Memorandum by The Confederation of Passenger
Transport (UK) (LR 73)
INTEGRATED TRANSPORT: THE FUTURE OF LIGHT
RAIL AND MODERN TRAMS IN BRITAIN
INTRODUCTION
The Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT)
is the national trade association representing the interests of
operators of buses, coaches and light rail. Our members include
the principal light rail and tramway systems in the United Kingdom
and the promoters of several proposed systems.
The Transport Select Committee is examining
light rail as part of an Inquiry into integrated transport. CPT
is pleased to assist the Transport Select Committee with its Inquiry.
We have also considered the findings of the recent National Audit
Office (NAO) report in preparing our response to the Committee.
In this paper, we use the term "light rail"
to cover the range from Tyne and Wear Metro and Docklands Light
Railway, which are railways on segregated track, through the modern
systems in Croydon and Nottingham, to the traditional street tramway
in Blackpool. Most recent systems are tramways, operating at least
partly in the street.
THE COMMITTEE'S
AREAS OF
INQUIRY
The benefits of light rail
Light rail is particularly well-suited to the
movement of high numbers of passengers along fixed urban corridors
in larger cities. It is more efficient than heavy rail over short
distances between stops and also has the potential to be extended
from heavy rail alignments to give better penetration of city
centres. Light rail works best on segregated track and, as with
buses, achieves best results where it is given priority at junctions.
Unlike conventional rail it can operate on city streets and in
pedestrian areas. There is also scope for other applications such
as track sharing with conventional rail or buses, and conversion
of lightly used rail lines to light rail.
Public transport with a clean, modern appearance
attracts passengers (especially former car users). Where public
transport is properly designed to complement the local environment
and is able to improve the efficiency of mobility, and where its
infrastructure creates a proper sense of permanence, the area's
economic vitality will be enhanced. Light rail is well suited
to facilitating such results.
Light rail is normally electrically powered,
making it pollution-free at the point of use, and allowing the
use of more than one source of power. Modern light rail vehicles,
like buses, are fully accessible to disabled people.
Light rail is popular with passengers. All the
UK systems operate near to capacity at peak times, and carry significant
numbers off-peak. Patronage is growing steadily on most of the
UK systems.
Light rail attracts substantial numbers from
carstypically around 20% of its passengers. In the Metrolink
corridors in Manchester, there was a 10% reduction in total car
traffic, leading to a reduction of 2 to 2½ million car journeys
per annum. In Sheffield, there were indications of a reduction
in car journeys to Meadowhall and an increased use of park-and-ride.
Results from cities in other countries are similar.
We note the NAO's view that the effect on road
congestion has been limited. A light rail line serves at most
two or three corridors into the city centre, and clearly will
only have an effect in the corridors it serves. A package of measures
is necessary to achieve public support for policies to manage
the increasing use of cars in urban areas. Public transport improvements
must create a situation where car drivers are able to make a rational
choice in favour of using public rather than private modes of
transportusing the bus or tram rather than the car.
The costs of light rail
Owing to the need for a fixed infrastructure,
the capital costs of light rail are undeniably highthough
not so high as heavy rail or road construction. So light rail
is only likely to be justifiable on a route where its advantages
of speed, capacity and city centre penetration can be realized.
However, with the right routegenerally, on heavily used
corridors in the larger citiesthe benefits can outweigh
the costs.
Light rail schemes are long-lasting, and light
rail vehicles last 25 to 30 years. In comparing the costs of light
rail with other options, it is important to consider the lifetime
costs and not just the initial costs. In addition, the comparative
costs of land, infrastructure and priority measures that are likely
to be incurred whatever mode is employed must be properly assessed
so that the desired objective of a step-change in quality and
capacity that light rail provides can be achieved.
Recently, attention has focussed on the rise
in costs of several new light rail projects. One reason for this
rise is the allocation of risks within the constituent members
of a consortium and between the public sector promoter and private
sector bidder, which results in inflated and double-counted risk
premiums. The diversion of utilities and the use of over-engineered
track formation also increase costs: we comment on these issues
later.
In addition, recent experience in the rail industry
has raised the cost of insurance premiums for light rail, although
there is no evidence that light rail is any less safe than buses
or HGVs operating in a similar street environment.
What light rail systems need to be successful
Currently, 150 million passengers use light
rail each year15% of the number on the national rail network.
Peak hour services are full, off-peak services are busy, patronage
is growing, and light rail attracts car users. In addition, light
rail improves the image of a city, and is used along with pictures
of famous landmarks and buildings as a civic symbol.
In order to maximise its potential, light rail
needs to be installed on routes where its benefits can be realised.
The route should be segregated from other traffic for the greater
part of its length, and light rail should be given priority at
junctions. Converting a rail line with a ready-made patronage,
as in Manchester and Nottingham, helps passenger numbers.
Light rail has the ability, like buses but unlike
conventional rail, to operate safely in city streets and pedestrianised
areas and to deliver passengers close to city centre destinations.
This should be fully realised by planning the route to serve these
major destinations, and others such as hospitals, universities,
office developments and shopping centres. Serving a major journey
attractor at the outer end of the route helps make public transport
successful.
Another area where light rail might be successful
is in the relatively untried area of track sharing. It is possible
for trams to share tracks with heavy rail, allowing the tram to
travel at speed along a traffic-free corridor into the city. There
are some technical and safety issues, but they are not insurmountable.
The main obstacles to the development of this tram-train concept
are cultural and administrative, as it requires co-operation between
light rail promoters and Network Rail. There are also continental
examples of track sharing over sections between trams and buses.
How effectively is light rail used as part of
an integrated transport system
The NAO Report highlighted four aspects of integration
in which it considered that light rail performed poorly: co-ordination
between services, interchange at stations, through ticketing and
provision of information.
INTERCHANGE
Integration at stations and transport interchanges
is a factor for consideration in the initial planning of a route.
Studies of light rail schemes in Great Britain have shown that
that there are excellent examples of integrated design of tram
stops with bus stations, rail stations and major development sites.
The NAO report highlights Manchester Metrolink as being successful
in this regard, having links to rail and bus stations both in
the city centre and at Bury and Altrincham. Nottingham, Croydon,
Tyne and Wear Metro and Sheffield also have good links to both
bus and rail. The NAO notes that Midland Metro, terminating at
Snow Hill, is less successful, though to be fair there are plans
for extensions from Snow Hill through the city centre.
Provision of park-and-ride facilities is also
important. Nottingham is particularly successful in this regard,
having 5 well-used dedicated sites, and the Sheffield system also
has successful park-and-ride sites.
CO-ORDINATION
BETWEEN SERVICES
With respect to co-ordination of routes and
timetables, the NAO report notes that "bus and light rail
services were often competing with each other on the same routes,"
and contrasts this with the situation in France and Germany where
"bus routes are diverted so that buses become feeders to
light rail"".
We do not accept this argument. Where light
rail offers a fast, smooth, convenient journey, passengers will
use it and bus operators will respond with the feeder services.
This is already happening in Nottingham. Where the bus offers
a better or faster service, as on the Metrolink Eccles line, or
serves intermediate destinations better, making passengers interchange
to light rail does not lead to improved overall use of public
transport. In Tyne and Wear and parts of Manchester, buses both
feed Metro and run parallel with it where the bus provides an
overall quicker journey for passengers. The key is to plan the
route to maximise customer benefits. A light rail scheme that
relies on the majority of its patronage diverting from buses,
will do little to alleviate congestion.
FARES AND
THROUGH TICKETING
The NAO report notes that French and German
light rail systems have comprehensive through-ticketing arrangements,
which make interchange easier. In fact, there are examples in
several UK cities of through tickets between bus and light rail.
Most cities with light rail have a one-day (or longer) ticket
valid on all modes.
INTEGRATION OF
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
AND LAND
USE
One of the objectives often cited for British
light rail systems is to promote urban development and regeneration.
The NAO report suggests that the impact in these areas is unclear.
But this is because they are long-term effects. There can be no
doubt that public transport has a profound long term effect on
developmentLondon and Paris would not have developed as
they did without their metro systems.
Shorter term effects are less clear, but still
visible. In Tyne and Wear and Manchester there were significant
effects on house prices and development. There are substantial
amounts of development along the Meadowhall line in Sheffield,
and northwards from West Bromwich near to Midland Metro. There
are similar examples abroad. Although there is rarely a single
reason for development in one place rather than another, it can
be inferred that the above examples are, in part, the result of
introducing the light rail scheme.
Barriers to the development of light rail
The NAO report in its Table 10 highlighted a
number of areas which constitute a barrier to light rail development
in the UK, including cost escalation, poor financial performance,
lack of local funds, and the lengthy process for implementation
which itself inflates costs. We agree with most of the points
made, and offer some comments on just a few of them.
HEAVY RAIL
REGULATION
HSE are currently reviewing railway legislation
and producing new regulations. In some respects they have acknowledged
that tramways should have some relaxations from the full regime,
but there are still many inappropriate requirements. One feature
of the new regime which is of particular concern is the proposal
to abolish the approval of new works by HM Railway Inspectorate.
In the case of tramways, this will be replaced by a system of
inspection by a "Competent Person" appointed by the
industry.
We see the new regime as inevitably increasing
the cost of light rail schemes. There are only a handful of tramway
engineers with the necessary competence to devise standards and
assess new works. In addition, initial enquiries suggest that
the cost of indemnity insurance for these individuals would be
prohibitive. We have made these points to HSE, suggesting that
the new arrangements should be deferred pending the European Urban
Rail Directive and Libertin standards, but to no avail. In the
interim, HMRI should continue to be the guardian of safety for
tramways, and should transfer to the Department for Transport
who have responsibility for other road users' safety.
TRACK FORM
AND STRAY
CURRENT PROTECTION
The usual method of construction for tramway
track is to construct a heavy concrete slab in which the rails
are laid. This makes it essential to divert utilities (see below).
It also makes access for subsequent maintenance difficult, and
alteration to the alignment virtually impossible. Also, tramways
constructors are required to take extreme measures to prevent
stray currents (traction current returning through the earth instead
of along the rails). This increases the initial cost of construction,
and also the cost of track maintenance and replacement.
Continental countries seem to be able to construct
a simpler form of track requiring less protection for stray currents.
There may be lessons for the UK which would lead to a simpler,
less costly, form of construction.
DIVERSION OF
UTILITIES
When building a tramway, safety regulations
require the removal of all public utilities (gas, electricity
etc) to outside the swept path. Utility diversions currently constitute
a substantial proportion of the overall cost of a tramway. Furthermore,
the utilities gain new equipment and are only required to contribute
7½% of the cost. Effectively, the public sector tramway promoter
subsidises the private sector utility company.
We believe that promoters and HSE should consider
whether it is essential to divert utilities to the same extent
as previously. There could be substantial cost savings.
THE LENGTHY
PROCESS FOR
DELIVERY
Developing a light rail system takes a long
time, typically 10 years from inception to opening. Delays have
been caused in the past through the Government not announcing
the results of planning inquiries and problems with resolving
issues of affordability. These actions are not without cost. Preparing
a bid and keeping a team together pending a decision can cost
a bidder millions of pounds, which inevitably has a bearing on
the bid price. As the NAO said, the process needs to be speeded
up.
FORECASTING OF
PASSENGER NUMBERS
We accept that the patronage forecast for some
light rail systems in the UK have been optimistic. Clearly, it
would be desirable if forecasts were more accurate. However, there
can be many reasons, not all under the control of the promoter
or operator. Changes to the extent of the proposed system and
the phasing of its introduction, economies made by the constructor,
and changes in the local economy and demographics all affect patronage.
It is important to appreciate that uncertainty in the estimation
of costs and patronage can never be eliminated completely; promoters
need to be flexible in managing this process given all the risks
entailed.
The effect of different financing arrangements
on the overall cost of light rail systems
Some of the comments above impinge on the question
of financing structure, in particular the way in which bidders
must add substantial contingency allowances for the risks of construction
over-runs and delays and possible shortfalls in revenue. We would
urge the Government and promoters to look for an alternative mechanism
that avoids loading unmanageable risk on the private sector bidders,
and we welcome the discussions that are taking place about this.
The practicality of alternatives to light rail,
such as increased investment in buses
Providing a high quality public transport service
that is attractive to passengers and effective in attracting car
users is essential for every urban area. Light rail can be part
of the public transport solution to the challenge of creating
sustainable mobility. A study of all the options for a particular
corridor will need to assess the specific circumstances in coming
to a view about the choice of mode. Questions of affordability
will have to be addressed alongside value for money so as to ensure
that the right choices are made. The proposed level of car restraint
that is to be implemented as part of any major new public transport
scheme should be a major factor in the promoter's choice of mode.
In most circumstances, bus-based solutions will
be the correct choice, but in some cases light rail will offer
additional benefits that will have to be assessed in the light
of the additional costs they will incur.
Developments such as guided bus schemes have
brought improvements in the punctuality of bus services and, along
with schemes generally to improve greater priority for bus passengers,
are to be welcomed. New technological developments for guided
buses (such as optical guidance) and for light rail will inform
a process of continuous evolution to help determine the appropriate
choice of mode.
IN CONCLUSION
CPT believes that improving the quality of public
transport through the joint endeavours of operators and local
authorities should be an essential feature of the work of both
parties. Light rail has an important role to play where the circumstances
of a particular area justify its introduction.
We do not claim that light rail is a panacea
for all urban transport problems. We recognise that buses will
remain the mainstay of public transport in most cities, even where
there is a light rail line. But we believe that in the right circumstancesgenerally,
on the busiest corridors in larger citieslight rapid transit
can make an important and cost-effective contribution to the provision
of public transport for an urban area, particularly where its
implementation is accompanied by effective traffic and parking
restraint.
If requested to do so, CPT would be happy to
be called as witnesses to give oral evidence to the Transport
Select Committee and to answer any questions and clarify or expand
on any of the points raised.
February 2005
|