Memorandum submitted by The Railway Forum
(RT 20)
LIGHT RAIL
INTRODUCTION
The Railway Forum is the trade association for
the whole rail industry, and has over 40 members. A principal
objective of the Railway Forum is to promote policies which will
encourage the development of opportunities for rail based transport,
and to analyse and respond to Government policy affecting the
competitive position of rail. Membership includes Docklands Light
Railway and National Express Group (operators of Midlands Metro)
and the Passenger Transport Executive Group, as well as consultants
and suppliers of light rail equipment represented by the Railway
Industry Association.
LIGHT RAIL
CHARACTERISTICS
Light rail can be described as an intermediate
transport mode between bus and conventional ("heavy")
rail. Light rail construction involves lower civil engineering
costs as the systems can use lighter structures, simpler stations
and an alignment which can accommodate steeper gradients and tighter
curves, avoiding the need for heavy earthworks. It uses vehicles
which are lighter than normal railway or Underground coaches,
offering higher capacity than buses but less than heavy rail urban
metro systems. Systems may provide better access to city centres,
delivering passengers at street level instead of underground.
In operational terms, they may share streets with pedestrians
or with other road traffic, and have simplified signalling systems,
or involve driving within the braking capability of the vehicle
without fixed signals, like buses. Alternatively, like Docklands
Light Railway, they may be totally segregated perhaps with automatic
operation.
These characteristics have been used in Great
Britain to provide street level access in city centres, such as
Sheffield and Wolverhampton or to link rail networks either side
of the central area, such as in Manchester and Newcastle. They
may be used to reach points inaccessible by conventional rail
such as New Addington (Tramlink) and Hillsborough (Sheffield)
or may be used as a way of renewing and upgrading a life-expired
heavy rail system as was the case in Tyne and Wear and Manchester.
They are ideally suited to serve corridors where demand exceeds
the practical capacity of a bus route and where rail is either
impractical or not cost effective.
LIGHT RAIL
IN THE
UK
Six light rail systems operate in the UK (excluding
those operated primarily as a working museum or for leisure purposes).
A seventh will open later this year (Croydon Tramlink) and work
has started on an eighth (Nottingham Express Transit). Nevertheless,
few of the 40 proposals identified in the Committee's previous
report Urban Public Transport: the Light Rail Option (May 1991)
have been progressed.
Excluding Blackpool, where tourists form a significant
part of the traffic base, and Midlands Metro which has only been
open since June 1999, table 1 shows the relative size of the existing
systems expressed in terms of passenger journeys.
Table 1
PASSENGER JOURNEYS ON LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS
|
| System | Passenger Journeys in 1998-99 (m)
|
|
| Docklands Light Rail | 26.0
|
| Manchester Metrolink | 13.5
|
| Sheffield Supertram | 10.4
|
| Tyne & Wear Metro | 33.8
|
| Total | 83.7
|
|
The systems are continuing to grow, as is shown in table
2.
Table 2
LRT STATISTICS
|
| 1994-95
| 1995-96 | 1996-97
| 1998-99 | 1999-2000
|
|
| Passenger journeys (m) | 62.5
| 67.8 | 73.6
| 83.7 | N/a
|
| Stations/stops | 136
| 145 | 145
| 149 | 219
|
| Vehicles | 227
| 211 | 211
| 211 | 250
|
| Route km | 140.1
| 147.1 | 147.1
| 147.1 | 204
|
|
Note: These statistics are those for Docklands Light Railway,
Manchester Metrolink, Sheffield Supertram and Tyne & Wear
Metro. For 1999-2000 they include Midlands Metro and Croydon Tramlink
as well.
Fuller details of the systems operating currently in the
UK are given in the Appendix.
POLICY ON
LIGHT RAIL
The Government's view, set out in the July 1998 White Paper
on Integrated Transport, expresses caution about new light rail
schemes. The capital costs are considered high, particularly in
comparison with bus priority measures and guided bus schemes.
With this in mind, the White Paper states that "funding for
new major light rail schemes will therefore not be a priority
and schemes will be supported only if they represent good value
for money and form an integral and necessary part of a strategy
in a local transport plan—demonstrating clearly that the
objectives of the plan cannot be met in alternative ways."
The Railway Forum is concerned that the White Paper expressed
a generalised antipathy towards light rail schemes. There is no
reason why they should not be a priority for funding, any more
than other forms of transport expenditure. Indeed, light rail
schemes should be assessed fully and fairly, and on the same basis
as alternative solutions, giving full weight to wider social and
environmental benefits. Moreover, it is essential that the appraisal
of light rail schemes should always be undertaken on a basis of
full cost/benefit analysis using the same methodology as used
for highway schemes. This means, among other things, that all
time savings expected to result should be given full value in
the appraisal. Currently this information is merely optional and
Government does not have to take it into account it its own appraisal.
This is an artificial approach which discriminates against light
rail projects.
As to financing, we welcome the Government's proposals for
road user charges and workplace parking charges, which are in
principle capable of yielding substantial revenues to local authorities
for use on transport schemes. The acceptability of such charges
will be much greater if they are accompanied by real and visible
improvements to public transport, such as the provision or extension
of light rail systems. Light rail systems are often provided in
conjunction with pedestrianisation and other environmental works,
especially in city centre areas, in an integrated package of improvements.
Potentially, therefore, the new charges will both strengthen the
need for light rail systems and enhance the funding available
to build them to improve the quality of the urban environment.
It is essential that local authorities take advantage of the new
powers and we look to the Government's proposed mechanisms for
regional transport to encourage them to do so.
To allow the new powers to provide an efficient financing
mechanism for long-term projects, it is also essential that the
Government allows local authorities to guarantee the hypothecation
of revenue for appropriate periods, such as the life of the rolling
stock, rather than the 10-year period envisaged in the Government's
proposals.
MEASURING THE
CHANGES
In giving approval to these light rail schemes, the objective
of both central and local government has been to support socio-economic
as well as transport objectives. Their success cannot be judged
in transport terms alone, but must be considered in the context
of the other policy objectives they were designed to fulfil. In
the context of the broader objectives of the integrated transport
policy set out in the White Paper of July 1998, this would include:
|
| Transport objectives | — relief of road traffic congestion
|
| — overall journey time savings
|
| Environmental objectives | — reduction in emissions
|
| — elimination of pollution at the point of use
|
| — effect on land use and regeneration
|
| — improving the quality of the wider environment
|
| Social exclusion objectives | — accessibility, particularly for people with disabilities
|
| — linking homes and employment opportunities
|
| Health objectives | — improvement in air quality in the corridor served
|
| — reduction in road casualties
|
| Trade and Industry | — the opportunities offered for UK suppliers and the stronger base this provides to encourage exports
|
| Employment | — the effect of schemes on employment during construction and subsequently in operation of the system.
|
|
The reviews of schemes so far undertaken appear to have been
limited in scope, charting the growth in passenger demand, and
making some assessment of diversion from other modes. We are not
aware of any comprehensive monitoring of the effect of light rail
schemes or comparisons with the objectives originally established.
It is particularly important that we should study and benefit
from the experience of other European cities which have built
new or extended systems in conjunction with radical improvements
to the urban environment. This holistic approach to transport
and the environment has transformed the quality of life in many
European cities. As yet however there is little information available
on the scale of the benefit. An urgent assessment is needed so
that local authorities can take the benefits into account when
considering, for example, the use of their charging powers. The
multi-disciplinary nature of such a study suggests that it would
be best initiated by Government.
Evidence from the first phase of Manchester Metrolink indicates
that some three million passengers a year (21 per cent) have transferred
from the roads to Metrolink. Between Altrincham and Central Manchester,
early research indicated a 10 per cent reduction in car traffic
in the corridor concerned.
OVERSEAS EXPERIENCE
48 countries worldwide have tramway or light rail systems,
and in addition, nine countries have plans to introduce light
rail systems.
Elsewhere in Western Europe, further new light rail systems
are planned as shown in Table 3:
Table 3
NEW LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS PLANNED IN WESTERN EUROPE
|
| Country | New Systems Planned/
under Construction
| Extensions to existing systems
|
|
| Belgium | —
| 4 |
| France | 8
| 6 |
| Germany | 4
| 38 |
| Great Britain | 5
| 3 |
| Italy | 9 |
3 |
| Netherlands | 1
| 4 |
| Spain | 6 |
1 |
| Switzerland | 1
| 2 |
|
Whilst modern light rail systems in many European cities
have developed from street tramways, those in Brussels and Cologne
have developed further with some corridors converted to metro
systems. Others routes have been put underground in the city centre
as a "pre-metro", with light rail vehicles running through
the tunnels pending conversion to full metro routes at a future
date. In Brussels and Vienna light rail routes are used as feeder
lines to metros and in Singapore, light rail loops are being built
to serve new residential areas and link them to the mass transit
system.
Many European systems have been opened or extended within
the last 10 years and have often been planned as part of a broader
planning and traffic management initiative, coupled with traffic
restraint measures or even exclusion of cars from parts of city
centres. As a result, some have achieved higher than forecast
growth. In particular, the Trans Val de Seine system in Paris
quickly established impressive ridership figures. By the end of
first year of operation in 1997, it was carrying 20 per cent more
daily passengers than had been forecast for 2000.
CONVENTIONAL AND
LIGHT RAIL
Whilst some of the UK systems share space with other road
vehicles in the street running sections, all are physically segregated
from other heavy rail traffic. Segregation has been required for
safety reasons, because the end load strengths and vehicle design
are different, so that in the event of collision, the risk of
serious damage to the light rail vehicle and its passengers was
high. However, modern signalling technology with automatic train
control systems, means that separation of conventional trains
and light rail vehicles can be established where they share tracks,
and opens up the possibility for shared use and lower costs of
conversion of suburban railways for dual-mode operation. The Sunderland
extension of the Tyne and Wear Metro will involve shared tracks,
and will be the first example of this new approach in the UK.
There is considerable potential for shared access to parts of
the existing suburban rail networks at much less cost than new
construction, which could radically alter the economics of proposed
schemes.
GUIDED BUSWAYS
It is sometimes claimed that bus priority routes or guided
busways can offer similar benefits to light rail schemes at a
fraction of the cost. However, an alternative view is that rail
based projects offer a higher degree of reassurance and credibility
which is needed to attract people out of their cars. Both conjectures
remain untested, and comparisons are difficult as only 23km of
guided busway exist throughout the world. It is accepted, however,
that the results from quality partnerships such as Line 33 in
Birmingham, and the Leeds busway project have produced significant
increases in ridership. The research being undertaken under the
auspices of DETR into public perceptions and their effect on mode
switch should help to clarify this.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR
UK SUPPLIERS
Light rail equipment has been supplied from the UK for a
number of systems, such as Strasbourg, Oporto and Milan as well
as British systems. This includes:
— Light Rail vehicle body shells.
— Power supply equipment.
UK consultancy and civil engineering companies are also active
in the light rail field and have been involved in a number of
schemes overseas. However, development of UK capability has been
restricted by the limited nature of prospective developments and
the Government's view of the scope for new light rail projects.
Adoption of the measures proposed in this paper leading to an
expansion in the number of light rail networks in this country
would also have the benefit of strengthening the domestic supply
industry. In time, further expansion of light rail networks would
provide increased opportunities for UK based suppliers and strengthen
the opportunities for exports.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Three new light rail networks have opened in the last
10 years and a fourth will open before the end of 1999. Extensions
to two others are under construction.
2. The first system (Tyne and Wear and Manchester) are
now well established, with a successful track record, and considerable
British expertise has been established in this area. This increases
confidence in the further development of light rail projects.
3. Although information is available on the traffic carried
on light rail systems, little appears to be known about their
wider impact in socio-economic terms.
4. Further research into the wider impacts of light rail
development is required to inform decisions on future projects,
and because of the multi-disciplinary nature of such a study,
it would be appropriate for Government to lead this.
5. It is particularly important that we should study
and benefit from the expereience of continental cities.
6. New light rail schemes should be assessed fully and
fairly, and on the same basis as alternative solutions, giving
full weight to wider social and environmental benefits.
7. Light rail can form an important part of holistic
environment and transport planning in the transformation of urban
centres.
8. Further consideration needs to be given to the new
powers of local authorities and how they are encouraged to use
those powers. In particular, longer-term hypothecation of charging
revenues is needed.
9. New signalling technology should allow greater flexibility
and reduce the costs involved in sharing infrastructure between
conventional and light rail services. It may justify re-evaluation
of some schemes previously rejected.
| 
