Memorandum submitted by the Electric Tbus
Group (LR 81)
INTEGRATED TRANSPORT: THE FUTURE OF LIGHT
RAIL AND MODERN TRAMS IN BRITAIN
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Electric Tbus Group was formed in
May 2000 by a number of concerned individuals to promote the re-introduction
of electric trolley vehicles in London as a way of bring about
a quieter, cleaner, more environmentally benign way of travelling
within this metropolis. This initial concentration on London has
since extended to promotion of trolley transport in any appropriate
location in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. The Group has no
commercial sponsorship from or ties to any commercial or other
vested interest, and all Group members contribute on a purely
voluntary basis.
1.2 Most of the Group membership has direct
experience of the previous trolleybus systems which operated in
British towns and cities up to the 1970s, as well as knowledge
and experience of the modern trolleybus systems which operate
or are being progressively introduced in many cities and towns
overseas.
1.3 We would emphasise that the Group promotes
trolleybus systems as an important cost-effective environmentally
friendly well-tried and tested component of an integrated transport
system, not as a universal panacea any more than any other particular
kind of public transport can be in all circumstances. In particular,
we are not an anti light rail or anti tram group, but pro public
transport and pro cost-effective, effective and sustainable transport.
2. COMPARISON
OF LIGHT
RAIL AND
TROLLEYBUS SYSTEMS
2.1 Where unused or under-used heavy railway
routes are available for conversion to light railway this may
often prove to be the cost-effective way of providing high quality
public transport. In some cases such existing rail routes may
already penetrate into the central areas of cities and towns;
in other cases, where space is available, limited sections of
on-street tramway may be an appropriate means of enabling such
light rail systems to penetrate the central area and provide maximum
accessibility for travellers, particularly where all or much through
traffic has already been removed from the central area through
provision of a bypass and/ or pedestrianisation.
2.2 In general, however, long street tramway
systems in modern conditions are likely to prove extremely expensive
and disruptive to implement, and to prove far less cost-effective
than alternative means, such as trolleybuses, of bringing the
environmental and service quality benefits of electric traction
to road-based public transport.
2.3 The fundamental difference between trams
and trolleybuses is that trams have flanged wheels and run on
rails like a train [whether on reserved track like most railways
or in streets on grooved track installed flush with the road surface];
whereas trolleybuses have conventional rubber tyres for ordinary
road surface and are essentially electrically powered buses.
2.4 Trolleybuses take their electric power
from a pair of parallel overhead wires by means of a pair of booms
fitted to the top of the vehicle. Trams normally take their power
from a single, thicker overhead wire, often suspended from a centenary
wire, by means of a pantograph fitted to the top of the vehicle.
2.5 The reason trams only use a single electric
contact wire is that they use the running rails for the electrical
return to complete the electric circuit to provide the power.
Trolleybuses, having no rails, and indeed being insulated by the
rubber tyres, need the second overhead wire to provide the electrical
return and complete the circuit.
2.6 Trolleybuses have advantages over trams
in that they can steer round obstructions such as parked vehicles
or accident scenes, or in emergency swerve to avoid an accident
themselves, within reason. The electricity pickup booms swivel
so the trolleybus can deviate from the course of the wires. Trolleybuses
can also be fitted with auxiliary power, such as a battery, so
that they can go "offline" away from the route of the
wires if necessary—for example this could be done in instances
such as the IRA bomb incident in Ealing Broadway in 2003. Being
rubber-tyred road vehicles trolleybuses also have superior braking
capability compared to trams.
2.7 Trams on the other hand are confined
to their fixed track, and are stuck in the event of a blockage
of the line for whatever reason. This is being represented by
proponents of street tramways such as the proposed Uxbridge Road
tramway scheme in west London as an advantage of trams in that
this dictates that other traffic has to be removed from the road,
or is deterred from obstructive behaviour by the knowledge that
they will be blocking the tramline. This did not stop the previous
generation of trams being obstructed by other road users, however,
nor the new trams in places such as Manchester, Sheffield and
Croydon where the tramway runs on the streets.
2.8 In any case trolleybus routes can be
given priority by means of bus lanes, or even concrete guided
bus ways [such as have been introduced on some parts of bus routes
in Ipswich, Leeds, Bradford etc] where road space permits, but
this can be dispensed with where there is not space to provide
an exclusive right of way for the trolleybus without swamping
other, local roads with displaced traffic [as would be the case
in Ealing and all the other town centres along the route of the
proposed Uxbridge Road tramway].
2.9 The other disadvantage of trams is the
high cost, construction time and disruption which installing tram
lines in the road involves. Modern street tramways necessitate
all the mass of underground pipes and cables [gas, water, electricity,
telecom etc] to be relocated away from the route of a street tramway,
so that the tram route is not repeatedly blocked by statutory
undertakers excavating to road to get and repair their pipes or
cables. This relocation account for a large proportion of the
implementation cost and time for a street tramway.
2.10 A trolleybus route can be installed
for a fraction of the cost and construction time of a street tramway.
Thus much more trolleybus route, and indeed a proper network,
can be installed for the price of a single tram route, and the
benefits of electric traction can be gained several years earlier
than for an equivalent street tramway.
2.11 On the other hand, both light rail
and trolleybus systems both suffer from the onerous requirements
of the Transport and Works Act. While it is understandable that
proposals for new rail infrastructure, whether on or off street,
should be subject to the degree of public scrutiny required by
that Act, the need for a simple trolleybus system involving no
alteration to the road itself, merely the provision of overhead
electric wiring, should be subject to the same time-consuming
and costly preliminary legal process, particularly as utility
companies such as electricity and telephone system providers are
at liberty to install overhead wires or cables without any such
requirement.
Even with this burdensome requirement trolleybuses
have the potential to provide all or most of the benefits of a
street tramway without many of the attendant disbenefits. Despite
this no UK authority has yet implemented or proposed a modern
trolleybus system, while many have pursued or are pursuing light
rail systems. There appear to be several explanations for this.
In many cases there are existing railway corridors available to
accommodate much of the route off-street, but proposals for lengthy
street tramways are also being pursued, nowhere more vigorously
than by Transport for London on Uxbridge Road between Shepherds
Bush and Uxbridge, where a tramway is proposed to replace the
existing bus services.
3. UXBRIDGE ROAD
(WEST LONDON)
TRAM PROJECT
3.1 This controversial scheme has met considerable
and well-informed local opposition, principally based on the disruption
to traffic and other activities which the scheme would cause both
during the protracted implementation period and on a permanent
basis thereafter. The manner in which Transport for London has
conducted the public information and consultation process has
added to local concerns and suspicion.
3.2 It is particularly regrettable that
this project has become the subject of entrenched party political
stances, with the Labour and Green Party Members on the Greater
London Assembly firmly backing the tram project, and the Liberal
and United Kingdom Independence Party Members opposed and urging
consideration of more cost-effective and less disruptive alternatives
such as a trolleybus system.
3.3 While the Electric Tbus Group is not
allied in any way to any political party, we consider we can do
no better to illustrate the situation in respect of the Uxbridge
Road tram project than quote the following submission by the Liberal
Party to the Greater London Assembly's inquiry into this project:
On the basis of the very detailed information
given to the Liberal Democrat Assembly members and research team
by Transport for London's Project Team, they cannot at this stage
support the continuation of the West London Transit project proposed
by the Mayor of London.
Liberal Democrats do not believe that at a
currently estimated cost of £650 million, building a tramway
along the Uxbridge Road from Shepherds Bush to Uxbridge will be
good value for money for Londoners. They note that the original
estimate given for the project was around £425 million.
They are not satisfied the "pinch points"
along the route, especially at Acton High Street and Ealing Broadway,
will be satisfactorily resolved by the current proposals, or that
the concerns of residents in Ealing Borough about traffic displacement
from the tram route have been met.
Liberal Democrats believe Transport for London
have grossly overestimated the costs and underestimated the benefits
of an alternative electric trolleybus scheme for the route. It
has been represented to the Assembly's Transport Committee that
a Transit scheme using trolleybuses, with most of the benefits
of the tram and indeed certain advantages over it, could be provided
at one-eighth of the cost of a tram. Even if the trolleybus cost
was one quarter of the tram cost, it would represent a saving
of £487 million.
Transport for London accept that their original
consultation was inept. The anxieties of residents were unnecessarily
alarmed by the original document which indicated that residential
side roads would be used to divert traffic from the Uxbridge Road
when the tramway was built. Although huge efforts have been made
since by TfL to work with residents' and community groups, the
situation remains that 30 of these groups (who worked for many
hours with TfL's Project Team) came out in opposition to the tram
proposal earlier this year.
Liberal Democrats accept that it is the sincere
conviction of the Mayor and the Project Team that the West London
Tram is a necessary—indeed vital—development along
a route corridor that is projected to become even more seriously
congested over the next 10 years. Their mindset is manifestly
that while they will make every effort to accommodate and ameliorate
objections from the local community and business people the tram
must go through. The assumption continues to be that everyone
in the area and travelling through it will in time adapt to the
West London Tram.
Liberal Democrats do not accept that Transport
for London necessarily know better than local communities what
is in their best interests. They are concerned that TfL's focus
on the Tram as the only acceptable solution has caused them to
devalue other solutions to the Uxbridge Road's traffic problems.
The most attractive of these alternatives
appears to us to be the electric trolleybus. We should stress
that we do not know whether the trolleybus is a practicable solution,
but it appears to have considerable benefits. It seems very odd
indeed that it has not been considered more seriously—especially
in TfL's very difficult financial situation.
Modern trolleybus systems are highly successful
in dozens of cities worldwide. The vehicles, being electric, are
emission-free, providing very rapid acceleration and a smooth
and silent ride. Indeed the individual cars can be almost identical
to the tramcars, except that they have rubber wheels and can be
steered. There is no need for expensive permanent way or a deep
trackbed which may involve disturbing mains and services. The
trolleybus has a facility whereby it can disconnect from the overhead
wires and run on batteries—giving it a flexibility to go
off route (or for example uphill to Ealing Hospital entrance)—which
the tram cannot match and which might be vital in emergencies.
Two trolleybuses operating in convoy could
carry 280 passengers—very little short of the single tram.
When the trolleybus encounters illegally parked vehicles (Ealing
Borough Council officers have explained that it is extremely difficult
to enforce against such parking) it can manoeuvre round them.
A tram would have to stop until the parked vehicle in its path
was removed. It may well be that drivers would be less likely
to park on tramtracks but we have no confidence that this can
be guaranteed.
Liberal Democrats are NOT proposing a trolleybus
system, but we do call on the Mayor and Transport for London to
investigate this very much cheaper alternative more seriously—not
least because it may also be appropriate for other public transport
routes that need to be upgraded elsewhere in London.
3.4 We are particularly concerned that senior
staff responsible for this project have not been above providing
serious mis-information to the Greater London Assembly Transport
Committee informal session. For example the Transport for London's
Project Director for the Uxbridge Road tram scheme, Tim Jones,
told that Committee in formal session on 16 September 2004 that
a trolleybus scheme would require a vehicle stabling depot twice
the size of a tram depot. This is complete rubbish—a trolleybus
stabling depot would need to be no larger than the equivalent
tram depot, and it is of serious concern that a Transport for
London official should so mis-inform such a body, whether wilfully
or from ignorance.
SUCCESSFUL TROLLEYBUS
SYSTEMS OVERSEAS
There are in fact at least as many trolleybus
systems operating worldwide than light rail or tram systems. Among
successful modern trolleybus systems reasonably near at hand which
the Committee may find it beneficial to consider, and if appropriate
visit, are those in Arnhem (Netherlands), Salzburg (Austria),
Lyons (France) and Athens (Greece). The Italian capital Rome is
due shortly to open the first phase of a new trolleybus system
serving the city.
In Arhem the transport operators have seen ridership
increases in the order of 17% on routes converted from diesels
on a "like-for-like" basis. When completed their five
year "Trolley 2000" strategy is expected to see passenger
levels 21% higher than it would have been under the best type
of diesel buses.
In Salzburg ridership increases have been 16%
and the city has recently started a five year plan of trolleybus
expansion which will include several brand new trolleybus routes
(one of which will be an express service with the overhead wiring
configured for overtaking) and converting several more diesel
routes to electric operation. These plans will mean that within
two years Salzburg will have achieved an almost total elimination
of diesel buses from its streets. This is being done for environmental
reasons.
5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Light rail may be the most suitable
system for providing high quality public transport along corridors
where under-used or unused rail lines enable a wholly or largely
off-street system to be provided. However, where substantial lengths
of street running are unavoidable a trolleybus system is likely
to prove far more cost-effective and less disruptive, providing
all or most of the benefits of light rail at a fraction of the
construction time and cost and temporary and permanent disruption.
5.2 Regardless of these considerations,
some authorities in the UK, notably Transport for London, appear
to be pursuing street-based tramway projects without investigating
properly the possibility of providing the environmental and service
quality benefits of electric traction by means of much cheaper
and less disruptive modern trolleybus systems, which are being
increasingly and successfully implemented outside the United Kingdom.
February 2005
| 
