefore did not have the in-built advantage of fast and
reliable running times. However, debts having been written off
and being owned by the Stagecoach Group it is now being integrated
into the City's public transport network (as was originally intended)
and passenger numbers are rising.
4.4 Although Midland Metro has been afflicted by technical
problems, it has got off to a good start in terms of public acceptance
and passenger carryings. In no small part this is due to it being
fully integrated into the local public transport scene with bus
and train interchange being encouraged at numerous tram stops
and being facilitated by through ticketing. This shows the benefits
when a travel retailer (National Express Group) owns the major
bus operator, the tram operator and the principal local train
franchise—commercial integration.
4.5 Croydon Tramlink is to open shortly and all the signs
are that this, too, will be a success in achieving its objectives.
In part this is assured because of the regulated/franchised transport
scheme that exists in the capital.
5. ASSISTANCE THAT
CAN BE
GIVEN
5.1 Some of the problems encountered in promoting, building
and operating LRT schemes were set out in Section 3. Some of the
problems are inter-related eg competition/regulation issues. These
are dealt with below.
Competition/Regulation
5.2 LRT schemes are expected to be financed by the private
sector through PFI-type arrangements with only a small contribution
from the public sector, yet it is the public sector where the
benefits will lie through reduced congestion, reduced road management
and maintenance, reduction in accidents, better environment, etc.
The British approach is unique in the World.
5.3 The private sector is not averse to such schemes,
as has been shown by investment in Manchester, West Midlands,
Croydon and Nottingham. However, income streams, derived from
passenger forecasts, are critical to project funding. Outside
London there is free competition. Where is the incentive to invest
the substantial monies required by LRT (bus or rail-based) which,
most naturally should take over the existing heavy bus flows and
become the backbone of an integrated transport network.
5.4 Quality Partnerships have been developed in a number
of places and are being encouraged by the government. So far they
have applied to buses, but there is no reason why an LRT corridor
should not be designated a Quality Partnership and thus protected
from some of the excesses of uninhibited competition. However,
the conflict between the government's Transport White Paper's
intentions and their Competition Act will have to be addressed
if integrated transport is to be developed.
Simplification of procedures
5.5 As mentioned in para 3.7 above, the procedure for
obtaining a Draft Order under the T and WA to build and operate
an LRT is long, complicated, expensive and uncertain. This process
has to be gone through for guided bus and light rail systems.
Short lengths of bus-only road, eg the Scott Hall Road developments
in Leeds were built under Highway Powers—a simpler approach.
5.6 The Order procedure under the T and WA was supposed
to be simpler, quicker and cheaper than the previous arrangement
of promoting a Private Bill. This has not turned out to be the
case. It has been suggested that a two-stage approach should be
devised: the First Stage would be similar to obtaining Outline
Planning Permission; the Second Stage would go for the full scheme
in the appropriate detail. Such an approach would be of considerable
assistance to those promoting LRT schemes.
Shared Operation
5.7 Reference was made in para 1.10 to the fact
that a number of British light rail schemes have taken over under-used
heavy rail alignments. Shared running of light and heavy rail
was not then acceptable to HM Railway Inspectorate. Following
the pioneering work in Karlsruhe (Germany), HMRI has accepted
the principal of track-sharing subject to appropriate safeguards.
This is to be welcomed. However, it is unfortunate that the Nottingham
LRT scheme has chosen not to take this approach, but to share
the solus with Railtrack and to run parallel to heavy rail operations.
5.8 It is suggested that a little lateral thinking could
be encouraged in that a number of existing local heavy rail services
could be operated as a mini-franchise, and be converted to shared
light rail operation so that the services could be extended into
the local city centre. This would reduce the cost and improve
the service by conversion to light rail and improve accessibility
by extending the service into the city centre. Possible examples
of this could include:
— converting the Bridlington-Hull section of the
Hull-Scarborough line and extending the tracks into Hull City
Centre.
— converting the Cardiff Valley line services and
extending them on street through Cardiff City Centre,
and no doubt there are many more examples.
6. CONCLUSIONS
6.1 The rebirth of light rail in Britain, and the resurgence
of interest in trams, has been quite amazing (and mirrors parallel
events in France and North America). Light rail very nearly offers
the best of both buses and trains and has a modern image. It has
shown itself to be capable of attracting people from their cars.
In spite of most schemes having been conceived as part of an integrated
network they are all now working in the competitive climate that
is the British public transport scene.
6.2 Ten years ago there were 50+ schemes at some stage
or other of development in Britain. Light rail was seen as the
"answer to the maiden's prayer". This was an unrealistic
attitude and, as always, in transport, it is a question of "horses
for courses". Light rail offered another option to transportation
planners in their attempts to improve public transport's share
of the market.
6.3 Today the government seems to have an ambivalent
view of light rail. It is aware of its success but comments: "The
capital costs of light rail are, however, high—particularly
in comparison to bus priority measures and more modest guided
bus schemes ...." (White Paper para 3.38). The capital costs
are higher, but so is the quality and the benefits achieved. Bus
priority measures, even with new vehicles, will not achieve the
same results—getting people out of their cars.
6.4 A more objective approach to LRT would see the existing
schemes being continuously expanded into networks and new schemes
under construction in Leeds, Bristol, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh
in addition to places which are already well advanced in planning
terms, eg South Hampshire.
October 1999
| 
