Memorandum by the Association of London
Borough Planning Officers (RT 37)
INVESTIGATION OF LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT
I am making representations to you on this subject
on behalf of the Association of London Borough Planning Officers.
The Association represents the heads of the town planning service
in all 33 Boroughs in London, and believes it is well placed to
comment upon the contribution light rapid transit systems can
make to the Government's integrated transport proposals and the
general problems of planning and transport in the capital. A number
of the Association's members have been closely involved in the
development of these systems in London in recent years and almost
all have participated in studies aimed at assessing the more widespread
potential of light rapid transit systems across London as a whole.
Firstly, I would point out that the Association
is not only acquainted with developments in London, but is aware
of the contribution of light rapid transit systems to planning
and transport problems abroad. In Germany, we are aware that the
rebuilding and extension of pre-war tramway systems has resulted
in greater public transport patronage and lower levels of car
use despite higher levels of car ownership than in the UK. We
are also aware that in France and the United States, light rail
systems are extensively used as a catalyst for urban ranaissance
and the improvement of town and city centres, aimed also at reducing
car dependency. Closer to home we have noted with interest the
contribution which light rail is planned to make in Dublin, and
are of course aware of the systems which have been introduced
in other English conurbations where they have fulfilled a transport
role which is intermediate between heavy rail and bus services.
Within London, the only light rapid transit
system operational to date is the Docklands Light Railway which
operates adequately (apart from initial parsimony in the construction
of the first part) and is suitable for new development areas like
Docklands where new off-street alignments area feasible. However,
future light rail projects in London are more likely to be combinations
of street running tramways and off-street routes chiefly taking
advantage of former railway alignments.
The Association is aware that the Government
is currently concentrating on short term improvements to bus services
as a way of meeting its transport objectives as soon as possible,
rather than relying on substantial capital investment in public
transport, and would support this general approach. However, it
is recognised that the process of introducing and enforcing bus
lanes in London's heavy congested road network will present many
difficulties and it may never be possible to achieve the necessary
degree of continuity which would result in the step change improvement
to services which is envisaged.
Looking at the wider context of public transport
provision, it is apparent that the process of introducing new
heavy rail services and stations is both much more expensive and
much more difficult in the fragmented railway structure which
exists to-day. There is hence less immediate prospect of improvements
to the heavy rail system making an additional contribution to
London's transport needs.
As a result of the difficulties in achieving
significant short term improvements to the bus and heavy rail
networks, and because of their intrinsic advantages, the Association
has concluded that there is scope for a significant expansion
in the role of light rapid transit systems in meeting London's
transport needs. It is recognised that patterns of movement across
London are being increasingly dispersed due to the relocation
of employment, leisure and health facilities, and this dispersed
pattern is difficult to serve by conventional forms of high quality
public transport. The Croydon Tramlink network is attempting to
provide a quality public transport solution to this type of problem,
and the concept could be successfully extended elsewhere, both
by building on the Croydon Tramlink network and developing similar
networks elsewhere in outer London.
Street running tramways could also make a major
contribution to the traffic reduction targets for London (recently
agreed by LPAC) by re-allocating roadspace away from general traffic
to tram use.
The additional potential for light rail in London
is seen to be in four main areas:—
(1) Distributing passengers around central
or inner London where tube lines are inconvenient through alignment
or depth to meet substantial passenger desire lines.
(2) Providing more reliable on-street services
on busy radial routes, e.g. Uxbridge Road in West London.
(3) Providing the impetus to regeneration,
anticipating future heavy transport flows, and counteracting what
might otherwise be heavy reliance on car use in regeneration areas,
eg Greenwich Waterfront, Park Royal, parts of Docklands not well
service by DLR.
(4) Making orbital transport links which
are other wise difficult to achieve by heavy rail, tube or bus
services, eg extensions to Croydon Tramlink, links from Heathrow
to the North and South.
Some of these proposals, particularly in the
latter two categories, could not only use disused railway alignments
but could also take over existing under-used rail routes avoiding
the need for re-equipment and providing a more attractive service.
If this desire to see the potential of light
rail in London is to be fully realised, then the transport arrangements
for London need to make available specific capital funding streams.
These would then be used to establish the necessary partnerships
to build and extend light rail routes and systems. This funding
will need to be separate from the massive additional funding requirements
of the London Underground, and mechanisms will need to be in place
to ensure that not all the expenditure available for public transport
in London is absorbed by the Underground's needs.
In order to successfully pursue an expansion
in the role of light rail in London, there are a number of procedural
and technical obstacles which need to be overcome. Firstly, the
Transport and Works Act procedure which was originally intended
to simplify the process of approval of light rail and other transport
projects has turned out to be just a slow, costly and bureaucratic
as the former private bill procedure. This now acts as a significant
constraint in progressing light rail schemes, particularly as
the minimum cost of progressing an Order is so large. This means
that it is not cost effective to pursue small schemes or small
additions to existing schemes. Hence either the procedures need
to be amended, or specific funding needs to be allocated to defray
the excessive costs of pursuing a submission. In relation to the
revisions to procedures the (former) Chartered Institute of Transport
has carried out an investigation and has made recommendations
for improving the procedures.
A major item of expenditure in light rail schemes
which have sections of street running tramway is the cost of the
diversion of underground utility services. The Government has
recently increased the proportion of the costs of these diversions
which is borne by the light rail scheme, so that virtually all
the costs of the provision of new infrastructure for utilities
is now funded by the transport scheme. This seems to be an unfair
burden, and could be reduced either by reinstating a higher contribution
from utlities or pursuing new methods of light rail construction
which avoid the need to divert services.
Another item of expenditure in light rail schemes
which appears to be very high is the cost of the vehicles themselves.
In the British context this appears to be a reflection of the
small production runs for the typical 15-25 trains required, and
the complexities of producing a new design for each scheme. The
Government could have a role in defining a standard vehicle, or
at least a standard for London, which could reduce the costs of
redesign and, if based on the Croydon vehicles, could ensure a
lower unit cost for follow on orders.
Lastly, the requirement for schemes to be both
self-funding in revenue terms and to be able to make a contribution
to capital costs is a particular disincentive to schemes which
are not currently located in high volume transport corridors.
Many of the regeneration and urban renaissance schemes being pursued
abroad do not even cover their running costs, but the subsidy
is considered worthwhile when set against the other advantages
of the scheme. Such an approach would also seem to be appropriate
in this country, particularly where emerging development patterns
may mean that patronage levels will take some time to reach the
ultimate capacity of the scheme.
In summary, these factors can lead to a scheme
which whilst meeting onerous financial burdens may skimp on the
environmental aspects, such as the design of overhead line supports
or the type of trackway within streets or parks. A balance needs
to be struck between the potential improvements to town and street-scape
offered by light rail schemes and the technical and financial
requirements imposed elsewhere.
In conclusion, the Association believe that
light rapid transit schemes have the potential to make a greater
contribution to the transport needs of London, but for this potential
to be realised, the financial and technical arrangements for scheme
implementation need to be overhauled with a view to simplifying
and shortening the process of approval.
I trust you have found these representations
of interest, but if you have any further queries, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Steve Clark, Chair Development
Plans Committee
October 1999
| 
