Memorandum by the Passenger Transport
Executive Group (PTEG) (RT 34)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This Memorandum has been prepared by
the Passenger Transport Executive Group (PTEG) which represents
the six English and one Scottish Passenger Transport Executives
together with London Transport. PTEG members play a major role
in many aspects of public transport provision in metropolitan
areas and serve a total population of about 18 million people.
1.2 PTEG has led the development of Light
Rapid Transit (LRT) systems in Great Britain. Almost all the new
generation systems built or developed in the past 25 years have
been promoted by PTEG members including Tyne and Wear Metro, Docklands
Light Railway, Greater Manchester Metrolink, South Yorkshire Supertram,
Midland Metro and Croydon Tramlink. PTEG members have also been
closely involved with the development of other forms of Light
Rapid Transit including guided busways and innovative systems.
1.3 Since the early 1970s, PTEs have acquired
the greatest body of knowledge and experience of Light Rapid Transit
in the United Kingdom. In the course of developing these varied
schemes, they have visited and studied a wide range of Light Rapid
Transit systems around the world as well as gaining direct experience
through planning, financing, implementing and, in some cases,
operating these systems. Table 1 shows the range of LRT projects
which have been undertaken by PTEs since 1970.
1.4 The constituent members of PTEG are
submitting evidence separately on their specific schemes, the
problems they have faced and the success achieved. They will describe
their own LRT systems in more detail, as appropriate. This evidence
addresses issues of common concern to the Group and in particular
the fourth topic which the Transport Sub-Committee wishes to investigate,
namely:
"whether it is appropriate, and if so what
help can be given, to assist the growth of rapid transit schemes
in the United Kingdom".
1.5 The term "Light Rapid Transit"
embraces a wide spectrum of fixed track systems which may be rubber
tyred (bus based) or rail based and includes proprietary track
based automated systems. The large majority of LRT systems built
around the world utilise light rail technology but this Memorandum
also covers other modes, sometimes referred to as "intermediate
capacity systems".
1.6 This evidence discusses the need for
LRT, the range of technical approaches that can be considered,
the availability of market research, the importance of a comprehensive
strategy and some key issues facing the growth of LRT schemes.
Finally some conclusions are drawn and recommendations made.
2. THE NEED
FOR LIGHT
RAPID TRANSIT
The increasing levels of traffic congestion
and environmental pollution, particularly in urban areas, demand
major changes in the modal split for many journeys. Experience
over the past few decades has shown that attracting car users
to transfer to buses is very difficult, although a few recent
examples, which involve comprehensive quality improvement and
exclusive branding, eg Bus Showcase route 33 in Birmingham and
the Leeds guided bus routes, indicate that some changes can be
achieved. Light rail systems have shown that they can attract
car users in substantial numbers because they offer a level of
speed, reliability and comfort that is not easily matched by any
other mode, at least for journeys into or through a city or regional
centre.
2.2 Until about 20 years ago, most urban
public transport in the UK was by bus or conventional train. The
large majority of public transport journeys were, and still are,
by bus, (except in London). This contrasted with European and
north American cities where there is a broader range of transit
modes including buses, trolleybuses, trams, light rail systems,
metros and surburban rail. Electrically powered systems with a
high level of segregation from road traffic have clearly demonstrated
their ability to retain and attract passengers in the face of
increasing car ownership. This characteristic is urgently needed
in Britain and it is therefore highly appropriate to consider
how to assist the growth of rapid transit schemes in the United
Kingdom.
2.3 The need for a transit mode which offers
higher quality service than the bus, but at a cost significantly
less than heavy rail systems and full metros, was recognised by
PTEG members in the 1970s. They were also aware of developments
in a number of European cities and in north America which had
successfully strengthened their public transport networks by constructing
new LRT lines or extending existing systems. This led to planning
of new systems in the 1980s which are now in operation, with more
lines planned.
2.4 The extent of new LRT systems in the
UK is still very limited. The scope for extensions to existing
systems, and creation of more new systems is very great. In other
forms of LRT such as intermediate capacity modes can be developed,
with lower capacity than light rail and lower capital costs, then
the scope will be even wider, extending to medium sized towns
and cities, and circumferential movements in larger cities. The
need to combat congestion and adverse environmental impacts in
those areas is as urgent as it is in the large conurbations.
3. THE RANGE
OF TECHNICAL
APPROACHES
3.1 Light rapid transit may be defined as
"a public transport system which is mainly segregated from
other traffic, running within or adjacent to the highway, or on
separate rights of way, with an average speed of at lease 20 kilometres
per hour and a capacity in the range of 1,000 to 15,000 passengers
per hour per direction.". The range of types of LRT system
is wide and varied and no definitions can be absolute.
Light rail
3.2 The most common form of LRT is light
rail with over 300 systems worldwide, over 60 of which have been
built in the past 20 years including six in the UK. Light rail
spans the range from street tramway to light metro and may include
varying proportions of route on highway alignments, railway alignments,
private rights of way, tunnels or elevated tracks. They may be
fully segregated from other traffic, including pedestrians, or
may operated in mixed traffic or through pedestrian areas. All
of these characteristics may be found in the LRT systems developed
by the PTEs. Some system statistics for PTE light rail systems
are given in Table 2.
3.3 It is this flexibility in being able
to utilise any of these alignment types which has made light rail
the most popular choice for new urban systems, coupled with the
ability to negotiate steeper gradients and tighter curves than
conventional railways. However the relatively high capital cost,
and the high passenger volumes needed to justify them, make investigation
of potentially lower cost forms of LRT worthwhile in appropriate
circumstances.
3.4 Light rail technology has developed
continuously from the earliest days of street tramways and is
now advanced and well proven. Recent developments are the widespread
use of low floor trams giving easier access at street stops, shared
track with heavy rail allowing use of high speed surburban alignments
coupled with city centre street running and the use of computer
technology in control systems and passenger information systems.
Some of these features are transferable to other forms of LRT.
Other forms of LRT
3.5 Other forms of light rapid transit include:
guided buswaykerb guidance;
guided buswayelectronic guidance;
guided light transit (GLT)central
rail guidance;
automated guideway transit;
3.6 The first four categories are in effect
different forms of busway. Two key characteristics are the form
of guidance and the form of power supply. The guidance and power
supply options may be combined in different ways. For guidance,
the options are manual steering, kerb guidance, electronic guidance
or central rail guidance. For power supply, the options are internal
supply (clean diesel, LPG, CNG, or battery) or external supply
(overhead electric cables). Stored energy using, for example,
a flywheel may be combined with some options and hybrid systems
combining two different power sources can be used, for example
diesel and electric as in the "duobus".
Busways and guided busways
3.7 Busways and manually steered buses are
"bus only roads" on a larger scale. The only major UK
example is the Runcorn Busway, built in the early 70s to serve
a new town development. Its success in retaining patronage has
been limited although bus use is 20 per cent above the UK average.
A busway in Paris links southern suburban areas on a circumferential
route. Busways have been built in a number of cities in north
and south America, notably in Curitiba, Brazil where 270 passenger
double articulated buses operate with high platform stops to give
level boarding.
3.8 Kerb guided buses are fitted with small
horizontal guide wheels which run a vertical "rail"
or high kerb. They can be driven manually when not on the guideway.
There are two kerb guided busway examples in the UK, in Ipswich
and Leeds. The Ipswich scheme has a very short, but operationally
crucial, section of guideway in a suburban centre. The Leeds scheme
has more extensive sections of guided busway on a radial corridor
(Scott Hall Road) linking the northern suburbs to the city centre.
Bus patronage has grown by at least 40 per cent including some
transfer from car. A park and ride site is located at an outer
terminus. A second route to serve the York Road corridor is being
developed. Plans are well advanced for a guided busway in Edinburgh
linking the Airport and eastern sector of the city to the city
centre. Another project is the Leigh Busway in Greater Manchester
using in part a former rail alignment and existing highway alignment
between Leigh and Manchester city centre. Powers are to be sought
later this year. The Chester-Deeside system is at a similar stage
of development.
3.9 The only examples of kerb guided buses
are in Essen and Mannheim in Germany and Adelaide in Australia.
Essen also provided an example of dual power (diesel and trolleybus
or "duobus") sharing tracks with light rail and operating
in tunnel. However this part of the system no longer operates.
There is therefore limited experience of kerb guided bus operation
but the technology is relatively cheap and simple to install,
making it potentially attractive. It does require a substantial
investment in track to support the vehicle loadings which are
concentrated on "rails" as for any rail based system.
3.10 Electronic guidance uses a wire buried
in the road surface with special steering equipment on the vehicle.
The only operational example is the service tunnel through the
Channel Tunnel which is not passenger carrying but has worked
technically as far as can be ascertained. It is however in a protected
environment which is very different from operation on urban streets.
The only limited trial for street running operation was undertaken
in Newcastle but the scheme was not pursued.
3.11 The first application of electronic
guidance on a busway will be the Millennium Transit currently
under construction to serve the Millennium Dome at Greenwich.
This will provide valuable operational experience. A more extensive
proposal for electronically guided trolleybuses in Liverpool was
not approved by the Secretary of State this year following the
recommendation of the inspector at a public inquiry although guidance
was not a significant factor in the decision.
3.12 Another form of electronic guidance
is being developed in Italy, known as "Stream", which
combines under road power supply with electromagnetic guidance.
It is about to be tested in Trieste.
GLT
3.13 Guided light transit (GLT) is a rubber
tyred guided system with double articulated vehicles which can
operate on normal roads with manual guidance, using diesel power,
or on a guideway with a single central guiderail, using overhead
electric power supply. Developed in Belgium, GLT has been tested
on a 1.5km section of the 12.5 km Trans-Val-de-Marne busway in
Paris. It has covered 30,000 kms and carried 240,000 passengers.
Trials of other similar systems are planned on this site. The
first permanent applications will be in the French cities of Caen
and Nancy.
Automated forms of LRT
3.14 Monorails and peoplemovers are normally
only found in specialist applications such as airports, shopping
centres and entertainment centres. They are unlikely to have any
significant advantage over other modes for urban public transport
applications. Automated guideway transit also has limited application
because of its relatively high capital cost. These forms of LRT
all require proprietary track forms and must, because of their
automatic operation, be fully segregated and grade separated from
any pedestrian or vehicular movements. This usually means that
the tracks are elevated, making access more difficult and visual
intrusion a potential problem in urban areas.
Operational characteristics
3.15 A key factor in the success of any
LRT system is the extent to which it can be segregated from road
traffic and its operation safeguarded from the effects of traffic
congestion. This can be achieved with any of the forms of LRT
described above, but the methods adopted depend on the technical
characteristics of the mode.
3.16 Busways are normal carriageways and
can therefore be provided wherever a new road can be constructed
or an existing road reserved for buses. They can physically be
used by other road vehicles however and rigorous enforcement is
therefore required. Kerb guided busways can only be used by vehicles
fitted with guide wheels and are inherently self-enforcing. They
do however require exclusive use of land which may be difficult
to proivde where urban space is restricted. Electronic guidance
can be installed in any carriageway surface and may therefore
be provided on a segregated busway or within the highway. In either
case it is necessary to construct either concrete "rails"
or heavy duty pavement to accommodate the vehicle loadings. The
same charactersitics apply to GLT as the central guide rail is
level with the road surface, as for a tramway.
3.17 Any form of busway, whether guided
or not, has the characteristic that vehicles can operate on the
segregated route sections or on normal highway. They can therefore
branch off the main corridor to provide direct services to a number
of different areas. This may reduce access time (walking) and/or
interchange time but needs to be balanced against lower frequencies
which could increase waiting times.
3.18 The capacity of a busway is a function
of the vehicle type and service headways. It is also influenced
by the availability of overtaking lanes at stops, the method of
fare collection and the boarding and alighting arrangements. Vehicles
may be 12m rigid, 18m articulated or up to 25m double articulated
(the latter would require special authorisation in the UK). A
comparaive study in France by RATP quotes a maximum of 1,600 passengers
per hour per direction (pphpd) for conventional buses and 2,000
pphpd for articulated buses. The UK Confederation of Passenger
Transport (CPT) has quoted a much higher figure of 7,000 pphpd.
This is however a theoretical figure while the RATP figure is
based on operating experience. For GLT, the RATP quote a figure
of between 1,600 pphpd and 3,000 pphpd while CPT quote 7,000 pphpd.
3.19 Line capacity will also depend on the
extent of the guideway sections and the levels of priority given
to the system on the non-segregated sections, the stop spacing,
vehicle performance characteristics and geometric design of the
alignment. Typical capacities may be given as between 1,000 and
4,000 pphpd for a busway and between 1,000 and 15,000 pphpd or
light rail. Average journey speeds will also vary according to
the characteristics of the route and the vehicles but may be typically
in the range 18 km/h to 25 km/h for busways or light rail.
Comparative costs
3.20 The capital costs of the existing light
rail systems in the UK are shown in Table 3. (It should be noted
that the price bases are not consistent and precise comparisons
should not be drawn). Typical construction costs for light rail
are in the range £5 million/km to £10 million/km depending
on the extent of new alignment and the civil engineering content.
If substantial lengths of elevated track or tunnel are required,
as for the Docklands Light Railway, then much higher figures apply,
in the region of £30 million/km or more. Where an existing
rail line is converted to light rail, costs may be lower than
£5 million/km depending on condition and suitability of the
existing line.
3.21 For bus based LRT, the most authoritative
source of cost data is a study undertaken for London Transport
in 1997 entitled "Rapid Transit on Rubber Tyres". This
gives the costs as set out in Table 4. The figures for existing
roads do not include the cost of reconstructing the carriageway
which will increase the cost significantly. It is understood that
the cost of the proposed City of Edinburgh Rapid Transit (CERT)
kerb guided busway is about £5 million/km and the cost of
the Merseyside Rapid Transit electronically guided busway would
have been about £4million/km which suggests that the difference
in cost between guided busway and light rail may not be as great
as previously thought. However this conclusion should be treated
with some caution as the projected costs for CERT and Merseytravel
Rapid Transit are fully comprehensive including depots, Park and
Ride, land, property etc.
TABLE 4 COMPARATIVE COSTS FOR GUIDED BUSWAY
VEHICLES AND INFRASTRUCTURE.
|
Form of guidance | Vehicle costs
| Infrastructure costs per km of double track
|
|
Kerb guidance | Standard bus or trolleybus plus £5,000
| £1.6 million |
Electronic guidance | Standard bus or trolleybus plus £15,000 to £25,000
| £0.2 million on existing road
£1.4 million on new road
|
GLT (central rail guidance) | Special vehicle at £1.1 million
| £1.4 million on existing road
£2.1 million on new road
|
|
4. AVAILABLE OF
MARKET RESEARCH
Attractiveness of light rail and busways
4.1 There is a lack of comprehensive data on market research
into the comparison of different LRT modes. This is largely because
there are very few examples of systems other than conventional
light rail on which people can draw experience. A number of stated
preference surveys have been undertaken using photographs, sketches
or other information about different modes and this tends to show
a strong preference for light rail. However until there are more
extensive systems based on busway technology it will be difficult
to obtain meaningful data.
4.2 The attractiveness of any form of transport is determined
by two factors:
the pure transport characteristics of the journey
it can offer: walking time, waiting time, in vehicle time and
fare;
the quality characteristics associated with the
mode.
The transport characteristics will be determined by critical
factors such as the degree of priority and the method of operation
as well as service frequency and stop spacing. The form of guidance
and traction power are likely to be less significant. Light rail
is likely to have superior characteristics in terms of acceleration,
deceleration and speed, but bus based systems may offer shorter
walking distances and through journeys, albeit with longer waiting
times.
4.3 Experience in Manchester shows that light rail attracts
more passengers than would be expected on the basis of the transport
characteristics alone. Very little is known about the reasons
for this although studies are under way which will address this.
Possible reasons may be:
light rail can be seen to be permanent;
service networks are relatively simple to understand;
it gives a smoother ride from the combination
of electric traction and rail guidance;
it can be promoted as environmentally friendly;
it appears to be "culturally" acceptable
amongst all socio-economic groups to an extent that the bus has
yet failed to be.
4.4 These factors, and others, may be reflected in a
"modal constant" to describe this difference. In a recent
report to GMPTE, consultants Steer Davies Gleave estimated that
the modal constant for any guided bus system would be about half
that for light rail. This is based on stated preference work but
no details are available. The impact that this would have on patronage
would depend on the other factors in the modal choice equation.
4.5 A research project to examine how successful non-light
rail systems would be in achieving commercial and planning objectives
was carried out for DETR by Transport and Environmental Planning.
The results have not as yet been published but are understood
to be inconclusive. A further study has now been commissoned,
funded jointly by DETR, PTEG and others. Some modelling approaches
are being considered. Depending on the results of these studies,
further work may be needed.
Modal split effects
4.6 It is difficult to obtain detailed data on the modal
split effects of LRT. A study for the UITP Light Rail Commission
in 1998 showed that the proportion of all public transport passengers
who previously used cars averaged over 34 systems was 11 per cent.
In Nantes it was 37 per cent and in San Diego 50 per cent, both
cities with new light rail systems. In Karlsruhe the conversion
of a suburban rail line to LRT and its extension into the city
centre resulted in an increase in patronage of 400 per cent, 40
per cent of whom were former car users. In Manchester it is estimated
that the first Metrolink line removed 2 million car journeys and
reduced traffic levels on the parallel main roads by between 2
per cent and 8 per cent. In Sheffield, more than 20 per cent of
passengers on Supertram previously travelled by car.
4.7 There is clear evidence that high quality public
transport in the form of light rail can attract car users. There
is more limited data in regard to other forms of LRT, mainly because
there are very few systems on which to base any evidence. There
is a need for a programme of carefully monitored demonstration
projects for other forms of LRT to establish their transport characteristics
in terms of attractiveness to potential users. Stated preference
studies, as adopted by a number of promoting authorities, are
helpful but are no substitute for measuring actual performance
of real systems in passenger service.
4.8 A demonstration project programme would also enable
comparisons to be made of system costs, both capital and operating,
to assess whether more expensive technology is more effective
in influencing modal split than bus based systems. At present
it would seem that light rail, while relatively expensive, can
produce significant changes in travel habits. It is as yet unknown
whether an electrically powered guided bus system, for example,
could achieve similar results at lower costs. The rejected Merseyside
Rapid Transit project would have been an excellent example of
such a project and would have yielded valuable information on
modal split effects, costs and operating experience to assist
planning of similar schemes in other cities.
5. IMPORTANCE OF
A COMPREHENSIVE
STRATEGY
5.1 Any fixed track system requires a major investment
in infrastructure and will have a life of many decades. It will
influence, and be influenced by, the developments which it serves.
It is important that any system is fully compatible with the specific
needs of the corridor having regard to existing and any potential
demand, operating conditions and modal split objectives. It must
therefore be planned as an integral part of a comprehensive transport
and land use strategy for the area. At present this can be difficult
to achieve because of the different agencies involved in planning,
highways and transport, both public and private sector, and their
differing objectives. For example, changes in education or health
service provision can have a major impact on the level and location
of demand for transport. To be fully effective, LRT must link
major traffic generators as directly as possible to ensure competitive
journey times.
5.2 Another key factor is that the benefits of fixed
track systems can be maximised if they are planned and operated
as part of a fully integrated transport system. At present this
can only be achieved in Greater London. There is a need to ensure,
if necessary through legislation, that an authority promoting
LRT can develop it as the core of an integrated system. This means
the ability to provide feeder bus services and interchange facilities
with heavy rail services, park and ride and good access for cyclists
and pedestrians. It also means avoiding unnecessary duplication
or competition on the corridor served by the LRT system in order
to preserve the value of the investment in the infrastructure.
At present, savings in bus operating costs as a result of LRT
investment cannot be realised by LRT promoters.
6. KEY ISSUES
FACING GROWTH
OF LRT SCHEMES
6.1 The experience of PTEs in promoting LRT schemes has
highlighted a number of key issues that need to be addressed if
growth of LRT as an urban mode is to be achieved. They include
urban policy, the planning stages, funding, capital costs, issues
of standardisation, and the benefits of LRT. Each of these is
considered briefly.
Urban policy
6.2 Transport is a crucial element in urban policies,
as set out in the Transport White Paper on Integrated Transport.
The transport agenda must be integrated with issues of regeneration,
health, social exclusion and other policy areas. LRT can play
a major role in this process but this was not fully recognised
in the White Paper and has not been acknowledged by the Government.
The planning stages
6.2 It typically takes at least 10 years to develop a
LRT scheme. The process spans problem definition, system options
review, demand forecasting, design and appraisal, consultation,
environmental impact studies, the Transport and Works Act process,
and funding and procurement. The last two processes are particularly
problematic. Private sector companies are reluctant to participate
in schemes in advance of the TWA process because of the high costs
and high risks involved. Ways of shortening timescales and reducing
costs need to be sought if the benefits of LRT are to be obtained
quickly.
Funding
6.3 Current funding sources are operating revenues, capital
grants from Government, European grants and loans, capital borrowings,
and private sector contributions. New sources need to be explored
urgently including hypothecated congestion or parking charges
(including PNR taxes), bond issues and the scope for wider private
sector involvement including capitalising planning gain.
Capital costs
6.4 The capital costs of LRT are seen as high by the
Government although they are modest compared with the costs of
new heavy rail construction or urban motorways. The scope for
reducing the costs of LRT, and the potential for lower cost forms
of LRT, needs to be examined and kept under constant review.
Standardisation
6.5 Each UK LRT scheme developed to date has used a different
system specification and method of funding and procurement. The
scope for standardising some of these elements should be considered
to see if there is potential to minimise costs by eliminating
unecessary duplication of effort.
Benefits of LRT
6.6 There is a large body of literature on LRT including
its favourable perception, its ability to attract car users, and
new technical developments. This needs to be brought together
to highlight:
impacts on reducing congestion and effects on
modal split;
environmental benefits and health policy benefits;
cost benefits, operational efficiencies and value
for money arguments;
the ability of LRT to be incorporated within the
existing urban fabric.
7. CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 The evidence set out in this memorandum strongly
supports the development of Light Rapid Transit systems in British
towns and cities. The experience of those systems already in operation
has demonstrated that they can attract car users to public transport.
The following conclusions are drawn to assist the Sub-Committee
in their Inquiry:
(1) It is highly appropriate to assist the growth of rapid
transit schemes in the United Kingdom because of their proven
success in attracting car users and reducing congestion and atmospheric
pollution.
(2) To date light rail has been the most effective form
of LRT in attracting car users, much more research is required
to assess the effectiveness of other forms of LRT.
(3) There is considerable scope for widening the range
of light rail applications in the UK, e.g. low floor street tramways
and shared track operation with heavy rail.
(4) There may be a potential role for intermediate capacity
transit systems including different forms of guided busway and
different forms of traction, e.g. trolleybus or duobus.
(5) The capital cost of guided busways is likely to be
significantly lower than for light rail but the benefits may also
be substantially lower.
7.2 In considering what help can be given to assist the
growth of LRT Schemes in the UK, the following issues should be
addressed:
(1) The Government should recognise the potential role
of LRT in its various forms to meet their transport objectives,
and should facilitate its provision accordingly.
(2) LRT must be planned as part of a comprehensive integrated
transport strategy and promoters must, if necessary, be given
additional powers to ensure that this can be achieved.
(3) Ways of reducing the cost and timescale of obtaining
TWA powers should be explored.
(4) New methods of funding should be explored urgently
including hypothecation of congestion or parking charges.
(5) The scope for reducing costs and timescales through
standardisation should be considered.
(6) Existing evidence on the benefits of LRT systems should
be brought together as a resource pack for promoters. The need
for additional research to establish modal split effects should
be reviewed.
(7) A national programme of demonstration projects for
different forms of LRT should be initiated and carefully monitored
to establish their ability to attract potential users.
7.3 PTEG would be pleased to present verbal evidence
on any of the issues raised in this Memorandum should the Sub-Committee
so wish.
October 1999
Table 1
LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT PROJECTS DEVELOPED BY OR WITH PTEG
MEMBERS SINCE 1970
PTE | LRT System | Project
| Status |
London Transport | Docklands Light Railway
| Automated light railwayTower Gateway, Isle of Dogs and Stratford; extensions to Bank, Becton, and Lewisham.
| Opened 1997. Lewisham extension to open in 1999.
|
| Croydon Tramlink
| Light railCroydon to Wimbledon, New Addington, Beckenham Junction and Elmers End
| Initial 3 line system to open 1999. |
| Millennium Transit
| Electronically guided busway to North Greenwich.
| Under construction. |
| Intermediate capacity modes.
| Detailed studies for tramway, guided busway and trolleybus in Barking and Romford, Uxbridge Road and Cross River (central London).
| Ongoing studies. |
Centro (West Midlands) | Midland Metro
| Light rail from Birmingham to Wolverhampton. Extensions planned to New Street, Fiveways, and Merryhill programmed. Further routes to be available.
| Opened 1999. |
| Tracline
| Pilot Project for kerb guided busway in Short Heath, Birmingham.
| In operation 1984 to 1987. |
| Maglev
| Magnetically levitated peoplemover link at Birmingham International Airport.
| In operation 1984 to 1995; to be replaced with new system.
|
Greater Manchester | Metrolink
| Light rail linking Bury and Altrincham to city centre and Piccadilly station. Extension to Salford Quays/Eccles nearing completion. Powers obtained for lines to Oldham/Rochdale, Airport, Ashton, Trafford Park, East Didsbury.
| Opened 1992. Salford Quays to open 1999; Eccles to open 2000.
|
| Leigh Busway
| Guided busway linking Leigh & Manchester city centre.
| Powers to be sought in 2000. |
Merseytravel | Merseyside Rapid Transit (MRT)
| Electronically guided trolleybuses from Page Moss to Albert Dock via city centre, and park and ride at M62.
| TWA Public Inquiry held in 1998. Secretary of State not approved Order.
|
South Yorkshire | Sheffield Supertram
| Light rail with lines to Middlewood, Main Bridge, Meadowhall, Herdings and Halfway.
| Opened 1994. Some extensions proposed. |
| Trolleybus
| Powers obtained for lines in Doncaster and Rotherham. Prototype trolleybus built and tested in 1985-86.
| Proposals not being pursued. |
West Yorkshire | Guided busway
| Sections of kerb guided busway on Scott Hall Road, Leeds. Second route proposed on York Road.
| Opened in stages from 1994. |
| Leeds Supertram
| Light railline 1 to Middleton and park and ride on M1 awaiting funding; lines 2 and 3 of Headingley and Seacroft awaiting decision on TWA powers.
| Awaiting approvals. |
| Trolleybus
| Powers obtained for lines in Bradford and Leeds.
| Proposals not being pursued. |
Nexus (Tyne and Wear) | Tyne and Wear Metro
| Light rail with fully segregated operation between Newcastle upon Tyne and Whitley Bay, North Shields, South Shields and Kenton. Extension to Airport opened 1991. Extension to Sunderland and South Hylton proposed with shared track operation.
| Opened in stages from 1980. Extension to Sunderland to open 2002?
|
| Metro Complementary Routes
| Busway or light rail extensions from Metro to Denton, Killingworth, Metrocentre, Washington and Sunderland.
| Proposals being developed in "Towards 2010 Strategy".
|
Strathclyde | Strathclyde Tram
| Light rail from Maryhill and Easterhouse to city centre.
| Powers refused in 1996. |
| Glasgow Airport Link
| Light rail and peoplemover options from city centre or Paisley being evaluated with heavy rail options.
| Assessment of preferred options in progress.
|
Table 2
PTEG LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS: LINE LENGTHS, CAR FLEETS, AND
PATRONAGE
System | Year Open
| Route length
kms (miles)
| No cars | Annual pass
| Car/km
(Cars/mile)
| Pass/pa/km
(Pass/pa/mile)
| Pass/pa
per car
|
Glasgow Underground# | 1896
| 10.4 (6.5) |
41 | 15m
| 3.9 (6.3) | 1.44m (2.31m)
| 0.36m |
Tyne and Wear Metro | 1980
| 59 (36.9) | 90
| 34m | 1.6 (2.4)
| 0.58m (0.92m) |
0.38m |
Docklands Light Railway | 1987
| 21.5 (13.4) |
80 | 17m
| 3.7 (6.0) | 0.79m (1.27m)
| 0.21m |
Greater Manchester Metrolink | 1992
| 30.9 (19.3) |
26 | 13m
| 0.8 (1.3) | 0.42m (0.67m)
| 0.50m |
South Yorkshire Supertram | 1994
| 29.0 (18.1) |
25 | 11m
| 0.9 (1.4) | 0.38m (0.61m)
| 0.68m |
Midland Metro | 1999
| 20.4 (12.8) |
16 | 14m*
| 0.7 (1.2) | 0.68m (1.09m)
| 0.88m |
Croydon Tramlink | 1999
| 28.0 (17.5) |
24 | 25m*
| 0.9 (1.4) | 0.89m (1.43m)
| 1.09m |
#not technically LRT but similar characteristics to DLR.
*estimate.
Table 3 PTEG LIGHT RAIL SYSTEMS: CAPITAL COSTS FOR EXISTING
AND PROPOSED LIGHT RAIL LINES (NB Price Bases Vary.)
System | Line/extension
| Year
Open |
Route Length
Kms (miles)
| Capital cost
£m
| Capital cost
£/km (£/mile)
|
Tyne and Wear Metro | Initial system
| 1980 | 55.0 (34.4)
| 284 | 5.2 (8.3)
|
| Airport extension
| 1991 | 3.5 (2.2)
| 12 | 3.4 (5.5)
|
| Sunderland extension
| 2002 | 19.2 (12.0)
| 101 | 5.3 (8.4)
|
Docklands Light Railway | Initial system
| 1987 | 12.0 (7.5)
| 77 | 6.4 (10.3)
|
| Bank extension
| 1991 | 1.5 (0.9)
| 276 | 184 (306.7)
|
| Becton extension
| 1994 | 8.0 (5.0)
| 280 | 35.0 (56.0)
|
| Lewisham extension
| 1999 | 4.5 (2.8)
| 140 | 31.1 (50.0)
|
Manchester Metrolink | Initial system
| 1992 | 30.9 (19.3)
| 145 | 4.7 (7.5)
|
| Salford Quays/Eccles ext
| 2000 | 7.5 (4.7)
| 85 | 11.3 (18.1)
|
| Oldham Rochdale ext
| 2002? | 24.0 (15.0)
| 115 | 4.8 (7.7)
|
| Airport/Wythenshawe ext
| 2003? | 21.0 (13.1)
| 145 | 6.9 (11.1)
|
| East Didsbury ext
| 2004 | 10.0 (6.3)
| 80 | 8.0 (12.7)
|
| Trafford Park ext
| ? | 7.0 (4.4)
| 55 | 7.9 (12.5)
|
| East Manchester ext
| 2002? | 10.0 (6.3)
| 100 | 10.0 (15.9)
|
South Yorkshire Supertram | Initial system
| 1994 | 29.0 (18.1)
| 240 | 8.3 (13.3)
|
Midland Metro | Initial system
| 1999 | 20.4 (12.8)
| 145 | 7.1 (11.3)
|
| Snow Hill-Fiveways ext
| ? | ?
| ? | -
|
| Wednesbury-Merry Hill ext
| ? | ?
| ? | -
|
| Wolverhampton town centre
| ? | ?
| ? | -
|
Croydon Tramlink | Initial system
| 1999 | 28.0 (17.5)
| 200 | 7.1 (11.4)
|
|