Memorandum by Transport 2000 London &
South East (RT 42)
Transport 2000 continues to promote the development
of sustainable transport modes; public transport, walking, cycling
and planning policies that do not encourage car use. This includes
investment in, and improvement and co-ordination of, rail and
bus transport to promote its greater use in the interests of accident
prevention, social justice, the protection of the environment
and the conservation of land and energy.
T2000's London groups welcomed the Government's
Integrated Transport White Paper and the series of "daughter"
documents. T2000 London seeks integration between public transport
systems wherever possible. However there was some concern about
the Government's muted enthusiasm for promoting light rail schemes.
Those introduced so far have been generally successful in enhancing
the image of public transport and they have induced modal switch.
Light rail (and other forms of guided transit)
could play an important role in developing sustainable transport
networks in many centres. Light rail systems with tram style vehicles
based on continental practice can bring the benefits of rapid
transit to areas not served (and not capable of being reached)
by conventional rail services.
Significant benefits can accrue from the development
of light rail networks, with improved "in-town" distribution
through better penetration of city centres. Conversions of lightly
used rail routes that serve a sizeable population or centres of
business activity to light rail can be very beneficial, linking
routes across a town centre, providing more frequent services
and new journey opportunities.
Systems developed in the UK demonstrate these
benefits in different ways and with varying levels of success.
One particular benefit is that they have been made fully accessible,
benefiting not only wheelchair users but many other passengers
who are burdened with luggage or infants in push-chairs. However
investment in light rail or guided bus systems should not necessarily
be seen as an alternative to upgrading existing networks which
should be prioritised wherever possible.
Where conversions do take place, or where a
light rail network links parts of the existing rail network which
otherwise would not be connected, it is essential to ensure that
integration with the "main-line" rail network is retained
including through fares and ticketing. Service and timetable information
must be available in other areas, including through National Rail
Enquiry Service (NRES) which at present even has difficulty giving
details of London Underground services! Some degree of timetable
integration should be achieved wherever possible when services
are less frequent during early mornings or late evenings.
CONVENTIONAL RAIL
VERSUS LIGHT
RAIL, GUIDED
BUS AND
CONVENTIONAL BUS
Proposals to convert existing (or disused) rail
routes into light railways or guided busways can be less appropriate,
and less cost effective, than restoring a conventional rail service.
In the South East and Eastern regions several guided bus schemes
over disused or abandoned rail routes are under consideration
but none have yet passed the planning stage.
For over 10 years local residents have campaigned
for the reopening of the railway from Luton to Dunstable, continuing
beyond Dunstable to Leighton Buzzard and Milton Keynes later on.
British Railways Network South-East management had planned an
electric Thameslink service extension to Dunstable and the town
even appeared on train destination blinds. After the consolidation
and expansion of the network under Chris Green's stewardship,
this plan was dropped. Luton Borough Council subsequently pursued
a plan to convert the railway to Translink, a guided busway, but
at a considerably higher cost than the rail scheme and subject
to considerable criticism locally.
A conflict is demonstrated here between the
strategic benefits of restoring the rail link from Luton through
Dunstable to Leighton Buzzard at the West Coast Main Line. This
option could encourage inter-urban modal switch and provide freight
capacity that would outweigh the purely localised benefits of
the guided busway proposal. Local residents are sceptical of the
consultant's recommendation to promote a busway but are confident
that a local rail service would attract not only local journeys
to rail, but also encourage more longer distance travellers to
use rail instead of their cars. Light rail could be an option
here with shared use of the track.
Retaining rail is fundamental to maximising
flexibility but the issue of shared use and operation has to be
addressed to ensure infrastructure is used most effectively. This
is discussed in several other case studies noted in this evidence.
LIGHT RAIL
AND LAND-USE
PLANNING
Where a local need is identified for an urban
or suburban light rail network many other benefits also accrue
to this mode that are not necessarily attributable to road or
bus based networks.
Light rail attracts passengers who would not
consider buses as an alternative to the private car, even guided
buses. Light rail vehicles (LRVs) or trams are perceived as faster
and more reliable than buses and provide a positive image for
public transport. However, this can be damaged by unfavourable
local media, as in Sheffield.
Rail based schemes have more permanency than
bus networks even where part is guided. US practice suggests regeneration
and development follows the introduction of urban light rail services
since they improve access to labour markets, offering incresed
capacity on congested urban corridors. This is relevant to both
major conurbations and medium sized cities.
DRAWING COMPARISONS
WITH SYSTEMS
OUTSIDE THE
SOUTH EAST
Tyne & Wear Metro
The excellent Tyne & Wear Metro was developed
20 years ago from the former local rail network. It connected
existing suburban rail lines North and South of the Tyne across
the city with the central area in sub-surface or deep level tunnels
serving six new or relocated underground stations, offering a
very high quality service. The T&W Metro set new standards
for light rail in the UK but it had many similarities to continental
underground urban metro systems.
The central section thus equates more to the
London Underground style of operation but with continental-style
vehicles. London's nearest equivalent light rail scheme with conventional
height platforms is the Docklands Light Railway but while the
DLR is fully automated, the T&W Metro cars are manually controlled
by the driver.
The T&W Metro was fully integrated with
local rail and bus services with common ticketing and subsidised
fares under the PTE's control, until deregulation in 1986. While
some of this integration was lost, reducing the steady traffic
growth of the early 1980s, ultimately leading to a real fall in
passenger numbers, many of the combined ticketing and service
arrangements fortunately remain but without the cohesion and marketing
"power" of a common branding and identity.
However this system never achieved its full
potential as only limited investment in extensions and new stations
has taken place, the most important so far being to Newcastle
Airport. The Sunderland extension project has started and this
will be an important boost to the network and demonstrate how
light rail can operate safely and effectively with conventional
trains between Pelaw and Sunderland. However other projected extensions
west to Denton Burn, south to the Team Valley and Washington or
south-west to the Metro Centre have not come to fruition. There
is a strong case to promote a programme of Metro extensions, using
surface alignments where possible or practical, along with improvements
to other local rail services to provide a unified network.
Manchester Metrolink
Manchester Metrolink is a high profile system
that similarly linked two existing conventional rail routes across
the city centre and was the first modern network with on-street
running. This project came to fruition after an earlier government
had declined to support an underground rail link across central
Manchester. Views differ in professional circles as to whether
Manchester might have benefited more from the conventional sub-surface
urban metro system planned in the 1970s. Joint running over parts
of the British Railways, now Railtrack, network was envisaged,
similar to operations in Liverpool or Glasgow, but with higher
frequencies.
A lower cost solution was urgently required
as the one surface rail link across the city was becoming congested.
On-street light rail was used to achieve better in-town distribution,
link the city centre rail stations as well as relieve the conventional
rail link between Piccadilly and Deansgate. Metrolink has been
successful in its own right offering very frequent services but
there is only limited ticket integration with bus or surface rail
and this problem needs to be addressed.
The nearest south-east comparison with the Manchester
system is Croydon Tramlink, linking existing rail routes on-street.
However the Croydon network has been designed for low-floor trams
and former station platforms have been removed or lowered to accommodate
full accessibility. Both approaches have merits.
Other Metrolink extensions are planned both
on street and over former rail alignments. However it is at Oldham
where the cost effectiveness of on-street running versus a former
rail alignment, which does not penetrate the town centre, must
be evaluated. This is particularly pertinent as a higher proportion
of the costs of moving street services will fall on the promoters
of these schemes. Will the additional cost of diverting from the
old rail route under the edge of Oldham yield sufficient benefits
to users, and increase use? Doubtless additional passengers would
use the proposed town centre route. However if the cost of the
deviation away from the existing route were so high as to delay
a scheme from being started, should Government encourage a two-stage
approach to get the system operational, initially using the existing
infrastructure, diverting the route via the town centre at a later
second stage? LRT or local metro schemes should thus consider
alternative strategies to facilitate early completion even if
the initial scheme may not be the planner's "ideal"
solution.
Sheffield Supertram
Sheffield Supertram is a very high quality system
based almost entirely on street alignments and some of these were
once part of Sheffield's municipal tram network. Only a small
part of the current network follows a former rail alignment on
the east side of the Don Valley. Concentrating investment in one
system is demonstrated here where two railway stations on the
west side of the Don Valley were closed after Supertram opened,
effectively reducing public transport access to those areas which
were not within convenient walking distance of new Supertram stops.
Although South Yorkshire PTE has been supportive
of local rail services relatively little new investment in infrastructure
has occurred. The benefits accruing to conventional rail services,
including the restoration of services over former rail alignments
should be evaluated. Achieving a balance in investment strategies
is important, if public transport is to be effectively promoted
area-wide.
The major concern about Supertram was the failure
to integrate bus and tram networks with the result that the competing
bus operator could offer alternative services at a lower cost.
A full study needs to be undertaken of the Sheffield scheme to
evaluate the financial ramifications of the Government funding
any light rail (or guided bus) scheme, allowing it to operate
in a market that permits open competition when a managed network
may offer greater user benefits.
West Midlands Metro
West Midland Metro opened this year after a
series of technical setbacks. It is another network that uses
an abandoned rail line for most of its route. It is remarkable
that between Birmingham Snow Hill station and West BromwichThe
Hawthorns, a railway route that was once completely abandoned
now has all four tracks restored, two for rail services to Stourbridge
and two for Midland Metro to Wolverhampton.
This is an example where the light rail scheme
is perceived as a major influence for promoting regeneration.
It is not however without its critics who argued that restoring
a conventional rail network could have offered different journey
opportunities and wider benefits within the West Midlands' congested
rail network. This could then be combined later with a light rail
network based on the German shared track system used at Karlsruhe.
This is another case where regional benefits may be distinct from
the local benefits. Such considerations are not always fully quantified
in the consultant's study, particularly if the initial brief only
specified evaluation of a local network.
For this scheme to achieve its fullest potential,
extensions are planned through the centres of both Birmingham
and Wolverhampton. However a major extension towards a district
shopping centre, Merry Hill at Round Oak, would take over another
mothballed rail alignment. The Government and SRA should ensure
this extension incorporates the design capability for dual use
enabling a conventional rail link across the "Black Country"
from Stourbridge to Walsall and Lichfield to be reinstated. This
conflict between aspirations for the light rail scheme and a major
regional inter-urban rail service, that could eventually serve
destinations as far away as Worcester or Derby, is a fundamental
issue.
LIGHT RAIL
SCHEMES IN
GREATER LONDON
Docklands Light Railway
The Docklands Light Railway (DLR) was first
opened in 1987 as a low cost scheme to provide a high profile
network to improve local access in the rapidly redeveloping London
Docklands area. This was a case of a line being too successful
from the outset as the local economy grew, and what started out
a very low cost system has now cost more than 10 times its original
£77 million price-tag.
Later extensions were built to a higher specification
to meet the short term growth in traffic due to the delay in starting
the Jubilee Line. While the DLR provides a very useful local distributor
network it also demonstrates the consequences of unclear planning
objectives, caused by the serious failure of earlier administrations
to take a more strategic overview of links to and through Docklands.
In hindsight it would have been better to have built the Jubilee
Line earlier.
The new DLR line to Lewisham will be a very
beneficial cross river link, and the planned extension to London
City Airport is an important development. However the most important
extension for this network could be across a new bridge at Gallions
Reach (mini ELRiC), if this were built. We are concerned that
plans are now being considered to extend the DLR over some conventional
rail routes between Stratford and north Woolwich, continuing through
a new Thames rail tunnel crossing to Woolwich Arsenal. The conversion
of this route to light rail could be detrimental to the flexibility
of the London-wide surface rail network.
Croydon Tramlink
This scheme is again similar to the Manchester
Metrolink concept of linking lightly used or abandoned rail routes
with some entirely on street new sections across the centre of
Croydon. This is an acceptable approach to using existing rail
alignments for light rail as Tramlink will offer a more frequent
service than the conventional rail network. More importantly it
improves access to the town centre and interchange with both bus
and main line rail will be very convenient. However economies
meant that the route at New Addington was cut short so many housing
areas are not served by Tramlink.
T2000 London has thus supported this project
from the outset, even though it removed several rail lines from
the national system. There is still some local opposition to the
discontinuation of the conventional rail services but we consider
the benefits of Tramlink outweigh any minor disadvantages, providing
through ticketing and connections are maintained.
We would like to see this network extended over
street alignments but it should not take further routes from the
regional rail network, such as the Thameslink line from Sutton
to Wimbledon.
OTHER SCHEMES
IN GREATER
LONDON
London Transport Planning has evaluated a number
of potential networks across the conurbation for "intermediate
mode" guided light transit schemes. These could come to fruition
as guided bus or light rail networks. Whatever technology is adopted,
it is essential to ensure some level of compatibility between
systems, so what may initially be "stand alone" local
networks can eventually operate as part of one larger network.
LBs of Barking, Havering, Redbridge and Newham
are working with LT Planning to evaluate orbital road based guided
bus or light rail networks. These would link into existing rail
networks focusing on Barking and Romford railway stations and
development zones in the Thames Gateway area. This network could
link to the proposed Gallions Reach Thames crossing and connect
with the projected Greenwich to Woolwich and Thamesmead extensions
of the Millennium Waterfront Transit route. This is London's first
electronically guided bus service linking Charlton and Greenwich
Stations to North Greenwich Station, adjacent to the Millennium
Dome.
One scheme supported by T2000 London in our
representations to the Terminal 5 Inquiry was a West London light
rail network that could traverse the congested A4020 Uxbridge
Road and provide a link to Heathrow through Hayes, and later northwards
to Harrow. This corridor urgently needs additional public transport
investment as existing underground and rail routes are congested.
It is supported by the LB Ealing. The present bus route operates
from Shepherds Bush to Uxbridge, but an extension eastwards along
Bayswater Road could bring light rail to Oxford Street.
FREIGHT MOVEMENT
ON LIGHT
RAIL NETWORKS
Access for rail freight traffic may not be possible
after conversion to light rail, when an existing rail line has
been used freight traffic which may have to be abandoned. The
Tyne and Wear Metro was a notable exception when it first opened
with established freight traffic sharing tracks west of Benton
or using parallel single-track working on the South Shields line.
Other arrangements are possible, such as moving freight at night,
but capacity may be limited.
The scope for through running from conventional
rail routes increases the flexibility of a light rail system and
could permit some rail based local freight movement where a comprehensive
network is developed. Where established rail alignments are used,
existing rail freight traffic should not be transferred to road,
and the track and structure gauge required for conventional rail
operation should be maintained to allow for through working of
conventional rail vehicles wherever possible.
A STRONG FUTURE
FOR LIGHT
RAIL
Light rail must have an important role in the
renaissance of urban transport networks where modern European
style street running tram services should be introduced on densely
trafficked bus routes with frequent services as part of national
and regional programmes.
The committee should also evaluate the work
undertaken by Professor Lewis Lesley in developing a modern light
tram vehicle and lightweight trackwork, and recommend to the Government
that support be obtained for use of this technology in pilot schemes
at the earliest opportunity.
The development of tram networks could, and
should, boost the home industry in developing LRVs. Only the Tyne
and Wear system is fully equipped with UK built vehicles, constructed
at the former Metro Cammell works, now Alstom at Washwood Heath
in Birmingham. Adtranz at Derby manufactured the "Eurotram"
for Strasbourg and its use is proposed for Nottingham. Steady
home growth should help establish a stable British market and
could help bring down the cost of a standard LRV.
Richard H Pout,
Consultant Adviser to Transport 2000 London Region
Groups
October 1999
|