Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence


Supplementary memorandum by the PTE Group (RT 34A)

1.  Modal switch following opening of light rail systems in PTE areas

  The best evidence we have is the modes which were formerly used by passengers now using light rail systems. This will vary depending on whether light rail replaced an existing rail service (Tyne and Wear, Greater Manchester) or was a totally new system (Sheffield, Midlands Metro). There are also variations in the extent of information available on each system.

GREATER MANCHESTER METROLINK PHASE I

Train/Bus
80%
Car
19%
Walk
1%


  (Split between bus and train not available, but from other data the majority [about 60 per cent of the 80 per cent] are likely to be from train.)

Greater Manchester—Future Phases

  23.6 per cent of estimated patronage on the Phase 3 extensions is forecast to come from car. Remainder from public transport or new trips.

TYNE AND WEAR—SUNDERLAND EXTENSION FORECASTS

Bus
58%
Rail
15%
Car
16%
New trips
11%



Midlands Metro

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PASSENGERS TRANSFERRING FROM DIFFERENT MODES

  
am peak
inter-peak
pm peak
evening
Train
20.5
18.9
19.4
11.8
Car Driver
14.0
11.4
12.3
10.9
Car Passenger
0.5
1.3
1.1
1.7

SHEFFIELD SUPER TRAM

Car
22.3%
Bus
57.0%
Walk/cycle
7.6%
Other
2.3%
New trips
10.8%


2.  Cost Benefit Analysis

  Attached are the cost benefit analyses for:

    Greater Manchester-Oldham-Rochdale extension

    Midlands Metro Line 1

    Merseyside Rapid Transit

  The benefit to cost ratios for these and other schemes are:


Greater Manchester Metrolink: Phase I2.00:1
Oldham/Rochdale1.53:1
Airport1.56:1
Ashton1.98:1
Single contract 2.09:1
South Yorkshire Supertram 1.22:1
Tyne and Wear Sunderland Extension* 1.02:1 to 1.12:1

* This relates to ratio of non-user benefits to costs. All others are full cost-benefit ratios.


3.  How Transport and Works Act procedures should be improved, in the light of experience with Merseyside Rapid Transit scheme

  Merseytravel's proposals are attached at Annex 1.

4.  The economic benefits of letting a single contract for the expansion of Manchester Metrolink

  A report by the Centre for Economic & Business Research is attached at Annex 2.[10]

5.  The additional costs likely to be incurred as a result of reducing the financial contribution made by utility companies to the cost of diverting services

  Estimates available are:

    Midland Metro    £2.1 million on a City Centre & Merry Hill extension milliion.

South Yorkshire  £2.0 million would have been added to Supertram construction costs if proposed new regulations had applied.

    Greater Manchester Metrolink  £3.5 million additional costs on Phase 3.

6.  Cost savings from a common approach to funding and procurement

  This is contained in Annex 3.

7.  Environmental and Transport Planning Research

  The Executive Summary is in Annex 4.



10   Benefits of Metrolink Investment for the Greater Manchester Economy published by Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority & Executive-not printed. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 8 June 2000