Memorandum by Centro (the West Midlands
Passenger Transport Executive) and the West Midlands Passenger
Transport Authority (RT 29)
PROPOSED AREAS
OF INVESTIGATION
(a) examples of rapid transit systems recently
constructed both in this country and worldwide;
(b) the problems they have faced, both at
the time of their construction and afterwards;
(c) what successes they have had, particularly
in terms of removing traffic from roads and thus reducing congestion
or restraining its growth; and
(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.
CENTRO/WMPTA RESPONSE
1. Overview
Centro and the West Midlands Passenger Transport
Authority welcome the opportunity to contribute evidence to this
inquiry and would welcome any help that can be given to assist
the growth of rapid transit schemes in the United Kingdom, and
in particular in the West Midlands conurbation.
2. The West Midlands
The West Midlands County comprises the Metropolitan
Boroughs of the City of Birmingham, the City of Conventry, Dudley,
Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton. The West Midlands
Passenger Transport Authority is comprised of elected Councillors
from the seven West Midlands local authorities and Centro is the
Passenger Transport Executive that implements the transport policies
set by the Authority. The West Midlands County is home to 2.63
million people and 2.1 million people are employed in the area.
The conburbation combines traditional heavy industry, including
car, van and train manufacture, with office-based employment in
a number of sub-regional centres. Although the West Midlands is
at the heart of the national motorway network, being served by
the M5, M6 and M42 motorways, the roads in the region experience
the highest levels of traffic congestion outside London. It is
estimated by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) that
traffic congestion in the region costs industry £2 billion
a year. Environmental costs and poor air quality further compound
the problems of traffic congestion for the local population. For
many years, the West Midlands has been the largest conurbation
in Europe without a light rapid transit system, and in the mid
1980s plans for a network of light rail lines began to be formulated.
3. Midland Metro
The concept of Midland Metro was developed by
Centro and the West Midlands Passenger Transport Authority in
response to an inceasing demand for higher quality public transport
and the improved mobility that it brings. In 1987 the recently
opened Grenoble tramway in France set new standards for light
rail vehicles and high quality urban regeneration associated with
the introduction of a light rail system. Many of these standards
were incorporated into the West Midlands' aspirations for Midland
Metro and the first private Bill was submitted to parliament in
1988, being enacted as the Midland Metro Act in 1989. Further
Acts of Parliament were obtained in 1991, 1992 and 1993, providing
enabling legislation for three light rail routes in the West Midlands
to form the start of a conurbation-wide network. From the outset,
it has been a key objective for Midland Metro to attract motorists
out of their cars by providing a high quality, frequent and reliable
form of public transport.
4. Midland Metro Line 1
4.1 Members of the Transport Sub-Committee
are cordially invited to visit Midland Metro Line 1 and experience
at first hand the newest light rapid transit system in the UK.
4.2 Midland Metro Line 1 is a 20km light
rapid transit route between Wolverhampton and Birmingham, with
23 fully accessible stops. A six-minute frequency is operated
during the week between 7 am and 7 pm, with a ten-minute frequency
outside those times. The line starts with 2km of street running
tramway in Wolverhampton, before 18km of segregated operation
using a former rail formation, the final 5km of which is parallel
to an existing rail line and includes three shared light rail/heavy
rail stops/stations.
4.3 The Midland Metro Act 1989 provided
the enabling legislation to compulsorily acquire land and to construct
and operate the system. Economic evaluations were carried out
and were reviewed by the then Department of Transport and the
scheme's eligibility for Section 56 grant (1968 Transport Act)
was confirmed. As part of the grant evaluation process alternative
modes (such as heavy rail and guided bus) were assessed and light
rail was selected as the most appropriate mode for the predicted
patronage figures.
4.4 An advertisement was placed in the European
Community Official Journal in 1991 inviting consortia to pre-qualify
for tendering for the project. In 1992 tenders were invited from
a short list of three consortia and tenders returned in 1993 were
subjected to rigorous assessment, which included an economic optimisation
of the number of stops, service interval and number of trams required.
Restrictions on the amount of section 56 grant available led to
a delay in government funding being made available for the project.
However, once the availability of government funding (in the form
of grant and supplementary credit approval) was confirmed, a funding
package of £145 million was completed with the help of the
European Union, Passenger Transport Authority and local authority
funds. The successful tenderer also made a £10 million financial
contribution to the overall cost of the project in recognition
of the value of the operating concession.
4.5 In August 1995 a 23 year Concession
was signed between Centro and Altram to Design, Build Operate
and Maintain Midland Metro Line 1. A fixed price contract was
agreed for virtually all the works. The "DBOM" form
of contract provided for maximum risk transfer to the successful
consortium and Centro was therefore protected from the majority
of risks such as currency fluctuation, inflation, patronage levels,
geotechnical/mining problems, planning risks and interface issues
between consortium members.
4.6 The Altram consortium is formed of John
Laing; Ansaldo Trasporti of Italy; and Travel West Midlands, part
of the National Express Group of companies. The design, construction
and procurement of the infrastructure was carried out through
Laing Civil Engineering and the electrical and mechanical works,
including the provision of 16 low floor 750V dc trams and the
overhead electrification system were sourced through Ansaldo Trasporti.
Travel Midland Metro, a subsidiary company of Travel West Midlands,
will operate and maintain the system for the remainder of the
life of the concession. The involvement of Travel West Midlands,
the region's major bus operator, has greatly facilitated integration
of bus routes and ticketing with the metro system.
4.7 It had been envisaged that the design
and construction phases would last for three years, with the operational
and maintenance phases lasting for 20 years. However, a ten month
delay in the start of passenger carrying operation led to a corresponding
reduction in the duration of the operational phase of the concession
and the imposition of liquidated damages on the consortium. The
form of contract therefore ensured that the costs of delay were
borne by Altram and not the public purse.
4.8 Centro's specifications for both the
provision and operation of the system are in essence performance
specifications based on passenger requirements. The attractiveness
of the system to motorists throughout the life of the concession
has been emphasised as a key theme in these documents. Centro's
aim is for the Metro to match the convenience and design standards
of the car. Attractive aesthetic design has been achieved by specifying
the involvement of public artists in every facet of the system's
visual appearance, from the system branding and livery and design
of engineering structures through paving design to the extensive
landscaping along the length of the route. Free-standing art commissions
are also installed along the length of the route and range from
the striking sculpture of the "Sleipnir" horse on a
hill top overlooking the Wednesbury depot and control centre to
community art projects to design school railings and roundels
set in the ground at every stop. Centro's operational requirements
also require the maintenance of these high standards of design
by the rapid removal of litter and graffiti, replacement of broken
fittings and glass and cleanliness of the stops and trams.
4.9 The line was opened to the public on
31 May 1999 and evidence would suggest that the number of passengers
carried is growing and that they generally find the system very
appealing. Formal monitoring of the patronage levels is about
to commence now that the school holidays are over and "novelty
effect" for first time users is wearing off. Statistics collected
will, as a matter of course, be forwarded to DETR officials in
accordance with the conditions of the Section 56 grant. Preliminary
results are likely to be available early in the year 2000.
5. Problems Encountered
5.1 Whilst the parliamentary Bill process
has now been replaced by the Transport & Works Act order making
procedure, the amount of time and effort necessary to obtain powers
has not reduced appreciably. It would be helpful if some way of
speeding up the process could be found and greater certainty brought
to the duration of the decision making process.
5.2 Completion of the funding package, due
to the lack of availability of government funds, led to a delay
of almost two years between the selection of the successful tenderer
in 1993 and the award of the Concession in 1995. Lack of certainty
over funding has resulted in a number of lost opportunities to
capture developer contributions on Line 1 and other proposed lines.
5.3 As the compulsory purchase powers conferred
by the Act of Parliament were limited to five years, Centro was
eventually forced to take the risk (that the project might not
be funded) and acquire the land in advance of confirmation that
a full funding package for the entire scheme could be completed.
5.4 It was regrettable that powers to construct
light rail routes known as Midland Metro Lines 2 and 3 had to
be relinquished due to the expiry of land acquisition powers at
a time when government funding was not available to underwrite
the continued development of these routes. However, a strategy
of LRT development that retains elements of these routes has now
been embarked upon. The Midland Metro routes that will be prioritised
are those where predicted usage will be heavy, concession value
will be greatest and the costs to the public sector will be minimised
as a result. This is to some extent contrary to the process in
choosing Line 1 where the potential regeneration benefits to derelict
industrial areas were as, if not more, important.
5.5 The diversion of statutory undertakers'
plant in the highway was ultimately the constraint that dictated
the duration of the construction period for the entire project.
The cost of diversionary works was the least quantifiable aspect
of the project and Centro was unable to fully transfer this risk
to the Concessionaire. The delay in awarding the concession gave
a further two years to the utilities, most notably cable TV companies,
to lay new plant which then needed to be diverted. Statutory undertakers
responded in a wide range of ways to the metro proposals. Their
approaches varied from very co-operative and helpful in minimising
works, through inaccurate pricing and programming, to obstruction
and over-reaction to perceived risks that may never materialise.
The requirement for statutory undertakers to contribute 18 per
cent to the cost of their works assisted in meeting the cost of
the works and helping to minimise the amount of work proposed.
It is a source of disappointment, and increased cost to future
routes, that this contribution has recently been reduced by government
regulations to 7.5 per cent, a decision which may affect the viability
of future LRT schemes in the UK.
5.6 Another risk which Centro was unable
to fully transfer to the Concessionaire was the risk associated
with Railtrack. The interface with Railtrack throughout the design,
construction and commissioning period presented a number of difficulties
for the project. Gaps in Railtrack's knowledge of its signalling
infrastructure and its train operating companies' rolling stock
led to delays in the design and installation of Railtrack's signalling
immunisation works. This also created programming and design difficulties
for the Concessionaire. Legal delays with the then untried network
change procedures and the station change procedures arising from
the 1993 Railways Act also compromised Centro's ability to deliver
vacant possession of the land to the Concessionaire in a timely
manner. The costs of Railtrack's involvement exceeded their estimates
significantly and there was a reluctance to finally issue a letter
of no objection to the operation of the metro line adjacent to
the Railtrack infrastructure, leading to delays in the Concessionaire's
driver training programme.
5.7 The introduction of the Disability Discrimination
Act Rail Vehicle Regulations resulted in the need to make modifications
to the light rail vehicles following their delivery. Although
the modifications were of a relatively minor nature, due to the
Passenger Transport Authority's already high standards in the
specification, this further delayed the opening date whilst modifications
were made or exemptions sought.
5.8 Many obstacles were overcome by both
Centro and Altram, individually and in partnership, throughout
the course of construction. In operation, there are ongoing problems
with vandalism of the stops, theft (primarily of CCTV cameras)
and difficulties in ensuring that the ticket machines are fully
operative at all times.
5.9 In conclusion, the problems encountered
have either been solved, or are clearly understood by those responsible
for solving them.
6. Traffic De-congestion
6.1 It is too early to report actual figures
that would support or contradict a view on the success of Metro
Line 1 in removing traffic from the roads in the West Midlands.
However, all three of the local authorities along the length of
the line (Wolverhampton MBC, Sandwell MBC and Birmingham City
Council) have introduced a series of complementary measures to
introduce traffic restraint along the Metro Line 1 corridor. These
measures, which were a condition of Government funding, have included
the downgrading of the A41, the introduction of mini-roundabouts
and cycle lanes, and pedestrian improvements entailing the widening
of footways and the provision of new pelican crossings. A number
of local shopping centres situated along the parallel roads will
benefit from the resultant environmental improvements.
6.2 A park and ride facility is available
at one of the shared Metro/heavy rail stations (Hawthorns) and
is signposted from the adjacent M5 junction 1. Since the opening
of Metro Line 1 park and ride has started to develop informally
at a number of the stops, a clear indication of modal transfer
from the car. Two new park and ride sites are to be constructed
during the current financial year in response to this demand.
Further sites will be developed where land constraints permit,
with funding to be sought through the LTP bidding process.
7. Future Routes
7.1 Centro and the West Midlands Passenger
Transport Authority have consulted widely on meeting the future
public transport needs of the West Midlands. Across the region,
there is very strong business support for the expansion of Midland
Metro.
7.2 Centro and the WMPTA have prepared a
20 Year Strategy that envisages the expansion of Midland Metro
Line 1 into a network of up to 12 lines. Lines from Wednesbury
to the Merry Hill shopping centre and Birmingham Snow Hill through
the city centre to Five Ways are planned to be operational by
2005. Formal submissions for these two extensions will be submitted
to government in 2000. A further nine high volume public transport
corridors will be assessed and appropriate transport modes for
these corridors will be developed. It is anticipated that a number
of these corridors will be found to merit a light rapid transit
(light rail) solution and further routes will therefore be brought
forward for implementation.
7.3 In response to the 20 Year Strategy
objectives and the early experience gained from operating Metro
Line 1 Centro is confidently taking forward two early extensions
to Line 1 in partnership with Birmingham City, Sandwell and Dudley
Councils, Railtrack and private sector developers. Chelsfield,
the largest of the developers and the owners of the Merry Hill
shopping centre have offered to contribute £25 million to
the cost of the route that is planned to serve Merry Hill. Centro
has been working in partnership with Birmingham City Council to
utilise its planning powers to secure developer contributions
for Midland Metro through Section 106 of the 1990 Town and Country
Planning Act. The two schemes are also included in the current
Local Transport Plan (LTP) bid for future funding.
7.4 Government acknowledgement that light
rail will have a strong role to play in meeting the public transport
needs of the West Midlands would greatly facilitate the achievement
of Centro's 20 Year Strategy objectives. Present uncertainties
regarding future sources of funding can have the effect of dictating
procurement and ownership regimes that may not fit well with an
overall long term strategy. If Centro is given the freedom to
plan and implement a long term strategy this will also assist
the private sector by providing greater certainty over the length
of operating concessions and protection from early termination
of operating concessions as the network expands. Fiancing solutions
could then be optimised and this will also be in the public's
best interest.
7.5 In planning for the introduction of
further light rail routes within the West Midlands, serious consideration
is being given to the possibility of track sharing with heavy
rail. The proposed Wednesbury to Merry Hill light rail route is
being developed on this basis and will enable a closed railway
route to be re-opened for both passenger and freight services.
A West Midlands rail capacity study will also include a review
of light rail's contribution to solving heavy rail problems within
the conurbation and in the adjoining travel-to-work area.
7.6 Although developers are requested to
contribute to the costs of light rail routes when appropriate,
many existing land owners are able to benefit from the construction
of light rail schemes without contributing specifically to the
costs of those schemes. The sub-committee may wish to give consideration
to developing a means of light rail promoters being able to capture
developer gain or increases in land values that result from a
scheme.
7.7 If medium to long term funding can be
confirmed by the government for the development of Centro's (and
other large conurbations') light rail networks on the basis of
a rolling programme then it will become easier for industry to
respond, leading to improved efficiency and economies of scale.
It may even become possible for Britain to develop a competitive
tram building and maintenance industry once again.
7.8 A positive government attitude to light
rail in general and Midland Metro in particular will be an important
factor in the success of future routes. The government is therefore
urged to move forward from a previously stated view that light
rail is "not a priority". LRT has a proven ability to
get motorists out of their cars in a way that buses have not.
This is particularly thought to be the case where it forms part
of a network that allows people to have confidence that public
transport will be able to meet all their foreseeable transport
needs on a particular day, such as on the London Underground.
This would suggest concentrating investment on building such networks
in major conurbations, rather than single lines in stand-alone
towns and cities. LRT is also what the general public and the
West Midlands business community are clearly keen on seeing developed.
The costs are not excessive compared to allowing main centres
to choke to death with traffic congestion.
8. Conclusions
8.1 Light rapid transit as a mode has a
number of distinct advantages, implicit in its name.
8.2 The "light" nature of the
mode enables most of the benefits of heavy rail to be made more
widely available at a lower cost than conventional heavy rail,
on key radial routes where the potential demand is the greatest.
It is important that appropriate safety standards are rigorously
applied. However, it is also important that the economies associated
with light rail can continue to be realised within the light rail
sphere. Well-intentioned regulations or requirements should not
be introduced if the effect would be that light rail systems are
gradually loaded up with the safety systems, crashworthiness and
other requirements more applicable to heavy rail. This issue is
of particular concern when comparable standards are not applied
to alternative modes, such as car travel.
8.3 The "rapid" nature of the
mode is attributable to the high-performance acceleration and
braking characteristics of modern trams and is very attractive
to road users. The existing bus route that parallels Midland Metro
Line 1 is typically timed to take 79 minutes from its Wolverhampton
terminus to the Birmingham terminus. As both termini are in the
immediate vicinity of the respective Metro termini, this journey
time is directly comparable with the 35 minute journey time reliably
achieved by the trams. It would not be possible to reliably achieve
a 35 minute journey time by car along this corridor, giving the
rapid transit mode a clear advantage.
8.4 LRT is increasingly able to provide
the best levels of urban penetration of any mode of transport.
As city centres are progressively pedestrianised buses are increasingly
being restricted from environmentally sensitive areas. Light rail
offers a "zero pollution at point of use" mode that
can offer maximum convenience and attractiveness to those wishing
to travel into and around the urban centres of the West Midlands.
Full accessibility also enables the mobility impaired to enjoy
the benefits of light rail.
8.5 LRT has a proven ability (in mainland
Europe, or Manchester for example), to attract motorists out of
their cars in a way that other modes do not.
8.6 Centro and the West Midlands PTA are
keen to improve public transport accessibility across the whole
of the West Midlands conurbation. All public transport modes have
a role to play and with the support of funding partners Centro
has been able to procure an impressive range of public transport
improvements in the recent past. Significant investment in heavy
rail and bus showcase routes is now complemented by investment
in light rail on Midland Metro Line 1. Centro and the West Midlands
PTA consider that the development of light rail is an essential
ingredient in the delivery of a modern, integrated and environmentally
friendly public transport system for the region.
8.7 It is hoped that the Government will
be able to offer appropriate support that will enable Centro to
continue to deliver a network of light rail lines, giving the
population of the West Midlands the high quality public transport
system that they demand and deserve.
Richard Worrall,
Chair
West Midlands Passenger Transport Authority
Rob Donald,
Director General
Centro
October 1999
| 
