Memorandum by the Institution of Civil
Engineers (LR 91)
THE FUTURE OF LIGHT RAIL AND MODERN TRAMS
IN BRITAIN
INSTITUTE OF
CIVIL ENGINEERS
The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) is
a UK-based international organisation with over 75,000 members
ranging from professional civil engineers to students. It is an
educational and qualifying body and has charitable status under
UK law. Founded in 1818, ICE has become recognised worldwide for
its excellence as a centre of learning, as a qualifying body and
as a public voice for the profession. Members of the Transport
Board of the Institution of Civil Engineers and of the Transport
Planning Society (an ICE Associated Society) have prepared this
submission.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The comments that follow focus on the specific
areas identified by the Committee. However, the particular comments
should be seen in the context of the following general principles
which ICE recommends to be applied to all policy relating to transport:
— Strategic vision of the transport
system as a cohesive whole. The nation's transport infrastructure
must be looked at as a cohesive whole. Addressing one mode of
transport whilst ignoring its impact on another, leads to short
term gain at the cost of long-term sustainability.
— Transport as a facilitator for
society—interface with land use, education and health policies.
A strategic view of transport permits trade-offs between modes.
"Transport systems can be developed to ensure each mode of
transport operates at its optimum, and all modes combine to provide
a seamless transport system." (A vision for transport 2020
p13 The Institution of Civil Engineers 1997) Furthermore, the
development of transport policy must be progressed within the
context of the government's wider policies including land use,
education and health.
— Long-term planning horizons.
A long-term planning horizon by government is crucial for all
major infrastructure. A 20-year national spatial strategy incorporating
transport and land use, should set out objectives for the transport
system with clear performance standards and minimum environmental
and safety standards for the public realm.
— Risk and safety. Safety measures
should be appropriate to the level of risk. Indiscriminate application
of safety measures across the whole transport network inflates
costs without giving commensurate benefits. The end result may
be that less safe modes of transport become economically more
attractive.
Consequently, ICE proposes that:
— Light rail is an essential, complementary,
element of an integrated urban transport system, particularly
suited to linking high volume traffic generators because of its
high passenger capacity.
— When integrated with other public
transport modes, light rail is highly effective at encouraging
public transport use generally.
— The method of procurement and level
of private sector funding which is seen as essential for any scheme
approval are major barriers.
INTRODUCTION
1. The characteristics of light rail systems
are:
(a) Rail-guided with lightweight high performance
electric vehicles, driven on sight or with simple railway signalling.
(b) Fast, because of the dedicated track
and superior acceleration and braking of light rail vehicles.
(c) High capacity: vehicle capacity is typically
three times that of buses.
(d) Low noise, low local emission, electric
traction systems.
(e) Favourable whole life costs: high initial
investment in infrastructure and vehicles but lower operating
costs per passenger and longer life than buses.
RESPONSES TO
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
A The costs and benefits of light rail
2. Light rail systems are:
(a) A key element in an integrated public
transport network. Light rail is particularly suited to linking
high volume traffic generators such as hospitals, schools and
shopping centres with passenger interchanges (rail stations, airports,
park and ride sites). Light rail should be fully integrated with
bus, metro and rail services for maximum operating efficiency.
(b) Cost effective. Light rail is a high
capital cost option. A tram vehicle will cost about £1.2
million depending whether it is custom-designed or "off-the-shelf"
and lifespan is normally reckoned at 30 years as opposed to about
10 years for a bus. There are good financial reasons to standardise
loading gauge because vehicles can then be obtained "off-the-shelf".
Driver costs per passenger km are much lower than buses since
trams carry higher numbers of passengers. However, once the initial
investment is overcome, tramways are cheaper to operate per passenger-kilometre
than buses, require little or no public subsidy on direct operating
account, and can attract keen interest from the private sector.
(c) Attractors of inward investment. The
high profile and quality of light rail and its demonstrable "permanence"
within the urban fabric can attract investment from the private
sector in a variety of ways including contributions to the project
itself, higher retention and improvements to existing enterprises
and new development.
(d) Good at attracting people onto public
transport. The fast, frequent and reliable public transport service
attracts car users, and has a popular public profile that frequently
spins off into other modes such as buses. Accessibility is good
for all users including mobility-impaired passengers, particularly
on street-running sections where low platforms are now normally
adopted. Level boarding is provided at all stops whether high
or low platform.
(f) Clean and environmentally friendly. The
low noise and zero local emissions of light-rail electric traction
systems contrast with the impact of the internal combustion engine
bus, (except trolley buses).
B What light rail systems need to be successful
3. Measures of success of light rail systems
in UK often focus on achievement of ridership targets based on
cost-benefit analysis and traffic forecasts. Socio-economic impacts
are less easy to isolate. However, these are regarded as an important
measure in France. Light rail is particularly suited to linking
high volume passenger generators. A tramway is not usually financially
viable by current UK standards of assessment unless there is likely
to be a demand for more than 2,500 passengers per hour.
4. In planning and operating terms this
requires an integrated approach to planning of provision for transport
and landuse. Unless there is close co-operation between town planning
and transport planning authorities, the basis of operation of
the light rail system may be undermined. For example, one of the
high traffic generators upon which Sheffield Supertram was based
was high density housing. Unfortunately this housing was demolished
before Supertram opened.
5. Similarly, an integrated approach to
operation of public transport facilities is vital. Currently,
public transport operations are split between a multiplicity of
bus, rail and light rail operators who are prevented by competition
law from integrating services, except in London. The effect of
this can be to undermine the basis for light rail schemes. For
example, Sheffield Supertram was planned to complement local bus
services, both in terms of route and fare structure. Subsequent
bus deregulation placed the newly completed Supertram in direct
competition with cheaper buses plying the same route.
6. In order to achieve a high level of service
reliability, light rail systems require priority over road traffic.
No UK street running light rail system enjoys full priority and
this results in unpredictable delays that affect service reliability.
Higher levels of priority can be achieved with better traffic
management and improved traffic signalling. There may be some
disadvantages passed to other road traffic but in most cases this
would be minimal and in any case would support wider demand restraint
objectives.
C How effectively is light rail used as part
of an integrated transport system
7. All of the existing UK light rail schemes
are delivering benefits although some are more successful than
others. Manchester Metrolink Phase 1 exceeded predicted level
of patronage, as did the Docklands Light Railway. Croydon Tramlink
carries more than eight times as many passengers between Wimbledon
and Croydon as the heavy-rail service it replaced.
8. Thus far, in the UK, integration of light
rail with other modes of transport has been poor. The UK is the
only developed country in the world where light rail is expected
to compete with bus and train services rather than form an essential
part of an integrated network. This is seriously inhibiting the
financial and economic contribution of light rail, notably in
South Yorkshire and Tyne and Wear. It will also inhibit the performance
of new systems such as Leeds. However quality bus contracts (Transport
Act 2000), may improve integration.
9. Where systems are integrated an increase
in public transport patronage is achievable. Between 1986 and
1996, 25 European cities with mixed tram and bus systems but no
underground or metro increased their transit trips by an average
of 20.3%. This compares with 22 bus-only cities, which during
the same period lost an average of 5.6% trips. (Commission
for Integrated Transport Fact Sheets, No 6a: European Best Practice
Looking at Large UK Cities (Glasgow and Manchester)).
10. The only other European country to have
re-introduced light rail on a similar scale to that in the UK
is France. French light rail systems have generally been built
to a higher standard than those in the UK and in a much shorter
timescale, typically five years from concept to operation, as
was achieved for the Docklands Light Railway, compared with at
least 10 years generally in the UK. Their overall capital costs
have not been greatly different from those in the UK. They do
however concentrate on linking high traffic generators such as
hospitals, universities, commercial centres and shopping centres
whereas many UK schemes have tended to make use of available rights
of way, which do not necessarily serve traffic objectives well.
Consequently, patronage on French systems is much higher than
on UK systems. (Comparative performance data from French tramways
systems: SEMALY & Faber Maunsell 2003.)
11. Outside the UK, extensive street-running
tram systems currently operate in many European mainland cities
including Amsterdam, Berlin, Bonn, Brussels, Budapest, Cologne,
Frankfurt, Genoa, Grenoble, Helsinki, Marseille, Milan, Munich,
Naples, Oslo, Rome, Rotterdam, Stockholm, Stuttgart, Vienna and
Zurich. Most routes now have extensive lengths of reserved track
with high priority over other traffic.
D Barriers to the development of light rail
12. The most important barrier to the performance
of light rail systems is the inability to fully integrate them
with other public transport services, especially buses. The current
structure of the public transport industry is complex and fragmented
between a multiplicity of bodies in the public and private sectors.
The over riding objective is to promote competition and maximise
risk transfer to the private sector. This strategy clearly is
not appropriate to urban public transport where integration and
co-ordination are essential to achieving an efficient product,
particularly one that is attractive to existing car users. A comparison
between London and the provinces illustrates the differences.
The Docklands Light Railway and the Croydon Tramlink are almost
certainly the most successful in achieving their objectives with
regard to their overall integration and are the only ones that
operate within a regulated framework.
13. The requirement for substantial private
sector capital contributions limits the scope for new systems
and skews priority towards those which may be attractive to the
private sector, rather than those which have the highest transport
need. Capital funding streams which are predictable and within
the promoting authorities control are needed, such as the French
"Versement Transports". Congestion charging could be
one mechanism if the Treasury comes to accept hypothecation as
has now occurred in London. However, there is, and will continue
to be, resistance to congestion charging as evidenced by the recent
referendum result in Edinburgh and the considerable opposition
in other cities where it has been suggested.
14. The only method of implementing a new
or extended light rail system is through the Transport and Works
Act 1992. Although this is an improvement on the previous Parliamentary
Bill procedure this has proved to be even more costly and time
consuming, often taking several years to obtain the necessary
powers. It should be noted that one of the longest, and least
predictable, delays results from the time taken for the Secretary
of State to reach a decision on an Inspector's report and recommendations.
It is understood that some changes to the procedure are now being
processed and indeed, the Secretary of State's decision on the
Merseyside light rail scheme (Merseytram) was given in record
time (14 months between deposit and approval).
15. Light rail technology is well developed
and there is a good range of products available. Technological
improvements are continuing to be developed by manufacturers and
suppliers. It is in the application of technology that untapped
opportunities exist. For example, the concept of shared track
operation between heavy and light rail is now well established
in Germany and France but yet to find significant applications
in the UK, apart from the Sunderland extension of Tyne and Wear
Metro. The opportunities on lighter used Network Rail lines are
considerable (Rail in the City Regions Final Report to the
Passenger Transport Executive Group 2004 JMP consultants p 101)
but are likely to be frustrated by administrative and financial
complexities.
16. Light Rail is usually only considered
feasible in large cities and conurbations. There is probably scope
for development of light rail for many smaller towns and cities
if lower cost systems with more "tramway" like characteristics
can be provided. There may well be a role for "Ultra Light
Rail" technology as currently being developed by three organisations
but as yet without a significant urban application. Again complex
administrative structures and fragmented responsibilities have
hindered potentially valuable innovations.
E The effect of different financing arrangements
(public/private) on the overall cost of light rail systems
17. Light rail is a high capital cost option
and ways of reducing costs need to be continually explored. Rolling
stock costs are now reducing but other major elements, eg diversion
of statutory undertakers' services, are escalating. Nevertheless,
lower cost forms of light rapid transit such as guided buses and
GLT (Guided Light Transit), have yet to prove as cost effective,
reliable and as attractive as light rail.
18. Complex contracts are extremely costly
and can take years to reach financial close. This not only makes
progress very slow but also increases costs both for the promoter
and the tenderers. (Tendering costs well over £1 million
per bidder are not uncommon.)
F The practicality of alternatives to light
rail such as increased investment on buses
19. Increased investment in buses alone
may not result in the increase in trips by public transport that
a light rail system generates, as previously demonstrated (paragraph
9).
20. The only bus alternatives that could
come close to light rail are those that provide far greater priorities
than those so far achieved with bus operations (eg guided bus
and quality bus corridors). In almost all cases, attempts to create
attractive bus corridors have been seriously compromised by a
reluctance to take non-highway land or to build in grade separation
at critical points in the street network where general traffic
cannot be restricted sufficiently. These rather more radical steps
should be viewed as "going the extra mile" to provide
bus systems with a taste of what would be a "given"
for a rail scheme. We need to be able to pursue these measures
without going down the Transport and Works Act procedural route.
February 2005
RELATED ICE PUBLICATIONS
1. Bartlett, J, Hartley, I, Layfield, P.
Tyne And Wear Metro: Management Of The Project, ICE Proceedings—Part
1, 70, November 1981.
2. Heslop, N L. Newcastle International
Airport: An Overview Of The Metro Link And Aircraft Safety Considerations,
ICE Proceedings—Transport, 117, 4, November 1996.
3. Howard, D, Clerk, D. Tyne And Wear Metro,
ICE Proceedings—Part 1, 66, August 1979.
4. Howard, D, Layfield, P. Tyne And Wear
Metro: Concept, Organisation And Operation, ICE Proceedings—Part
1, 70, November 1981.
5. Mackay, K R. Sunderland Metro-challenge
and opportunity, ICE Proceedings—Municipal Engineer, 133,
2, June 1999.
6. Nisbet, R Tyne And Wear Metro: Interchanges
And Surface Stations, ICE Proceedings—Part 1, 70, November
1981.
7. Smyth, W J R. Benaim, R, Hancock, C J,Tyne
And Wear Metro, Byker Contract: Planning, Tunnels, Stations And
Trackwork, ICE Proceedings—Part 1, 68, November 1980.
8. Gonsalves, B F,Deacon, R W Docklands
Light Railway And Subsequent Upgrading: General Contract And Design
Principles, ICE Proceedings—Part 1, 88, August 1990.
13. Ridley, T, Clerk, D. Light Rail—Technology
Or Way Of Life, ICE Proceedings—Transport, 95, 2, May 1992.
14. Rumney, D J, Manchester Metrolink—Diversion
Of Public Utilities' Apparatus, ICE Proceedings—Transport,
105, 2, May 1994.
15. Russell, J H M, Horton, R J. Planning
Of The South Yorkshire Supertram, ICE Proceedings—Transport,
111, 1, February 1995.
16. Tyson, W J. Metrolink-building on success,
ICE Proceedings—Transport, 147, 3, August 2001.
17. Tyson, W J, Planning And Financing Manchester
Metrolink, ICE Proceedings—Transport, 95, 3, August 1992.
18. Grist, B, Rogers M. The Nottingham Express
Transit PFI project, Municipal Engineer, 133, 3, September 2000.
19. Alexander, S J. A regional metro for
London, Transport, 153, 1, February 2002.
20. Boak, J G. South Yorkshire Supertram:
Route And Civil Works, Transport, 111, 1, February 1995.
21. Bonnett, C F. Trackwork For Lightweight
Railways, Part 1, 90, October 1991.
22. Griffin, T. Light Rail Transit Sharing
The Railtrack System, Transport, 117, 2, May 1996.
23. Drechsler, G. Light Railway On Conventional
Railway Tracks In Karlsruhe, Germany, Transport, 117, 2, May 1996.
24. Lowson, M. Sustainable personal transport,
Municipal Engineer, 151, 1, March 2002.
25. Williams, K. The Highway Engineering
Aspects Of Tramways, Transport, 117, 2, May 1996.
26. A vision for transport 2020 The Institution
of Civil Engineers 1997.
27. Passenger interchange, The Institution
of Civil Engineers 1999.
|
