Memorandum by Avon Transport 2000 (RT
05)
LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEMS
BACKGROUND—UK
DEVELOPMENT
The Committee is commended on its approach to
consider the effects of LRT systems world wide because of their
absence until recently in the UK. This may be because, unusually
amongst developed countries, the UK and USA quickly abandoned
their on-street tram systems in the 1940s—1960s, presumably
because of assumptions that cheap petroleum would result in widespread
car ownership and use. (Although this assumption proved to be
correct, the unavoidable consequences of congestion and pollution
were either not anticipated or ignored.) By contrast, most countries
on the European mainland have expanded and enhanced their tram
systems, and converted them into light rapid transit systems with
on-street running for maximum city centre accessibility and reserved
tracks for higher speed suburban operations. Examples are too
numerous to mention, but this evolutionary development is very
common, even in relatively small urban concentrations.
UK EXAMPLES
Because so few LRT developments have taken place
in the UK, it is unreasonable to make any sweeping generalisations
on almost any topic connected with LRT; in order to do this, the
factors which identify LRT apart from other transport systems
must be separated from factors arising from specific location,
modes of operation or other issues.
The LRT system in Sheffield had been held to
be unsuccessful; however, the economic activity assumptions on
which the system design was based were completely overturned by
the collapse of manufacturing (especially steel) in the recessions
induced in the 1980s and early 1990s. Performance is such that
the operator is now considering an extension to the system. Similarly,
the delays and cost over-runs associated with the extension of
the Jubilee Underground line are not necessary consequences of
building underground railways but probably more to do with poor
political and managerial performance.
By contrast, the Tyne and Wear Metro has operated
very successfully for many years and is one of the factors which
has improved the perception of the North East as a new business
location. The Manchester tram system is also a good example of
on-street City Centre running to improve accessibility coupled
with high speed suburban running to maximise passenger appeal.
A study conducted by the University of Salford
concluded that only significant measures and levels of investment
are likely to lead to modal shift from private car use. This study
indicated that the Manchester LRT system had achieved reductions
in traffic on parallel roads where traffic on other similar roads
not served by the System had increased.
The West Midlands system has only just started
operation, so its impact is difficult to gauge at the moment,
and the Croydon Scheme is still under construction.
The System being promoted by the Councils of
South Gloucestershire and Bristol will offer similar benefits
to the Manchester Metro; Line 1 of the LRT will offer a high speed
link from the North of the urban area to on street operation through
the City Centre and principal shopping area, and incidentally
enhance the attractiveness of existing suburban rail services
by providing better connections for the principal rail station.
SHOULD LRT BE
PROMOTED?
Although UK evidence is limited because of the
paucity of systems, the evidence offered by experience in mainland
Europe suggests that people will willingly use high quality public
transport, and especially LRT, as an alternative to private car
use. Even in the USA LRT schemes are being promoted in areas which
previously had no fixed track public transport, further confirming
belief in the readiness of motorists to shift to LRT for significant
parts of their journeys.
If levels of traffic congestion, vehicle induced
pollution and other disbenefits of car use are seen as problems
and there is to be a mixture of carrots and sticks to reduce traffic
growth, LRT must be a significant carrot. Draconian traffic restrictions
are only likely to encourage business to move elsewhere.
CAN WE
AFFORD LRT?
The cost structure of car use and the financial
climate set up around the privatisation of the bus and rail industries
means that public transport operated primarily to reduce private
car use is never likely to offer an accounting profit. If it did
so, presumably the market would already have responded. (The ability
of bus and rail operators to run profitably in the current operational
climate is linked to their natural concentration on those markets
where they are monopoly suppliers—either because their customers
lack cars or there is little destination parking or extreme congestion).
The growth in the rail passenger market may have arisen from the
commendable drive by operators to sell marginal off-peak seats
at discounts and reduce the amount of down time for rolling stock,
but this is far from a situation where operators (and Railtrack)
will invest in large amounts of new capacity. LRT does represent
significant volumes of new capacity.
LRT can represent a good return in terms of
modal transfer and the overall transport market, but for this
to be expressed in money terms its impact on reduced congestion
and reduced resource use (and therefore pollution) must be given
an appropriate notional value. The existing road network was built
on the proceeds of vehicle taxation in order to reduce congestion;
it is not unreasonable for the same logic to be applied to other
transport investments, like LRT, one of the benefits of which
will be to reduce demand on road capacity. If people are expected
to look at all transport seamlessly, and use appropriate modes
for appropriate trips, then it is not unreasonable to expect society
and the Government to do the same.
If LRT cannot be afforded, how else is the traffic
congestion/pollution issue to be addressed? Building roads is
no longer acceptable on a crowded island, and existing alternatives
to the car seem to have little appeal to attract current car users.
October 1999
| 
