Memorandum submitted by the Institution
of Highways & Transportation (RT 18)
LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEMS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Institution of Highways & Transportation
is a professional body with over 10,000 members whose vision is
to represent professional excellence in the promotion, planning,
design, implementation and maintenance of sustainable transport
systems and infrastructure. It is part of the Institution's mission
to promote political, professional and public debate and understanding
of sustainable transport issues, to influence policy, promote
investment and encourage public support.
1.2 Membership of the Institution includes
transportation planners, traffic engineers, highway engineers
and other transport professionals employed by local authorities
and central government as well as those working in the private
sector and academia. Their decisions play a large part in determining
the impact that transportation infrastructure and operations have
on the quality of life, business and leisure activities as well
as safety and environment.
1.3 The Institution welcomes the opportunity
to submit evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee for
the Environment, Transport and the Regions for its inquiry into
light rapid transit (LRT) systems. Many IHT members work in local
authorities preparing and implementing Local Transport Plans (LTPs)
in which public transport, possibility including LRT, is expected
to play an ever increasing role in resolving the problems of congestion
and pollution.
1.4 Much of the Institution's work is involved
with the production of technical guidelines. These guidelines
and manuals are essential for highway engineers, transport planners,
traffic engineers, town planners and other transport professionals
and represent nationally agreed standards in many technical fields.
These technical guidelines include: "Traffic Impact Assessment"
(1994); "Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure" (1996);
"Developing Urban Transport Strategies" (1996);
"Road Safety Audit" (1996); and "Cycle
Audit and Cycle Review" (1998). In addition, in June
1997 the Institution published the technical manual "Transport
in the Urban Environment" and has recently issued guidelines
on "Planning for Public Transport in Developments".
The Institution currently has projects to produce technical guidelines
on: "Providing for Journeys on Foot", "Green
Transport Plans", "The Environmental Management
of Highways", "Pedestrianised Streets",
and "Rural Safety Management".
1.5 The IHT has made several recent submissions
to Government and other bodies on issues relating to public transport,
including:
— 24 Hour Bus Stop Clearways (July
1999);
— From Workhorse to Thoroughbred (June
1999);
— All Aboard—Local Transport
& Travel (January 1999);
— Integrated Transport White Paper
(September 1998); and
— Developing an Integrated Transport
Policy (November 1997).
2. GENERAL COMMENTS
2.1 The Institution endorses the Government's
goals of creating an integrated transport policy. The Institution
sees an integrated transport policy as one in which the various
strands of transport policy pull together with one another and
with other related policies, notably fiscal policies and those
for regional development, land-use, education and health care.
The successful integration of transport policies will depend upon
action undertaken at regional and local level. This in turn will
depend upon the level of resources available to local authorities,
including that made available for both capital expenditure and
revenue support for LRT systems. Local authorities should be encouraged
to develop their LTPs as the facilitator for integrated transport
at the local level with LRT having a central role where this is
appropriate.
2.2 To promote greater public transport
use, including LRT, it is necessary to secure the "3 C's
and the 3 R's":
| Cost (affordable for the user)
| Regularity (of service) |
| Convenience (for the user) |
Reliability (of service) |
| Comfort (eg LRT) | Return (to the operator)
|
| LRT systems can satisfy these six criteria.
| |
2.3 In December 1990 the then Public Transport Minister,
Roger Freeman, announced to the House of Commons Select Committee
on Transport, that up to 10 LRT lines could be in place in the
UK by the end of the decade (ie. by 2000). However, financial
constraints and policy changes have prevented rapid development
of LRT within the UK. Local authorities now appear to be interested
in guided busways as an alternative to LRT. Meanwhile, overseas
LRT systems are being built and enhanced.
2.4 The IHT was disappointed with the comment in the
1998 White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport",
that "Light rail and similar rapid transit systems, can
have a role to play in delivering integrated transport in urban
areas—particularly if planned as part of an overall strategy.
The capital costs of light rail systems are, however, high—particularly
in comparison to bus priority measures and more modest guided
bus schemes which may offer a more cost-effective alternative"
(paragraph 3.37). This does not give encouragement to local authorities
to plan and develop LRT systems even where they are likely to
be the most effective measure for curbing car-use.
2.5 It must be recognised, however, that LRT systems
will only be appropriate in urban areas with a population over
400,000 (possibly less in some areas). Buses, including guided
busways, will continue to form the backbone of the public transport
system in most urban areas. Guided busways may be applicable in
towns with a population over 250,000 or along certain corridors.
LRT in smaller towns and cities will require operating subsidies
to offer an attractive service for customers. Even in the larger
urban area where LRT can be viable only a limited area can be
served and buses will continue to retain a vital importance in
public transport provision. Effective bus services must be fully
integrated with LRT systems. However since the deregulation of
the bus industry this has proved difficult, for example in Tyne
and Wear.
2.6 It must be recognised that there are difficulties
imposing LRT on the existing urban form. While on the Continent
dual-carriageway roads into the suburbs were provided for possible
LRT extensions, this has not happened in the UK. Re-allocation
of road-space will therefore be necessary to provide for LRT.
It must be recognised that the introduction of LRT creates opportunities
for development.
2.7 Many authorities, recognising the costs of LRT developments,
have turned their attention to guided busways (O-bahn in Germany).
A guided bus can run both on ordinary roads and on exclusive track
at speeds up to 100km/hr (62mph). Articulated vehicles are provided
with three pairs of solid rubber-tyred guide rollers on each side
which act as buffers against high-sided kerbs. Movements of up
to 10,000 passengers/hr can be achieved. Capital costs may be
up to 30 per cent lower than light rail and only 10 per cent more
than the cost of the conventional bus for the guidance mechanism.
At road intersections guided bus operation must be under driver
control but this is not necessary along route lengths where kerbs
are sited. The use of dedicated track excludes other users unlike
the on-street running of LRT. Guided busways are inappropriate
for town centres where other forms of bus priority must be provided.
Nevertheless only two guided busway systems are currently in operation
in the UK: Leeds and Ipswich. Experiments in Birmingham, Stockton-on-Tees,
Runcorn and Rotherham were abandoned. Overseas they are also relatively
rare, but systems are operating in: Essen, Mannheim, and Adelaide.
Guided busway schemes have been considered in, inter alia,
Northampton, Edinburgh (City of Edinburgh Rapid Transit), Oxford
(Guided Transit Expressway), Guildford, Luton, Bristol (Avon Gorge
Expressway), Chatham and Dartford. Because of their perceived
lower cost, such schemes may proceed more quickly than LRT. Furthermore,
guided busways may be a useful tool to generate modal shift which
may, in due course, justify the provision of LRT. In Ottawa busses
have achieved patronage levels of over 100,000 per hour—indeed
88 per cent of commuters travel to work by bus there.
2.8 There are conflicting views about the comparative
costs of guided busways compared to LRT. In some cases guided
busways need a higher specification if they are not to fail structurally
(due to the dynamic loads imposed on the trackway) so that the
physical infrastructure may cost more than light rail. There are
also difficult problems of comparing like with like—LRT
systems have to include the cost of the vehicles whereas in guided
bus systems that is funded by the operators. If vehicles are included
one has to adjust for the fact that Light Rail Vehicles (LRVs)
can carry three to four more passengers and last, typically, twice
as long as buses. Guided busways very rarely indeed are built
for whole routes and whilst costs may therefore be lower, so too
are benefits. Furthermore the perception of potential passengers
who currently use cars, to date, has not been as positive to guided
buses as to LRT.
3. DETAILED COMMENTS
(a) Examples of rapid transit systems recently constructed
both in this country and worldwide
3.1 The Manchester Metrolink opened in January 1992 replacing
two exisitng grant-supported conventional rail lines linking Bury
and Altrincham to Manchester and provides a cross-city, partly
street-running, link between the two lines. Construction of the
South Yorkshire Supertram began in September 1991 and it commenced
operation in 1994. The Supertram was intended to bring major decongestion
benefits, as well as aiding urban regeneration. Both the Manchester
and Sheffield systems were expected to cover their operating costs.
Furthermore an extension of the Tyne and Wear Metro (not striclty
a LRT system) to Newcastle airport opened in November 1991 while
in London the Docklands Light Railway has been extended. More
recently the West Midland Metro, running between Birmingham and
Wolverhampton, has now opened.
3.2 The new, mainly privately-funded, Croydon Tramlink
is to be opened shortly. However, Croydon Tramlink, although attracting
the highest private sector contribution so far, is still mainly
publicly financed. A new LRT system is planned for Nottingham—Nottingham
Express Transit (NET) for operation in about four years' time
funded under the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) which appears
to be proving difficult. Meanwhile extensions are being planned
to the Manchester Metro. Studies for LRT have been undertaken
in several locations including Cardiff, the Isle of Wight and
Watford/St. Albans (replaced by a proposal for a wire-guided Guided
Light Transit system). A new Fastlink LRT for the Gatwick area
has also been proposed.
3.3 But in other areas progress has been slow with LRT
proposals sometimes being replaced by guided busways. For example,
a Parliamentary Bill for Rapid Transit for Avon was withdrawn
and the sponsoring company wound up some time ago although another
proposal has since been made for Bristol. An inability to raise
funding sent the company into liquidation. Meanwhile in Cambridge
the City Council declared opposition to a proposed LRT scheme,
recommending bus-based park and ride solutions instead. However,
as many as four consortia are interested in constructing and operating
the system the South Hampshire LRT. In Edinburgh, the CERT (City
of Edinburgh Rapid Transit) guided bus system is under review
because of a proposed re-alignment to a proposed route while there
is a study of tramway currently being carried out. In Chester
the County Council has considered a guided bus alternative to
LRT and will shortly be making an application under the 1992 Transport
and Works Act. Proposals for a guided trolley-bus in Merseyside
have been refused powers recently by the DETR. Other proposals
for LRT or related guided transport developments have been suggested
but not progressed, for example in: Barking, Harringay, and Kingston.
An LRT proposal for Leeds has all the necessary powers and is
ready to proceed but cannot get Government financial support.
3.4 Meanwhile overseas LRT schemes are still being developed.
For example, since 1985 five new LRT systems have been constructed
in France and nine in the USA compared to three in Britain. Germany
is one of the most significant countries in terms of its tramways
and light rail: 56 cities possess systems. In Sydney a new extension
to the LRT system has been approved and two in Montreal. In 2000
a new extension will open in Gent while a new line will open in
Amsterdam in 2001. Dublin will have a new LRT line by 2003. Barcelona
has a 10-year transport investment programme including LRT while
Bilbao is constructing a new tramway. Airtram is being developed
in New York to Link to Kennedy Airport.
3.5 But in other cities progress has been delayed. For
example, in Los Angeles funding difficulties have delayed a planned
extension while in Vitoria, Spain, a LRT project has been shelved.
In Portland a new extension has been rejected.
(b) The problems they have faced, both at the time of their
construction and afterwards
3.6 A major deterrent to the adoption of LRT systems
may have been the cumbersome legislative procedures required.
Until the passing of the Transport and Works Act (July 1991) Private
Bills were necessary to secure the authority to construct and
operate tramways. Private Bills either had been preceded by the
grant of a provisional order under the 1870 Tramways Act or promoters
had sponsored independent Private Bills which drew on its provisions.
Works proposals took at least two sessions (or two years) to complete
their Parliamentary Stages and more controversial schemes three
or more years. Although designed for the age of the horse, the
Tramways Act remained largely unchanged, and even recent light
rail legislation—for Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire
and the West Midlands—incorporated many of its provisions.
Although the 1896 Light Railways Act dispensed with the need for
Parliamentary approval, the authority for construction being conferred
by a light railway order issued by the Secretary of State, promoters
still favoured the use of Private Bills.
3.7 The Transport and Works Act, transferred the decision
on whether to proceed from Parliament as a whole to the Secretary
of State for Transport. The legislation replaced the Private Bill
procedure with a Ministerial order-making power, and an order,
when issued, has the same effect as an Act of Parliament. The
Act applies to railways, tramways and trolleybus systems. There
is also power to apply it to other guided transport systems.
3.8 The Transport and Works Act procedures entail promoters
lodging an application with the DETR, together with a draft of
the order required. Notices of the proposals have to be given
and, in the event of objections, these may be dealt with by written
representations, hearings or a public inquiry. The DETR may make
the order in the form applied for, or with modifications, or may
reject the application. Planning permission has also to be obtained
for the development involved, and this can be granted with the
order. As most planning developments, including roads, are authorised
by Ministers following local public inquiries, the Government
decided that there was no compelling argument why LRT schemes
should be handled differently.
3.9 The Transport and Works Bill was the first legislation
to be addressed towards developing other forms of guided transport.
It was intended that by easing the legislative hurdles it would
facilitate and enhance the promotion of LRT. However this has
not occurred. The system for getting powers, in practice, is now
no quicker and very probably more expensive than previously—it
used to be estimated that it cost £1 million to promote a
LRT Private Bill. In fact it was probably more like £2 million
and is now very probably more than that under the Transport &
Works Act requirements. These time, complexity and cost burdens
are ones which bus operators don't face, nor do the requirements
of the Health & Safety Executive (Railway Inspectorate) who,
quite rightly, impose a safety regime of an entirely different
order to that which is imposed on any form of road transport—private
or public.
3.10 Another difficulty may have been the incremental
nature of LRT developments. Whereas Sheffield Supertram was planned
and constructed as a complete entity, Manchester Metro has been
developed incrementally, line by line. This approach may not have
been the most efficient or cost-effective.
3.11 Sheffield Supertram suffered initially from low
levels of patronage, partly because the expected land-use developments
failed to materialise. This caused serious financial difficulties
and highlighted the need for continued revenue funding for some
years whole patronage grows. A cumbersome fare collection system
and a failure to provide priority for trams at light-controlled
intersections did not assist patronage levels.
(c) What successes they have had, particularly in terms
of removing traffic from roads and thus reducing congestion or
restraining its growth
3.12 Overseas LRT systems have had significant success
in generating custom. In Los Angeles where the Blue Line was opened
in 1989, patronage has grown from 19,000 a day to 43,000 a day
in 1996. Furthermore a survey of passengers found that one in
four were motorists and over half (55 per cent) of weekday riders
used the LRT for journey to work. Growth in ridership on San Diego's
LRT increased from 14,000 a day in 1981 to 53,000 in 1996 and
has led to an increase in the number of trams from 14 to 123.
In Grenoble transit use rose by 50 per cent between 1987 and 1994.
3.13 Even in the UK the existing LRT systems have made
a significant contribution to the local public transport network
where they exist. On the Manchester Metrolink levels of patronage
along the corridor have been impressive—14 million a year—including
a significant transfer from car-use. Since Stagecoach took over
the Sheffield Supertram ridership has grown to exceed 10 million
passengers a year and the operating deficit has been halved. It
is now expected to break even in two years. Patronage has grown
by 15 per cent in a year since the service was revamped in 1998.
3.14 Other benefits must also be recognised. On-street
LRT can use existing road-space efficiently since space can often
be shared with other road-users. Furthermore, LRT (like other
high-quality public transport) can discourage car-ownership. Limited
urban road space has led to problems of double parking: in Sheffield
for example, the average width of terraced housing is less than
the length of two cars but little off-street parking is available.
Sheffield Supertram may help discourage households from owning
two cars. Furthermore the visual impact of parked road vehicles
is often considered environmentally damaging.
(d) Whether it is appropriate, and if so what help can
be given, to assist the growth of rapid transit schemes in the
United Kingdom
3.15 Car users will not get out of cars unless and until
there is a reasonably acceptable alternative—but until they
do the expenditure on providing the extent and quality of public
transport required cannot be afforded. Only in London (despite
all its shortcomings) is there really a choice, although there
are beginning to be some others—parts of Manchester, Newcastle/Tyneside,
Sheffield. Unfortunately the Government seems to want to introduce
the sticks before or concurrently with improvements—the
theory being that if drivers are forced onto public transport
the return to the private sector will rise and justify new developments.
This doesn's allow for the extent to which motorists have a propensity
to remain car-users, even if costs increase steadily (no-one would
have a car at all on a purely financial justification yet in reality
people spend as much or more on their cars as on food).
3.16 Lack of finance has been the major impediment to
the adoption of LRT schemes. By comparison with most countries
on the Continent, capital investment in transport, particularly
LRT systems, has always been low. LRT proposals especially are
heavily dependent upon public expenditure. The impact of funding
difficulties is evident. For example, financial pressures contributed
to the winding-up of Rapid Transit for Avon, the private sector
company formed in 1986 to promote a light-rail system for the
County. Even Local Transport Plans, which have the potential for
enabling the development of LRT, only cover five years; LRT needs
longer periods for development.
3.17 At the launch of the Nottingham Express Transit
(NET) the then Minister for Transport, Dr John Reid, stated that
"NET will take up a large part of my Department's allocation
of resources for local authority PFI projects over the next few
years. We will not be in a position to support similar schemes
for the foreseeable future". Thus it is intended that
funding for LRT is generated from congestion charging and workplace
parking charges, should these be adopted. Given the likely reluctance
of local authorities to introduce congestion charging and workplace
parking charges, should these be adopted. Given the likely reluctance
of local authorities to introduce congestion charging and workplace
parking charges the prospect for further LRT developments is bleak.
3.18 LRT should be the core of larger cities' public
transport provision fully integrated with a good network of modern
bus routes, providing as near seamless interchange as is possible.
This is vital if the overall attractiveness of public transport
is to have any chance of attracting car users out of their vehicles.
The question of seamless interchange is a key one—in cities
like Hanover LRVs arrive at suburban interchange stations and
passengers cross a platform straight on to buses which taken them
on the last part of their journey. Buses do not drive out of the
interchange as the LRV comes in, nor do the passengers have to
wait 10 minutes for the bus to depart. Waiting times involved
in local public transport are as big a deterrent to car-users
as any other single factor—why stand around a cold, wet,
drafty, unpleasant, insecure bus-stop or bus-station when you
could be sat in a warm, secure car—even if stationary?
3.19 All the proposed LRT systems in Britain have two
factors in common: limited funding and the need to focus investment
on a relatively small initial system. As a result, most new networks
require only limited supplies of infrastructure, equipment and
rolling stock during their early years. If each system demands
a unique specification, economies of scale in production fail
to materialise. A double penalty could be incurred: systems able
to attract funding would be limited intheir extent while the higher
cost of euqipment would prevent other projects from being developed.
Indeed all four UK systems have been of a bespoke design built
on different engineering principles by different contractors.
3.20 In order to minimise such problems some time ago
the Railway Industry Association (RIA) developed a template to
establish key parameters within which local aspirations could
be met, such as acceleration/braking range, while ensuring economies
of scale from long production runs for equipment and components.
Such a template could be valuable in cutting costs. It is noticeable
that French LRT vehicles are 10-15 per cent more expensive than
their German equivalents, the latter having a template agreed
between the municipal authorities and the supply industry. Standardisation
of systems based on the RIA proposals would help generate economies
of scale and should be encouraged.
3.21 Electric traction is largely pollution-free at the
point of use. It is significant that the modern LRT revival has
perhaps gone furthest in California, where, in places, atmospheric
conditions produced persistent urban pollution at least as damaging
as that which was thought in the 1930s to justify tramway operation
in Great Britain. In mid-December 1991 freak weather conditions
in London caused weather forecasters to refer to "inversion
conditions causing record nitrogen dioxide concentrations in London
since measurements began 15 years ago", and suggested that
motorists should consider leaving their cars at home: probably
the first time that this kind of public advice had been given
in the UK. However no UK city was involved in the European car-free
cities day in September 1999. For car-users to be encouraged to
leave their cars at home high-quality public transport services
must already be available combined with appropriate car-restraint.
3.22 More rigorous aciton to deter car-use is being undertaken
in some other European nations: cars have been banned at certain
times from the centres of Athens and Munich, for example. In Amsterdam,
a referendum (albeit only 27 per cent of the electorate responded)
showed that 53 per cent favoured an outright ban on cars in many
central areas, other than those of exisitng residents. Such cities
view LRT systems as integral elements of an integrated transport
policy.
4. CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Development of LRT systems in the UK has been hampered
by: a lack of political commitment at both national and local
level; cumbersome planning procedures; a lack of funding; and
a lack of public recognition of the potential role that they can
play in an fully integrated public transport policy which may
include elements of car-restraint.
4.2 No doubt the lack of a holistic view of the interaciton
between transport and land-use has not helped LRT development.
LRT should be viewed as one integral part of mass transit that
can assist urban redevelopment and promote local economies. Sadly
much debate has concentrated on whether buses (kerb-guided or
otherwise) or LRT is best. Both are valuable parts of the public
transport network with their role to play depending upon the local
circumstances.
4.3 Overseas experience shows the potential benefits
of investment in LRT systems. The UK has a long way to go to catch
up.
October 1999
| 
