Memorandum by TRANSDEV (RT 32)
LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEMS
1. TRANSDEV
The Group operates public transport networks
in a number of countries. In particular, in France TRANSDEV has
been at the centre of the re-introduction of light rail systems,
starting with Nantes, then Grenoble, Toulouse (automatic metro)
and Strasbourg. Currently, the company is working on the introduction
of new systems in three cities where construction has already
started, and two more systems have reached the project stage.
In all these developments, TRANSDEV works in
joint venture companies with the Local Authorities. These companies
run totally integrated urban public transport networks.
In total TRANSDEV runs some 70 networks in France.
Of these, nearly half are jointly owned with the Local Authorities
and the remainder is owned 100 per cent by TRANSDEV.
In the UK, TRANSDEV plc was a member of the
Croydon Project Development Group, the Nottingham Project Development
Group, and has advised Hampshire County Council on operational
matters during the studies for the Fareham, Gosport and Portsmouth
light rail scheme. The company is a shareholder in Arrow Light
Railthe Nottingham Express Transit preferred bidder and
in the Nottingham Tram Company. The latter is the company, which
will operate the Nottingham system once construction is completed.
Nottingham Tram Company is a 50-50 joint venture between TRANSDEV
and Nottingham City Council.
TRANSDEV owns London United Busways, which runs
600 buses, mostly under contract to London Transport. Through
London United Busways, which is a member of the Confederation
of Passenger Transport (UK), TRANSDEV supports the CPT submission
to the Sub-committee. However, TRANSDEV by virtue of its experience
in light rail and public private partnerships, considers that
it has a contribution to make, which justifies making a separate
submission.
2. BUS USE
WITHIN THE
TRANSPORT SYSTEM
IN FRANCE
Despite the fact that the bus fleet in France
is still somewhat younger than that in the UK and subsidies are
used to support both investment and operations within a fixed
fare strategy, there has been a continuing decline in the use
of public transport by bus, and it has long been recognised that
the solution to congestion and environmental pollution cannot
be found in the sole use of buses in the urban centres.
This decline has been reversed in those cities
and conurbations, which have reintroduced the tram. In cities
like Nantes and Grenoble, use of the network as a whole including
buses has gone up by up to 50 per cent within five years of the
first lines of the new systems being opened.
3. LIGHT RAIL
SYSTEM IN
FRANCE
It must be said, however that there is a fundamentally
different approach to light rail in France. It is not seen as
simply a better way to move more people from A to B, and it is
not viewed in isolation from the rest of the urban landscape.
Light Rail is a tool to free the city of congestion and to bring
an improvement to the quality of life. To this end the whole of
the tram corridor is reviewed to see what improvements can be
brought to the area. By and large the line route is segregated
by creating a separate alignment or by excluding other traffic
including buses. In Grenoble, the tram has replaced 180 buses
per peak hour with 60 trams. Bus routes cross the tramway, and
connect with it at purpose built inter-modal exchange points,
but they do not follow the tram, other than for a few hundred
metres before turning away from the tramway to follow a different
route. In Strasbourg, the same policy is followed, and additionally
park and ride sites are located at the bus/tram interchanges so
that the car driver can use the facility to take a tram or a bus
to different destinations.
The bus networks have been restructured and
improvements made to bus quality, frequencies, information systems
and stops to bring bus services as close as possible to tram levels.
Needless to say, ticketing systems are common to both tram and
bus. Growth in use has ensured that the number of buses in operation
is approximately the same after the new systems have been introduced
as before.
It has been noted that French cities have a
higher density of population than those in the UK, however, it
is also reasonable to point out that travel-to-work distances
in the UK are greater than those in France. Perhaps more relevant
to the argument is the fact that in France the community as a
wholerepresented by all the organisations concerned by
the need to solve transport problems, to improve the quality of
urban life and to tackle problems of social exclusionare
involved in the light rail projects. Additionally, local businesses,
which provide funds for transport, are represented through the
Chamber of Commerce.
4. RELEVANCE
TO THE
UK
As pointed out above, TRANSDEV has been involved
in the evolution of three of the UK's light rail projects. The
company was also a bidder for the Midland Metro. The main differences
between the UK and France are:
funding and the pressures of cost
which limit the scope of the project to matters related solely
to the project for a DBFO tram system. For example, the Nottingham
project does not include for the cost of intermodal exchanges,
and the Croydon Tramlink project (at the time of the PDG) did
not embrace park and ride even though the private sector members
of the PDG argued for its inclusion.
the lack of network integration from
the outset in the UK has an adverse impact on the estimation for
revenue and hence on project funding and the private sectors contribution.
In the Nottingham Project the next best thing has been achieved
by including the local bus company (Nottingham City Transport)
in the project, but even here the impact is limited by the need
to observe the competition laws. It is not possible to observe
in all schemes that the local bus operator is part of a winning
consortium, of course, as this would nullify any competition between
consortia for the concession, nor is it sensible to leave selection
of the operator until after the consortium has won as this would
leave the winning consortium in an impossible negotiating position.
Furthermore it is essential that each consortium has an operator
as a member to prepare the operating requirements.
reworking the tram corridor to maximise
patronage by tram and to minimise all other traffic is an important
feature of French schemes. It is not so in the UK where a much
more conservative approach is taken to traffic direction and the
authorities have much less influence over bus routes and the location
of bus stops.
5. CONCLUSIONS
By viewing the concept of light rail in a much
broader sense with a wider range of objectives, incremental revenue
can be created to make a more significant financial contribution
to the project and the new mode of transport can bring an improvement
to the urban environment which has not yet been realised in any
project in the UK. The commercial framework within which the industry
operates in the UK, with the freedom to set fares and the need
to operate at a profit in order to facilitate investment by the
private sector will ensure that subsidies are minimised.
However, it is important to find a method to
integrate local public transport which will still ensure that
the needs of the marketthe travelling publicare
constantly monitored and services evolved to meet the demand.
Similarly, local transport strategy must have
a much higher priority in the eyes of the organising bodies, and
this sense of importance needs to be communicated to the general
public.
N C Buckley,
Director
5 October 1999
|