Select Committee on Transport Written Evidence


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 cars—typically 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 transport—using 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 high—though 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 route—generally, on heavily used corridors in the larger cities—the 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 year—15% 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 development—London 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 circumstances—generally, on the busiest corridors in larger cities—light 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



 
previous page contents next page

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

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 10 August 2005