Memorandum by Reg Harman (LR 56)
INTEGRATED TRANSPORT: THE FUTURE OF LIGHT
RAIL AND MODERN TRAMS IN BRITAIN
CONTEXT—THE
EXPERIENCE OF
MAINLAND EUROPE
Development of light rail schemes in Great Britain
has generally followed a "stop-go" trend. Most projects
have taken a long time between initial formulation and coming
into operation, and some have effectively been abandoned. In particular,
questions have been posed over the costs of light rail schemes,
often with the corollary that buses are cheaper. This has raised
serious doubts over the validity of light rail as a mode.
Yet light rail systems are widespread across
the main urban areas of the European mainland, and new projects
continue to be implemented. Quite often these cover cities much
smaller than those for which light rail is seen as valid in Great
Britain, and they usually proceed from conception to opening at
a much more rapid rate. This submission, reflecting the author's
particular experience, picks out some of the common features in
city planning and transport investment which differ from the British
approach, and it refers to examples drawn from the approach taken
across the English Channel.
Crucial challenges facing British society at
present include reduction of carbon outputs (in which motorized
transport plays an increasing role), improving access to facilities
and services for everyone but especially disadvantaged groups
in society, providing more housing while avoiding pressure on
the countryside, and supporting sustainable economic growth. Improving
the density of urban development while enhancing the quality of
city life provides the optimal solution to meet these conflicting
aims in our heavily occupied country.
RESPONSES TO
THE MAIN
QUESTIONS
The costs and benefits of light rail
In recent years the capital costs of British
light rail development have grown sharply. This has led Government
to reject schemes which have reached an advanced stage of preparation
and approval, because they exceed the budget cost and are then
deemed not to be value for money. However, in British circumstances
the basis of both costs and benefits are open to serious questions,
which are now being addressed by both industry and professional
gatherings[14].
Experience from elsewhere in Europe may be used to highlight some
of these[15].
Government still requires schemes to be funded
and implemented by private sector interests, in cooperation with
the public sector promoter, on a commercial basis. This requires
assessment of future cash streams to pay for those elements of
the capital costs not met by Government grant or other public
funding. The scale and timing of such cash streams face three
serious uncertainties:
— For areas outside London local public
transport remains on a strictly competitive basis, under the aegis
of the competition authorities, and so most light rail systems
are likely to face serious on road competition.
— Light rail relies on land use planning
that relates lines to development and regeneration areas, but
in Great Britain town planning tends to be largely reactive, so
that there is often limited indications of the potential market
likely to be yielded.
— Because British system development
has been so uncertain, with long gestation periods, the dates
of systems opening, and hence of revenue streams starting, remains
unclear.
In consequence, light rail development consortia
include a significant allowance for risk.
Benefits to schemes are largely assessed on
purely financial terms. Wider benefits, such as reducing car travel,
improving accessibility for disadvantaged groups, or ensuring
the effectiveness of regeneration or development, must be reflected
largely through the political process. Sometime the expected benefits
have not occurred, and indeed traffic levels have been lower than
expected, but these effects have not been properly assessed.
In contrast, most mainland European countries
have a different approach, demonstrating common features, with
stronger integration of thinking, responsibilities and governance.
The city authorities have firm responsibilities for land use planning
and regeneration, as well as for transport planning and supervision
of public transport systems. This allows them to develop a clear
strategy and, more important, to implement it. In this they are
aided by the much stronger funding available to public authorities
in mainland Europe, usually with more flexibility (freedom to
borrow, ability to negotiate significant land deals).
As part of this, all forms of public transport
are developed on a coordinated basis. This incorporates investment
in infrastructure, on similar principles, for bus, light rail
and local rail services. All of these are assessed on similar
basis, enabling the comparative costs and benefits to be established.
The capital costs of light rail line infrastructure are usually
met entirely from public funds; often with the city (or districts),
the region and the national government all contributing according
to agreed proportions. Operating costs then form a separate element,
assessed within the city's transport and overall budgets.
WHAT LIGHT
RAIL SYSTEMS
NEED TO
BE SUCCESSFUL
The definition of success itself rests on the
aims set for the system. As discussed above, the focus in Great
Britain has been primarily on financial returns. Elsewhere in
Europe, the definitions of success are spread more widely. It
is of course important in all cases that the system both meets
its operating cost budget and produces other specified results.
However, this requires a clear strategic plan for transport, incorporating
defined aims to act as reference for monitoring results. In turn,
the transport plan must fit firmly into the established and approved
city strategy, which will provide the information for transport
elements.
The relationships between Government, regions
and cities or districts across mainland Europe tend to be focused
on a broader level of guidance and control. Regional and city
authorities have much greater responsibility and higher funding.
Government guidance and assessment of results is on a more broad
brush basis. In France and the Netherlands, there are regular
contacts between Government, regions and cities, and these form
the focus for implementing and monitoring strategies. This contrasts
with the strong central control exercised by the UK Government,
which includes firm definition of what and how local authorities
should do and detailed indicators to be achieved. This micro-management
of many functions like transport may actually inhibit disciplined
use of a range of opportunities and techniques, and certainly
inhibits the development of light rail.
Particular markers of success vary from country
to country. In France, for example, opening of light rail lines
is usually marked by a step change in the level and proportion
of travel by public transport, followed by growth from this new
base. Core transit routes are related to key regeneration areas
and main destinations (eg the central commercial area, main hospital,
university, science park), and the role of public transport in
underpinning their growth can be readily established. Similar
approaches are found, for example, in the Netherlands and Scandanavia;
the effect on reduced pollution are also assessed.
HOW EFFECTIVELY
IS LIGHT
RAIL USED
AS PART
OF AN
INTEGRATED TRANSPORT
SYSTEM
The current British approach involves development
of light rail lines, including the costs of infrastructure, in
the strongly competitive regime established by the Transport Act
1985 and not changed since. With four fifths of bus services (outside
London) running without local authority support, operators naturally
look to work on the routes likely to offer sound returns. These
will be primarily along high density corridors, which are of course
the alignments where light rail is likely to be effective. Bus
operators can also adjust their services and fares relatively
freely, at least in the short term, to meet changing circumstances.
Therefore promoters of light rail lines face the problem that
their line's competitive position against bus services may be
very hard to assess, and in consequence their revenue and the
ability to offer a return to investors. This leads to both high
risk factors being built into financing costs, pushing up the
overall costs of schemes, and the chance that passenger numbers
may prove disappointing: both aspects well known in most recent
schemes. The current application of Competition Act principles
in the UK prevents bus operators cooperating with each other or
with other operations.
This risk is largely eliminated if the light
rail line is planned and built to form part of an integrated public
transport system. This involves the area bus network being adjusted
to complement light rail services; eg trunk services may be converted
to feeders or diverted via another corridor. In addition, integrated
ticketing by bus and light rail (and other modes where they exist)
should be provided. In this way a comprehensive network is provided
for travel in the area, improving accessibility generally, to
the benefit of residents and those providing services to them.
This is the normal approach for most cities in mainland Europe,
and can be seen clearly in such cities as Lyon in France, Koln
in Germany, and Barcelona in Spain. In the Netherlands the comprehensive
approach also includes a national transport ticket, the "strippenkaart",
which can be used on local public transport for through journeys
anywhere (it is to be replaced with a similarly comprehensive
Smartcard system). In Great Britain the Nottingham system demonstrates
the value of such integration.
Because UK central policies include lower tax
levels than those found elsewhere in Europe, there are strong
arguments for tighter control of all public services so that public
funds are used more effectively. It is therefore ironic—and
inefficient?—that British local public transport lacks the
integrated regime that is the norm across the rest of Europe.
Integration of public transport modes is fully
effective only with integration of all transport modes, geared
to support land use development. Particular examples of this include
the links between major new housing and the extension of light
rail lines into the Rijswijk area of Den Haag (under the Dutch
Government "VINEX" policies); the focusing of high density
commercial and residential development in Grenoble along corridors
served by the new tramway; and the new suburbs in the Arsta area
of Sweden linked to interchange stations on the T-bana by a new
light rail line.
BARRIERS TO
THE DEVELOPMENT
OF LIGHT
RAIL
The main barriers to light rail development
in the UK reflect the factors discussed above, namely:
— The rigid structure set down by Government,
especially the need to cover risks which may be outside the consortia's
control.
— The lack of effective city strategies,
coupled with the lack of adequate powers and funding available
to city authorities and their partners to implement any strategy.
— The existence of uncontrolled on-road
competition from bus services.
— The stop-go approach taken by Government
over light rail.
THE EFFECT
OF DIFFERENT
FINANCING ARRANGEMENTS
(PUBLIC/PRIVATE)
ON THE
OVERALL COST
OF LIGHT
RAIL SYSTEMS
Substantial attention has been given to the
potential of different financing systems. However, the key issue
is that of the risk which funding bodies have to allow for. The
only true way of reducing this is through adoption of a clear
and integrated strategy for developing both the built environment
of the area to be served and the transport provision, including
public transport. To implement these strategies, transport capital,
again including public transport, should be funded through a capital
fund, while public support for operations should be funded through
appropriate revenue budgets.
The possibility exists that, if a transit scheme
is provided with capital works designed to maximize its role within
the built environment, then it may be able to operate at relatively
little loss, with minimal call on the current budget. Establishing
this forms part of the necessary planning for the system. Different
authorities may have different aims for their system, and this
has to be related to the funding regime. For example, very firm
traffic and parking management, possibly including road charging
and high parking costs, may ensure that trams—and buses—can
operate very freely, and have a strong competitive edge; in these
circumstances high fares may ensure a commercial return. If transit
routes are expected to operate in much less controlled road conditions,
and still prove attractive to users, then high levels of grant
support (subsidy) will be needed, with a high call on current
funding. In effect public grants to support continuing bus and
tram operations without constraints on car use form a subsidy
to car users' freedom as much as anything.
THE PRACTICALITY
OF ALTERNATIVES
TO LIGHT
RAIL, SUCH
AS INCREASED
INVESTMENT IN
BUSES
The present Government has placed considerable
emphasis on developing buses as an effective and attractive means
of local transport, within its overall policies. It has also often
called on light rail scheme promoters to consider the alternative
options provided by use of buses. Unfortunately, Government's
position appears based on the premise that buses are cheap, which
is by no means always the case, depending on the objectives for
public transport. It is notable that, outside London, bus use
continues to decline and buses remain a largely fringe mode of
travel providing only for the poor, the young, the old and other
disadvantaged groups.
Government views imply that light rail is very
different to bus operation (and to heavy rail systems as well).
In fact the public transport modes available (the "tool-kit")
can be seen as lying around a wide spectrum, from local minibuses
to high capacity railways. The various elements overlap along
this range. For example, light rail and tramway lines can have
similar speed and capacity characteristics to high frequency bus
services. The latter may be provided on traditional means, as
a lot of buses running along existing main roads, or through construction
of separate busways; or they could involve mostly operation on
existing roads with significant bus priorities, through allocation
of sections of carriageway and priority at traffic lights.
The Government's failure to achieve real growth
in bus services outside London reflects a view that generally
bus services should operate without any significant provision
of infrastructure. This does not just affect major corridors.
Even a small urban area or a suburb may gain significant improvement
in bus operation and hence usage and image from a programme of
small-scale infrastructure works and bus priorities. These may
in fact be essential to support reliable and efficient operation
even where the number of buses is low. Where a good number of
buses operate down a corridor, then substantial priority works
may be necessary to ensure achievement of the Government's aims
for buses to provide a much enhanced local transit service.
Quality integrated bus operations may be found
in many mainland European cities, such as Barcelona (Spain, Lille
(France) and Utrecht (Netherlands), and many smaller places.
Judging whether light rail or bus systems might
be best for any corridor requires clear objectives, and these
must be drawn from an agreed city strategy, otherwise there is
no firm basis for any decisions. Upgrading operation of buses
will serve many corridors in British cities (indeed a great deal
more investment in such facilities needs to take place anyway).
On a shorter urban corridor with lower density development bus
operation may well remain optimal, offering through movement between
a variety of destinations along it. On some longer corridors,
however, especially for higher density of development at key residential
areas and main destinations, the operation of modern trams, with
their much greater capacity per unit, may be significantly cheaper
than running numerous buses to meet the city's strategic objectives
and the demand arising. If bus services can only meet the objectives
through provision of substantial infrastructure, then the capital
costs differences will be much lower. In these circumstances real
cost differences may be small or light rail may actually be cheaper.
Such judgements can be made only through careful analysis within
a firm planning framework, against established objectives.
CONCLUSIONS
Development of light rail in British cities
forms an important part of the "tool-kit" for transport
development. It is likely to prove of particular value on supporting
high-density but high-quality cities whose evolution can meet
the major and sometime conflicting challenges which face us. Its
value has been demonstrated by the extent to which our main European
neighbours continue to develop it, as part of integrated systems.
At the same time, it is essential to recognise
that the common principles on which our neighbours work provide
a much firmer foundation for evaluating where and how light rail
can provide better returns than complementary modes. However,
the common elements of approach found across the Channel do reflect
differences in culture and philosophy, which are very difficult
to change, significantly within a reasonable timescale. However,
they provide nonetheless valuable lessons on how the UK Government
and society might approach various topics, not least assessing
the role of light rail in urban transport and implementing schemes
where these offer a useful return. Attention should focus on aspects
which provide useful indicators on priorities worth addressing
in for UK urban planning, covering both land use and public transport;
in particular, elements such as more responsibility and funding
for city authorities, a more broad brush guidance and monitoring
of local authority policies by Government, and removal of Competition
Act constraints on integration of local public transport services.
Reg Harman
February 2005
14 The Light Rail Forum, UK Tram. Back
15
For example in the findings of the EU LIBERTIN thematic network. Back
|
