Memorandum by Light Rail Transit Association
(LR 52)
FUTURE OF LIGHT RAIL AND MODERN TRAMS IN
BRITAIN
INTRODUCTION
The Light Rail Transit Association (LRTA) was
established in 1937 by a group of people concerned about the proposed
closures of tramways in London. The Association has grown over
the intervening 68 years into an international body with almost
4,000 members around the world, half outside the United Kingdom.
Although the LRTA's members come from all walks of life, they
share a common concern with the development of good quality public
transport through the use of light rail and tramways. Many are
professionals working in the transport industries. The Association's
monthly magazine, "Tramways & Urban Transit" is
widely regarded as essential reading around the world by those
concerned with the development, building, operation and use of
light rail and tramway systems.
The Association's objectives are to educate
people about light rail and modern tramways and to advocate the
adoption of such systems as core components of modern integrated
transport systems.
THE COMMITTEE'S
INQUIRY INTO
INTEGRATED TRANSIT:
THE FUTURE
OF LIGHT
RAIL AND
MODERN TRAMS
IN BRITAIN
The Association welcomes the opportunity to
present evidence to the Committee's Inquiry. Since the LRTA gave
evidence to the last Select Committee on this subject some five
years ago many of the problems which we predicted have become
apparent and have recently been highlighted by the National Audit
Office report in 2004.[12]
It is of concern that issues raised by the report are seen in
some quarters as being a failure of light rail rather than a failure
of the political systems within which light rail has to operate
in this country.
THE COSTS
AND BENEFITS
OF LIGHT
RAIL
Costs
— A recent study[13]
found "the infrastructure costs for light rail, busways and
guided buses closer together than had often been assumed".
Whichever of these modes is chosen it is clear that the infrastructure
costs of providing a segregated public transport system will be
high but not as high as providing heavy rail or public road alternatives
— It is important that lifetime costs
are taken into account in addition to initial construction costs
to ensure a fair comparison between these modes. Lifetime light
rail operating costs per passenger kilometre are likely to be
lower than other modes. While options with lower start-up costs
may seem attractive they could incur higher operating costs and/or
not deliver the same passenger benefits as light rail.
Benefits
— Light rail, whilst providing the
ambience and comfort of a modern train or car, can run in places
where these modes cannot. Light rail is thus able to attract motorists
out of their cars and reduce overall congestion. Even when running
on former rail alignments, the superior performance of light rail
offers a better service than conventional trains. Trams operate
on line of sight and do not require expensive signalling systems.
Light rail can stop more frequently because the stops are simple
and cheaper to construct than rail stations. On roads light rail
offers attractive and predictable journey times in comparison
with buses by taking advantage of segregated alignments and traffic
engineering techniques which avoid congestion.
— A substantial proportion of the population
have some mobility impairment some of the time. This includes
not just the severely disabled and elderly, but those with push
chairs, shopping trolleys, heavy luggage, or with difficulties
in climbing steps. A fixed track system ensures that the vehicle
always follows the same path. Therefore level access and extremely
short stepping distances (typically 50 mm at most) can be assured
at every door of the vehicle every time. This is already demonstrated
on all of the new light rail systems in UK.
— Trams use electricity to power the
vehicles. As such it is completely pollution free at the point
of use. Further because it draws it power from the electricity
network it is not tied to one particular power source. Therefore
as time passes tramways will be able to take advantage the increasing
proportion of "emission free" power generation proposed
for the UK.
— The predictable path trams follow
makes sharing precincts with pedestrians a safe option. Thus trams
can provide access to city centre precincts where buses and cars
would be obtrusive and dangerous. It is often claimed that a disadvantage
of a fixed track system is the very fact that the vehicles easily
respond to changes in demand by altering the route. However the
very presence of the track adds the feeling of permanence to the
light rail system. That in turn has led to development along and
close to the route, generating both value to the locality and
patronage to the line. This would never have happened with a potentially
ephemeral bus route.
— Modern trams, around 35 metres long
can accommodate up to 250 passengers. Further they are permitted
to be operated on street in units of two vehicles, thus providing
accommodation for double that number. With a policy of off tram
ticket sales such a unit can be operated safely by one person.
A tram every two minutes, a frequency achieved on continental
tramways, can therefore provide a peak line capacity of some 15,000
per hour. On the other hand an articulated bus can at best provide
accommodation for 130 people. To achieve similar line capacity
would require a bus every 31 seconds. This demonstrates the level
of productivity possible with a light rail system.
— The introduction of trams into city
centres and suburban areas creates the opportunity to regenerate
those areas with significant improvements in attractiveness and
safety. The ability for the tracks to be laid in a variety of
surfaces including grass is unique to the tram as also is its
ability for shared operation with rail services where appropriate.
What light rail systems need to be successful
Elements of successful light rail systems include
— Own right of way when appropriate
but able to run on street to give direct access.
— To justify expenditure light rail
should serve as many major traffic objectives as practical eg
Hospitals, Universities as well as city centres.
— To obtain the most from light rail
it needs to operate in a planned and fully integrated environment.
This implies that the overall planning process should seek to
maximise the use of the light rail system by ensuring that development
takes place adjacent to it. The light rail system must be integrated
with all other modes including the car by the use of transport
interchanges (including park and ride sites). In particular the
bus network in the light rail corridor should be subject to a
Quality Contract which would seek to provide feeder bus services
and eliminate bus/light rail competition as far as practical.
In addition there should be full integration of tariffs to enable
seamless transfer.
How effectively is light rail used as part of
an integrated transport system
— Sadly in this country there is little
real integration despite the lip service being paid to the principle.
As we said in our previous submission "It is doubtful if
there are any examples in the UK of the sophisticated integration
which can be found in cities such as Hanover, where buses wait
across platform for light rail vehicles to arrive and allow immediate
and very easy interchange. Even in Greater London where there
is a planned and regulated bus system it cannot be said that integration
of this quality exists between buses and underground and Docklands
Light Railway (or, probably, Croydon Tramlink)." It is regrettable
that this still applies today
Barriers to the development of light rail
— Long gestation time from conception
to reality, a significant factor itself in cost escalation.
— Cost inflation due to insistence
on heavy rail standards of design and safety by the regulatory
authorities.
— Legislation requires a light rail
promoter to bear a disproportionate part of the cost of diverting
public utilities prior to installation.
— The inability to integrate with other
public transport leads to considerable uncertainty with revenue
predictions.
— The tendency to design each new system
from scratch can prevent the promoter from obtaining the benefits
of (a): Standardisation of equipment and (b): The benefits of
experience of other systems.
— Linking of light rail and road charging
can lead to increased public opposition.
— Apparent failure of current systems
to reach their full potential through lack of resources particularly
sufficient trams to meet traffic growth, and in some cases to
meet their traffic forecast, leads to a lack of successful UK
systems to quote as examples in justification.
— Property developers are not required
to contribute to the system costs from gains in their property
value as a result in the provision of the light rail system.
— The promoter will have no certainty
that the planning process will ensure the development of, or even
continued existence of, traffic generators along the proposed
light rail line.
The effect of different financing arrangements
(public/private) on the overall cost of light rail systems
— The present consortium system has
the effect of inflating cost by itself as a result of individual
partners not understanding the risks of the other partners. The
separation of construction, vehicle and operating contracts would
go some way towards placing risk estimation in the hands of those
who understand their particular risk.
— The vehicle specification should
be drawn up with sufficient scope for the selection of a standard
vehicle appropriate to the system.
— Revenue risk is more appropriately
shared between the promoter and the operator in view of the aforementioned
difficulties in assessing revenue.
The practicality of alternatives to light rail,
such as increased investment in buses
— Buses are necessary but not sufficient:
Whilst buses are, and undoubtedly will be, very important elements
in any integrated transport system, the LRTA feels that there
is ample evidence from towns and cities around the world that
car drivers and users cannot be tempted in large numbers from
their cars to ride on buses—traditional, low floor or guided.
However, a much larger proportion is likely to use public transport
when a modern light rail or tramway system is their mode of transport
for all or part of their journey eg where buses feed in passengers
to light rail lines in the main transport corridors.
— There is no "cheap fix":
The LRTA is concerned that the Government sees buses as a low
cost answer and will realise slowly and painfully over the next
five to 10 years that only relatively modest transfers of car
users to buses can be achieved—the evidence from UK experience
with quality bus routes is that although such provision is popular
with existing bus users and those without their own transport
there is an insignificant modal shift from car to bus. If urban
traffic congestion is actually to be reduced, rather than simply
moderating the rate of increase, an unachievable increase in bus
use is needed.
— "Buses-only" solutions
may not do the job required and may not be as cheap as is claimed:
The cost of bus developments are, in our view, often understated
in that the infrastructure on which they run and depend is often
ignored. This infrastructure is publicly funded and, effectively,
provided either free or at a low "rent". The private
sector is relieved of the necessity to pay for bus infrastructure,
and only has to take on the incremental cost of investing in new
buses.
— The combination of high quality core
networks of light rail lines integrating as seamlessly as possible
with high quality modern bus networks needs to be in place before
car users can, in a democratic society, be enticed, taxed or forced
out of their cars for urban journeys. This means, necessarily,
that returns on capital will be lower initially than the private
sector require to justify private financing (typically 20%+ per
annum).
— The public sector, which in reality
is much less risk averse, and should not be using commercial rate
of return as its principal criterion, has to fill this gap. However
this sector is currently starved of public funding and the achievement
of high quality integrated networks capable of being regarded
as a fair and reasonable alternative to the car is currently not
happening.
CONCLUSION
Public Transport needs serious, sustained capital
investment
The LRTA argues that massive investment in high
quality public transport is necessary over the next half century,
comparable with that which has gone into the trunk road and motorway
network over the half century since the Second World War.
David F Russell BSc(Eng) C.Eng FIMechE CMILT
Chairman
February 2005
12 NAO-Improving public transport in England through
light rail. 23 April 2004. Back
13
Bus or Light Rail-Making the Right Choice. Professor Carmen Hass-Klau
et al ISBN 0951862086. Back
|
