Memorandum by Transport-watch UK (LR 29)
INTEGRATED TRANSPORT: THE FUTURE OF LIGHT
RAIL AND MODERN TRAMS IN BRITAIN
HISTORY
In 1949 London trams were seen as an embarrassment
to London's post war planners. In that year Lord Latham, chairman
of the London Transport Executive delivered a speech outlining
the plans for the tramways conversion programme in which he stated
"the loss on the trams is about £1 million per year"
(over £20 million annually at today's prices).
In contrast the Europeans are famed for their
tram systems. However, Sir Terry Mulroy, said, at an Institution
of Civil Engineers meeting held on 21 November 2002, that, if
one asks the planners in Geneva (home of the tram) if they would
do it again, they will say quietly, Never Again—far too
expensive. Meanwhile the town of Grenoble renewed its tram tracks
after only 10 years' wear.
In America we have the example of the Bay Area
Rapid Transit System (completed in 1972). Professor Hall, writing
in New Society 11 November 1976, pointed out that all BART's
passengers could be carried in buses costing $40 million compared
with the BART cost of $1,600 million. (Professor Melvin Webber,
cited in the article, found (a) capital costs were 50% and operating
costs five times higher than forecast (b) ridership was half the
forecast (c) costs per ride were double that by bus, and 50% above
that by ordinary American car).
Despite that there is scarcely a city in the
land that does not aspire to spend taxes on such systems.
UK RAPID TRANSIT
SYSTEMS—SOME
DATA
The systems for which data is here presented
are Docklands, Strathclyde, Manchester, Tyne and Wear, Sheffield,
Centro (West Midlands) and Croydon. Detail is in the table appended.
It shows:
1. The capital cost at 2003 prices for Manchester,
Tyne and Wear, Sheffield, West Midlands and Croydon amounts to
£1.8 billion. If Docklands is added the bill is £2.93
billion. In addition to that (and separately from the data table)
Mersytram has the option of spending £225 million, Manchester
hopes to spend an additional £900 million, South Hampshire
is bidding for £270 million and Edinburgh for £375 million,
providing a total of £1.77 billion. Adding that to the historic
expenditure of £2.93 billion yields £4.7 billion.
2. With the exception of Sheffield no system
covers operating costs. When the costs of capital and maintenance
are added costs are between 3.2 and 5.8 times as large as the
receipts.
3. Including the annual cost of capital
and maintenance the annual subsidy per journey has the range £2.50
(for Manchester) to £4 (for Tyne and Wear).
4. In highway terms, rail rapid transport
systems are substantially disused. Eg the average one-way flow
per track for the systems has a range equivalent to 92 to 525
buses per day, each bus containing an average of 20 people. That
may be compared with a potential of up to 10,000 vehicles per
day for a single lane of a motor road managed to avoid congestion.
The comparison suggests a catastrophic under-use of valuable transport
land.
5. The staff per car (or per tram) has the
range 4.3 to 10.9.
6. Average journey lengths have the range
3.2 to 10.5 km.
7. The average train or tram load ranges
from 17 to 50, excluding Docklands, which has 69 passengers.
8. Capital costs per route-km have the range
£7.6 million to £10.4 million excluding Docklands for
which the value is £43 million.
We have sought fuel consumptions but with little
success. However, data from 1990 provided the equivalent of 51
passenger miles per gallon for Tyne and Wear, 55 for Strathclyde.
Also data from 2003 for Croydon's Tramlink provides 92 passenger-miles
per gallon (it has phyrister control—using braking to provide
energy for traction). In comparison buses returning 5 miles per
gallon and containing the average train loads set out in the tabulation
would provide 80 to 205 passenger miles per gallon, excluding
Docklands from the set.
CONCLUSION
1. In financial terms the £2.93 billion
of capital spent to date building the schemes has been entirely
wasted. The same will apply to the additional £1.77 billion
proposed. That is because there is no possibility of the capital
being repaid from the fare box. The total, £4.7 billion,
amounts to over £180 for every household in the land. Meanwhile
the schemes may be of use to less than one in 100 of the nation's
population.
2. An alternative may be busways open to
commercial vehicles and to cars at certain times of day. The modern
option may be to control congestion by road pricing. Ordinary
buses would then no longer suffer delay. That would remove the
need for bus lanes let alone tram systems. The key to making ordinary
buses attractive is to provide a modern image and to ensure a
reliable service. That would cost a fraction of tram or light
rail.
3. Light Rail can have a future in the UK
only if its very high cost and the relatively trivial use to which
the rights of way are put are set aside in favour of sentiment.
February 2005
| 
