developing new urban public transport systems

8/12/2019 Developing New Urban Public Transport Systems

1/15

Pergamon

Pll: 80967-070X(%)00023-6

Transporr Policy, Vol. 3. No. 4, pp. 2255239, 1996Copyright 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved0967-070X/96 $15.00 + 0.00

Developing new urban public transportsystems

An irrational decision-making process

Marion Edwards and Roger L Mackett

Centr e for Tr ansport Studies U ni versi ty College L ondon Gower Street London WC lE 6BT U K

The decision-making process for planning new urban public transport systems in the UK isexamined by studying 11 new and planned systems. The objectives of building the systems relate totransport and development issues. A number of key factors are taken into account during thedecision-making process: forecast demand, image, deregulation of buses, technological innovation,private sector involvement and the funding mechanism. The requirement for proven technology andthe forecast demand for the systems reduces the choice to one of light rail or bus. The effects ofbus deregulation, funding and image, essentially reduce that choice to light rail or nothing. Costshould be kept low, which suggests a bus based system, but current legislation favours moreexpensive light rail systems. The conclusion is that although transport planners make rationaldecisions within the current political framework, the framework, and therefore some of thedecisions, are not rational. Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd

Keywords: public transport, light rail, bus, urban development

This paper is concerned with the decision-makingprocess surrounding the method of planning new urbanpublic transport systems in the UK. It is recognised thatthere is a need to reduce urban traffic congestion causedby the increasing use of private cars. The problemcannot be solved by increasing the capacity of the roadinfrastructure and it requires a package of measures,including improvements to public transport facilities sothat they provide a more attractive alternative to private

cars (Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution,1994).There has been a significant decline in the use of

public transport in the UK in recent years, partly as aconsequence of the growth in the use of the motor car.For example, in 1951, 14% of households owned oneor more cars and over 60% of travel in the UK was bypublic transport. By 1993, 68% of households ownedone or more cars and public transports share of travelhad declined to 11%. (All figures based on Department

This research has been funded by the UK Engineering and PhysicalSciences Research Council under grant CR/H 78481. The authors

would l ike to acknowledge the assistance of the experts in providingthe information used. Any errors of interpreta tion or otherwise arethe responsibility of the authors.

of Transport, 1995.) Many factors have led to the modalshift, for example the motorway programme, increasingincomes, the dispersal of cities, and the relative levelsof investment.

There has not been the same pattern of decline inpublic transport patronage in continental Europe. Forexample, over the period 1966 to 1993, bus patronagein terms of passenger-kilometres, declined by 32% inthe UK, but increased by 16% in the Netherlands,

34% in Germany, and 52% in Belgium. The picturedoes not appear to be so gloomy for rail in the UKbecause the number of passenger-kilometres increasedby 3% between 1966 and 1993, mainly because of anincrease in trip length. However, this is a very modestincrease compared with that elsewhere, with increasesof 52% in France, 58% in Germany, 71% in Italy,100% in the Netherlands, and 109% in Belgium(Department of Transport, 1979, 1995).

The picture is similar if cities are considered. It hasbeen shown that, compared with other countries inwestern Europe, urban transport in the UK has higherfares and poorer quality in terms of frequency, punctu-ality, cancellations, and age of rolling stock (Mackett,1993). Combined with a greater bias towards the car in

225


2/15

terms of price, investment and personal taxation, thishas led to a greater rate of decentralisation of popula-tion and employment in London than in most othermajor cities in western Europe.

In recent years there has been a major differencebetween the UK and the rest of Europe in the attitudeto urban public transport. This has not always been the

case. In fact, Britain led the way in urban public trans-port, opening the worlds first metro in 1863, fromPaddington to Farringdon, and the first deep tubetunnel in 1890 from Elephant and Castle to the City ofLondon. Within a few years central London had anexcellent metro system. There was also a comprehensivetram network. Later, trolley buses and diesel buses wereintroduced in London, improving the service to thesuburbs. Other cities in the UK also had comprehensivepublic transport systems, usually in the form of densetram networks. However, the tram systems were allclosed down (apart from the single line left in Black-

pool). The last tram ran in Manchester in 1949, inLondon in 1952, in Birmingham in 1953, and in Shef-field in 1960. In Leeds a new line was opened as late as1949, but the whole system was scrapped by 1960. Thelast trolley bus ran in Bradford in 1972 (Hall andHass-Klau, 1985). The closure of these systems tookplace for a number of reasons, linked to the need forinvestment, partly as a result of war damage, and thebelief that buses, with their greater flexibility, couldprovide an adequate service. More recently, the growthin road congestion caused by increasing car use, andthe poor image of the bus has led to the decline in its

use in the UK. This has led to an increasing need forsubsidy. Concern about rapid growth in the level ofbus subsidy was instrumental in the deregulation ofbuses in areas of the UK outside London under the1985 Transport Act. The government believed that, byopening up the bus market to competition, operatorswould be better able to match passengers needs and sostem the fall in patronage. Competitive pressure was toforce costs down thereby facilitating greater innovation.In fact, bus patronage continued to decline in areasoutside London (White, 1995) and a small number ofmajor operators are emerging by means of takeovers,

often producing local monopolies.As indicated by the figures cited above, the picture israther different elsewhere in Europe. Rather thanclosing down the tram systems, they have been devel-oped into modern, fast, efficient light rail systems.There has been a completely different attitude to theprovision of urban public transport. For example, Halland Hass-Klau (1985), comparing the provision of rail-based public transport in Germany and the UK, foundthat not only did all large cities in Germany havemodern systems, they also benefitted from complemen-tary measures such as comprehensive pedestrianisationof the city centre. Similarly, Hill (1995) compared thedevelopment of the metro in Toulouse with the light railsystem in Sheffield and found very different attitudes. In

Toulouse there was unequivocal support for the newsystem with funding being made available and otherpublic transport being planned to complement it,whereas in Sheffield a much more modest system hasbeen developed, which has to compete against privatisedbus and rail networks.

It should be recognised that there has been a growthin interest in the development of urban public transportsystems in the UK in recent years. The Tyne and WearMetro, a light rail system based upon Newcastle uponTyne, was opened in 1980, using former British Railtracks, but with new tunnels to provide access into thecity centre. No other new systems were opened untilthe Docklands Light Railway in 1987 which was anintegral part of the regeneration process of the londonDocklands. The recognition of the growth in roadcongestion, and hence the need to provide an attractivealternative to the car has stimulated the authorities in anumber of cities to develop such systems. Two light rail

schemes have opened in recent years: ManchesterMetrolink in 1992 and Sheffield Supertram in 1994.

There are a variety of public transport technologiesavailable, including metro, light rail and kerb-guidedbus. Transport planners have to decide which publictransport technologies are most appropriate for theirparticular city or corridors within their city. Since fewsystems have been constructed recently in the UK thereis limited expertise in deciding which is the most appro-priate technology for a particular city. However, thereare over 30 projects at various stages of planning anddevelopment (Local Transport Today, 1995). There is a

need to transfer the experience from one city to another,rather than each one starting from first principles eachtime. One way to do this is to provide tools whichsupport the decision-making process and facilitate thetransfer of knowledge. The aim of the UTOPIA (UrbanTransport Operations and Planning using IntelligentAnalysis) project, which has been carried out at Univer-sity College London, in the University of LondonCentre for Transport Studies, was to investigate thedecision-making process with a view to developing anexpert system to act as a decision support tool. Expertsystem are sophisticated computer programs that

manipulate knowledge to solve problems efficiently andeffectively in a narrow problem area (Waterman, 1985)and they are used to solve problems which usuallyrequire human expertise or knowledge, for example,planning, diagnosis and interpretation. The case fordeveloping an expert system to help select appropriatetechnologies for urban public transport systems ispresented in Mackett and Edwards (1995).

Central to expert system development is an under-standing of the decision-making process. This paperdescribes an investigation of this process, and develop-ment of a model of the decision-making process onwhich an expert system could be based.

The paper falls into three main sections. Thefollowing section describes the knowledge acquisition

6


3/15

Building new urban public transport s_vstrms: M Edwards and R L Muckett

phase of the project, discussing how cities were selectedfor investigation, and the techniques used to elicitknowledge about systems in those cities. The nextsection discusses the results of knowledge acquisition,including the reason for building new public transportsystems, the alternative solutions and the alternativepublic transport modes which were considered, and thefactors used in making the decision. This is followed bya section describing the decision-making process anddiscusses whether or not it can be modelled.

Methodology the knowledge acquisition process

In this paper the planning and development of newpublic transport systems in the UK is considered indetail. However, reference is made to systems outsidethe UK where appropriate. The information is from aworld-wide survey carried out in the course of theUTOPIA project. The first stage of the survey involved

the identification of suitable experts and systems toinvestigate. For a system to be investigated, it had tosatisfy the following criteria:

(1) The country should have a planning systemcomparable to that in the UK (eliminatingdeveloping and former eastern bloc countries).

(2) The system should either have been built, beunder construction, or be planned (not merelyproposed).

(3) Existing systems should have been opened in thelast 20 years (post 1974).

(4) Bus-based systems should be a system and morethan just bus lanes and bus priorities.

In the case of UK systems a number of systems andexperts were known to members of the project team,and additional systems and experts were suggested bythese experts. Overseas systems were identified usingBushel1 (1994).

Knowledge acquisition has been based on a question-naire which focused on the decision about the choice oftechnology, that is, light rail, heavy rail, guided busand so on. The topics addressed in the questionnaire fallinto two classes as discussed below.

(1) Factual information about the system, forexample:

4

b)

cl

The alternatives considered, both othermodes and other ways of achieving theobjectives, such as road building.The factors taken into account in decidingon the most appropriate mode.The degree of segregation of the systemand its relationship with the highway. Forexample, the system may run in tunnels oron elevated structures; on the surface butaway from the highway; along the edge ormedian of the highway, segregated fromthe highway, except at junctions; on the

highway, competing with cars for roadspace.

(d) The nature of the traffic priority regime ifthere are conflicts with road traffic atjunctions.

(e) The effects of utilities (e.g. gas, electricity,water and telecommunications) on the

construction programme.This information is necessary to understand thephysical constraints affecting the modes.

(2) More qualitative information about the system,for example:(a) The background to and objectives of

building the system.(b) The effects of funding availability.(c) Implications of building the system in

terms of the economic and environmentalimpacts that it has had, and what wouldhave happened had it not been built.

These questions are often more important inunderstanding the decision-making processthan the questions which elicit factualinformation.

Where possible, technical reports were obtained tosupplement the answers given but these tend to provideinformation relating to the first rather than the secondclass of question.

For all the UK systems (and a few of the overseassystems) it was possible to have a meeting with theexpert to discuss the system. The process was as follows:

1)2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

arrange an interview;send the questionnaire;interview the expert using the questionnaire as abasis for discussion (the interview is taperecorded);transcribe the tape recording of the interview(supplementing it with contemporaneouswritten notes);analyse the transcript to identify the keyfeatures of the systems and critical decisionsmade.

For systems outside the UK, if an interview could nottake place, a written version of the questionnaire wassent. As this tends to receive a briefer response than averbal interview, and since no transcription is necessary,it is much quicker to analyse, but a written responseproduces less detailed information than an interview.

Results from the survey

The results presented are for the UK systems, but infor-mation relating to overseas systems is included whereappropriate. In total nine cities were investigated whichcovered 11 different systems at different stages of devel-opment (Table 1). There are two cities which have twosystems. In Leeds a kerb-guided bus system is now

227


4/15

Table 1 New and proposed public transport systems in Great Britain

City System Status Contact person Position Organisation

Birmingham Light rail

Bristol

Croydon

Leeds

LondonDocklands

Light rail orGuided light

transitLight rail

Light railKerb-guided bus

Automaticlight railUltra light rail

Manchester Light rail

Newcastle uponTyne

Light rail

Nottingham Light rail

Sheftield Light rail

Authorised

Planned

Authorised

AuthorisedOpened 1995

Opened 1987

Planned

Opened I992

Opened 1980

Authorised

Opened 1994

Ray HughesDavid KeayRobert Tarr

Roger Newport

Jon Willis

Adrian Pope

Jon Willis

Bob Miller

Bill TysonTony Young

Brian Martin

Tony Ridley

Rafael Cuesta

David AndrewsJohn Jordan

Head of DevelopmentPrincipal Engineer for Midland MetroDirector eneral

Project Manager, The Westway

CENTRO

Avon CC

Rail Development Manager

Former Deputy Director of Planning

Rail Development Manager

Transport Planner

Director of Planning and PromotionOperational Planning Manager

Former Managing Director

Former Director-Genera1

Principle Planner LRT Project Team

Programme ManagerDevelopment Manager

London Transport

Leeds MDC

London Transport

London DocklandsDevelopment

Greater ManchesterPTE

Martin and VoorheesAssociatesTyne and Wear PTE

NottinghamshireCounty Council

South Yorkshire PTE

operational and a light rail system has been authorised.In London Docklands there are the existing light railsystem (referred to as the DLR) and the proposed ultralight rail system in the Royal Docks area. The informa-tion discussed below is drawn primarily from the inter-views and the information in technical reports is usedonly to clarify points made during the interview, and

usually relates to factual information.

The objectives ojconstructing the transport system

During the interviews the experts identified twodifferent types of reason behind wanting to have a newpublic transport system. The reasons are generally eithertransport issues or economic and development issues,and these are summarised in Table 2.

Transport issues. The commonest reason for buildingthe systems is to reduce traffic congestion. The logic isthat a new, fast, comfortable, public transport system

Table 2 Objectives of constructing public transport systems

will offer a lower disutility to some travellers who willbe attracted from their cars. In theory, this will meanthat there will be less traffic on the road and so theremaining cars will travel faster and there will be lesscongestion. In practice, this is unlikely to occurbecause the suppressed demand for car travel meansthat the space released by those transferring to the new

mode will be filled by other cars (Mackett, 1995;Mackett and Edwards, 1996b).

Two other transport reasons for constructing newsystems are to improve the public transport service andto improve access to the city centre. The former reasonfollows directly from the construction of the newsystem. The latter reason follows from the nature ofpublic transport which is better at serving large flowswhich tend to focus on the city centre where mosteconomic activity occurs and interchange can takeplace. An interesting variant on this is to provide trans-port from the inner city where there is often high unem-

City Reducetrafllccongestion

Improvepublictransport

Serve thecity centrebetter

Improvetheenvironment

Stimulatedevelopment

Other

Birmingham 0Bristol 0Croydon 0Leeds 0LeedshLondon Docklands 0London Dockland& 0 0ManchesterNewcastle upon Tyne 0 0Nottingham 0 0Sheffield a

Light rail; hKerb-guided bus; Automatic light rail: %lltra light rail.

22x


5/15

Building new urhun public trumport .cy.c/ems: M Edwurd.t rmd R L Macketr

ployment to new regional job markets, e.g.Birmingham. Another reason in some cases, such asManchester and Newcastle upon Tyne, was the need totake action to deal with heavy rail lines which were inserious need of investment.

Development issues. A major reason for the

construction of such systems is to stimulatedevelopment. In the case of London Docklands, theautomatic light rail system (DLR) was an integral partof the redevelopment of the area. Part of the originalrationale of the Birmingham light rail was to assist inthe regeneration of the Black Country aroundWolverhampton. The ultra light rail system inDocklands is to help the development of an urbanvillage. In Bristol, Croydon and Leeds the objective ofbuilding the light rail systems is to help stimulatedevelopment in the city centre by providing easieraccess to the economic activities there. General

promotion of economic development in the urban areawas cited for Nottingham. However, there is littleevidence that building new public transport systemsdoes stimulate development (Dunphy, 1995; Hall andHass-Klau, 1985; Mackett and Edwards, 1996b), but itis more likely to do so if a comprehensive plan is beingfollowed or if complementary means of encouragingdevelopment are used (Walmsley and Perrett, 1992).

Shifts in the rationale. It can be seen that the new publictransport systems have been planned for a variety ofreasons. In some cases it was stated that the rationale

underlying the decision had shifted, reflecting the issuesunder debate at the time, for example, from urbanregeneration to traffic congestion in Birmingham, and ashift from environmental concerns to helping to reduceincreasing unemployment in Bristol.

Alternative solutions

All the cities studied had transport-related problems,and all except Manchester and Docklands (DLR) expli-

Table 3 Modes considered of the systems

citly wanted to reduce road congestion. A number ofcities considered highway-related measures, but recog-nised that there was no satisfactory road-based solution(e.g. Newcastle and Leeds), but some cities are introdu-cing demand management measures (e.g. Leeds andBristol). In fact this is now a requirement of the Depart-ment of Transport to be carried out in conjunction withthe development of the new public transport system. InNorth America high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanesare often evaluated as an alternative to public transportdevelopments. HOV lanes do support public transportin so far as buses can use the lanes as well as cars withmore than a specified number of occupants.

Alternative public transport modes

In most cases a wide range of modes are considered(Table 3). However, some of these modes are onlyconsidered fleetingly, and others are considered only tosatisfy the governments rules for funding under Section

56 of the 1968 Transport Act. (This permits the govern-ment to pay for forecast non-user benefits such as therelief of road congestion, road accident reduction andjob creation. Whether such effects actually occur isanother matter (Mackett and Edwards, 1996b).) Whilethe majority of the modes listed are based on proventechnology, some new modes have been considered.For example, Guided light Transit (GLT) is underconsideration in Bristol; the Briway system was evalu-ated in Birmingham and Leeds; and the Parry PeopleMover is being considered for the Docklands ultra lightrail system. GLT is an articulated rubber-tyred vehicle

that can run along a guideway using electric power froman overhead cable or on the road using current from anon-board diesel generator (Freeman and Tazewell,1993). The Briway system uses light-weight, fully auto-mated vehicles with horizontal guide wheels bearing onside rails and running on an elevated track. The ParryPeople Mover is a light-weight rail vehicle powered bya fly-wheel which picks up electric power from line sidestations, and hence it does not have overhead wires.

LRaqb Tram Ultra ALRTd VAL Metro Heavy Bus Trolley KGB GLTg Innovative Road-LR rail bus technology based

Birmingham * ohBristolCroydon * 0 j

0 a

Leeds * Oh 0London Docklands

* ok0 0 * 0

London Docklands *Manchester * 0 0Newcastle *Nottingham * 0 0 Er 0

Oq0 0

Sheffield * OF

*Mode selected; 0 Mode seriously considered; 0 Mode considered initially.Distinction between LR and tram seems to depend on the amount of street running and the degree of interaction with other traffic; Light rail;Ultra light rail; dAutomatic light rail; Standard diesel bus (unless otherwise stated); Kerb-guided bus; Guided light transit; hBriway: Demand

management; Improve existing services; kDemand management and highway investment; Existing Docklands light railway; mProposed ultra lightrail; Either ultra light rail or Parry People Mover;battery bus; Including articulated bus.

OMidibus; PRenovation of existing lines and 0 in tunnel; qCity centre travelators; Including

229


6/15

Buildi ng ~CM rban public transport systems: M Edwurds and R L M ackett

A number of automated technologies have beenconsidered including automated light rail, the VALmetro system and Briway, but only one of the systems,the London Docklands Light Railway, is automated.An automated mode is only appropriate if the entireroute, and any possible extensions, are completely segre-gated from road vehicles.

Making and justifving the decision

Local factors. The interviews show that decisions arenot based purely on objective transport criteria. Inaddition, local circumstances influence the way inwhich projects develop, making generalisationsdifficult. Such circumstances include the following.

(1) Past experience: in a number of the citiesexamined there had been one or more previousattempts to develop systems (e.g. Birmingham,

Bristol, Docklands (DLR), Leeds andManchester). This influences future decisions inrelation to, for example, route alignment,technology choice, or political approach. Forexample, Manchester and Docklands (DLR)(the first attempt at the Jubilee Line) failed dueto lack of funding; and previous light railsystems in Birmingham and Leeds failed forpolitical reasons. Consequently, the corridorchosen for Line 1 in Birmingham wasdeliberately non-controversial, using a formerrail corridor, in order to minimise the

destruction of the urban fabric.(2) Existing rail services: the decisions in bothNewcastle and Manchester were influenced byfactors relating to existing rail services fundedunder Section 20 of the 1968 Transport Act.Section 20 rail services are those identified asmaking an important contribution to the publictransport in the area and for that reason maybe subsidised by the PTE (Public TransportExecutive). In Newcastle, when the PTE wasestablished, it was going to have to take overthe cost of subsidising the services, and inManchester an important issue was the cost ofthe subsidy. These cities were looking atexisting rail services and existing railinfrastructure. Similarly, Croydon was lookingat ways of improving and developing existingrail services.

(3) Context: often decisions about public transportare made in the context of an overall transportplan for the city. In the case of Newcastle andDocklands the plan extended beyondtransportation issues. In the former case, theTyne and Wear Plan considered planning issuesfor the region, and the development of DLRwas an integral part of the regeneration schemeof Docklands. Current developments in Leeds,

Birmingham, Bristol and Nottingham are beinglooked at in the broader context of city widetransport studies. Indeed, future applicationsfor funding under Section 56 of the 1968Transport Act will only be considered if thesystem forms part of a transport strategy(Berry, 1995).

Capacity. A critical factor in mode selection isforecast demand (Catling, 1994). This was confirmedby Hellewell (1995) who stated light rail is justified onthe forecast number of passengers. Clearly differentmodes can carry different numbers of passengers, Amode will have a maximum theoretical capacity(determined by the minimum headway and maximumvehicle capacity) and a minimum capacity (determinedby economic viability). A number of authors haveindicated capacity ranges which are satisfied bydifferent modes (Table 4). Even though the columns of

the tables are not directly comparable, it can be seenthat in most cases there is considerable overlapbetween the capacities of the different modes. Forexample, according to all the authors except North(1993), any of the modes, except metro, would besuitable for a flow of 6000 passengers per direction perhour. There is a wide variation between the authors inthe suggested capacities. Figures on the predicted peakcapacity of the new UK public transport systems havebeen difficult to establish, but they are summarised inTable 5. These figures suggest that the plannedcapacity of the systems for which information is

available, with the possible exception of Manchester(with high predicted flows in the city centre) andBirmingham (predicted patronage in 2023) could bemet by buses. This suggests that light rail cannot bejustified solely on the grounds of the capacity requiredto meet the demand. London Transport Planning(1995) suggests that light rail is suitable for flows ofabout 3500 passengers per hour, although it recognisesthat other factors may modify the decision.

However, Table 6 shows current capacities of anumber of overseas light rail systems and indicates thatmost of them are operating below maximum capacity.Table 6 also shows that both the current theoreticaland actual maximum capacities of many systems arelow compared to the ranges given in Table 4, suggestingthat most of these cities could be served by buses.

Based on the capacity figures given in Table 4 and theforecast capacities of Table 5, it is apparent that thedecision in UK cities today lies between some form ofbus system and a light rail system. This is also apparentfrom the interviews where the alternatives mostseriously considered in addition to light rail were: kerb-guided bus (Birmingham and Croydon); busways orbus-based systems (both Docklands schemes, Sheffieldand Newcastle); and GLT (still under consideration in

Bristol). Only in Docklands (DLR) was a metro consid-ered seriously, and this has since come to fruition in the

230


7/15

Buil ding new urhan publi c tr ansport systems: M Edwards and R L M ackett

Table 4 Capacity ranges of different modes (passengers/direct ion/hour)

Mode North 1993)

Shared rightof way

Bus lanes

Catling 1994) Smyth 1994)b Vuchic 1981) Other

Minibus

Buses

1500-2200 5400~9000

72Oc9600 14400-19200 500-7000 1500-7000 I 5 000) 4000-6300250&7000 (25 OOO)d

Trolley bus 5400-8 100 II 000-16000 1500~7000 2000-7000Articulated buses 5000-8500 600~10000f

Kerb-guided bus I9 00&29 000 200&7000 250&7000 (25 000)

Guided light transit 250&6000 (25 000) 2000-7000

Light rail 9000-25 000 350&20 000 400&l 0 000 (20 000) 10000-16000h 3500-20 000(SOOcrl5 0009) 8000-I 5 000 3000-20 000

VAL (automated metro) 5000-I 6 000

Metro 35 000~70 000 30 00@48 000

Maximum range; Typical ranges (with maximum in parentheses); Gives maximum values for maximum and moderate lines. Maximum linesrepresent capacities that can be achieved with careful design and strict, competent operation. Moderate lines are capacities achievable under mostconditions without special efforts. Maximum values for moderate lines are given; dBusway; London Transport Planning (1995); Biehler (1989)on busways; Optimum; hStreetcars (equivalent to street running trams); Light rail on segregated right of way; jparkinson (1989).

Table 5 Predicted peak capacities for British systems

City Predicted peak capacitypassengers per

direction per hour)

Comment

Birmingham 3240-7500 7500 achieved by 2023 by using additional vehicles and increasedfrequency

Croydon 1080, 1800, 2295

Leeds 5900

For the three different line&

For line I by 2010 (Leeds City Council and West Yorkshire PTA,1991, p. 100)

London Docklands(automatic light rail)

London Docklands(ultra light rail)

Manchester

4400

400

1000-5000(IO 000 in city centre)

Predicted for 1991 (Docklands Public Transport and Access SteeringGroup, 1982, p. 12)

Journeys per hour by public transport for ultra light rail or ParryPeople Mover (interview)

Interview

Nottingham 2400-3000 Based on 5 minute peak frequency and 200-250 space vehicles

Sheffield 3000 Based on 5 minute peak frequency and 250 space tramsd

Taken from Centro leaflet Mi dland Metro Line 1. Line I Appraisal- Key Facts.hCalculated from Kennedy Henderson, G. Maunsell and Partners, The MVA Consultancy, 1991, p. 97.Frequency and vehicle capacity taken from publicity leaflet Greater Not ti ngham Rapid Transit. Pl anning for the Future.dFrequency and vehicle capacity taken from Pont and Boak (1992).

Jubilee Line Extension which is now under construc-tion.

If capacity requirements alone are insufficient tojustify the choice of light rail, other factors must beused to justify the choice. These factors are discussedbelow.

(2)

Cost. For seven of the systems, the need to minimisecost was a factor that was explicitly taken into account,and it has influenced the designs of the systems in anumber of ways as discussed below.

(3)

( 1) Selecting the mode. For example, capita1 costs ruledout the use of buses in Newcastle and Manchesterand operating costs ruled out buses in Croydon.However, in genera1 bus-based solutions are (4)cheaper than rail-based ones (especially if there is

no existing rail infrastructure) particularly atlower capacities (e.g. Biehler, 1989; City ofWinnipeg Transit Department, 1990; LondonTransport Planning, 1995).Selecting the route. For example, the need tobuild an affordable system was behind thechoice of Line 1 as an initial route inBirmingham (it was the cheapest route becauseit used an existing rail alignment).Reducing the operating costs and subsidy ofexisting heavy rail lines. For example inNewcastle the PTE had to take on the Section20 subsidy for the lines, and in Manchester itwas necessary to reduce the Section 20 fundingof the suburban rail network.Tracksharing. Cost is the reason behind theinvestigations into sharing the track with heavy

231


8/15

Buildi ng new urban publi c tr ansport systems: M Edwards and R L M ackett

Table 6 Theoretical and actual capacities of operating systems

System Theoretical maximum Current maximum

Calgary 14580 6318Guadalajara 10560 4100Nantes 6880 4128Portland 6720 2490Sacramento 2240 1920San Diego 2440 1920Tuen Mun 22 800 9700Tunis 9405 8000Vancouver 29 000 7300

Source: The figures come from Hellewell ct al. (1991) except forVancouver (Parkinson, 1992).

rail for part of the route of the proposed lightrail scheme in Nottingham.

(5) Tunnelling. Tunnelling was excluded from anumber of systems (e.g. Croydon, Leeds,Manchester and Sheffield) mainly on thegrounds of cost, but also for accessibility and

safety reasons.

Discussion of most of the following factors takes intoaccount, either explicitly or implicitly, the need to mini-mise the cost of the system. In this, the funding or urbanpublic transport systems in the UK is no different fromthat in many other countries.

Im age and publ i c percepti on. An objective ofconstructing seven of the systems is to stimulatedevelopment, either in redevelopment areas(Birmingham, Leeds and both Docklands schemes) or

to support and maintain the city centre (Bristol,Nottingham, Croydon and Leeds). In either case boththe route pattern and the mode selected must supportthe achievement of this objective. For example, asystem may not support the city centre if it also servesan out-of-town shopping centre (for this reason theproposed route in Bristol does not serve the shoppingcentre at Cribbs Causeway). The effect of SheffieldsSupertram, which serves the Meadowhall shoppingcentre, on the city centre has yet to be determined.Similarly eight of the systems have the objective ofreducing traffic congestion, so the mode and routesmust attract people out of their cars.

In order to meet these two key objectives, theperceived image of the modes, by both the public anddevelopers, is critical. Light rail is perceived as able toboth stimulate development and attract people fromtheir cars, but buses are not perceived as having thisimage (e.g. Kilvington, 1992). The positive impact of arail-based rapid transit system has been used as an argu-ment for its construction. For example, part of therationale behind the Dallas light rail system was topromote Dallas as a world city. Similarly, in one UKcity the leader of the City Council saw the new auto-mated VAL metro in Lille and decided that his cityhad to have one, because it contributed to his image ofa major European city. In Dallas the case for light rail

was supported by more substantive arguments, and thesystem is being constructed. In the latter case, a VALsystem could not be justified, although a conventionallight rail system is now authorised.

Part of the positive image of light rail may be derivedfrom the presence of a fixed infrastructure (suggested inCroydon and for the Docklands ultra light rail system)

which is seen as a commitment to an area, and it impliespermanence in the system to both potential developersand users, unlike the perceived transience of bus servicesin the present deregulated climate. The Governmentalso perceives that a fixed rail infrastructure has a posi-tive effect on encouraging development (Department ofthe Environment and Department of Transport, 1994).Unfortunately, the evidence to support the effect oflight rail on stimulating development is weak (Hall andHass-Klau, 1985) or only occurs if certain criteria aremet (Walmsley and Perrett, 1992), for example, whenthe system offers a significant improvement in access

and service quality and the area around the stations isalready economically buoyant (Gomez-Ibanez, 1985).The difference in perception between bus and light railextends beyond the perception of the public and develo-pers to the attitudes of transport planners and highwayengineers towards the two modes. For example, it isgenerally recognised that the on-street sections of a lightrail system require some form of priority, e.g. priority atsignalled intersections, lanes restricted for use by lightrail vehicles or shared with buses. It is also accepted thatthe utilities need to be moved from under the tramway,not only to avoid problems with stray currents, but to

ensure that the service is not interrupted by work onthe utilities. There is not the same acceptance of theneed for similar priority for buses running in the citycentre.

Political consensus. A number of experts stressed theimportance of having a local political consensus, bothacross political parties (Leeds and Newcastle) andbetween district councils (Birmingham andManchester). Schemes will fail if there is significantopposition from the local communities (Birminghamand Leeds). However, the objectives of the differentgroups need not be the same, e.g. in Croydon theobjectives of London Transport were to improve publictransport in the area, whereas the Borough Councilwas interested in regeneration of the town centre andthe provision of public transport to the sociallydisadvantaged. Without a political consensus it isunlikely that the project will succeed, and it seems tobe easier to get a political consensus for a rail-basedrather than for a bus-based system.

Legislation. There are a number of issues which relatenot to the characteristics of the modes, but to thelegislation surrounding them. For example, if the localauthority decides to build a light rail system then,although the system may be built and operated by the

232


9/15


10/15

Building new urban public transport systems: M Edwards and R L Mackett

(5)

involve any property demolition, but inNottingham residents living alongside disusedtrack objected to the noise and visual intrusionassociated with reinstating the line. In Croydonproblems occurred at the interchanges betweenstreet running and rail alignments. Whileexisting rail alignments may offer easy routes,

they may not form routes which will attractusers. For example, the lines may not accessthe main centres (e.g. Birmingham Line 1 hasto leave the rail alignment to penetrateWolverhampton town centre).Manchester and Croydon wanted to extendexisting rail services with street running tomake them more attractive and Newcastleimproved the local rail system by linking twonetworks using tunnelling. If the existing routesare viable, it makes sense to retain a rail-basedsystem.

Road characteristics. Where routes are designedwhich parallel existing highway routes, the roadcharacteristics may rule out certain modes. Clearly anysystem which interacts either with pedestrians or otherroad users cannot be automatic. If the system is to runon-street, sharing road space with other vehicles, then akerb-guided bus is not practical unless it is running inunguided mode, whereas light rail or GLT are as bothof these systems have guidance systems flush with theroad surface. Furthermore kerb-guided buses cannotrun guided through a pedestrian area.

Where the roads are dual carriageways, then thesystem might be able to use the central reservation.However, if the road junctions consist mainly of round-abouts then light rail may cause an unacceptable reduc-tion in the capacity of the junctions, whereas a kerb-guided bus may leave the guideway and negotiate theroundabout in a conventional manner without havingan adverse effect (as is the case with the kerb-guidedbus route in Leeds).

The built-up nature of city centres means that thesystem will either run on-street, or possibly in tunnels:elevated structures are not usually acceptable in thecentre. The physical characteristics of the streets aremore likely to restrict the routes available to light railthan buses, in terms of tight corners and the spacing ofjunctions. The characteristics of the city centre streetsmay restrict the length (Manchester) or width(Nottingham) of the light rail vehicle.

New technologies. There are a number of newtechnologies available which only have demonstrationsystems, e.g. Briway, GLT and Parry People Mover.Public sector transport planners may see thepotential of these systems in particular circumstances,for example, the Parry People Mover is seen by theLDDC (London Docklands DevelopmentCorporation) as a serious alternative for the

Docklands ultra light rail system. However, boththey and the private sector are, on the whole,reluctant to take on the risks associated with anunproven technology (e.g. teething problems andunexpected costs), particularly in the light of theproblems associated with the choice of an automatedsystem for the Docklands DLR. For example, in

Nottingham it was stressed that because of privatesector involvement the system had to use a proventechnology. In addition, new rail-based technologiesmust satisfy the Railway Inspectorate.

Environmental issues. With increasing concern aboutthe environment in general and air pollution inparticular, it is becoming important that publictransport is environmentally friendly. Light rail has theadvantage that it is non-polluting in the city centre(although emissions are produced at the site ofelectricity generation) whereas diesel buses contribute

to city centre pollution. However, visual intrusion ofoverhead wires has had a negative effect on theperception of light rail, especially in Manchester wherepoles were used to carry the overhead wires rather thanutilising existing street furniture.

Summary. Taking these factors into account it can beseen that few of them relate to conventional transportplanning criteria, and a number of the criteria areunique to the planning and funding process whichcurrently operates in the UK. The following sectionseeks to identify the key criteria used in the decision-making process in the UK and considers whether it canbe modelled.

Making the decision

The choice of mode

The decision to invest in a new public transport systemis essentially a political decision made within the currenteconomic and legislative framework. In addition, theobjectives of building new systems are not related solelyto transport needs and must be viewed in the broadercontext of the socio-economic needs of the city. Centralto this is the need for a political consensus about themode and route of the proposed system. Any modeldeveloped must be viewed in this context, and cannotbe regarded as completely objective.

In UK cities the choice is essentially between a lightrail system and a bus system because there are no corri-dors which are not currently served by metro wheresuch a system could be justified. This decision is basedon the capacity requirements of the proposed systemsand the capacity capabilities of the different modes.While other modes such as GLT and Briway offer capa-cities in this range, they tend to be eliminated on thegrounds that due are unproven technology, and bothtransport planners and the private sector seem to beunwilling to risk choosing a new technology. Kerb-

234


11/15

guided bus is a proven alternative to light rail as thereare three systems that have been in operation for severalyears (Essen, Adelaide and Mannheim).

In Britain the decision-making process essentiallybecomes one of can light rail be justified? for thereasons below.

(1) Outside London bus deregulation means that itis not possible for the local authority to ensurea high quality bus service. The development ofinnovative bus services relies on private sectorinitiatives. The role of deregulation in shiftingthe attention of transport planners from busestowards light rail has already been recognisedby Pickup et al. (1991).

(2) There is a tried and tested mechanism forfunding rail-based public transport systemsunder Section 56 of the 1968 Transport Act.This mechanism has not yet been applied tobus-based systems. Even when light railsystems are funded via Section 56 there may beconstraints placed on those systems. Forexample, the nature of the contracts underwhich the systems are built, operated andmaintained may be specified, or funding maybe conditional on receiving a financialcontribution from the private sector.

(3) The image of buses is poor relative to that oflight rail. This means that buses are believed tobe less effective at attracting people out of theircars. In addition, if one of the objectives of thesystem is to stimulate or support developmentthen a bus based system is not perceived asmeeting that objective.

The case for choosing a light rail system, rather than abus-based system is summarised in Table 7, which illus-trates how the factors given in the previous sectionsupport the choice of light rail over buses.

Table 7 Criteria influencing the choice between light rail and buses

Buildi ng new urban publi c tr ansport systems: M Edwards and R L M ackett

There has been considerable concern in NorthAmerica in recent years about the building of light railsystems. There is evidence that some of the patronageforecasts for some of the planned systems have beenexcessively high (Kain, 1990; Pickrell, 1992) that bus-based systems would have been more cost-effective(Gomez-Ibanez, 1985; Kain, 1988) and that the subsidy

would have been better spent on bus services in down-town areas rather than in the low-density, high-incomesuburbs which it serves (Wachs, 1993). There seems tobe no evidence that the forecasts have been exaggeratedin the UK, but there is cause for concern that thefunding from central government under Section 56 ofthe 1968 Transport Act depends upon the estimatedrelief of road congestion, accident reductions, environ-mental improvements and job creation which areproducts of the modelling process, both formal andinformal, rather than any solid evidence of such caus-ality (Mackett and Edwards, 1996b).

How is light rail justified?

Part of the rationale of the UTOPIA project has been todevelop a model in the form of rules as the basis of anexpert system. In this section the development of someof the rules is discussed.

In the previous section it was shown that light rail hasbeen justified in the UK on the basis of remarkably lowprojected peak capacity requirements, indicating thatconventional light rail may be financially viable withno more than 2000 passenger per direction per hour atpeak (this leaves aside the capacity of the ultra light rail

scheme in the Docklands which is designed specificallyfor low flows). Hence a rule may be defined:

IF projected peak capacity > 2000THEN light rail may be viable.

There is one set of circumstances (supported by threeexamples) where light rail seems to be the appropriate

For light rail

Image:

perceived as able to attract drivers from carsperceived as able to stimulate developmentseen as requiring priority in city centrefixed infrastructure implies permanence

Funding available through Section 56 of 1968 Transport ActDoes not cause on-street pollution

Against light rail

High cost restricts amount of network built for a given sum of moneyInflexible route (cannot be altered once built)

Can interact physically with heavy railCan run on-street and on existing rail track

For bus

Lower cost increases amount of network built for a givensum of moneyFlexible routes

Against bus

Image:perceived as unable to attract drivers from carsperceived as unable to stimulate developmentnot seen to require priority in city centrenot seen as permanent service

Difficult to obtain fundingCauses on-street air pollution (but modern buses have reduced emissions)Cannot physically interact with heavy rail

235


12/15

Buil ding new urban publi c t ransport systems: M Edwards and R L M uckell

choice. In Newcastle, Manchester and Croydon thefollowing criteria were met:

(1) The systems are based largely on existing railservices.

(2) The aim was to improve these services by:(a) improving access of these services to the

city centre;(b) linking existing city centre railway stations

(Manchester and Croydon);(c) replacing existing rail services in need of

major investment (Newcastle andManchester).

In each case light rail was shown to be the appropriatedecision, even though the decisions were made over atwenty year period (Newcastle opened in 1980, Manche-ster in 1992, and Croydon is currently authorised).However, the three systems do reflect changes overtime: Newcastle provides access to the city centre viatunnels which could probably not be justified in finan-cial terms today, whereas both Manchester andCroydon have sections of street running. Manchesteradopted high platforms in the city centre and retainedthe existing station platforms, whereas Croydon hasbeen able to take advantage of developments in lowfloor technology, which improves access (especially inthe city centre) but requires lowering of existing stationplatforms. The result of converting existing heavy raillines to light rail is an improved network and loweroperating costs of light rail compared to heavy rail.Hence:

IF system largely uses existing live railalignments andsystem links existing rail services or stationsand

system improves city centre accessTHEN light rail is appropriate.

One of the advantages of light rail is that it can run onexisting rail and can run in mixed traffic on the streets.The majority of new light rail systems will be streetrunning rather than using tunnels in the city centrebecause of cost, access and safety considerations.However, Birmingham has authorisation (but notfunding) for a city centre tunnel on Line 2, which wasjustified on the grounds of maintaining the reliabilityof the service through the city centre.

A second case where the choice of light rail islogical is where the system either shares track withheavy rail, or interacts closely with heavy rail (e.g.running immediately adjacent to heavy rail) becauseof the requirements of British Rail, Railtrack and theRailways Inspectorate. The viability of track sharinghas yet to be proven in the UK, but studies are conti-nuing in Nottingham, and Karlsruhe successfullyoperates track sharing between light rail and heavyrail (Bushell, 1994). Hence:

IF system shares track with heavy rail orsystem operates adjacent to heavy rail

THEN light rail is required.

The case for light rail for the other systems is less clear cut,concerning in most cases development as well as transportissues. If one of the objectives is to stimulate development,

then the belief is that this will not be achieved using a bus-based system. For example, during the course of the inter-view relating to the DLR it was stated, If the bus[way]option had been selected. . . it is inconceivable that itwould have generated the Canary Wharf development,which is what the initial DLR did. While it is believed thatDLR contributed to the development of Docklands, therelationship between light rail and development is notproven. In Leeds it was stated that while the cost of asegregated kerb-guided busway is almost the cost of thesupertram line, it was felt that patronage would not be ashigh because the image was not as good.

IF aim is to stimulate development an dsystem is part of package of developmentmeasures

THEN light rail is appropriate.

One of the key requirements of public transport is relia-bility which was cited as a factor taken into account inmode selection for six of the systems and confirmed byHellewell (1995). Public transport running withoutpriority on congested roads will not be reliable. Hence,in order to be reliable, it must be segregated to someextent. The segregation may be achieved within thehighway, e.g. running in the central reservation, or adja-cent to the highway. In the UK systems, there is segre-gation via off-street running for at least part of theroute. In many cases this right of way is based onexisting, disused, rail alignments. The cheap, non-controversial, available nature of disused rail align-ments is an incentive for their use, but their physicalcharacteristics may make them unsuitable for bus-basedsystems, or require the buses to be guided. Hence:

IF physical characteristics of rail alignmentsare unsuitable for buses

THEN light rail is appropriate.

The issue of segregation or priority in the city centre isnot dependent on the characteristics of the mode, buton the extent to which the planners are prepared to giveit priority. It appears that street-running light rail isperceived as requiring priority, whereas buses, ingeneral, are not.

Hence it is possible to identify circumstances anddefine rules describing those circumstances, which indi-cate when light rail may be an appropriate mode for anurban transport system in the UK. However, these rulesare not sufficient to define a comprehensive model ofthe decision-making process. In the next section someissues in the specification of a model of the decision-making process are addressed.

236


13/15

Building new urban publi c tramport systems: M Edvtzrds and R L Mackett

Can the decision- maki ng process be modell ed?

Is the decision-making process surrounding the buildingof new urban public transport systems rational? Theanswer to this question depends on the perspectivetaken. The transport planners, whose objective is toimprove the transport provision for their city, mustwork within the political-economic-legal frameworkcurrently in place to achieve their objectives. Their deci-sions are taken within this framework to maximise theprobability of a successful outcome, and within thiscontext their decisions are rational. From a widerperspective the decisions are not rational: limited provi-sion for expenditure on public transport would suggestthat bus-based systems should be preferred to rail-basedones. However, because of bus deregulation, fundingand the negative image of buses, the decision to developa bus-based system is exceedingly unlikely. Hence,under the present legal framework it is not possible toproduce a realistic and useful model of the decision-making process. What the rules given in the previoussection do is to illustrate the circumstances under whicha light rail system may be feasible. Provided that at leastsome of the rules are satisfied, including the rule relatingto projected peak capacity, then further investigation ofa light rail system is appropriate.

This is not to say that it is not possible to produce amodel of an idealised decision-making process whichcould be used to select the most appropriate mode, butwhile the model may give the most appropriate modeaccording to, for example, economic criteria, it will notbe useful because it will not take into account the frame-

work within which decisions are actually made. Theirrationality of the decision process has made it impos-sible to develop an expert system to transfer experiencebetween cities as was originally envisaged in theUTOPIA project. However, it has been possible to drawup a set of guidelines to assist decision-makers involvedin the process of obtaining a new urban public transportsystem (Mackett and Edwards, 1996a).

Discussion

The key factors influencing the choice of light rail over

buses are: bus deregulation, funding and image. Busderegulation works against the development of newpublic transport systems in two ways. First, it preventslocal authorities (outside London) implementing highquality bus-based systems which might be appropriatein medium-sized cities. Secondly, it prevents integrationof buses with a light rail system including the provisionof feeder services and control of services which competewith the light rail system. The integration of buses andlight rail is a feature of many French systems (Walmsleyand Perrett, 1992); for example, in Strasbourg busroutes were reorganised at the time of opening the lightrail system with a reduction in radial services whichwould compete with the tramway and an increase inorbital services which would complement it (Haydock,

1994). Similarly in North America bus services may bealtered to integrate, rather than compete, with thesystem, e.g. Vancouver (Parkinson, 1992) and SanDiego (Larwin and Powell, 1992).

Freedom from government funding reduces theconstraints imposed on the system. For example, in theUSA the San Diego Trolley (a light rail system) wasbuilt without federal funding, so it did not have to gothrough an alternatives analysis procedure to select themost appropriate mode (Larwin and Powell, 1992) orrestrictions on the purchase of imported vehicles(Wolinsky, 1994). Similarly for the proposed ultra lightrail system in Docklands it is hoped to avoid applyingfor Section 56 funding (by using local authority andprivate sector funding) which would remove the needto evaluate a government specified list of alternatives,and would allow the system to be built more quickly.However, it is probably not feasible to build a conven-tional light rail system in the UK without government

funding.Given the expense of new urban public transport

systems, it is illogical to weigh the scales against bus-based systems when their cost is less (particularly atlower capacities), which means that for a given amountof funding a more extensive system can be builtcompared to a light rail system. In fact, according tothe junior Minister of Transport the UK governmentdoes now appear to recognise that light rail is veryexpensive and that considerable improvements in citiescould be obtained using guided busways and lighterrapid transit Local Transport Today, 1996). However,

this is argued purely in order to reduce public expendi-ture and ignores the fact that bus-based systems cannotbe developed fully because of the deregulated environ-ment under which most buses in the UK are operatedand that the private sector prefers to invest in existingtechnology, rather than innovation which is implied bylighter rapid transit. There is some evidence that, on aworld scale, bus systems are increasing in popularityparticularly in North America (for example, Miamiand Winnipeg are currently constructing buswaysystems) and Australia where Brisbane has recentlyadopted a plan for a segregated busway system. Many

European countries also have an expanding bus market(Pickup et al., 1991).The poor image of buses in terms of attracting people

out of their cars and stimulating development requiresfurther investigation, especially as the role of light railin the latter is poorly understood. In Brisbane, wherethe busway forms part of a development plan for thecity, it is intended to focus development in areas aroundthe busway. There is clearly a need to change the imageof the bus, not only in the perception of potential users,but also of the highway engineers, so that buses can begiven the same priority as light rail when running on-street.

Investigation of an ultra light rail system in Dock-lands raises questions as to what is the minimum capa-

237


14/15

Building new urban public transport systems: M Edward7 and R L Muckett

city at which a light rail system is viable. While it issuggested for a conventional light rail system that theminimum peak capacity is about 2000 passengers perdirection per hour, the ultra light rail system wouldserve a route with a requirement for only 400 passengersper hour, a capacity which would normally be served bybuses. The reason for proposing the ultra light rail

system is largely to do with image (giving a positiveimage to the urban village and supporting developmentin the area) and implying a permanence in public trans-port that is not suggested by buses. However, an addi-tional reason for having a rail-based mode is that onesmall section of the route is best served by a guidedmode. By opting for an ultra light rail system it isintended to operate at a much higher freauencv than

comparison of new fixed-guideway systems. In Light Rail Transit:New S.v.:.rtem Successm af ,4ffordohle Prices, National Conferenceon Light Rail Transit, 8-11 May 1988, San Jo&, California,Transportation Research Board, Special Report 221, pp. 89-97.

Bushell. C. ed. (1994) Janes Urban Transport Systems 1994-95. JanesInformation Group, Coulsdon.

Catlinr. D. (1994) Identifving the right technologv. In Nebq Svstemsf ?Jrhan Public Transport. The Right Choicefor Europe, *OPETworkshop T43 on development of innovative public transport

systems, Commission of the European Communities DirectorateGeneral for Energy (DGXVII), Manchester, l-2 February.City of Winnipeg Transit Department (1990) Rapid Transit for

Winnipeg: Justification and System Selection. Report submitted byCity of Winnipeg Transit Department for a special meeting onrapid transit of the Committee on Works and Operations on 14November 1990.

Department of the Environment and Department of Transport (1994)Planning Policy Guidance: Transport. PPG 13, March.

Department of Transport (1979) Transport Statistics Great Britain1967-1977. HMSO. London.

could otherwise be achieved. If the system is developed,and is successful, it has a number of implications forurban public transport. It opens the way for the evalua-

Department of Transport (1995) Transport Statistics Great Britain1995. HMSO. London.

Docklands Public Transport and Access Steering Group (1982) PublicTranspori Provi.sion .for Docklands. Summary of the Assessment of

tion of light rail on routes where previdusly it would be

non-viable, and it reinforces the positive image of lightrail over bus, while incurring higher capital costs.

Conclusions

A number of light rail systems have been recentlyconstructed, or are planned, in the UK. The justifica-tion for such high quality systems is usually in terms oftheir positive image and their role in reducing roadcongestion and stimulating development. Neither ofthese effects have been substantiated. Such systems arevery expensive and are unlikely to be used to capacity.

Hence there is a need to consider lower cost alternatives.for example, bus-based systems, or rail-based systemsdesigned specifically to serve corridors with low flows.However, the public transport philosophy of the presentgovernment militates against such systems. Bus deregu-lation means that local transport planners are unableto develop an integrated and co-ordinated bus system.Currently there are no operational low capacity rail-based systems in the UK. The governments require-ment for the use of private-sector funding means thattechnical innovation in this field is stifled. There is aneed for a public transport investment framework that

discriminates less against buses and technical innova-tion. If, as it appears, there is a trend (in world terms)towards busways, the UK is out of step by weightingthe decision so far in favour of conventional light railsystems and against buses. The evidence is that trans-port planners want the best for their city. At presentthe decision is essentially between conventional light railand nothing. The legislation should be changed to facil-itate a more rational decision-making process.

the Options.Dunphy. R. T. (1995) Review of recent American light rail

exbeiiences. Proceedings of the Seventh Na tional Cotzference onliphi Rail Transit. Baltimore . Maryland. USA, November, Volume1:pp. 104-I 13.

Freeman, J. and Tazewell, K. (1993) Some developments of rapidtransit in Avon. Proceedinns of the Institution of Civil Engineerinp .Municipal Engineer 98, 18?1193.

Gomez-Ibanez. J. A. (1985) A dark side to light rail? The exoerience ofthree new transit systkms. Journal of- the American PlanningAssociation 51, 337-351.

Hall, P. and Hass-Klau, C. (1985) Can Rail Save the City? The Impactsof Roil Rapid Transit und Pedestrianisotion on British and GermanCities. Cower, Aldershot.

Haydock. D. (1994) Strasbourgs futuristic tramway. In Light RailReview 6. eds M. Taplin and P. Fox, pp. 41-50. Platform 5Publishing Ltd and the Light Rail Transit Association.

Hellewell, D. S. (1995) Interview held on 24 May at University CollegeLondon.

Hellewell, D. S., Catling, D. T.. Delpledge. A., Malterre, P. and vonRohr. J. (1991) Financing light rail-case studies. In PublicTransport 91 Light Rail, Report 7, International Light RailCommission, International Union of Public Transport (UITP),49th International Congress, Stockholm, pp. l-83.

Hill. R. (1995) The Toulouse Metro and the South YorkshireSupertram: a cross cultural comparison of light rapid transitdevelopments in France and England. Trunsport Poliq, 2, 203-

References

Berry. S. (1995) Personal communication dated 6 September 1995(LTP Division, Dcpartmcnt of Transport).Bichler, A. D. (1989) Exclusive busways versus light rail transit. A

216.Kain, J. F. (1988) Choosing the wrong technology: or how to spend

billions and reduce transit use. Journcd of Advanced Transportcition21, 197-213.

Kain, J. F. (1990) Deception in Dallas: strategic misrepresentation inrail transit promotion and evaluation. Journal of the AmericanPlanning Association 56, 184 196.

Kennedy Henderson, G. Maunsell and Partners, The MVAConsultancy (1991) Tramlink. Crc~~don Light Rail- Stage 2.Report on Options ~~ Te.rt.

Kilvington, R. P. (1992) New modes for old problems. PTRCEuropean Transport. Highways and Planning, 20th SummerAnnual Meeting. University of Manchester Institute of Science andTechnology. England, I4 I8 September, Proceedings o f Semirw D.Public Transport Plwming and Operotiotu. pp. 5 I-68.

Larwin, T. F. and Powell, L. C. (1992) Light rail transit in SanDiego: The past as prelude to the future. Light Rail Transit:Planning, Design. and Operating Experience. Sixth NationalConfcrcnce on Light Rail Transit, Trtrtrsporttrtioil Rr.verrrchRword 1361, 31-38.

Leeds City Council and West Yorkshire PTA (1991) Lcc,t/.\ Trrrmpor/Stratcg~~ (with the support of the Leeds Development Corporation).

Loc,rr/ Trtrrwport T t/>, I 995) Rapid transit: making tracks towards

hcttcr public transport as new options emerge. 167, 13- 19.Loctrl Trrmsport Todrtj, I 996) Think hard heforc promoting IICMlight rail schcmcs. Norris tells local authorities. 178, X.

23x


15/15

developing new urban public transport systems

Documents