Memorandum by David T Catling, Esq (RT
21)
1. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
I wish to offer the following observations to
the Sub-Committee, based on over 50 years' experience in urban
passenger transport, working for London Transport in all aspects
of Underground train and bus engineering, and then as an independent
Consultant. I have specialised in LRT for the last 20 years, and
was involved in all aspects of the early planning and building
of the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) and then as its first Engineering
Manager. Latterly I have advised on many of the current UK conventional
and novel proposed LRT schemes, also in Colombia, Malaysia and,
more recently, the new Stockholm LRT system.
As a long serving member of the International
Union of Public Transport (UITP) Light Rail Committee, I am able
to compare UK and Continental experience at first-hand. However
I certainly do not regard LRT as a panacea for all urban transit
problems, but always urge that it should only be selected for
a particular project if an objective analysis of all possible
transit modes shows LRT to be the most cost-effective and appropriate
solution.
2. DEFINITION
The term LRT covers a very broad spectrum of
so-called "intermediate capacity" systems, from the
simple "ultralight" Parry Peoplemover up to semi or
fully automated, segregated systems, e.g. airport shuttles, the
DLR, the VAL system in Lille and elsewhere. However I assume the
Sub-Committee's main interest is in the roundly 400 world-wide
manually driven conventional LRT systems, with a great diversity
of roles, capacity, speed, route segregation, and I will confine
my observations to these.
3. SPECIFIC EXAMPLES
AND ISSUES
I understand that the Committee intends to investigate:
— examples of recent LRT systems in
UK and abroad;
— the problems faced during construction
and afterwards;
— their success in removing traffic
from roads; and
— if appropriate, what help might be
given to assist growth of LRT schemes in UK.
4. SUGGESTED
CASE STUDIES
I would suggest that the non UK examples should
be taken from France, which, like the UK, virtually completely
abandoned its former tram systems, and then began to introduce
new LRT systems in the 1980s, rather than say Germany, Austria
or Switzerland, which all kept and progressively modernised them.
(I suggested France rather than USA for logistical and cultural
reasons.) I also suggest choosing one established and one new
system, and the following should provide enough material between
them to cover your main issues:
— Manchester (1992): inordinately long
planning and authorisation process, in contrast to the short time
for construction under the UK's first Design, Build, Operate and
Maintain (DBOM) Contract; uncertain role definition—profit
or public service?; extra costs burden on latest extension from
reduced Statutory Utilities' contribution to diversion works;
— Croydon Tramlink (1999): inordinately
long timescale; full PFI DBOM and leasing for 99 years, followed
by hasty construction; Tramlink commendably chose proven conventional
low floor vehicle to provide access for the mobility impaired;
— Nantes (1985): first scheme in French
LRT revival; initial approval delayed by conflicting views of
successive powerful Mayors; excellent overall design; integration
of bus and light rail operation and maintenance; recent purchase
of special light rail vehicles (LRVs) to provide partial disabled
access;
— Paris, Val-de-Seine (1997): RATP's
second LRT Line, both are orbital, and both use the same French
"standard" low floor LRV, as Grenoble and Rouen. The
first line (Bobigny-St Denis) is on street, Val-de-Seine uses
a former SNCF alignment. Extensions are now being developed.
5 PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS
5.1 Timescale
The timescale and associated high costs of obtaining
financial and legal approval in UK for even a simple scheme are
unreasonably excessive. I made the first Croydon route survey
for London Transport in 1979, and Manchester, Sheffield and Birmingham
could tell a similar story. By contrast, in the last 15 years
France has opened eight new or completely modernised LRT systems,
often using the LRT introduction as a trigger for a major re-modelling
of the City centre's roads, further pedestrianisation and reshaping
bus and other transport services (eg in Grenoble, Strasbourg).
Lessons could be learned from a study of the French processes
of planning, approving, funding and ownership, which follow a
common pattern in several cities.
5.2 Costs
Successive UK Governments have criticised the
high initial capital cost of LRT schemes, often in terms of how
many buses could be bought for the same amount, but without considering
that a light rail unit can have three times the life of a bus
and three times the passenger capacity.
The Paper "Making Light Rail Affordable
and Attractive"[4]
shows how hard the light rail indusry is trying to reduce total
costs and increas revenues, but the UK Government could also help
in the following ways, in addition to simplifying the cost and
complication of obtaining approval mentioned in 5.1. above:
— taking full account of total life
cycle costs (not merely paying lip service) in assessing proposed
new LRT systems. Pressure to reduce the initial capital costs
of Sheffield Supertram and more recently Croydon Tramlink let
to "Descoping" (sic!) to the detriment of design, operation
quality and costs;
— reviewing whether the present complex
PFI agreements and contracts necessarily achieve the optimum life
cycle cost and overall design and performance;
— reviewing the extra burden imposed
on new schemes by the recent reduction in the contribution required
of statutory utilities (from 18 to 7.5 per cent) towards the cost
of diverting their services for new street running LRT schemes;
— reviewing HSE safety and operational
requirements for new LRT schemes to ensure that they do not impose
an unduly onerous burden on light rail compared with buses;
— providing more generous R&D funding
for novel ultra light low cost schemes, such as the Parry Peoplemover.
5.3 Conclusion
While there is at last a slow increase in the
number of LRT UK schemes, one is left with the feeling that it
shouldn't all have to be quite so slow, costly and difficult.
I suggest that the above considerations could lead to a more balanced
and speedy approval of worthwhile schemes wherever they could
demonstrably provide the most cost-effective and appropriate solution,
plus the long-term community benefits derived from a fixed permanently
installed LRT system, compared with the inevitably more transitory
nature of a bus service.
September 1999
4 David T Catling and Trevor Griffin presented at
Institution of Mechanical Engineers Conference, RAILTECH 98, Birmingham,
24-26 November 1998. Back
|
