Memorandum submitted by The Institute
of Logistics and Transport (RT 17)
INTRODUCTION
The Institute of Logistics and Transport (ILT)
welcomes the inquiry by the House of Commons Environment, Transport
and Regional Affairs Committee into the development of light rapid
transit (LRT) systems. The United Kingdom has a substantial population
living on a small land mass, a high proportion within major urban
areas, and suffers from serious problems with transport, as Government
recognised in the transport White Paper A New Deal for Transport:
Better for Everyone (1998). Substantial changes are needed
in transport provision and use if the Government's broadly agreed
aims set out in the White Paper are to be achieved. Major policy
steps are also needed to enchance our urban areas, as the Rogers
Report Towards an Urban Renaissance (1999) has shown.
LRT systems form an important item in the toolbox
from which decision makers and professionals can select measures
for improving urban transport. The Chartered Institute of Transport
in the UK (CIT UK) demonstrated the value of LRT and related systems
in its 1996 report Better Public Transport for Cities.
Yet such systems have been treated with surprising coolness by
the present Government [White Paper 3.37-38], as they were by
the previous Government.
This submission sets out:
— the main findings and recommendations
from Better Public Transport for Cities;
— a review of the main factors in the
development of LRT, reflecting experience with existing systems;
— the relationship of LRT systems with
urban land use planning.
Finally the submission draws some conclusions
addressing the potential for LRT in the UK.
BETTER PUBLIC
TRANSPORT FOR
CITIES
Four years ago CIT UK set up a Working Party
to examine the case for a higher level of investment in public
transport in urban areas, with particular reference to light rail.
The Working Party's report Better Public Transport for Cities
was published in June 1996. It reflected considerable analysis
of facts and issues, with reference to a good number of studies.
Although the report is now three years old,
its conclusions are still valid and may help the Select Committee
to consider the context in which light rail systems and their
potential for success should be considered. It concluded, on the
basis of a comprehensive review of the available evidence, that
light rail schemes—and indeed all forms of public transport
investment—are unlikely to achieve their full effect except
as part of an integrated strategy, including:
(a) measures to manage or limit the use of
the private car;
(b) full integration of all the public transport
modes, with efficient interchanges and interchangeable ticketing;
(c) integration of transport and land use
policies.
Few schemes, either in the UK or in other European
countries, have yet been implemented in this fashion; although
other European countries have made much greater progress on (b)
and (c) than we have in the UK. The actual level of success of
light rail schemes, particularly in the UK, is therefore almost
certainly well below the potential level. Studies of Greater Manchester,
referred to in the 1996 report, suggest, for example, that if
it had been possible to construct Manchester Metrolink and the
rest of the light rail network as part of a comprehensive strategy,
patronage might have been 25 per cent higher and that this could
have improved the fundability of the project by between 12 and
16 per cent.
The Manchester light rail system has, nevertheless,
been very successful in attracting patronage from the car and
has had some impact on reducing road congestion. This is attributable
mainly to its high quality and greater speed than both bus and
car travel in the same corridor. In contrast the early performance
of Sheffield Supertram was poor in terms of traffic and revenue
(it has now considerably improved). Although the Working Party
was not able to make a thorough assessment of the Sheffield Supertram,
which had only recently opened, the fact that it includes significant
sections on congested roads without significant priority must
reduce its potential advantages: added to which, traffic has been
seriously reduced through competition in the deregulated bus regime
and from loss of expected development (discussed later). Light
rail schemes need to be designed to achieve reasonably high speeds
and to be planned carefully to exploit their potential appeal
for car users and not just for existing bus users. Many light
rail systems now on the drawing board were not designed in this
way.
In brief, the advantages of the integrated approach
for light rail (LRT) planning include:
(a) a much higher mode shift;
(b) better operating conditions for street-running
trams;
(c) increased patronage, which makes the
investments more attractive commercially and easier to finance;
and
(d) the ability to fund the public sector
contribution from the revenues of road-user or parking charges.
The main conclusions relevant to light rail,
set out in the Executive Summary of Better Public Transport
for Cities, are quoted at Appendix A.
Better Public Transport for Cities also
contains detailed reviews of the evidence available in 1996 of
the effectiveness of public transport investment in attracting
patronage, particularly from the private car; and a comparison
of the relative advantages of bus (including guided bus) and light
rail. These may contain material that will be helpful to the Select
Committee. The main references are as follows:
(i) Chapter 4 reviews the results of urban
transport strategy studies and the relative effectiveness of different
policy options. The evidence is summarised in more detail in Annex
C to the report. Paragraphs 4 to 15 of this Annex discuss public
transport options; paragraphs 28 to 37 discuss integrated options
which combine public transport improvements with restraints on
car use.
(ii) Chapter 5 and Annex D review the results
of past public transport investments in the UK, including their
benefit: cost ratios. Annex D to the report includes material
on Manchester Metrolink and the Robin Hood Line as well as some
older schemes. There is a short section on continental experience,
including Grenoble, Hannover, Stuttgart and Zurich.
(iii) Chapter 6 (particularly paragraphs
6.11-6.18) examines the relative merits of different forms of
public transport, including the potential advantages of light
rail over bus. The report concludes, however, that the choice
of public transport mode should be made on the basis of a full
analysis of the benefits and costs and that novel and imaginative
ideas need to be tried out more widely, including guided bus and
other intermediate technologies between buses and light rail.
There is a detailed note on the characteristics of different public
transport modes in Annex E and Table 1 of the report.
LRT SYSTEMS—MAIN
FACTORS AND
OPPORTUNITIES
In assessing the potential of LRT systems several
factors should be properly taken into account. Some of the critical
issues are reviewed above. Further aspects are considered in the
following paragraphs.
Types of System and their coverage
LRT systems include conventional street trams,
light rail vehicles running mostly on own right-of-way, and line
which operate largely as urban metros. Options such as guided
bus and "full" metro lines come either side. Unlike
"heavy" (suburban) rail systems, LRT systems are generally
local to a particular conurbation (metro systems share this principle).
So the mix of characteristics can be adjusted to meet the particular
characteristics of the City/region served: i.e. LRT can be tailored
to suit its catchment. (The catchment should also be tailored
to suit the LRT system—the synergy with land use planning
is considered later).
At present there are about 160 conventional
tracked (light rail) systems in Europe. Over a third are in Germany,
and most countries have at least one or two. A good proportion
derive from former street tramway systems, and many retain considerable
substantial sections of on-street running, especially in older
urban areas. However, the larger cities with such systems have
seen investment and restructuring, often of a substantial scale,
with concentration of central area routes through tunnels, priority
over other road traffic at junctions and for on-street running,
sophisticated control systems, addition of substantial lengths
of reserved right-of-way on outer areas, and modernisation of
rolling stock. At the same time a number of new systems are being
built. France in particular eliminated its tramway networks as
thoroughly as did Great Britain but, as a matter of national policy
is now encouraging the provision of LRT systems in Paris and other
cities, using standardised approaches to system design and rolling
stock in order to secure economies of scale.
The nearest alternative options—light
metro and guided bus—remain very limited in application.
Some metro systems, though on fully segregated track, share technical
characteristics with light rail: eg Tyne and Wear and Docklands
systems in the UK, Lille in France (Docklands and Lille are both
fully automated). Some German light rail lines have characteristics
close to metro lines, with almost total separation from traffic
and distinct stations: Amsterdam has one segregated light rail
line whose vehicles run through on to part of the metro. There
are a few bus routes operated on guided bus sections, including
that in Leeds. This indicates how light rail, albeit the dominant
form of LRT, fits into a wide range of system types in the "toolbox"
and that a line or system can evolve as need and investment requires:
from bus corridor through guided bus sections to light rail and
perhaps ultimately to metro.
In most European mainland cities, integration
of operations and ticket systems is the normal situation. This
is very evident for example in the Netherlands, where physical
and operational integration of rail, LRT and bus are expected,
while a common local transport ticketing system (the "strippenkaart")
is used through the country. Thus in the main conurbations light
rail systems serve the main corridors, with bus routes co-ordinated
to provide local connections; in turn, light rail forms the main
connecting network for "heavy" rail lines. This is not
the case in Great Britain, where bus services outside London have
operated with no commercial regulation since 1986. The implications
for Manchester have been identified earlier. This also explains
in good part the poor initial performance of the Sheffield Supertram
system, which was originally developed in a context of integrated
operations.
Comparison with bus service development
Significant improvements to the actual and perceived
quality of bus services forms a fundamental part of improving
public transport. ILT broadly supports the Government's aims for
bus development (as indicated in From Workhorse to Thoroughbred)
and would encourage stronger action to implement them. Bus networks
are important in all urban and suburban areas, as well as in more
thinly populated areas. On main corridors, bus projects implemented
as Quality Partnerships can dramatically improve individual route
image (and carryings), as e.g. Birmingham route 33 and the Leeds
guided bus section have demonstrated. Bus routes like these benefit
from a fixed infrastructure (named stops, platforms, canopies)
and hence a sense of permanence and quality. However, bus services
are very rarely seen as either permanent or as an acceptable alternative
to car travel.
Rail services, including LRT offer the confidence
of perceived permanence. LRT infrastructure may attract the attention
of potential passengers more than any other mode: it generally
combines physical permanence with visibility in the neighbourhood,
or even the street, and stops close at hand (metros and "heavy"
rail lines are generally less visible, unless design and marketing
of stations is good). LRT sytems are thus more "user-friendly"
for urban travel than most bus routes, demonstrating a commitment
to public transport along a main urban corridor which bus routes
do not have. This comes across especially in the ambience of systems
in countries such as Germany, the Netherlands. Bus services can
be easily re-routed, whereas trams cannot: but generally this
is a virtue for major routes, as people will have more confidence
in an LRT system's continued existence and may be more likely
to use it for that reason.
Users' perceptions are important, and have been
substantiated through the much higher levels of patronage achieved
by light rail than previous bus or heavy rail services on the
same corridor and by "stated preference" surveys. So
the presence of LRT systems can enable a more permanent lifestyle
shift towards public transport. This also offers confidence for
employers that there is commitment to enchancing their neighbourhood:
this will encourage them to commit investment to developing their
business in that area. Thus LRT is an important tool in planning
and regeneration for urban areas.
Components of LRT systems
The construction of an LRT system—or the
upgrading of an older tram system—will include five main
components:
— the route, tracks and overheads;
— designated stops (stations);
— associated street works, including
environmental enhancement;
While the route layout will reflect local circumstances
and the fleet of vehicles may do so, systems have usually been
constructed using manufacturers' standard components. Today the
main railway equipment manufacturers have developed a modular
approach towards vehicle provision, so that LRT vehicles may be
specifically designed to meet local circumstances through using
an assembly of standard modules. This is important since it offers
standardised designs for a market which is more limited than for
buses. LRT vehicles are much more expensive than buses, in particular
as they are larger and more heavily engineered than road vehicles,
so they are safer in collisions and have a higher capacity. However,
efforts are being made to produce vehicles which maintain the
capacity, security and operating quality but have a much lower
manufacturing cost.
At present there is a growing number of new
design low-floor LRT vehicles coming into service in many European
systems. These are bringing a definable change in the attractiveness
of even conventional street networks. They are particularly important
to meet the needs of groups with lower mobility, especially disabled,
but also elderly people, mothers with children in pushchairs,
and those with luggage or shopping. They also bring a further
element of convenience and hence appeal to attract passengers
generally.
LRT systems may operate over a variety of types
of track, from completely independent through segregated sections
alongside roads to on-street tracks. If LRT is to deliver speed
and reliability it must be freed from congestion of other traffic.
This is possible even with on-street running if any sections it
shares with road traffic, or crosses it, are properly controlled
through traffic signals and traffic management, including parking
restrictions. One of the principal failures of the Sheffield system
is that traffic priorities were not provided on main road sections
both sides of the city, so that LRT vehicles were caught up in
congestion (this has now largely been sorted out). In contrast
the combined route 4/6 in Budapest—perhaps the most heavily
trafficked LRT line in the world—operates successfully although
it runs along existing streets throughout: a lot of it is physically
in central reservation, but it benefits from management measures
where the route shares the carriageway with other traffic and
from priorities at the frequent road crossings along the route.
Use of existing/redundant rail lines
LRT systems can successfully provide new transport
opportunities by connecting previously disparate (and perhaps
lightly-used) railway lines into parts of an LRT network. Examples
in the UK include the Croydon Tramlink and Manchester Metrolink
systems; elsewhere in Europe Paris line T2 forms another example.
Additionally the operation of LRT vehicles over suburban railway
lines, but linked through the city centre over new or existing
tram/LRT track, is now proving of considerable interest, following
the initial development of this approach for the Karlsruhe region.
Such track sharing requires both technical and administrative
barriers to be overcome to ensiure accepted safety levels are
maintained; but there are a lot of suburban and local railway
lines in Great Britain, in and around the larger cities, which
carry relatively low traffic levels, and thus a considerable potential
exists for this type of scheme.
Schemes for re-using redundant or existing local
railway lines offer the valuable benefit of maintaining the existing
rail line but providing higher frequencies, links into city centres,
and a much improved ambience (new LRT vehicles against large conventional
rail vehicles). They also offer a sense of "local ownership",
as they are usually developed and funded through the local authority
and local operating interests rather than as part of a (national)
railway company. These conversion/through-running schemes can
prove cheaper overall, and offer better traffic results, than
developing the existing railway line. In Manchester there was
a significant increase in patronage on the Manchester-Bury line
after conversion to Metrolink. Substantial growth has been reported
in carrying on the lines in the Karlsruhe region now served by
light rail. It is therefore crucial that the opportunity for conversion
to light rail should be reviewed before existing heavy rail concessions
are extended.
Air pollution and noise
There are obvious environmental advantages to
LRT systems: an important issue in view of the local air quality
management responsibilities placed on local authorities. Although
the cleanest buses now are a vast improvement over older buses,
especially with the implementation of Euro II and Euro III standards,
LRT systems do not emit any pollutants in their vicinity. They
can also "coast" for some of their journey, as well
as having regenerative braking fitted, thus improving on the efficiency
of fuel use in relation to traffic carried. They do cause the
emission of pollutants at power stations, but this is an issue
which is being dealt with nationally. Trams are quieter than buses:
70-80 dBA at 10 metres, as opposed to 75-85dBA for an average
diesel engine bus.
The need for strategic planning
As indicated, a major criticism of LRT systems
is that high capital investment is needed. However, this is one
sided: the cost of any system has to be balanced against the benefits.
There is a strong case for LRT where traffic is dense, distances
relatively long, park and ride potentially important and off street
infrastructure needed and available for rail. LRT vehicles have
a far higher capacity than a bus, effective lives two to three
times as long, and good riding, and far higher capacities per
vehicle. They also offer greater effectiveness and a better travel
environment, generally reflecting the characteristics built into
modern systems: better ride quality, better lighting and seating,
higher speeds, and level access. LRT systems are thus likely to
attract far more people of out of their cars than buses.
Bus systems can be developed to meet most of
these characteristics, and this is the broad aim of Quality Partnerships.
Modern bus systems are likely to prove more effective where the
characteristics favouring LRT are not present, and particularly
where it is desirable for services to "fan out" and
serve a number of destinations, a modern bus system is likely
to have the edge. There is no reason why such a system should
have lighting and seating inferior to LRT, although the ride quality
probably will be.
The importance of strategic planning should
be emphasised, as this is essential to properly assess all the
relevant factors for an investment case are properly assessed
against the objectives for the proposed system, compared to alternative
options. A key element is integration with other forms of public
transport and with land use planning. (Sheffield's problems resulted
largely from the failure of both). As long as we have deregulated
buses (outside London) any serious form of integration is impossible.
This a major difference between the UK and the rest of Europe
(and the rest of the world?!), and a major factor in their success
with fixed track systems and our relative failures (traffic levels
on the Tyne and Wear Metro, planned as part of an integrated system,
have fallen since deregulation).
In Great Britain this means that the strategy
and proposals must come through the Local Transport Plan/Local
Transport Strategy, so that options and use of funds are properly
evaluated as part of a cohesive strategy. The whole strategy will
need to be set against wider aims, which for a larger urban area
will almost certainly include emphasis on supporting a sound economy,
a good environment and social cohesion. This means full integration
with land use planning (discussed below).
This more comprehensive approach underlies the
widespread development of LRT in most countries of mainland Europe
to a certain degree. For example, implementation of new tram routes
in various medium size French cities over the last decade has
almost invariably caused a significant jump in total public transport
patronage to a new level which is then maintained. In France,
as in Germany and the Netherlands, regional and city transport
planning establishes a consistent framework for investment over
a long period, subject to regular updating: this forms a valuable
context for fully assessing the role of LRT against alternative
options.
The process for moving a line from strategic
decision to construction is complex in Great Britain. Generally
any form of LRT will require to apply for an Order under the Transport
& Works Act 1992. The procedures under this Act do not readily
aid the proponents of a scheme to fully establish its role in
relation to local strategy and funding. The Institute reviewed
the strengths and weaknesses of these procedures in its 1998 report
Promoting new transport projects.
Funding availability
The few schemes built or building in Great Britain
have been funded by a combination of private and public money.
The cost is significant at local level, involves works involving
public and private land and utilities, and cannot see any return
until the system is operating, so identifying the likely return
on private funds is not easy. It is therefore essential that Government
ensure provision of funds through public sources and establish
clearer principles for encouraging private funding. In part this
will also be served by giving stronger formal recognition to Local
Transport Plans/Strategies. The net proceeds from road pricing
regimes and parking charges should be allocated to public transport
improvements, including light rapid transit. It may be possible
to devise public/private partnerships in which the improved public
transport is funded up-front on the back of forecast revenues
from charging. But some pump-priming direct from central government
may be needed also.
Currently Great Britain spends much less on
investment in surface transport infrastructure than its western
European neighbours, and current funding levels appear far too
low to provide systems which will meet the ambitious targets of
Government transport policy. In its submission to the House of
Commons Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee
inquiry on the integrated transport White Paper, the Institute
suggested that an additional £3,000 million per annum needed
to be invested each year in surface transport infrastructure.
Broad assessment suggests that the additional amount needed per
annum on all public transport, including vehicles as well as infrastructure,
could be in the order of £2,000 million: a moderate proportion
of this should be attributed to LRT schemes.
Construction—the need for phasing
LRT systems take time to build, and building
each line can involve disruption to other traffic (a concern with
construction of the Sheffield system). For this reason it is almost
essential to build only one line at a time. In principle this
has to be self-sufficient, so as to justify the investment. The
schemes in Manchester and Sheffield are examples of this. However,
the West Midlands scheme was originally conceived as a much larger
system. Evolving a major regional system as a start may prove
counter-productive: it may be better to start with one line and
let it prove successful in appropriate terms, rather than apply
for the powers for several lines first and then see them lapse.
There is also value in seeing LRT system evolution from the current
situation, from bus corridor in a Quality Partnership through
guided bus sections to light rail and perhaps ultimately to metro.
However, the scope for significant extensions
may need to be assessed and allowed for, especially in such factors
as initial depot capacity (this reinforces the need for effective
strategic planning). The Manchester system is now extending to
Salford, with plans well advanced for a series of extensions.
Most new French systems have generally consisted of one line,
which has then been extended into a network following initial
success. It remains essential that system extension remains within
the clear framework of the Local Transport Plan.
THE LINKS
WITH LAND
USE PLANNING
The Local Transport Plans and the Regional Transport
Strategies within which they are to be guided, and the Local Transport
Strategy in Scotland, are specifically related to Development
Plans (under the Town & Country Planning Acts). Such integration
has been long discussed in Great Britain, but only following the
1998 transport White Paper are steps being taken to put it into
practice, following Government consultations on draft guidance
this year. It is essential that this integral approach is developed
in practice if LRT systems are to be properly assessed. But at
present land use planning remains largely discretionary in the
UK rather than adopting the more directive approach found elsewhere
in Europe.
LRT systems play their most effective role in
densely occupied corridors, with fairly high residential densities
along their length, coupled with a significant number of attractors.
Land use planning strategy thus needs to be aimed at delivering
development of this nature if public transport is envisaged as
playing a key role in urban travel patterns. Denser urban development
on these lines also offers other significant benefits—better
access to a wider range of facilities, more neighbourhood economies,
better social cohesion—which are fundamental to regeneration
of city living, as the Rogers Report identified. But city design
has to be of high quality, in detail as well as in overall strategy,
in order to attract businesses and families. Provision of visible,
high quality public transport forms a key element in this, and
LRT can prove very effective.
On the reverse side of the coin, dense flows
of people along defined corridors should provide LRT systems with
good traffic levels, so that the net revenue and return on income
are sound. From this point of view, corridors need not be short
and compact: an LRT line may link a number of densely occupied
key nodes separated by low density development or open land. In
effect the Manchester Metrolink system reflects this principle,
serving a number of local centres built round former suburban
railway stations. Perhaps the major weakness in planning the Sheffield
system was that the high density of development envisaged by the
original studies did not occur: inner city areas scheduled for
regeneration were largely demolished, while the planned Mosborough
New Town, at the south east end, was only partially completed
and not focused on the Supertram.
Elsewhere in Europe the integral relationship
is built into the planning of cities and development of transport
projects. Particular examples may be seen in France and the Netherlands.
In France, the first lines in Grenoble (opened 1987 and since
extended) and in Orleans (under construction) are relatively short
but serve planned corridors, including new and refurbished high
density housing, major commercial and university sites, and a
restyled city centre. In The Hague and Utrecht (Netherlands) major
new residential areas, largely on reclaimed polders, are being
served by extended branches off existing LRT lines (the Delft
line from the Hague, the "sneltram" at Utrecht). This
provides easy links to the respective city centres and supports
high density development designed for low levels of car use but
high quality of environment.
These examples indicate how the commitment to
public transport indicated by investment in LRT forms an important
element in urban planning, especially in regeneration. This justifies
the case for investment in it. At the same time, major developers
are likely to be significant beneficiaries, and there may often
be a case for developer contributions.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Government's intended transport policies
rest heavily on motivating people to reduce car use in favour
of public transport. As the Institute's 1996 report Better
Public Transport for Cities pointed out, this requires heavy
investment in quality public transport accompanied by constraints
on use of cars where appropriate. LRT systems—light rail
and similar—can offer the necessary quality and appeal.
They do require relatively significant investment—but price
comparisons with buses are misleading, as LRT can prove more effective
in the right circumstances. On the other hand converting "heavy"
rail to LRT may well be cheaper than continuing to invest in the
former.
LRT systems, mostly light rail, are widely used
across mainland Europe. Their use is optimised through the integration
of public transport services, development within a proper strategic
planning framework for transport, and integration into city/regional
land use planning. ILT considers that the benefits from LRT systems
can only be understood and achieved when British transport development
benefits from these principles, which ILT have urged on Government.
In addition, there must be adequate funding for transport investment,
especially in infrastructure.
ILT recommends the following specific measures
to achieve the benefits of LRT:
— Local Transport Plans/Strategies
should define a full strategic public transport network, with
clear proposals for routes which are suitable for light rail.
There should be a programme, with indicative time-scales, for
installation/conversion. This approach should allow for a phased
approach where appropriate: once in service, initial systems are
likely to offer wide benefits from significant extensions.
— Government should abandon the "one
scheme per year" approach and commit itself to giving LRT
proposals fair support in the context of Local Transport Plans/Strategies
and funding. If Government aims for modal transfer are to be achieved,
very substantial increase in the funding available for local public
transport will be required across all conurbations and cities.
Where possible the funding should come from charging regimes approved
as part of the local transport plan.
— Development of integration—within
public transport, across all transport and with land use planning—should
form a key principle in the evolution of policy measures.
— Light rail investments should be
backed by demand management systems. This will assist modal shift,
increase patronage and make systems easier to finance.
— Priority should be given to public
transport investments that offer a high quality alternative to
routes affected by congestion charging or demand management systems.
— All suburban/local lines should be
reviewed to identify the likely candidates for conversion to light
rail (with central area running where appropriate). This should
be done before franchises are extended/renewed.
October 1999
|
