Memorandum by The High Wycombe Society
(LR 92)
FUTURE OF LIGHT RAIL IN ENGLAND
The enclosed submission is sent in response
to the report about this inquiry which appeared in Local Transport
Today of 3 February, page 7, and are offered under the following
headings:
1. Climate Change, Light Rail and national
transport priorities—modal shift essential, not just accessibility.
2. Light Rail, Integrated transport and Demand
Responsive Transport (DRT).
3. Light Rail in big conurbations and elsewhere—the
need for innovation.
4. The NAO report (April 2004), light rail
costs and Ultra Light Rail.
Appendix I Notes on a DRT Conference held 1 December
2004.
Appendix II Response to questionnaire circulated
at a light rail conference held 15 October 2004.
Appendix Ill HWS Report "Light Rail to Lighten
the Way to Popular Public Transport" (July 2003).[31]
1. CLIMATE CHANGE,
LIGHT RAIL
AND NATIONAL
TRANSPORT PRIORITIES—MODAL
SHIFT ESSENTIAL,
NOT JUST
ACCESSIBILITY
1.1 Climate change. Since the beginning
of 2005, this has been headline news almost daily. Each new observation
makes the change more certain, potentially more devastating in
its consequences, and progressing faster than had been thought
earlier. Last August the House of Commons Environmental Audit
Committee said "The continued growth of carbon emissions
from transport remains one of the most serious problems we face",
yet official announcements on transport seem to ignore climate
change, by presenting "accessibility" as the guiding
principle for the new Local Transport Plans. Improved accessibility,
for the relief of social exclusion suffered by those without a
car, can usually be provided by fairly simple public transport
changes, but such measures are seldom enough to achieve any worthwhile
modal shift from the car. However, provisions that are good enough
to produce significant modal shift will also provide accessibility
for all but the most severely disabled.
1.2. Reducing transport's carbon emissions
requires large scale modal shift to achieve a huge reduction in
car miles, among other measures. This would also bring blessings
of reduced congestion and less land taken for parking, but government
and local authority spokesmen seem reluctant to say the vital
words "modal shift". Do they think this is too difficult?
Or are they scared of losing car and fuel tax revenues, or of
the affect on our manufacturing industry, or of losing votes through
being accused of being anti-car, or of losing council car parking
revenues? These problems could be serious but are as nothing compared
with the rapidly approaching threats from climate change. People
world wide, and far into the future, could be horribly affected,
so a pressing need is for a modal shift from the car, and the
development of convenient sharing of more energy efficient vehicles.
Light Rail, which runs on steel wheels along steel rails is more
energy efficient than rubber tyres on tarmac, and so far it has
produced much more modal shift than buses, yet the Government
appears to be favouring buses to the detriment of light rail (para.5.
below). A further advantage is light rail's smaller land requirement,
because it is guided on unobtrusive rails flush with the road
surface, so permitting its use in sensitive areas (eg pedestrian
areas as in Zurich), where buses would not be acceptable. Also
it can pass seamlessly between street track and segregated rail
track.
2. INTEGRATION,
LIGHT RAIL
AND DEMAND
RESPONSIVE TRANSPORT
(DRT)
Good Modal Shift requires comprehensive integration
of public transport services and poor such integration has been
thought possibly responsible for light rail systems attracting
fewer passengers than predicted. For many years a key public transport
integration was regarded as the connections between rail and bus
services at rail stations, but our local studies suggest these
often cannot be other than unsatisfactory. The conditions at High
Wycombe Station are probably similar to those at many across the
UK. We found that conventional bus services could not supply anything
like adequate connections to meet the departing and arriving trains.
Only a well developed DRT scheme can provide what is now required.
We have discussed these matters in our attached paper (Appendix
I, paras 3.3. and 3.4.) relating to a national conference on DRT
held in London on 1 December 2004. ln Germany, rail and light
rail passengers can request their onward DRT transport while they
are still on the train or tram, so that it awaits their arrival.
Technology can quickly process such requests to arrange convenient
sharing of suitable waiting vehicles. (Appendix I, para. 2.5)
3. LIGHT RAIL
IN BIG
CONURBATIONS AND
ELSEWHERE—THE
NEED FOR
BOLD INNOVATION
The Light Rail schemes developed in the UK since
1990 have all been built in and around large conurbations, but
such places are not the only locations experiencing heavy congestion
and poor public transport, contributing significantly to the local
transport carbon emissions. It thus seems desirable to provide
such areas with the benefits of light rail (para.l.2.) but on
an appropriate scale and at acceptable cost. Systems of Ultra
Light Rail (ULR) are much cheaper than the higher capacity schemes
already built, and are at an advanced stage of development, but
local authorities cannot be expected to commit to bold innovation
without positive encouragement and financial support from central
government. We understand that a new Major Projects Division has
been set up by the Dif to assist innovation, and that its responsibilities
will include light rail. We hope the House of Commons Transport
Committee will monitor its progress closely. Appendix II gives
our response to a questionnaire circulated at a Light Rail Conference
held in London on 15 October 2004. It refers to our interest in
ULR, arising from the need to provide a vital public transport
link (where none now exists) between High Wycombe (and Chiltern
Railways) and the Thames Valley (and the Great Western Main line
at Maidenhead), and the difficulties experienced. See also Appendix
III.
4. THE NAO REPORT
(APRIL2004), LIGHT
RAIL COSTS
AND ULTRA
LIGHT RAIL
4.1. Light rail costs. The light rail schemes
built in the UK since 1990 have proved very expensive. The NAO
Report examined the reasons for this, and found there had been
a lack of standardisation, with each of the five schemes using
different rolling stock and technologies. Also, they all took
a long time from start to completion, largely because central
Government had not been helpful. Each one had evidently been achieved
through the vision and persistence of the Local Authority staff
not as a result of enlightened leadership from the centre. The
Report commented that the DTI should intervene to help the production
of cheaper light rail technologies such as ULR. It requires a
simpler infrastructure, with no overhead high voltage power supply,
and is very energy efficient. As a consequence ULR is a prime
candidate for applying fuel cell technology at an early date.
5. LIGHT RAIL
AND BUSES
5.1. High costs of UK light rail seem to
have prompted the DfT to ask if buses would not be just as effective,
since they would be cheaper, and to look for other criticisms
of light rail. For example, that it had not had much impact on
congestion, regeneration and social exclusion, and that it had
not attracted as many passengers as had been predicted.
5.2. "Light rail has had little impact
on reducing congestion" One problem with achieving a good
modal shift is that the roads become clearer and more tempting
for other drivers. Hence in addition to providing attractive public
transport for the modal shift, it is also necessary to couple
it with a positive deterrent to drive, such as a congestion charge
and/or severe parking restrictions. Stick and carrot are both
needed, including the support provided by first class integration,
as in para 2 above.
5.3. "Light rail has not attracted
as many passengers as predicted" This may or may not have
been the fault of the predictions, since it is clearly difficult
to estimate the uptake of a major novel public transport facility.
Nevertheless the light rail systems carry thousands of passengers
every day, including with a high level of modal shift, so the
congestion and carbon emissions would evidently be very much worse
without the light rail. In comparison most bus services produce
minimal modal shift, appear to regularly have many more wasted
seats, and are less energy efficient.
5.4. Light rail is a better investment than
conventional bus services
In consideration of all the above, we believe
that in most situations, investment in Light Rail, Ultra Light
Rail and DRT would be more effective than buses in combating Climate
Change and reducing time wasting congestion, the amount of valuable
land taken for parking, and social exclusion for those without
a car.
Elsa Woodward
Leader of High Wycombe Society Transport Group
23 February 2005
31 Appendices not printed. Contact the society at
http://www.highwycombesociety. Back
|
