CORE DOCUMENT C-1-1

Leeds New Generation Transport

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives Final Report January 2014

Prepared for: Metro Wellington House 40-50 Wellington Street Leeds LS1 2DE

Prepared by: Steer Davies Gleave 67 Albion Street Leeds LS1 5AA

+44 (0)113 389 6400 www.steerdaviesgleave.com

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................ 1 Purpose of Review ................................................................................... 1 Funding ................................................................................................ 1 Context ................................................................................................ 3 Public Consultation .................................................................................. 3 Shortlisted Options .................................................................................. 3 Findings ................................................................................................ 4 Report Structure ..................................................................................... 5 2 SCOPE OF REVIEW .................................................................................. 7 Introduction ........................................................................................... 7 In Scope Options ..................................................................................... 7 Scheme Objectives .................................................................................. 7 Basis of Corridors Considered .................................................................... 10 Section Summary ................................................................................... 11 3 OPTION FILTERING ................................................................................ 13 Introduction ......................................................................................... 13 Track-Based Options ............................................................................... 13 Externally Powered Bus Based Options......................................................... 14 Conventional (On-board Powered) Bus Based Options ...................................... 15 Section Summary ................................................................................... 17 4 OPTION SPECIFICATION .......................................................................... 19 Introduction ......................................................................................... 19 Required System Outputs Specification ........................................................ 19 Trolleybus ........................................................................................... 20 Catenary-Free Electric Bus ....................................................................... 21 Light Rail Transit ................................................................................... 21 Ultra-Light Rail Transit............................................................................ 23 Comparable Bus Option ........................................................................... 23 Low Cost Bus Option ............................................................................... 24 Section Summary ................................................................................... 25 5 OPTIONS ASSESSMENT AGAINST OBJECTIVES ............................................... 27

Contents

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives Introduction ......................................................................................... 27 LTP Objective - Economy: ........................................................................ 27 LTP Objective - Low Carbon: .................................................................... 32 LTP Objective - Quality of Life: ................................................................. 33 Section Summary ................................................................................... 36 6 OPTIONS ASSESSMENT AGAINST DELIVERY CONSTRAINTS ................................ 39 Introduction ......................................................................................... 39 Affordability ........................................................................................ 39 Deliverability ....................................................................................... 40 Potential for System Expansion ................................................................. 42 Commercial Case ................................................................................... 43 Outcomes Realisation ............................................................................. 44 Value for Money .................................................................................... 45 Section Summary ................................................................................... 46 7 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................... 49 Introduction ......................................................................................... 49 Summary of Approach ............................................................................. 49 Recommended Options ........................................................................... 50

FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Potential Major Transport Investment Corridors ..................... 10

TABLES
Table 2.1 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 5.4 Table 5.5 Table 5.6 Table 5.7 Table 6.1 Assessment Categorisation ............................................... 11 Objective One: Maximise Leeds Growth .............................. 27 Objective Two: Support Economic Growth ............................ 29 Objective Three: Support Regeneration ............................... 30 Objective Four: Improve Effectiveness ................................. 31 Objective Five: Reduce Greenhouse Gases ............................ 32 Objective Six: Safe & Healthy Environment ........................... 34 Objective Seven: Improve Accessibility ................................ 35 Affordability Delivery Constraint ........................................ 39

Contents

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 6.6 Deliverability Delivery Constraint ....................................... 41 System Expansion Delivery Constraint .................................. 42 Commercial Case Delivery Constraint .................................. 43 Outcomes Realisation Delivery Constraint ............................. 44 Value for Money Delivery Constraint .................................... 46

APPENDICES
A B C FUNDING CONSTRAINTS SERVICE DELIVERY ALTERNATIVES MANDATE FOR ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Contents

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

1
1.1

Introduction
Background
Leeds New Generation Transport (NGT) is a major public transport scheme being promoted by Metro and Leeds City Council (LCC). In July 2012 Department for Transport (DfT) Programme Entry Re-approval was achieved for the proposed trolleybus-based system, demonstrating the Governments commitment to majority fund implementation of the project. Further Government approvals are required before contracts can be placed and construction works started. Legal powers to implement the project are being sought through an application for a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO), which was made on 19 September 2013. On 28 November 2013, following a consultation period, the Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin confirmed the anticipated public inquiry into the TWAO application.

1.2

Purpose of Review
1.3 To obtain the TWAO and to confirm the Government funding approval, among other things the Promoters must demonstrate that they have considered an appropriate and reasonable set of alternatives to the promoted option. They must set out the justification for promoting their Preferred Option in comparison to these other options. From the inception of the NGT project, the Promoters have considered alternatives alongside development of the trolleybus option. This report sets out the main technology alternatives to a trolleybus based system and presents the comparative strengths and weaknesses of each. It brings together work undertaken over the life of the schemes development. The applicability of the findings of these earlier analyses has been considered in light of current circumstances and more recently available and developing options have also been included in the review. This review does not set out to detail the selection of suitable corridors for NGT, nor does it present the identification and selection of alignment or other design alternatives which have been given careful consideration through the scheme development process. These aspects are detailed in separate documents. From the technology options which are credible on the NGT corridors, the most comparable proposal (Next Best Alternative) and the best Low Cost Alternative options are identified for further analysis through the modelling and appraisal framework developed for the promoted scheme. Formal consideration of the economic case for the Next Best Alternative and Low Cost Alternative is a requirement for Department for Transport funding. The comparative performance of these options is reported within the updated scheme business case.

1.4

1.5

1.6

Funding
1.7 Since the Major Scheme Business Case (MSBC) was submitted to the Department for Transport at the end of 2009 there has been a change in the way that Government

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives supports capital investment in locally-promoted transport major schemes. Further details setting out the resulting funding constraints on local transport major schemes are set out in Appendix A to this report. 1.8 At the time of the MSBC submission, the Department for Transport had a major scheme programme and associated budget. Through the MSBC submission process, Promoters applied for Programme Entry, this signifying that the Government was minded to contribute a defined amount to the schemes cost, subject to: I I I 1.9 the projects outputs and outcomes not changing significantly there being no material change to the financial contribution asked from the Department no material change to the value for money case

Following its election in May 2010, the Coalition Government ended the major scheme process and is in the process of devolving decision making on funding decisions to a more local level. Schemes that were already in DfTs programme at the time of the election continue to be co-funded by Government (subject to revisions made to scheme specification, funding mix and implementation timetable which were made as part of a Best and Final Funding Bid process a process that led to some schemes being dropped from the programme). NGT is one of the schemes that remained eligible for Government support. The important point is that the funding available from Government for NGT is now only currently available for a trolleybus scheme between Holt Park and Stourton via Leeds City Centre. Should the current scheme not be pursued, unless it could be shown that an alternative delivered comparable outputs and outcomes at no greater cost and with an acceptable level of risk, the earmarked DfT funding would return to the Departments general budget. Any option that did not meet these criteria would require an alternative and locally-sourced funding solution. In July 2013 the devolved funding allocations were confirmed in a written statement to Parliament1. For the spending period during which NGT will be implemented (2015/16 2020/21) the funding being made available to West Yorkshire and York Local Transport Body (LTB) totals 100.9 million. This total excludes funding for NGT. The statement is clear that DfT funding for NGT is dependent on the scheme going ahead as planned. Without DfT support there would be insufficient funding available from the LTB for a scheme of the scale of NGT, even in a situation where no other transport investment were made in the area. With the development of the 1 billion West Yorkshire Plus Transport Fund (WYTF), Metro and its local authority partners are putting in place a mechanism to secure additional transport investment in the metropolitan county. The WYTF aims to improve employment accessibility. Committing a project of the size of NGT would constrain the ability of the Fund to deliver its objectives. Currently 29 schemes are earmarked for WYTF support. Not all these schemes could be supported if a NGT-sized scheme were funded from WYTF.

1.10

1.11

1.12

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/local-transport-body-funding-allocations

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives 1.13 This situation is in contrast with that which pertained at the time the MSBC was submitted in 2009. At that time, if either the DfT had decided not to grant Programme Entry status, or the Promoters had decided that an alternative approach best met its objectives, the Promoters would have been at liberty to apply to the DfT for funding for a different option and DfT would have considered this on its merits.

Context
1.14 The majority of routes in Leeds, including routes on or close to the NGT corridors, are currently served by conventional diesel bus vehicles. Hybrid diesel-electric double-deckers part-funded by the DfTs Green Bus Fund were introduced in Summer 2011 on Routes 7/7A/7S/X7 (First) and in Spring 2013 on Routes 163/166 (Arriva). Hybrid vehicles offer substantial emissions benefits, with reductions in fuel consumption; the diesel engine automatically switching off when the vehicle is stationary or travelling at low speed. However for the majority of the route the vehicles operate under diesel power with similar emissions to conventional diesel vehicles.

Public Consultation
1.15 Formal public consultation on the trolleybus proposal has been undertaken at various times during the projects development. This consultation has shown a high level of support for NGT. More generally, the consultation showed a high level of support for proposed improvements on the NGT alignment and for the provision of Park & Ride facilities on the north and south lines. Almost two-thirds of respondents wanted more environmentally-friendly vehicles. There were some concerns about the impact of the scheme on traffic/congestion. The likely public support for the technology options in this report has been considered in light of these issues. The key attributes that respondents wanted in a new public transport system were: I I I 1.18 More punctual services Cheaper fares Faster services

1.16

1.17

The degree to which various technologies allow the Promoters to secure these goals over the lifetime of investment has been considered in this review.

Shortlisted Options
1.19 Currently available public transport technology options were reviewed for suitability for implementation on the north and south NGT corridors. Shortlisted technologies were considered in terms of their potential performance against the scheme objectives and against key delivery constraints, including affordability and deliverability within the funding timeframe. At this stage options which did not satisfy any particular constraint, and therefore could not be delivered, were discounted from further consideration. A shortlist of five technology options were identified as being suitable in the context of the identified corridors, taking into account both physical

1.20

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives opportunities/constraints as well as potential service/capacity requirements. These comprise: I Light Rail Transit (LRT or tram) - steel wheeled vehicles operating on rails, powered by electricity from overhead lines and capable of operating both on street and fully segregated from traffic. Similar in concept to systems in Sheffield, Nottingham and Croydon Ultra-Light Rail Transit (ULRT) - a proposed lower cost light rail technology. The proponents of ULRT suggest that, in comparison with LRT, cost savings would result from ULRT requiring a shallower track construction for the lighter weight vehicles. Vehicles would have on-board energy storage rather than being powered from overhead lines. While prototype systems have been developed, the technology remains unproven at the scale of investment proposed in Leeds. Even if ULRT could be delivered within the affordability constraints, the implementation risk of this alternative cannot be accepted by the Promoters Trolleybus - rubber-tyred vehicles with motors powered by electricity from overhead lines. It offers a quiet and smooth ride, a high level of energy efficiency and zero emissions at point of use. Modern trolleybus systems exist in many locations around the world and represent a technology which the Promoters have confidence will be delivered within time and budget constraints Catenary-free electric bus a relatively recent development taking advantage of improvements in on-board energy storage systems. The concept is based on vehicles equipped with batteries, fast charged at termini, and super-capacitors, which can be flash charged (eg for 20 seconds) at stops, which together allow reasonable lengths of operation without overhead lines. Prototype and trial operations are underway, but at present it is unknown whether the commercial production of suitable catenary-free vehicles will commence within the NGT delivery timeframe. The implementation risk of this alternative therefore cannot be accepted by the Promoters Bus - a comparable bus option with the same high level of segregation and priority at junctions as the above options. A separate study 2 considered the most appropriate bus vehicle technology option in terms of improving energy efficiency and reducing emissions at point of use. Bus-based systems have been proven across the UK and the world; however hybrid and electric alternatives to diesel propelled vehicles are a relatively recent development. Current vehicles that are electrically powered from on-board source would either require considerable investment in energy supply (for example hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles) and/or a significantly larger fleet, allowing sufficient time in the timetable for efficiently recharging vehicles

Findings
1.21 The proposed trolleybus option is demonstrably the strongest option taking into consideration the scheme objectives and the constraints which are fundamental to successful delivery of a major public transport intervention. Trolleybus is a highly energy efficient technology offering a quiet and smooth ride, and zero emissions at

Sub Mode Options Investigation, Mott MacDonald, January 2014

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives point of use. Market research with car users and bus passengers 3 in Leeds found that a modern trolleybus system would be preferable to a conventional bus-based option and would attract more mode-shift from car. On balance these advantages are considered to outweigh the visual impact of the overhead lines. DfT has confirmed Programme Entry funding approval exclusively for a trolleybus scheme. 1.22 If a suitable bus Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) can be made or a Quality Contract Scheme (QCS) successfully implemented on the corridors (for example because West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority proceeds with its proposal for a county-wide QCS or an NGT specific QCS is developed), the potential would exist to implement a comparable bus option that could deliver up to a point the outputs and outcomes of the trolleybus option. There is significant uncertainty whether a suitable VPA or a QCS can be introduced; without either the Promoters influence over outcomes realisation and access to any operating surplus to offset borrowing would not be sufficient for a project of this scale. Plug-in diesel-electric hybrid bus vehicle technology is specified for the comparable bus option. The comparable bus option would operate under diesel power for around half of its distance in service and therefore would result in more noise than the trolleybus option and adverse emissions along the line of the route. The comparable bus option is forecast to attract less transfer from private car use than a trolleybus system and therefore reduced highway flows will not balance the reallocation of capacity to public transport to the same extent. The resulting increase in highway congestion will have a larger noise and air pollution impact. Implementation of this option could not be through a single powers process and to allow its funding to be used, would require DfT to accept that the outputs and outcomes of this option are sufficiently similar to those from the trolleybus option. Therefore, it has higher risks associated with scheme delivery than trolleybus. Without a suitable VPA or QCS in place there is not a credible deliverable option sufficiently similar to the trolleybus scheme to be considered a comparable alternative (irrespective of how it may be funded). Therefore the option in such a context is for the Low Cost Alternative comprising an on-line upgrade of existing services along the northern corridor, Park & Ride provision at Bodington, and a new Park & Ride only service from Stourton. The purpose of this report is to set out the robust process of technology option selection that has been used to identify alternatives for more detailed assessment including quantified analysis through the NGT modelling and appraisal framework. The results of this assessment are detailed within the updated scheme business case.

1.23

1.24

1.25

Report Structure
1.26 The remainder of this report is structured as follows: I I Section 2 sets out the scope of the review, including defining the processes by which options are compared Section 3 introduces the technology options which are available and identifies those which are suitable for implementing on the NGT corridors

Stated Preference Study, Steer Davies Gleave, August 2008

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives I I I I I Section 4 sets out and justifies the consistent and comparable specification of the shortlisted options Section 5 considers the performance of the shortlisted options against the Promoters objectives Section 6 considers the performance of the shortlisted options against key delivery constraints Section 7 summarises the best performing options Appendices to this report comprise: A) further details of the current funding environment B) supporting information on the options for service delivery C) the mandate specifying the characteristics of the Preferred Option, Next Best Alternative and Low Cost Alternative this review recommends for further appraisal

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

2
2.1

Scope of Review
Introduction
This section describes the scope of the alternatives review report, setting out the objectives which have been considered in specifying and assessing technology options, the constraints to be considered in delivering any option, and finally confirming the corridors for which options have been considered.

In Scope Options
2.2 This report considers alternative public transport solutions within the same northsouth corridors as NGT. The filtering of technology options which are suitable for implementation on the NGT corridors is set out in Section 3. It is considered that a representative and sufficiently large range of options have been specified and assessed within this report and therefore that its conclusions are robust. However, it is not practical for this report to consider each and every conceivable option or combination of options. Over time, the detailed specification of options considered in this report may change, or additional options may be suggested, for example because of developing technologies. The robustness of the conclusions of this report is not considered to be reduced because any specific option has not been included. Examples include alignment, route or service frequency variants of options which have been considered or an emerging vehicle technology. Nonetheless, the assessment framework within this report has been specified to be appropriate for any technology option proposed and provides a consistent basis for considering any additional options in the future should that be worthwhile.

2.3

2.4

Scheme Objectives
2.5 A set of scheme objectives have been developed, which set out the outcomes the Promoters aspire to achieve with NGT. These objectives were specified to be consistent with established land-use and transport policy. They take into consideration direct local transport problems such as capacity limitations and reliability, wider social and economic issues including accessibility to job opportunities and impacts on the environment. These objectives have been reviewed at key stages of the schemes promotion and continue to be consistent and complementary to the current policy framework. They are fundamental to the review of technology options. These objectives are set out on the following page, grouped by the higher level Objectives from West Yorkshires Third Local Transport Plan4. The text in italics was prepared alongside development of the objectives to give guidance on how quantitative and qualitative measures can be used to help assess the degree to

2.6

http://www.wyltp.com

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives which NGT proposals meet the project objectives. This guidance has been used in this report, in comparing the performance of technology options. I LTP Objective - Economy: 1. Maximise growth of the Leeds economy by enhancing its competitive position and facilitating future employment and population growth In quantitative terms this means maximising the Net Present Value of the proposal as conventional benefits form part of Objective 4, the focus here is on Wider Impacts. It also recognises the population/household growth pressures. In qualitative terms it is about quality of life and putting Leeds on the map 2. Support and facilitate the sustainable growth of Leeds, recognising the importance of its city centre to the future economy of the Leeds City Region This is about increasing person capacity into the city centre especially during peak periods, recognising the constraints on road capacity, car parking capacity and without further investment, rail capacity. This captures the spatial dimension of where we want growth to happen 3. Support and facilitate targeted regeneration initiatives and economic growth in the more deprived areas of Leeds This is about improving the links between the more deprived areas of Leeds and employment/education opportunities, as well as explicitly supporting the delivery of other policy initiatives. This too has a spatial dimension, but it is more about the beneficiaries of growth 4. Improve the efficiency of the city's public transport and road networks This is the conventional DfT Value for Money case measured as the quantity of user benefits (journey time, quality, but also reliability, option value etc) and non-user benefits (impact on congestion). Improve should be taken as relative to the Do-Minimum scenario rather than now I LTP Objective - Low Carbon: 5. Reduce transport's emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases This objective captures the global environmental impacts of the project in comparison to the Do-Minimum scenario I LTP Objective - Quality of Life: 6. Promote quality of life through a safe and healthy built and natural environment The impacts on the local environment incorporate townscape, local air quality, noise, safety etc. This objective captures making best use of existing assets. Again the comparison is against the Do-Minimum scenario 7. Contribute to enhanced quality of life by improving access for all to jobs and services Key services include but are not limited to hospitals, tertiary education (Universities, Leeds City College) and the railway station (access to national networks). Improving should be taken as relative to the Do-Minimum scenario rather than now

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives 2.7 The main purposes of the scheme objectives are to provide a framework for scheme development and to allow a quantitative comparison to be made between close alternatives. One of the purposes of this report is to identify which technologies could be specified on the NGT corridors to offer a performance comparable to the trolleybus option (Section 3) and therefore are justified for more detailed development including: specifying broad alignments and service patterns (Section 4); and consideration of technology options comparative performance against the objectives (Section 5). A set of constraints listing the key deliverability issues which need to be considered by the Promoters have also been identified. These are also relevant to the review of technology options. They can be summarised as follows: I Affordability The Promoters must be able to fund the scheme capital costs from its own or third party sources I Deliverability The proven level of public and political support for alternatives also influences the level of delivery risk DfT funding is time constrained and therefore any differences in the delivery programme and risks associated with delivery to that programme must be taken into account I Potential for System Expansion No unreasonable barrier to extending the scope of the system in the future, for example aiming to avoid proprietary technology which could limit competitive procurement of vehicles/infrastructure in the future I Commercial Case Procurement of the option must be achievable competitively in line with EU regulations Revenue received must exceed the operating costs. The extent to which the resulting revenue surplus will support scheme funding/expansion is also important I Outcomes Realisation In terms of the level of influence which the Promoters would have in delivering the outputs and outcomes of the project which contribute to its value for money I Value for Money Irrespective of whether funding is provided by DfT or locally, any scheme needs to provide the best value for money of all reasonable/relevant alternatives 2.9 The definition of these constraints allows a comparative assessment of the performance of the technology options (Section 6) in these areas. This assessment is additional to the consideration of options against objectives, ensuring that the Next Best Alternative and Low Cost Alternative identified are practical, deliverable options.

2.8

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

Basis of Corridors Considered

2.10 In a 2009 review of the strategic context for public transport in Leeds, four corridors were identified as being appropriate for major public transport investment. This review identified existing and anticipated future problems on the key radial corridors approaching the city centre and considered the applicability of alternative interventions. This work was summarised in Investing in Public Transport: A Framework for Leeds (2009)5, which was later incorporated within LTP3. The strategic rationale for two of the four identified corridors underpinned the business case submitted to the Department for Transport which led to the allocation of Government funding for a trolleybus system: I Otley A660 Corridor on the basis of it being the busiest and most crowded bus corridor; having a high level of highway congestion; with opportunities to achieve material public transport journey time and punctuality improvements; and potential for Park & Ride demand Five Towns/Wakefield A61/M621 Corridor on the basis of having a high level of highway congestion; and potential for Park & Ride demand

2.11

I 2.12

The strategic justification of public transport investment in these corridors has been reviewed and confirmed in preparation for an application for TWAO powers 6. This review confirmed that the transport issues underpinning the selection of the A660 Corridor and A61/M621 corridor as the north and south NGT lines have not materially changed in the time since the 2009 study. Neither have there been any material changes on any of the other radial bus corridors into Leeds that would suggest that they are more suitable for NGT rollout at this time. FIGURE 2.1 POTENTIAL MAJOR TRANSPORT INVESTMENT CORRIDORS

5 6

http://www.ngtmetro.com/uploadedFiles/Content/Documents/Archive/AFrameworkForLeeds_summary.pdf NGT Strategic Fit A Review, Steer Davies Gleave, January 2014

10

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

Section Summary
2.13 This section introduces the scope of technology options being considered and sets out the current scheme objectives and associated constraints. It sets out why options being considered have been considered to public transport improvements on the A660 and A61/M621 corridors, concluding that the original strategic justification for major public transport investment on these corridors remains robust. Later sections of this report consider the fit of various technology options with the scheme objectives and delivery constraints set out in this section. Table 2.1 summarises the approach to assessing options. A four point scale has been used in consideration of the performance against objectives, allowing a high level comparison between options from those which have the most significant impact to those which have no material impact. A similar mechanism has been used in the assessment of options which meet the delivery constraints; however a single adverse score represents options which are not in line with the requirements of any constraint, representing options which cannot be implemented, or not without taking on an unacceptable level of risk, and therefore should not be considered further. TABLE 2.1
Assessment

2.14

ASSESSMENT CATEGORISATION
Description Options which make a significant contribution towards meeting the objective or delivery constraint Options which make a material contribution towards meeting the objective or delivery constraint Options which make a limited but positive contribution towards meeting the objective or delivery constraint Options which make no material contribution towards meeting the objective/delivery constraint or are otherwise neutral in their effect For options which cannot meet the requirements of the delivery constraint and therefore should be ruled out

+++ ++ + =

11

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

3
3.1

Option Filtering
Introduction
This section describes the process which has been used to identify public transport technology options which are suitable for implementation on the NGT corridors, taking into account physical opportunities/constraints as well as potential service/ capacity requirements.

Track-Based Options
3.2 Track-based technology options can broadly be split by the degree of segregation from other modes/travellers. For steel rail systems this is the legally defined7 difference between tramway (which includes rails which are laid wholly or mainly along a street or in any other place to which the public has access) and a railway (which can cross a carriageway but otherwise the public does not have access to the track). As well as steel rail systems, other technologies based on provision of a continuous segregated track have been considered. Railway Options 3.3 The NGT corridors do not offer any opportunity for a continuous fully segregated alignment at ground level. Therefore surface rail, beam, magnetic or track-based guided options (for example the rubber-tyred track-based bus systems used by airports) are not appropriate in this context. Along the north line in particular, visual intrusion is a particular concern of residents. Therefore any elevated form of the above technologies or cableway would not be appropriate. An underground (or partially underground) railway has been proposed by third parties as an alternative to the promoted trolleybus. Underground construction is a technically challenging and extremely high cost option offering full and absolute segregation and therefore is appropriate where very high capacity is required within the densest urban centres. Existing traveller flows in Leeds are not sufficient to justify the risks and costs of such a system. Tramway Options 3.5 Plans for a Light Rail Transit (LRT) option along the NGT corridors (Leeds Supertram) have previously been developed and were the subject of a successful (but now lapsed) application for implementation powers by Metro and Leeds City Council. It follows that an LRT option must be suitable for implementation on these corridors and should be considered further. An Ultra-Light Rail Transit (option) ULRT has been put forward by its proponents. ULRT is a proposed lower cost rail technology, the suggestion being that a shallower track construction and on-board power supply rather than overhead lines would result in cost savings in comparison to LRT. ULRT is expected to have a very

3.4

3.6

Transport and Works Act 1992, Chapter 42, Part III Miscellaneous and General, Section 67 Interpretation, Paragraph (1)

13

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives similar footprint to LRT and therefore it is considered a suitable technology for implementation on the NGT corridors to be considered further. 3.7 A partially underground tramway option would be unsuitable for the same reasons as an underground or partially underground railway given above. Track-based Option Summary 3.8 The following track-based options are sufficiently credible to be considered further in this review of technology options: I I 3.9 Light Rail Transit (LRT) Ultra-Light Rail Transit (ULRT)

The following options have been filtered out as being unsuitable for the context of the NGT corridors: I I I I I I I Railway Aerial cableway Magnetic levitation Monorail Track-based with side guidance Personal rapid transit Overhead/elevated track-based options

Externally Powered Bus Based Options

3.10 The first set of bus based options considered are based on vehicles which predominantly draw electricity in normal operation from infrastructure located along the alignment. Trolley Vehicle Options 3.11 The NGT scheme as promoted is based on modern trolleybus technology, comprising rubber tyred vehicles with motors powered by electricity from overhead lines. The technical feasibility of this option for the NGT corridors has been established and therefore this option is considered further in this report. Rail Guided Trolley Vehicle Options 3.12 A further potential refinement of trolleybus technology is in combination with a form of vehicle guidance. Two systems based on proprietary technologies are in current operation in France. The stated advantages over a 'standard' trolleybus are the potential for vehicles to pass closer together than if drivers were to steer and improved 'docking' at stops. The disadvantages are the increased implementation costs and an increase in maintenance/renewal costs from the significant rutting impact of tyres always running on the same path. These options are not considered further in this report on the grounds that they offer limited extra benefit over trolleybus for additional cost. Other Guided Trolley Vehicle Options 3.13 A variety of other bus guidance options could be used with trolleybus for all or some of the proposed route, including kerb, optical and magnetic technologies. In its current form wire-guided bus, as was proposed in Merseyside and attempted for

14

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives Millennium Transit, is not now considered a credible technology for public transport and has not been considered further. Whether guidance is included within the trolleybus option would have limited influence on the performance against objectives and constraints. Therefore it has not been considered as a distinct option at this stage. However there is scope for the inclusion of guidance technology within later design development if worthwhile. Catenary-Free Electric Bus Options 3.14 A catenary-free electric bus is an emerging application of improved SuperCapacitor or modern flywheel technology to trolleybus type vehicles to store energy, usually in combination with a battery pack. The key advantage of these technologies is that they can be flash charged during passenger service, for example within a typical stop occupation time, at a significantly faster rate than currently commercially available battery packs The flash charge would power a vehicle between consecutive charging points. Overhead line equipment would not be required, but infrastructure would be needed at each charging point. Although this technology is maturing in its application to overhead line powered rail and bus vehicles (where, for example, it has been shown to improve energy efficiency) current prototypes and technology trials are based on a range of (mostly) proprietary energy transfer systems. At present it is unknown whether the commercial production of suitable catenaryfree vehicles will commence within the NGT delivery timeframe, however on the basis of the evidence available at this time it appears to be suitable for application on the NGT corridors and has been considered further in this report. Bus vehicles with battery packs charged while out of passenger service are considered within the following section of this report. Externally Powered Bus Based Option Summary 3.17 The following externally powered options are sufficiently credible to be considered further in this review of technology options: I I 3.18 Trolleybus (including kerb/optical/magnetic guidance sub-options) Catenary-free electric bus (including kerb/optical/magnetic guidance suboptions)

3.15

3.16

The following options have been filtered out as being unsuitable for the context of the NGT corridors: I I Road-based with rail guidance options (for example GLT and Translohr) Road-based with cable guidance

Conventional (On-board Powered) Bus Based Options

3.19 The second group of bus based options considered are based on vehicles which are powered from on-board energy storage over the full length of operation (for example without intermediate charging, for which see catenary-free electric bus description above). A separate sub mode options study2 has examined the bus vehicle options available in some detail and recommends the best current option for different options. The choice of vehicle has limited influence on whether the option is credible in the context of the NGT corridors and is therefore not

15

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives considered in this initial filtering. In a similar way to the trolleybus options (above) different guidance technologies are not considered to represent distinct options; however appropriate guidance infrastructure could be included at a later design stage. 3.20 The sub mode options study concluded that the best current conventional (onboard powered) bus based options were a 'plug-in' diesel hybrid bus as the sub mode representing the comparable bus option and a 'standard' diesel hybrid bus as a low cost bus option. A 'plug-in' hybrid bus with top-up fast charging stations installed at each route terminus has the capability to operate on electric power for distances of up to 7 km, enabling operation without any adverse on-street emissions in sensitive areas. On other sections of route the vehicle would travel under conventional diesel power. The availability of a diesel engine which can also recharge the battery pack ensures that a level of charge can be maintained that will optimise its life. Plug-in hybrid buses, including an 18m articulated version, are expected to be in full commercial production by late 2015. Although not yet a fully proven technology, the technology risk presented by the use of a plug-in hybrid bus is considered to be significantly lower than for a fuel cell hybrid bus or a catenaryfree electric bus and lower than for a pure battery electric bus. This is because the driveline remains similar to the current generation of 'standard' hybrids but with the addition of a larger battery pack and roof mounted pantograph charging equipment based closely on existing and proven heavy rail technology. A 'standard' hybrid bus has no capability to operate solely on electric power for any significant distance, but offers fuel economy gains and therefore reduced CO2 emissions and local air quality benefits in comparison to a conventional diesel bus. Diesel hybrid propulsion is now a mature technology with considerable market traction. As a result the cost premium over diesel buses is falling and fuel economy gains may in future provide a commercial payback. This sub mode thus provides a credible low cost bus option that would make a limited but positive contribution against the NGT scheme objectives. Other sub modes considered were rejected on the following grounds: I Fuel cell hybrid bus (powered by hydrogen) - an immature application of this technology that remains uneconomic for commercial use, with a vehicle capital cost of the order of two and a half times that of a comparable trolleybus for limited additional benefit Gas bus (powered by biomethane from waste) - this option performs best in terms of reducing the 'well to wheel' greenhouse gas emissions of the NGT service but was rejected on the grounds of low energy efficiency and inability to operate 'adverse emission free' over any part of the NGT corridors. Electricity generation is a more energy efficient use of biomethane Battery electric bus - unsuitable for NGT due to the insufficient range and capacity of the current generation of production vehicles and the performance and technology risks involved in the use of currently unavailable battery powered 18m articulated buses and fast charging technology

3.21

3.22

3.23

3.24

16

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives 3.25 Conventional bus services currently run along the NGT corridors and therefore it follows that a bus based option must be suitable for implementation on these corridors and should be considered further.

Section Summary
3.26 This section has listed a broad range of public transport technology options and filtered out options which, for various reasons, are unsuitable for implementation on the NGT corridors. The following five technology options were identified as being suitable in the context of the NGT corridors, taking into account physical opportunities/constraints as well as potential service/ capacity requirements: I I I I I 3.27 Light Rail Transit (LRT or tram) Ultra-Light Rail Transit (ULRT) Trolleybus Catenary-Free Electric Bus Conventional Bus

Within the following section a comparable specification is set out for each of these options, and for a low cost option (also based on conventional bus technology). Later sections of this report consider the fit of these options with the scheme objectives and delivery constraints presented earlier in this report.

17

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

4
4.1

Option Specification
Introduction
This section sets out a broad technology-independent required system outputs specification, based on the scheme objectives which set out the Promoters aspired scheme outcomes. Based on this, a broadly comparable specification is set out for each of the technology options which were identified in the previous filtering section as being suitable for implementation on the north and south NGT corridors.

Required System Outputs Specification

4.2 Based on the scheme objectives, which are defined in terms of outcomes, a broad specification of the outputs required from public transport intervention on the northern and southern NGT corridors has been developed and is set out below. This specification has been used to ensure that outputs from all technology options considered are consistent and comparable, for example specified to deliver a similar increase in passenger capacity per hour through an appropriate combination of vehicle capacity and frequency. Investment in public transport on the A660 and A61/M621 radial corridors into Leeds city centre must: I enhance the PT service offer with improved: peak and interpeak travel times; consistency of frequency (punctuality); reliability; journey quality; and perceived passenger value for money without materially worsening the level of congestion affecting on other vehicles on the highway In response to public consultation findings and to achieve the fourth scheme objective, which is represented as conventional public sector Value for Money I increase passenger capacity along the corridors where worthwhile with punctual, more comfortable public transport journeys To achieve the first and second scheme objectives in terms of maximising the potential of the local economy and supporting the sustainable growth of Leeds city centre I improve public transport links between communities from Holt Park to Belle Isle with jobs and services, and to the city centre To achieve the third and seventh scheme objectives in terms of supporting economic growth and contributing to enhanced quality of life I I support an increase in the energy efficiency of vehicles and reduction in adverse emissions at point of use improve facilities for pedestrians and cyclists along the corridor improving safety, reducing barriers to movement and supporting the promotion of active modes To achieve the fifth and sixth scheme objectives by reducing carbon emissions and minimising the impacts of transport on health and quality of life

19

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives I provide sufficient capacity and attractive public transport journeys (journey times, punctuality, journey quality) to make Park & Ride facilities at Stourton and Bodington attractive to car users To achieve the first and second scheme objectives in terms of increasing person capacity into the city centre and responding to the pressures of growth on the transport network

Trolleybus
4.3 Trolleybuses are rubber-tyred vehicles with motors powered from overhead lines. They are an energy efficient transport option, quiet and smooth in operation and zero-emission at the point of use. In comparison with conventional bus options, trolleybus vehicles are cheaper to run, longer lasting, and require less maintenance; they also offer better operational performance on gradients. Modern trolleybuses are able to travel off wire using auxiliary power; the distance that can be covered will depend on the specific vehicles which are offered at the time of procurement of the scheme. The specification assumes that the full system is wired and the auxiliary power source will be used for off-system movements only. Trolleybus vehicles are available in rigid, articulated and bi-articulated configurations. On balance the Promoters have decided that the (single) articulated version provides sufficient capacity and flexibility on the NGT corridors. Articulated vehicles also have the advantage of being lower risk than the more expensive but higher passenger capacity bi-articulated vehicles, including because they do not exceed the current 18.75m UK legal length limit8 and would therefore not require additional powers to operate. The NGT proposal is for a trolleybus service from Holt Park (A660 Corridor, north of Leeds) with Park & Ride at Bodington through the city centre to Stourton (A61/M621 Corridor, south of Leeds). This proposal has developed over time, through a process of design stages and reviews 9. However development has been influenced by the requirements of the scheme objectives at all stages. From Holt Park a twelve minute headway weekday service would follow Holtdale Approach and then Otley Old Road to Bodington, located just north east of the junction of the A660 (Otley Road) with the A6120 (Outer Ring Road). From Bodington the service would increase to a six minute headway following the A660 into Leeds. Through Headingley an offline section behind the Arndale Centre would bypass traffic congestion in the Headingley District Centre re-joining the A660 in the vicinity of Richmond Road. A further southbound offline section is provided between Rampart Road and Clarendon Road. The final approach to the city centre follows Cookridge Street, passing through Millennium Square and then following Park Row to City Square.

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

8 9

The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations (as amended) 1986 NGT Design Rationale, Mott MacDonald, January 2014

20

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives 4.9 From City Square the route follows Boar Lane, Lower Briggate and then a new alignment within the former Tetley Brewery site alongside Waterloo Street and Bowman Lane. The route follows the line of Chadwick Street continuing beyond Carlisle Road on a segregated alignment across an industrial estate towards Hunslet Road. The route continues southbound along Hunslet Road until turning onto Whitfield Way then crossing Whitfield Square on a segregated alignment crossing Whitfield Avenue to reach Church Street. Following Church Street the route follows Balm Road until passing beneath the M621 and then Belle Isle Road to Belle Isle Circus. The Stourton Park & Ride site is accessed from here by means of Winrose Grove.

4.10

Catenary-Free Electric Bus

4.11 A catenary-free electric bus option would have the same high level of segregation and priority at junctions at the same level of frequency as the trolleybus option described above. There is currently no known catenary-free system in passenger service, however based on what is known from promotional information and trial operations, for example in Shanghai, the service characteristics and ride experience would be very similar to a standard trolleybus. Such an option would therefore deliver the same significant improvement in journey time and reliability to existing bus services on the NGT corridors. The service pattern of the catenary-free electric bus option would be the same as the trolleybus option above, with a twelve minute headway from Holt Park Stourton strengthened by additional services from Bodington to Stourton to result in a six minute headway service for the majority of the route. The catenary-free electric bus option would use 18m articulated vehicles with similar dimensions and capacity to the preferred vehicle configuration for the trolleybus option. These vehicles are fitted with SuperCapacitors, battery pack and charging equipment. They have the capability to operate for around 1,500m from an approximately 30 second charge. Flash charging facilities would be installed at all stops and termini. Additional charging points are expected to be required; the average distance between stops is slightly more than 500m and charge facilities may also be required to accommodate sections on significant gradient and/or any sections close to the limit which could be subject to operational delay. A catenary-free electric bus option is expected to be broadly of the same order of cost as standard trolleybus. Although it would not require the cost of the overhead line equipment, vehicles are significantly more expensive than standard trolleybuses and there would be significant cost associated with installing charging facilities along the route. In assessing this option it is assumed that the technology could deliver similar scheme outputs, within a comparable timeframe, for a cost broadly similar to trolleybus.

4.12

4.13

4.14

4.15

Light Rail Transit

4.16 Leeds original aspiration was for a modern tram system, or Light Ra il Transit (LRT), similar in concept to examples in Sheffield and Nottingham. LRT represents

21

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives an attractive transport solution proven in both the UK context and in its ability to attract car users away from their private vehicles. 4.17 LRT is based on steel wheeled electric vehicles operating on rails and powered from overhead lines. The technology is capable of operating both on street within or adjacent to traffic and fully segregated from the highway. The passenger capacity of a typical Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) is greater than trolleybuses and they are disproportionately more expensive. To provide the required passenger capacity, a LRT service would therefore operate at a higher headway than the proposed trolleybus option, for example ten minutes rather than six. This would reduce the number of LRVs that would need to be purchased. For the purposes of this comparison it has been assumed that an LRT option would extend to Holt Park (consistent with the trolleybus, but further than the promoted tram option which was proposed to terminate at Bodington), however it is expected that the value for money argument for the lower passenger flow section from Bodington to Holt Park would not be as compelling as the trolleybus option (which includes relatively little highway infrastructure change and therefore cost over this length; in comparison to the LRT option which would require track). Along the north line, the general route followed would be the same as trolleybus, following Holtdale approach and Otley Old Road to a Park & Ride site at Bodington and then A660/Otley Road as far as Headingley. Through Headingley the same offline section would bypass the district centre. Along the corridor the maximum level of segregation and/or priority over other highway vehicles will be given, taking into account the characteristics of the system, for example the different relationship between LRVs, lines and stops. It is considered unlikely that this could deliver significantly greater journey time savings than would be achieved with the trolleybus option given the space and capacity constraints. From the A660 the LRT option considered would follow the same route along Cookridge Street, passing through Millennium Square and then following Park Row to City Square. For the section of the south line starting from the city centre the general route followed would also be the same as trolleybus, follows Boar Lane, Lower Briggate and then a new alignment within the former Tetley Brewery site alongside Waterloo Street and Bowman Lane. The route follows the line of Chadwick Street continuing beyond Carlisle Road on a segregated alignment across an industrial estate towards Hunslet Road. The route continues southbound along Hunslet Road until turning onto Whitfield Way then crossing Whitfield Square on a segregated alignment crossing Whitfield Avenue to reach Church Street then Balm Road up to the railway bridge. From this point the route would diverge from the trolleybus option and follow the railway alignment to access the Park & Ride site at Stourton from the north-east adjacent to junction 7 of the M621. The trolleybus option previously followed this route and was realigned; however the gradient on Winrose Grove, followed to access the Park & Ride site from the west on the new alignment, is too steep for LRVs and therefore is not an option for LRT.

4.18

4.19

4.20

4.21

4.22

22

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives 4.23 However, the choice between Belle Isle, railway and Hunslet Road is not expected to make a material difference to the comparison between tram and trolleybus options at the high level possible within this report. LRT infrastructure is considerably more expensive than trolleybus; in addition to LRVs being materially more expensive (even though fewer would be purchased, see paragraph 4.18), the track costs, including increased requirement to relocate statutory undertakers equipment, add a significant amount to the project cost. LRT offers less resilience to incidents (eg maintenance or road works) than trolleybus which can get round minor obstructions (on-wire) or divert off-wire in more extreme circumstances. However, LRT is considered to be more attractive to existing public transport users and car users than any other technology option and so would generate greater benefits overall.

4.24

Ultra-Light Rail Transit

4.25 Ultra-Light Rail Transit (ULRT) or Lightweight tram is a proposed innovative lower cost alternative to conventional LRT. The proponents of ULRT suggest that, in comparison with LRT, cost savings would result from ULRT requiring a shallower track construction for the lighter weight vehicles. Vehicles would have on-board energy storage rather than being powered from overhead lines. To date ULRT has been demonstrated on short sections of segregated track: in the UK in Bristol Docks, on the Stourbridge railway branch line and on Southport pier. Outside the UK a ULRT vehicle operates at Al Hoota Caves, Oman. All of these services have run on existing tracks with a single vehicle in operation. The current self-powered vehicle options include some form of internal combustion generator running on clean diesel, compressed natural gas or biomethane. Methane (natural gas) burns cleaner than diesel and switching to biomethane offers a carbon neutral approach. The upper end of the vehicle passenger capacity range that has been proposed previously for ULRT exceeds typical trolleybus vehicle capacities but is lower than can be achieved with tram (although, like tram, ULRT vehicles can be coupled together). Analysis undertaken during the development of NGT shows that service frequency has more influence on the case for the scheme than capacity and therefore it has been assumed that a ULRT alternative would operate at the same service frequency as trolleybus. At the level of detail possible within this assessment it is concluded that the operating costs of ULRT would be of the same order of magnitude as trolleybus. An equivalent ULRT option is assumed to follow the same alignment as the LRT option described above. In assessing this option it is assumed that the proponents assertion that the technology could deliver similar scheme outputs for a cost similar to or less than trolleybus is validated.

4.26

4.27

4.28

4.29

Comparable Bus Option

4.30 A comparable bus option would have the same high level of segregation and priority at junctions at the same level of frequency as the trolleybus option described above. Bus-based systems have been proven across the UK and the

23

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives world; a comparable bus option would deliver a significant improvement in journey time and reliability to existing bus services on the NGT corridors. 4.31 The service pattern of the comparable bus option would be the same as the trolleybus option above, with a twelve minute headway from Holt Park Stourton strengthened by additional services from Bodington to Stourton to result in a six minute headway service for the majority of the route. The vehicle recommended for the comparable bus option is an 18m articulated plug-in hybrid buses with similar dimensions and capacity to the trolleybus option. These vehicles are fitted with a diesel engine, battery pack and roof mounted pantograph charging equipment. They have the capability to operate on electric power for distances of up to 7 km between charges, and is therefore conservatively assumed to be capable of operating for around half of the length of the NGT route. A single decker 12m rigid plug-in hybrid vehicle is currently on trial in Gothenburg; however the manufacturer indicates that an 18m articulated version is planned to be in full commercial production by late 2015. Top-up charging stations would be installed at the Holt Park, Bodington and Stourton termini to enable the vehicle battery pack to be charged during an extended layover time, thus maximising the potential of the vehicle to operate over parts of the NGT corridors without adverse on-street emissions and helping to optimise battery life. A comparable bus option is expected to be somewhat cheaper than trolleybus, primarily because of it not requiring the cost of the overhead line equipment, however additional vehicles are anticipated because of increased layover times (to accommodate charging). For those sections in fully electric operation (around half of the route) the ride experience and vehicle emissions would be very similar to trolleybus. However, for the other half of the route, the vehicle would operate as under diesel power, with passenger perceptions of the vehicle ride experience being adversely affected by engine noise, heat and vibration. For these sections the vehicle emissions would also be those of a diesel bus vehicle, however it is assumed that the service would be configured to run in electric mode over the most environmentally sensitive sections of the route.

4.32

4.33

4.34

Low Cost Bus Option

4.35 A low cost bus option would deliver improvements in bus priority along the NGT corridors, the focus being locations with the highest passenger flows and or the highest delays. This option would not include delivery of the segregated sections included within the options above, however comparable bus quality corridor improvements in Leeds and elsewhere have delivered material improvements in journey times and reliability. The option includes Park & Ride provision at Bodington and Stourton, although on a scale reduced from the high-investment options detailed above. On the northern line of route, there is a high frequency of existing commercial bus services that would benefit from the improvements and no consequent change in these is expected. However there is currently no service which connects the north and south NGT corridors or which serves the proposed Stourton Park & Ride site.

4.36

24

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives Therefore the Promoters would tender a dedicated Park & Ride service from Stourton to the city centre. 4.37 The low cost bus option would use 18m articulated standard hybrid buses on the dedicated Park & Ride service from Stourton to the city centre. These buses have similar dimensions and capacity to the preferred vehicle configurations for the trolleybus and comparable bus options. A low cost bus option would be significantly cheaper than the other options considered. The approach of targeting individual improvements where they would deliver most benefit has the further benefit that an option could be developed to match the funding available, including opportunities to phase the implementation over the years within the funding cycle. Hybrid technology has been proven to increase the fuel efficiency (and therefore reduce emissions) of vehicles, including by the engine automatically cutting out at stops or slow speed. However for the majority of its length passengers perception and ride experience of the vehicle will be very similar to a standard diesel bus vehicle, as is the case for the current hybrid bus vehicles operating in Leeds.

4.38

Section Summary
4.39 This section set out the required scheme specification used in the development of options being considered. The aim of this specification, which is based on the scheme objectives, is to ensure that all options are appropriately consistent and comparable and therefore that the review of alternatives is undertaken on a robust basis. Following this the section set out broad specifications for trolleybus, catenary-free electric bus, LRT, ULRT and bus options. The next section of this review considers the performance of these options against the scheme objectives. Section 6 sets out the performance of these options against the delivery constraints.

4.40

25

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

5
5.1

Options Assessment Against Objectives

Introduction
This section sets out an assessment of the identified options against the scheme objectives. Five technology options were identified within Section 3 of this report as being suitable for implementation on the NGT corridors. Options based on these technologies (including comparable and low cost conventional bus variants) were specified in Section 4 to meet the Required System Specification also set out in that section. The scheme objectives have been grouped as in Section 2, by the higher level LTP Objectives. The text in italics was developed alongside the objectives with the intention of giving guidance on how quantitative and qualitative measures can be used to help assess the degree to which options meet the scheme objectives. It is the qualitative measures which are used in this section; the quantitative measures are used in the later assessment through the full modelling and appraisal framework of the Preferred Option, Next Best Alternative and Low Cost Alternative identified by this report and presented in the updated scheme business case.

5.2

LTP Objective - Economy:

1. Maximise growth of the Leeds economy by enhancing its competitive position and facilitating future employment and population growth In quantitative terms this means maximising the Net Present Value of the proposal as conventional benefits form part of Objective 4, the focus here is on Wider Impacts. It also recognises the population/household growth pressures. In qualitative terms it is about quality of life and putting Leeds on the map 5.3 Table 5.1 summarises the qualitative performance of each of the options against this first objective. The greatest contribution against this objective will be delivered by alternatives which deliver a visible and perceptible improvement in public transport provision on the NGT corridors. TABLE 5.1
Option Light Rail Transit

OBJECTIVE ONE: MAXIMISE LEEDS GROWTH

Assessment Commentary LRT is a high status high visibility option proven in the UK context as an attractive alternative to car use While ULRT would also be a high visibility option it is an unproven technology The promoted option would be the first UK implementation of a modern trolleybus system with a visual identity distinct from existing bus services reinforcing perceptions of permanence and legibility

+++ +++ +++

Ultra-Light Rail Transit

Trolleybus

27

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

Option Assessment Commentary This option would be among the first full operational implementations of an new technology option, visually distinct from conventional bus Although the comparable bus option would not be as visually distinct from existing bus services it would be an early application of an emerging technology solution and has strong potential to influence population patterns and improve quality of life The low cost bus option has the potential to influence population patterns to a degree but as an improvement to existing bus services rather than representing a step change in transport provision

Catenary-Free Electric Bus

+++ +++ +

Comparable Bus

Low Cost Bus

5.4

In terms of a qualitative assessment against first scheme objectives the differences between the five high-investment options are not sufficiently marked to justify a difference in assessment between them. The scale of impact of the low cost bus option would be substantially less than the other options. 2. Support and facilitate the sustainable growth of Leeds, recognising the importance of its city centre to the future economy of the Leeds City Region This is about increasing person capacity into the city centre especially during peak periods, recognising the constraints on road capacity, car parking capacity and without further investment, rail capacity. This captures the spatial dimension of where we want growth to happen

5.5

Table 5.2 summarises the qualitative performance of each of the options against this second objective. Allocating priority to public transport vehicles increases person capacity as each vehicle can carry passengers equivalent to many cars. Increasing the capacity available for public transport requires a combination of improved infrastructure and a reduction in highway demand, the latter through private car users choosing to use public transport instead. Allocating more priority to public transport will otherwise increase congestion on the corridors, in turn decreasing person capacity because of associated delays to both public and private transport.

28

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives TABLE 5.2

Option

OBJECTIVE TWO: SUPPORT ECONOMIC GROWTH

Assessment Commentary Although LRT has the potential to deliver the highest level of increase in person capacity, current and forecast demand flows on the NGT corridors require only a relatively low frequency service and therefore cannot be expected to deliver to the technologys full potential According to its proponents ULRT could be delivered in similar capacity units to LRT however the capacity of demonstration vehicles in the UK has been closer to single decker buses Similar to the rail transit options above a trolleybus system would supplement existing bus services and increase the passenger capacity on the corridors. A trolleybus system would deliver the capacity required on the corridors at a higher frequency than an LRT option Consistent with the trolleybus option above a catenary-free electric bus system would supplement existing bus services and increase the passenger capacity on the corridors at a higher frequency than an LRT option Market research with potential users has shown that an option not perceived as distinct from conventional bus would attract fewer passengers out of their cars than the above options and therefore would not offset the capacity reallocation to public transport resulting in more congestion. It would therefore not increase overall person capacity on the corridors to the same extent The low cost bus option would only introduce additional passenger capacity on the south line with the introduction of a dedicated Park & Ride service. The on-line nature of this route will limit the overall increase in person capacity which can be delivered on the corridors

Light Rail Transit

+++ +++

Ultra-Light Rail Transit

Trolleybus

+++

Catenary-Free Electric Bus

+++

Comparable Bus

++

Low Cost Bus

5.6

Considered in qualitative terms against the second objective the options perceived by the public as being distinct from conventional buses, which market research and evidence from other schemes suggest would be more attractive to car users, show the highest performance. Research suggests that the comparable bus option

29

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives would not attract as many travellers out of their cars; this reduces the level of vehicle capacity which can be allocated to the bus service and therefore limits the increase in person capacity which can be delivered. The low cost bus option is similarly limited but also does not include the segregated sections of infrastructure which allow public transport priority and therefore has a more limited impact on existing traffic. 3. Support and facilitate targeted regeneration initiatives and economic growth in the more deprived areas of Leeds This is about improving the links between the more deprived areas of Leeds and employment/education opportunities, as well as explicitly supporting the delivery of other policy initiatives. This too has a spatial dimension, but it is more about the beneficiaries of growth 5.7 Table 5.3 summarises the qualitative performance of each of the options against this third objective. The NGT corridors link some of the more deprived areas of Leeds, including Belle Isle and Holt Park, with opportunities and services within the city centre, other district centres and at key education establishments and health centres. TABLE 5.3
Option Light Rail Transit

OBJECTIVE THREE: SUPPORT REGENERATION

Assessment Commentary LRT has been proven to support and attract regeneration in the UK context It can be expected that ULRT would support regeneration in much the same way as LRT It can be expected that trolleybus would support regeneration in much the same way as LRT It can be expected that catenary-free electric bus would support regeneration in much the same way as LRT High quality bus rapid transit systems have been proven to support and attract regeneration Improving existing bus journey times and reliability can be expected to support regeneration

+++ +++ +++ +++ +++ +

Ultra-Light Rail Transit

Trolleybus

Catenary-Free Electric Bus

Comparable Bus

Low Cost Bus

5.8

In qualitative terms each of the five high-investment options are expected to provide a high level of support regeneration along the corridors. The scale of impact of the low cost bus option would be substantially less than the other options.

30

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives 4. Improve the efficiency of the city's public transport and road networks This is the conventional DfT Value for Money case measured as the quantity of user benefits (journey time, quality, but also reliability, option value etc) and non-user benefits (impact on congestion). Improve should be taken as relative to the Do-Minimum scenario rather than now 5.9 Table 5.4 summarises the qualitative performance of each of the options against the fourth objective. Effectiveness is the measure of the scale of the overall benefits delivered by a scheme. TABLE 5.4
Option Light Rail Transit

OBJECTIVE FOUR: IMPROVE EFFECTIVENESS

Assessment Commentary LRT technology has the potential to deliver the highest level of user and non-user benefits The proponents of ULRT suggest it could deliver a high proportion of the benefits of LRT Trolleybus technology has the potential to deliver overall benefits to a similar scale as LRT on the NGT corridors at a higher service frequency and therefore with shorter passenger wait times Catenary-free electric bus technology has the potential to deliver overall benefits of the same scale as standard trolleybus That purely bus based options have been shown to attract less new public transport demand than the above options would limit the benefit that could be delivered The low cost bus option would deliver materially less economic benefit than the above options

+++ +++ +++ +++ ++ +

Ultra-Light Rail Transit

Trolleybus

Catenary-Free Electric Bus

Comparable Bus

Low Cost Bus

5.10

Considered in qualitative terms against this fourth scheme objective, LRT has the potential to deliver the highest overall level of benefits, however on the NGT corridors the proportion to which this could exceed ULRT and the trolleybus alternatives is limited. The overall level of benefits that the comparable bus option could deliver on the NGT corridors is lower than the other high-investment options, particularly in terms of the impact on highway congestion. The scale of benefit delivered by the low cost bus option would be significantly less than for the other options. Therefore, although technically it could be an effective option in its own right, it would make a lesser contribution to improving the effectiveness of the Citys public transport and road networks.

5.11

31

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

LTP Objective - Low Carbon:

5. Reduce transport's emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases This objective captures the global environmental impacts of the project in comparison to the Do-Minimum scenario 5.12 Table 5.5 summarises the qualitative performance of each of the options against the fifth objective. Greenhouse gas emissions are considered from well to wheel for the public transport service but also in terms of the net impact on greenhouse gases from other highway traffic. TABLE 5.5
Option

OBJECTIVE FIVE: REDUCE GREENHOUSE GASES

Assessment Commentary Systems using vehicles externally electrically powered, such as LRT, are typically highly energy efficient and therefore result in lower greenhouse gas emissions Although ULRT steel wheel on steel rail is energy efficient, vehicles would be powered from on-board energy storage/conversion adding weight to the vehicles and depending on the individual engine efficiency rather than central generation. Creating and utilising a new fuel supply chain (of any nature) would result in further greenhouse gas emissions to an extent offsetting the greenhouse gas emission reduction if biomethane propulsion were adopted Systems using vehicles externally electrically powered, such as trolleybus, are typically highly energy efficient and therefore result in lower greenhouse gas emissions Catenary-free electric bus is expected to have broadly the same level of energy efficiency as the standard trolleybus option

Light Rail Transit

Ultra-Light Rail Transit

Trolleybus

+ +

Catenary-Free Electric Bus

32

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

Option Assessment Commentary Trial operations of the specified plug-in hybrid bus vehicle have demonstrated a level of energy efficiency significantly better than standard hybrid bus vehicles in UK operation. However vehicles are expected to run under diesel power for around half of their distance in passenger service because of the length of the NGT route. Therefore this option will be less energy efficient than either trolleybus alternative. More energy efficient hybrid bus vehicles are becoming more common, however they remain commercially attractive only where grant funding is available. In comparison to the do minimum option - where more efficient vehicles will also be adopted any benefit will be modest

Comparable Bus

Low Cost Bus

5.13

In qualitative terms against this sixth objective it is the purely electrically powered technologies from the shortlist considered, which are both energy efficient and use existing power supply networks, which have the greatest potential to contribute to an overall reduction in greenhouse gases. Although biomethane propulsion could represent a carbon neutral approach, a supply network would be required (with associated greenhouse gas emissions) and the net impact over the potential for using equivalent renewable fuel sources in future electricity generation would be negligible. Taking into account all aspects of construction, energy supply, vehicle efficiency and potential for bus network rationalisation, all of the options considered are not expected to be significant in terms of their impact on greenhouse gases.

5.14

LTP Objective - Quality of Life:

6. Promote quality of life through a safe and healthy built and natural environment The impacts on the local environment incorporate townscape, local air quality, noise, safety etc. This objective captures making best use of existing assets. Again the comparison is against the Do-Minimum scenario 5.15 Table 5.6 summarises the qualitative performance of each of the options against the sixth objective. The environmental aspects mainly relate to the infrastructure associated with the option considered (for example townscape), with some secondary impacts (for example for air quality and noise) resulting from the net effect on the highway network. The impact on safety is dominated by accidents, in particular highway accidents in appraisal terms a function of the change in highway distance travelled and therefore correlate with mode shift.

33

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives TABLE 5.6

Option

OBJECTIVE SIX: SAFE & HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT

Assessment Commentary The environmental benefits of LRT, including mode shift from a proven attractive alternative to private car use, are offset by the townscape disbenefit of the infrastructure including the associated overhead line equipment Although ULRT would not have the townscape disbenefit of overhead line equipment the on-board powered vehicles would result in air quality and noise emissions along the route. ULRT would have the same environmental impacts of highway widening and introducing segregated sections as LRT The environmental impact of the trolleybus option would be similar in nature to LRT, with the benefits of quiet/local air quality emission free vehicles offset by the townscape impacts of the overhead line equipment Although catenary-free electric bus would not have the townscape disbenefit of overhead line equipment it would have the same environmental impacts of highway widening and introducing segregated sections as trolleybus The direct impacts of the comparable bus option would generally be similar to trolleybus. However vehicles would be operating under diesel power for around half of the length of the route resulting in air quality/noise emissions. They would therefore be perceived by travellers as being little different to existing bus over these sections and would attract less new public transport demand than the above options. The environmental and safety impacts of the low cost bus option would be modest and are not considered to be material in terms of an overall improvement in quality of life

Light Rail Transit

++

Ultra-Light Rail Transit

++

Trolleybus

++ ++

Catenary-Free Electric Bus

Comparable Bus

Low Cost Bus

5.16

For different reasons the non-bus options are qualitatively assessed as making the strongest contribution to enhancing the built and natural environment. The lower vehicle emissions of LRT and trolleybus alternatives are balanced against the ULRT and comparable bus options which do not have the townscape impact of overhead

34

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives line equipment. All five high-investment options follow broadly the same alignment, require removal of the same trees and other environmental impacts, and therefore incur the same resulting disbenefit. 5.17 The bus options would attract less mode shift from private car use and therefore have a more limited effect in reducing the adverse emissions of highway traffic/ congestion. In particular the impact of the low cost bus option would be modest to the extent that it could not be considered to make a material contribution against this objective. 7. Contribute to enhanced quality of life by improving access for all to jobs and services Key services include but are not limited to hospitals, tertiary education (Universities, Leeds City College) and the railway station (access to national networks). Improving should be taken as relative to the Do-Minimum scenario rather than now 5.18 Table 5.7 summarises the qualitative performance of each of the options against the seventh and final objective. Improving public transport along the NGT corridors and across the city centre is considered to improve accessibility between communities and services by reducing travel times and removing barriers to movement. TABLE 5.7
Option Light Rail Transit

OBJECTIVE SEVEN: IMPROVE ACCESSIBILITY

Assessment Commentary LRT would provide a high quality and fully accessible additional public transport connection along the NGT corridors The accessibility impact of a ULRT option would be very similar to LRT, although potentially running at a higher service frequency (depending on vehicle capacity) The accessibility impact of the trolleybus option would be very similar to LRT, although running at a higher service frequency The accessibility impact of the catenaryfree electric bus option would be the same as standard trolleybus The accessibility impact of a comparable bus option would be the same as the trolleybus alternatives

+++ +++ +++ +++ +++

Ultra-Light Rail Transit

Trolleybus

Catenary-Free Electric Bus

Comparable Bus

35

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

Option Assessment Commentary The accessibility impact of a low cost bus option would be considerably less than any of the high-investment options, with limited impact on journey times and reliability as segregated sections of the alignment are not included. Being limited to an improvement to existing bus routes north of the university there would be no expected overall increase in service frequency on this section and there would be no cross-city connection between the north and south corridors

Low Cost Bus

5.19

The options which overlay a new cross-city public transport service onto the NGT corridors would have the greatest accessibility impact. The low cost bus option would have a slight positive accessibility impact on the north line and as a new Park & Ride service on the south line. However it provides no cross-city connection or frequency enhancement.

Section Summary
5.20 This section set out the qualitative assessment of the identified options against the objectives developed for the scheme. In general terms the high-investment options meet the objectives for the scheme with reasonable consistency: I The Light Rail Transit option performs well against the scheme objectives. However the extent to which it could deliver its full potential of economic benefits is limited on the relatively capacity and space constrained NGT corridors. In addition, to deliver the passenger capacity required on the corridors LRT would operate at a lower service frequency than the other options therefore resulting in longer passenger wait times The Ultra-Light Rail Transit option performs reasonably well against the scheme objectives and would run at a higher frequency than the LRT option. However vehicles would be propelled by on-board power generation and therefore not be adverse emission free at point of use The trolleybus option also performs well against the scheme objectives. Although there are adverse townscape impacts associated with the overhead line equipment for this option from a wider perspective it is considered to reinforce the distinct visual identity and increase perceptions of the permanence and legibility of the scheme The catenary-free electric bus would have the same environmental impacts of highway widening and introducing segregated sections as trolleybus. Although absence of the overhead line equipment to an extent reduces the overall townscape impact there would also be a lessoning of the visual identity of the scheme and reduced perceptions of permanence and legibility The comparable bus option performs reasonably well against the scheme objectives, but would not be as visually distinct from existing buses as the rail and trolleybus options above and would therefore attract less new public

36

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives transport demand. Therefore it is assessed as having a lesser impact on the objectives to maximise Leeds growth, support economic growth and improve effectiveness. For around half of the length of route the option would operate under diesel power, with air quality emissions along these sections of route and passenger perceptions of the vehicle ride experience being adversely affected by engine noise, heat and vibration. 5.21 The low cost bus option would be more modest in impact and therefore would make a lower contribution against the majority of the objectives. However an improved bus system could still offer a good performance against the objectives for less capital investment than other options The rail and trolleybus options offer the overall best performance when considered across the scheme objectives. However the assessment shows that the options considered would all deliver the objectives to a degree. The next section of this review considers the performance of the identified options against the identified delivery constraints.

5.22

37

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

6
6.1

Options Assessment Against Delivery Constraints

Introduction
This section sets out an assessment of the identified options against the constraints which affect delivery of any option. The same six options considered against the scheme objectives are assessed. A key difference in this assessment against delivery constraints is that any option failing to meet a constraint is excluded from further consideration.

Affordability
The Promoters must be able to fund the scheme capital costs from its own or third party sources 6.2 Table 6.1 summarises the performance of each option against the affordability delivery constraint. Affordability limits are effectively set by DfTs NGT 2012 Programme Entry approval to a combined Central Government grant/local contribution of 250.6 million. As set out in paragraph 1.7 of this report and in Appendix A there has been a change in the way that Government supports capital investment in locally-promoted major schemes. The result is that there is now no way to apply for additional Central Government funding, even if a more expensive scheme could be proven to represent higher value for money. TABLE 6.1
Option Light Rail Transit

AFFORDABILITY DELIVERY CONSTRAINT

Assessment Commentary An LRT option meeting the required system specification would cost materially more than the funding currently available Assuming that proponents assertions of the cost of ULRT technology can be validated a ULRT option which meets the required system specification would be affordable DfT Programme Entry funding approval and associated commitments to local funding demonstrate that the trolleybus option is affordable The costs of a catenary-free option are expected to be broadly comparable to standard trolleybus, with early indications being that the additional cost of vehicles and charging infrastructure would exceed the savings from removing the need for overhead line equipment. There is, however, no established funding route for this option.

Ultra-Light Rail Transit

++ ++

Trolleybus

Catenary-Free Electric Bus

39

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

Option Assessment Commentary The costs of a comparable bus option are expected to be broadly comparable to trolleybus. Such an option would not include the costs of overhead line equipment but would require additional vehicles. Therefore this option is considered in principle to be affordable. There is, however, no established funding route for this option. The low cost bus option would be subject to a different affordability constraint, given that DfT funding would not be available and it would therefore be entirely locally funded. It is anticipated that a low cost bus option could be delivered for less than an indicative 50 million locally sourced budget (see Appendix A). A scheme developed within this budget is considered to be affordable and while there is no established funding route for this option, its lower cost means that there is greater chance that one could be developed.

Comparable Bus

Low Cost Bus

++

6.3

In terms of this constraint it is clear that the more expensive Light Rail Transit option would not be affordable and therefore cannot be considered to be a reasonable alternative. It is therefore not considered any further in this report. The remaining options pass the affordability constraint and are therefore considered further in this section.

Deliverability
The proven level of public and political support for alternatives also influences the level of delivery risk DfT funding is time constrained and therefore any differences in the delivery programme and risks associated with delivery to that programme must be taken into account 6.4 Table 6.2 summarises the performance of the remaining options against the deliverability constraint. Critical to this assessment is the level of delivery risk associated with each of the options particularly where such risk could result in delays which mean that funding approved for specific years cannot be drawn down and it therefore lost to the Promoters.

40

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives TABLE 6.2

Option

DELIVERABILITY DELIVERY CONSTRAINT

Assessment Commentary Delivery of a ULRT option has not been proven at the scale of NGT. Therefore the implementation risk of this option cannot be accepted by the Promoters. In addition, the restricted (and closely connected) suppliers of this technology limit the ability for a ULRT system to be competitively procured (regardless of whether the technology can be delivered at all or at the costs the proponents assert) Modern trolleybus systems have been and continue to be implemented in many locations around the world and the Promoters have reasonable confidence that this technology can be delivered within time and budget constraints. Powers to deliver a trolleybus system can be obtained through a single application under the Transport and Works Act Delivery of a catenary-free electric bus option has not been proven at the scale of NGT. Although the technology is evolving rapidly it is by no means certain whether a dependable, appropriate and affordable solution will be available within the funding timeframe of this study. Therefore the implementation risk of this option cannot be accepted by the Promoters. For a comparable bus option the powers to implement the segregated sections of alignment, to obtain compulsory purchase powers, traffic regulation orders and development consents would require multiple applications. Each application would be considered in its own right rather than as a system increasing the level of delivery risk associated with such an option. However this option would not have the adverse impacts of overhead line equipment Although subject to similar deliverability constraints as the comparable bus option the considerable reduced extent of this option reduces the level of risk associated with it

Ultra-Light Rail Transit

Trolleybus

++

Catenary-Free Electric Bus

Comparable Bus

Low Cost Bus

++

41

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives 6.5 In terms of this constraint the ULRT and catenary-free electric bus options, which are both unproven at this scale of investment, represent an unacceptable level of risk including that funding is lost or for other reasons delivery of the project becomes unaffordable because of delay and inflation and/or is never completed. This is obviously not acceptable to the Promoters and/or funders; therefore neither option can be considered to be a reasonable alternative to delivering the required outcomes in this environment and are therefore not considered any further in this report. The remaining options pass the deliverability constraint and are therefore considered further in this section.

Potential for System Expansion

No unreasonable barrier to extending the scope of the system in the future, for example aiming to avoid proprietary technology which could limit competitive procurement of vehicles/infrastructure in the future 6.6 Table 6.3 summarises the performance of the remaining options against the system expansion delivery constraint. None of the three options considered against this delivery constraint are dependent on proprietary technology (unlike the ULRT and catenary-free electric bus options which have previously been excluded from consideration) and therefore attention is focused on competitive procurement of vehicles and deliverability of future infrastructure (whether extensions to existing corridors or wholly new corridors being upgraded to the same technology). TABLE 6.3
Option

SYSTEM EXPANSION DELIVERY CONSTRAINT

Assessment Commentary Trolleybus vehicles are available from a range of suppliers and are expected to be available through competitive procurement in the future. System expansion would benefit from the same advantages of obtaining legal powers described under the deliverability constraint The comparable bus option would not be dependent on any particular technology and therefore additional vehicles will be available through competitive procurement in the future. However system expansion would be constrained by the disadvantages of obtaining legal powers described under the deliverability constraint Vehicles for the low cost bus option would be commercially provided by the service operators with no constraint on procurement of additional buses in the future. The limited scale of this option presents relatively little constraint to expanding implementation in the future

Trolleybus

++

Comparable Bus

++

Low Cost Bus

+++

42

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

6.7

All three remaining options pass the system expansion delivery constraint and are therefore considered further in this section.

Commercial Case
Procurement of the option must be achievable competitively in line with EU regulations Revenue received must exceed the operating costs. The extent to which the resulting revenue surplus will support scheme funding/expansion is also important 6.8 Table 6.4 summarises the performance of the remaining options against the commercial case delivery constraint. Of particular importance is the ability for the Promoters to influence the attributes of the service and to use any revenue surplus in support of the initial funding contribution and/or any future expansion. Appendix B to this report sets out the applicability of various service delivery options for these options. The infrastructure for all three of the options considered against this delivery constraint could be procured in line with EU regulations. TABLE 6.4
Option

COMMERCIAL CASE DELIVERY CONSTRAINT

Assessment Commentary For the trolleybus option both the infrastructure and service could be procured to the Promoters specification and revenue surplus would be available to the Promoters The comparable bus option could be delivered through a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA, potentially in combination with a statutory quality partnership, SQP). However, there is some doubt over whether the necessary partnership terms would meet the required competition test. This delivery option would give the Promoters limited control over the revenue surplus, particularly over the long term, although use payments could potentially be introduced on segregated sections of the route With a Quality Contract Scheme (QCS) in place the service for a comparable bus option could be competitively procured and any revenue surplus could be secured by the Promoters. However, it is not clear whether a comparable bus option would meet the statutory tests for the introduction of a scheme specific QCS on the north and south corridors.

Trolleybus

+++

Comparable Bus (with VPA)

Comparable Bus (with QCS)

++

43

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

Option Assessment Commentary The low cost bus option is expected to result in a lower level of net revenue surplus. Delivery of this option is not dependent on a capital contribution repaid by future revenue surplus and therefore this delivery constraint is less critical for this option

Low Cost Bus

+++

6.9

The trolleybus and low cost bus options pass the commercial case delivery constraint and are therefore considered further in this section. Competitive procurement of a comparable bus option to the Promoters specification and with the revenue surplus available to the Promoters is not achievable under the current deregulated bus environment, without a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) between the Promoters and bus operators. VPAs have successfully been introduced across the UK for a variety of schemes; however the partnership terms required given the scale and nature of the comparable bus option would require significant commitments to be made by incumbent bus operators and whether the necessary agreement would pass the required competition test is uncertain. A Quality Contract Scheme (QCS), a form of franchising, would also allow this delivery constraint to be met for the comparable bus scheme. However, it is uncertain that such a contract could be demonstrated to meet the statutory tests.

6.10

Outcomes Realisation
In terms of the level of influence which the Promoters would have in delivering the outputs and outcomes of the project which contribute to its value for money 6.11 Table 6.5 summarises the performance of the remaining options against the outcomes realisation delivery constraint. Outcomes realisation is about project evaluation demonstrating that the scheme appraisal prepared in support of obtaining powers and funding was robust, that the project as implemented is value for money, and identifying lessons learned for future projects. The influence of the Promoters in delivering the service specification is therefore key in ensuring that the expected passenger benefits, including journey times and wait times, are delivered as planned. TABLE 6.5
Option

OUTCOMES REALISATION DELIVERY CONSTRAINT

Assessment Commentary The ability to realise the required outcomes from the project is affected by the limited influence that Promoters have over competition from other bus operators

Trolleybus

++

44

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

Option Assessment Commentary Delivery of trolleybus within the context of a Quality Contract Scheme would additionally allow the Promoters a high level of influence over the specification of the supporting bus network, but there is uncertainty that such a contract could be successfully secured. Within the context of a Voluntary Partnership Agreement the Promoters could (depending on the agreed terms) have an adequate level of over the specification of the comparable bus option services and the supporting network, but only over the limited length the agreement remains in force Delivery of the comparable bus option through a Quality Contract Scheme would allow the Promoters a high level of influence the over the specification of the comparable bus service and the supporting bus network Although (without QCS) the Promoters would have limited influence over specification of the supporting bus network this option is based on improvements to existing services and this is unlikely to be a critical issue. The lower level of capital investment would not require the same level of influence over delivering outcomes and therefore this delivery constraint is less critical for this option

Trolleybus (with QCS)

+++

Comparable Bus (with VPA)

++

Comparable Bus (with QCS)

+++

Low Cost Bus

++

6.12

All three remaining options pass the outcomes realisation constraint and are therefore considered further in this section. For the comparable bus the key disadvantage of the with VPA option in comparison to the with QCS option is the additional certainty over the long term that the latter approach would bring. A Quality Contract Scheme, if the proposals could be demonstrated to meet the statutory tests would also offer advantages to the trolleybus option in terms of this constraint, giving the Promoters influence over the supporting bus network and significantly reducing the risk of harmful competition from other operators.

Value for Money

Irrespective of whether funding is provided by DfT or locally, any scheme needs to provide the best value for money of all reasonable/relevant alternatives 6.13 Table 6.6 summarises the qualitative performance of each of the remaining options against the Value for Money constraint. A comparison of which option returns the highest, and therefore best BCR requires completion of the full

45

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives quantified appraisal and therefore will be considered within the updated scheme business case. However, much can be deduced in terms of the costs of delivery and the relative benefits of each option. TABLE 6.6
Option Trolleybus

VALUE FOR MONEY DELIVERY CONSTRAINT

Assessment Commentary The trolleybus has been demonstrated to DfTs satisfaction to have a compelling BCR The cost of comparable bus option would be broadly similar to trolleybus. That purely bus based options have been shown to attract less mode shift than the above options would limit the proportion of the benefit that could be delivered contributing to a reasonable BCR if the cost of delivery could be significantly less than trolleybus The low cost bus option would deliver materially less economic benefit than the above options but for significantly less cost. Therefore it has the potential to return a reasonable BCR

++ ++

Comparable Bus

Low Cost Bus

++

6.14

In qualitative terms there is little between the majority of the options considered which would justify differentiating by value for money. All three remaining options pass the final constraint of value for money and are therefore considered appropriate options to be taken forward for quantitative analysis.

Section Summary
6.15 This section set out the assessment of the identified options against the key constraints which affect delivery of any option. Three of the options pass these constraints and are recommended to be taken forward for quantitative analysis through the full modelling and appraisal framework: I Trolleybus option; noting the overhead line equipment has costs and impacts which are not associated with the comparable bus option. It is also noted that the ability to realise the required outcomes from the project is affected by the limited influence available over competition from other bus operators (without additional powers, for example a Quality Contract Scheme (QCS), delivered through a separate legal mechanism and uncertain as to whether such an application of would meet the statutory tests) Comparable bus option; noting that either of the mechanisms which would be required for delivery of this option are subject to uncertainty. An adequate Voluntary Partnership Agreement would require significant commitments to be made by the operators and is unproven as to whether an agreement reflecting the requirements for a scheme of this scale or nature could meet the required competition test. The alternative of a scheme specific Quality Contract Scheme is unproven as to whether such an application of would meet the statutory tests

46

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives I Low cost bus option; noting that although this option would be subject to similar service delivery limitations as the comparable bus option, because of the much reduced scale of the project the Commercial and Outcomes constraints are less of a concern

6.16

Three of the identified options failed to pass delivery constraints and were therefore excluded from further consideration: I The cost of the Light Rail Transit option significantly exceeds the funding available from national or local sources. Therefore this option was excluded because it does not meet the Affordability constraint An Ultra-Light Rail Transit option has not been proven at the scale of NGT and has limited and connected suppliers, restricting the likelihood of being able to competitively procure such a system. Therefore the implementation risk of this option cannot be accepted by the Promoters. This option was excluded because it does not meet the Deliverability constraint. Additionally a ULRT option would be based on proprietary technology and would therefore have scored lower than the recommended options against the system expansion delivery constraint There is considerable uncertainty as to whether a dependable, appropriate and affordable catenary-free electric bus option will be available within the funding timeframe for the project. The implementation risk is therefore unacceptable to the Promoters and this option was excluded because it does not meet the Deliverability constraint. A catenary-free electric bus option would be based on proprietary technology and would have scored lower than the recommended options against the system expansion delivery constraint. Additionally the catenary-free electric bus option would score worse than the comparable bus option against the commercial case delivery constraint; the high relative cost of catenary-free vehicles would effectively rule out a VPA approach and therefore this option would only be deliverable with a QCS, with significant uncertainty

6.17

The promoted trolleybus system offered the overall best performance of all identified options considered against the scheme objectives and also meets the delivery constraints. It is therefore confirmed that the Promoters choice of technology and option is robust. When considered against the comparable bus and low cost bus options which also meet the delivery constraint the relative performance of trolleybus against the scheme objectives is even more compelling.

47

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

7
7.1

Conclusions
Introduction
This review has set out the consideration of different public transport technologies for their suitability on the NGT north and south corridors. It is considered that a representative and sufficiently large range of options have been assessed and therefore that the conclusions of this review are robust. This review does not set out to justify the selection of suitable corridors for NGT nor does it present the identification and selection of alignment or other design alternatives which have been given careful consideration through the scheme development process. These aspects are detailed in separate documents and are not repeated within this report. The final section of this report summarises the approach taken and recommends two alternatives to the trolleybus option to be appraised through the modelling and appraisal framework developed for NGT and included within the updated scheme business case.

7.2

7.3

Summary of Approach
7.4 The first stage of the review process described in this report applied a filtering process to identify a shortlist of technology options which were suitable for implementation on the NGT corridors, taking into account physical opportunities/ constraints as well as potential service and capacity requirements. The following options were identified as being suitable within this context: I I I I I 7.5 Light Rail Transit (LRT or tram) Ultra-Light Rail Transit (ULRT) Trolleybus Catenary-Free Electric Bus Conventional bus (including a range of vehicle technologies)

For each of these options a broadly comparable option was developed, based on the required system specification developed to address the established scheme objectives. Two options were developed based on conventional bus technology: a comparable (to trolleybus) bus option; and a low cost (bus) option as required in DfT business case guidance. The second stage of review was a qualitative assessment of each of these options against the established scheme objectives. The strongest performers were the options with characteristics distinct from bus services, namely LRT, ULRT and the standard and catenary-free electric bus options. Each of these options would have similar environmental impacts from highway widening and introducing segregated sections. Although the ULRT option would not have townscape impacts of the overhead line equipment, it would have air quality and noise emission impacts along the corridors. The catenary-free option has no overhead line equipment or air quality emissions, however, there would be a lessoning of the visual identity of the scheme and reduced perceptions of permanence and legibility.

7.6

49

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives 7.7 The comparable bus option would be operating under diesel power for around half of the length of the route resulting in air quality/noise emissions and would therefore be perceived by travellers as being little different to existing bus vehicles It was assessed as making a lesser contribution against the scheme objectives, mainly because bus technology has been shown to attract fewer travellers out of their cars than the other modes considered and therefore results in less of the benefits which derive from reduced highway traffic. The low cost bus option would just have less of an impact than the other options. The final stage of the review was a qualitative assessment of these options against the constraints which affect delivery of any option. At this stage any of the six options which failed to meet any particular constraint, and therefore would not be deliverable, was excluded and not considered against any subsequent constraints. The trolleybus, comparable bus and low cost bus options all met the delivery constraints. However it is noted that procurement of service for the comparable bus option is dependent on delivering an adequate Voluntary Partnership Agreement or Quality Contract Scheme, both of which are subject to uncertainty. The cost of the Light Rail Transit option significantly exceeds the funding available from national or local sources. Therefore this option was excluded because it does not meet the Affordability constraint. An Ultra-Light Rail Transit option has not been proven at the scale of NGT and has limited and connected suppliers, restricting the likelihood of being able to competitively procure such a system. Therefore the implementation risk of this option cannot be accepted by the Promoters. This option was excluded because it does not meet the Deliverability constraint. There is considerable uncertainty as to whether a dependable, appropriate and affordable catenary-free electric bus option will be available within the funding timeframe for the project. The implementation risk is therefore unacceptable to the Promoters and this option was excluded because it does not meet the Deliverability constraint.

7.8

7.9

7.10

7.11

7.12

Recommended Options
Preferred Option 7.13 Trolleybus technology performed joint best against the objectives for the scheme and has been demonstrated to meet the delivery constraints. Trolleybus is the preferred option as it is the best performing option that meets the delivery constraints. Next Best Alternative 7.14 A comparable bus option performed reasonably against the scheme objectives but not as strongly as the trolleybus option. Although it was demonstrated to meet the delivery constraints its reliance on the Promoters being able to achieve an adequate Voluntary Partnership Agreement with bus operators on the corridors or on a Quality Contract Scheme, both of which have material uncertainty, means that there is significantly more delivery risk than there is for trolleybus.

50

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives Nonetheless it is recommended that this option is included and quantitatively appraised within the updated scheme business case as the Next Best Alternative. Low Cost Alternative 7.15 The low cost bus option would make a more limited contribution against the objectives for the scheme but there is the potential for this to be proportionate to the cost of the scheme. It is recommended that this option is included and quantitatively appraised within the updated scheme business case as the Low Cost Alternative. Full Appraisal of Options 7.16 A more detailed assessment of the two alternatives to the trolleybus option is included within the updated business case for the trolleybus scheme, including economic appraisal and consideration of the options performance against DfTs business, environmental and social objectives. A mandate specifying each of these alternatives for the purposes of design and model development is provided as Appendix C.

7.17

51

Leeds NGT Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

APPENDIX
A FUNDING CONSTRAINTS

Appendix A

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

A1

FUNDING/DELIVERY CONSTRAINTS
Central Government (DfT) Major Scheme Funding

A1.1

Funding availability is a critical constraint to the option selection process. The current approval is for 173.5 million of DfT funding towards a trolleybus system with a total scheme cost of 250 million. This funding is from DfTs indicative major scheme capital funding baseline of 1.5 billion for 2015/16 to 2018/19, only available for transport projects. The funding approval states that the scheme must be implemented in accordance with the proposals set out in the Promoters March 2012 business case, subject to any changes which may occur as a result of further design or as a result of any remaining statutory processes. DfTs funding letter sets out the conditions of that approval, in particular that any changes to the route; timescale; cost; value for money; or specification and delivery of services does not materially change from the Programme Entry submission. Interpretation of this is clear. This funding would certainly only be available for a public transport scheme on the A660/A61/M621 corridors. The likelihood of this funding being available decreases as any proposal diverges from the trolleybus option described in the business case. The funding approval also specifies that any reduction achieved in the total scheme costs would be shared by DfT and the Promoters in proportion to their share of funding (ie 69% to DfT 31% to Metro/LCC). Since NGT funding was awarded, there has been regime change in DfT major schemes funding, which sees funding decisions devolved to Local Transport Bodies (LTBs). The national funding pot has been pro-rated to LTBs on the basis of their population, with City Deal LTBs (which includes Leeds City Region) receiving more - in recognition that these were further ahead in the required strengthening of local decision making arrangements. The current NGT funding approval was the last to be achieved under the previous process; there is no opportunity to apply for additional DfT funding for the project. It follows that the current approved DfT funding cannot be increased and this constrains what alternative options can be considered. The confirmed funding for the West Yorkshire and York Local Transport Body is 100.9 million for the period 2015/16 to 2020/2110. If the terms of the current DfT funding approval cannot be satisfied a scheme of anything like the scale of NGT could not be considered using this funding source. The current approved funding for NGT, if lost, would be expected to be re-included in the national pot and then be shared amongst all LTBs.

A1.2

A1.3

A1.4

A1.5

Alternative Funding Sources

A1.6 The remaining 76.5 million funding has been committed to the project by Metro and LCC from a range of sources. This contribution includes land required for the scheme valued at 11.6 million and project development costs (25.3 million, around 10% of the total scheme cost and in proportion with similar schemes), including detailed design and the costs of procuring the system. The remaining

10

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/local-transport-body-funding-allocations

Appendix A

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives 39.6 million is towards construction costs. At least 15m of this funding was assumed to be raised by prudential borrowing on the basis that the retained revenue surplus would exceed annual costs of loan repayment. This approach would not be available for any alternative where the Promoters did not control the revenue surplus. Applying the principle that revenue surplus should exceed borrowing costs would mean that any schemes that generates a lower revenue surplus would only support a lower level of local capital contribution. A1.7 An indicative range of local contribution towards construction of an alternative option would therefore be from 39.6 million (towards a proposal with a revenue surplus at least equivalent to the trolleybus proposal) down to 24.6 million towards a proposal where the revenue surplus is not available to the Promoters in support of prudential borrowing. The only other material source of funding currently available is the 1 billion West Yorkshire Plus Transport Fund (currently under development). The Transport Fund includes the indicative major scheme funding devolved within the West Yorkshire and York city deal. The primary objective of this fund is to maximise the increase in employment and productivity growth across West Yorkshire, by the delivery of transport schemes. The secondary objective is for the programme to improve the ability of people in every West Yorkshire district to access jobs with two employment accessibility minima proposed: I I A1.9 A better than average improvement in employment accessibility for residents in the most deprived 25% of West Yorkshire communities; and Every West Yorkshire district to gain an average improvement in employment accessibility no less than half the average across West Yorkshire

A1.8

Committing a substantial proportion of the fund to an alternative to NGT would significantly constrain the ability of the fund to achieve these objectives and exceed the minima. To obtain an allocation any alternative would have to score highly in the transport fund prioritisation, a process quite different to the previous DfT Major Scheme regime.

Funding Conclusions
A1.10 The level of funding potentially available for alternatives to NGT varies depending on the nature of the option considered. For example: I I Up to 250 million for an option offering comparable transport and value for money performance to the current approved NGT trolleybus scheme Materially less for options for which the transport and value for money performance has reduced to the extent that DfT withdraw the funding approval. For example, indicatively less than 50 million based on a combination of committed promoter funds and the West Yorkshire Transport fund.

A1.11

In order to deliver a major investment in Leeds transport infrastructure it is absolutely critical that any option promoted is sufficiently close (or better) in transport and value for money performance so as to be able to convince DfT that the current funding approval should stand.

Appendix A

Leeds NGT Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

APPENDIX
B SERVICE DELIVERY ALTERNATIVES

Appendix B

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

B1

SERVICE DELIVERY ALTERNATIVES

Introduction

B1.1

This appendix sets out the alternative mechanisms to deliver a new public transport service, which could be trolleybus but not exclusively so, or influence the attributes of existing bus services in order to increase their contributions to achieving the objectives for the NGT scheme. The section identifies the three alternative ways of delivering an improved public transport service on the NGT corridors taking into account the required system specification set out in the main report.

Status Quo
B1.2 Within the existing deregulated bus service context, bus operators register what they consider commercially viable services with the Traffic Commissioner. Metro tenders additional (non-commercially viable) services it sees as socially necessary, but has a limited budget to do so. Metro can only tender services which would not compete directly with commercial services. Generally both commercial and tendered bus services benefit from infrastructure improvements that reduce journey times and/or promote punctuality. The assumption within this context is therefore that both commercial and tendered services would benefit from investment in the A660 and A61/M621 corridors. The majority of services on these corridors are currently commercial. Metros 2013 Leeds bus review11 was one part of a West Yorkshire wide process to reduce its expenditure on bus services to match the funding available. This proposed the withdrawal of all public funding from these corridors, the expected result being withdrawal of a small number of Sunday or early morning/late evening services. The working assumption is therefore that in the future only commercial services will operate on these corridors. For commercial services, with current arrangements the Promoters have little or no influence on: service frequency; service stop usage; routeing; punctuality; vehicle quality or fare levels. All aspects of a tendered service could be specified, subject to tender value for money/affordability constraints. However and as already noted, Metro can only tender services which would not compete directly with commercial services. Conclusion B1.6 Providing NGT infrastructure and relying on operators to provide an NGT service would not be possible as the market cannot be relied upon to provide a service to the specification required to deliver the benefits of the scheme in full. Therefore the Promoters could have little certainty that the schemes intended outputs and outcomes could be delivered and so the cost justified. The Promoters would not be able to secure any revenue surplus and therefore would not be able to make a local funding contribution and finance this from revenue surplus.

B1.3

B1.4

B1.5

11

http://www.wymetro.com/consultation/busreview/leeds/

Appendix B

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives B1.7 While this service delivery option would not be applicable for NGT, it may be suitable for a low cost option. However, even for that scale of scheme it is unlikely to offer sufficient certainty of outputs and outcomes to be considered a credible option for service delivery.

Voluntary Partnership Agreement

B1.8 With a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) the Promoters could influence, to a degree all aspects of services offered on the NGT corridors. However a VPA would not prevent an operator which is party to the agreement taking advantage of any infrastructure improvements and competing on-street along the route. Also operators cannot be bound to a VPA and could withdraw. Although a VPA could agree fare maxima it cannot contain any agreement on actual fares to be charged as this would be considered a cartel and fall foul of competition law. If the NGT service were delivered by more than one operator each could have a different fare structure. There must be sufficient difference between different operators liveries for passengers to be able make fare based choices between them, the result being a move away from a uniform integrated service offer. The limit to what can be included within a VPA depends on what all existing bus operators and potential new entrants to the corridors are prepared to agree to. This includes the duration of any agreement. A key consideration is the difference between a commercial operators view of success and the public sector value for money approach required for capital funding. Some protection for private sector investment could be made by including in the VPA provision for a Quality Partnership Scheme (QPS) to be introduced, for example limiting access to new bus stops or lanes to vehicles/services meeting specified standards. Although the Promoters would not take control of the revenue surplus, a VPA could provide sufficient assurance to an operator to invest materially in vehicles and depot. Under this option the reduced delivery cost to the Promoters could reduce or remove the need for borrowing. Conclusion B1.12 Delivery of an NGT service using a VPA would not allow the Promoters to guarantee a uniform service and fare offer. The deliverability of this approach is limited by the inherent requirement for there to be a commercial operator willing to agree to the agreement for a sufficiently long term without losing critical elements of the Promoters specification. Overall a VPA would not offer a high level of certainty that the scheme benefits would be delivered to the scale or for the duration required for an investment of the scale of NGT. This option may also not be appropriate for a low cost option, as and even for the reduced scale of scheme, depending on what the operators will agree to a VPA might only offer limited and relatively short term certainty of outputs and outcomes.

B1.9

B1.10

B1.11

Quality Partnership Scheme

B1.13 A statutory Quality Partnership Scheme (QPS) could be made by the local transport authority specifying various minimum quality standards that bus operators must meet in order to use new or upgraded infrastructure. Potentially this could be

Appendix B

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives extended along NGT corridors given the level of investment proposed along the whole route. However, the quality threshold could not be so high that it represented a disproportionate barrier to entry into the market for new operators or otherwise disproportionately affect existing competition. The duration of a QPS is related to the effective lifespan of the facilities provided for example this could be up to at least thirty years for improved junctions/sections of local carriageway widening. B1.14 With a QPS the new infrastructure would therefore be available to any operator which meets the defined quality threshold. Providing the highest level of priority to the majority or all of the high frequency services currently operating on the northern corridor would result in a greater reduction in highway capacity to other vehicles than the trolleybus option. This would reduce the value for money of the scheme due to reduced highway benefit/increased highway disbenefit. Therefore only a lower level of priority would be provided, which would in turn extend journey times and adversely affect punctuality when compared with the trolleybus option. The Promoters could not retain any funding surplus with this option and although they could theoretically introduce a charge for the use of exclusive off-highway infrastructure the income from this is not likely to be sufficient to support material borrowing. If the charge is too high then operators will simply bypass that section of route, thereby compromising the initial investment and the benefits it would bring. Conclusion B1.16 A QPS represents an effective and proven way of delivering a service improvement. However, requiring vehicles of higher specification and which are more expensive than conventional buses may be a disproportionate barrier to entry. A QPS would not allow the highest level of priority to be given to services without compromising value for money. Therefore it is not a credible approach to maximising the value for money of an investment at the scale of the current proposal. This option may therefore only be applicable for a low cost option, and even for that scale of scheme might only offer limited certainty of outputs and outcomes. A VPA and a QPS can be used in combination, providing scope to agree service delivery standards beyond a QPS. This could provide additional protection for bus operators party to the VPA that operators which were not parties to the agreements would face restrictions on their ability to compete directly.

B1.15

B1.17

Quality Contract Scheme

B1.18 Metro is developing proposals for the implementation of a West Yorkshire Quality Contract Scheme (QCS). A QCS would replace the current deregulated framework for the provision of local bus services with a form of franchising, with local bus services being put out to competitive tender and provided under contract(s). An alternative to a county-wide QCS would be an NGT-specific scheme on the A660/A61/M621 corridors. With a QCS, a contract could be let for an NGT service to the Promoters specification and the Promoters could manage fares and have control of any

B1.19

Appendix B

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives revenue surplus. The specification of other bus services running on the same corridors could be adjusted to integrate them better with NGT by letting contracts for these services or varying contracts if a QCS exists before the introduction of NGT. In this way, conventional bus competition with NGT could be managed and the highest level of priority could be given to a controlled frequency NGT service. A QCS can last for a maximum of ten years, but can be renewed in further ten year periods. B1.20 To date no QCS has been introduced anywhere and therefore the process and legislation remain untested. The process for proposing a QCS is involved, including five public interest tests which do not align with Major Transport Scheme Investment or TWAO processes in content or timescale. Relying on a scheme specific QCS would represent a material risk to delivery of the project. Conclusion B1.21 A QCS would allow the Promoters the ability to manage the interaction between NGT and competing services, removing the potential for competition from other bus services and possibly of benefit to the schemes value for money. However, restricting the use of on-street NGT infrastructure would be through specification in the non-NGT service contracts and potentially be vulnerable in the longer term to pressure from operators, politicians or the public. Allowing the highest level of priority to a higher frequency of services would disbenefit other highway vehicles and therefore would be likely to reduce the overall value for money. The unproven ability to make a QCS represents a material risk and therefore cannot be relied on as a delivery method for the NGT scheme until the West Yorkshire QCS is determined. However, with a West Yorkshire scheme in place letting an NGT service using QCS powers represents a credible option in terms of the scale of investment planned if the value for money of such an approach could be demonstrated.

Service Contract
B1.22 With a service contract the Promoters would have full control over all aspects of an NGT service, including managing fares and defining the level of revenue risk to be passed to the operator (from none to all). Under general circumstances a contract could not be let for a service competing with existing commercial services. However, if implementation powers are obtained for an eligible scheme using the Transport and Works Act 1992 Order (TWAO) procedure, the Promoters are able to include the power to let a service contract. This is the usual mechanism for securing the powers to create a concession or contract to operate a tram system. Conclusion B1.23 A service contract represents an effective and proven way to procure an operator for NGT; obtaining the ability to let one forms part of the proven TWAO process to obtain powers. It provides a reliable mechanism for guaranteeing the benefits of the scheme are realised and allows the Promoters to control any revenue surplus for funding maintenance and also as a repayment source for capital borrowing. However, it does not in itself offer any protection from competition from other

Appendix B

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives bus services. A service contract represents a credible and proven option for an investment at the scale of the current proposal.

Summary
B1.24 This appendix sets out the range of mechanisms which could be used to deliver a new public transport service or influence existing services to achieve the specification required, in particular to achieve the maximum value for money and to lock-in the benefits of the scheme sufficiently long term to guarantee that this value for money will be realised. The most beneficial mechanism for an option eligible for the TWAO approach is to include powers for letting a service contract. This represents a proven approach and has the further advantage that the right to let a service contract is considered simultaneously with the other implementation powers required. However, this approach allows limited protection against competition from existing bus operators except if used in combination with QCS powers. For other options a QCS is considered to be the approach offering the greatest control of outcomes; it remains an unproven approach however. In the absence of QCS powers a VPA or QPS scheme (separately or in combination) would be required. It is been assumed that a combined approach would offer the best overall approach.

B1.25

B1.26

Appendix B

Leeds NGT Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

APPENDIX
C MANDATE FOR ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Appendix C

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

C1

LEEDS NGT MANDATES FOR SPECIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS

Preferred Option
I I I I Holt Park to Stourton alignment, predominantly powered from overhead lines Vehicles procured by promoter in sufficient numbers to be able to deliver the planned frequency and passenger capacity reliably all day Park & Ride at Bodington and Stourton Priority measures to improve journey times and punctuality, particularly NGT service, targeting the sections with the highest passenger loadings and/or current delays Delivered within the Programme Entry funding approval Dedicated stops for guaranteed availability, legibility and higher quality

I I

Next Best Alternative

I I I I Holt Park to Stourton alignment, not/predominantly not powered from overhead lines Charging/fuelling infrastructure at stops/termini/depot or as required Vehicles procured by promoter in sufficient numbers to be able to deliver the planned frequency and passenger capacity reliably all day Vehicles capable over full working lifespan of reliably running adverse local emission-free through environmentally sensitive sections (behind Arndale, Millennium Square, Whitfield Way) Park & Ride at Bodington and Stourton Priority measures to improve journey times and punctuality, particularly NGT service, targeting the sections with the highest passenger loadings and/or current delays Closest possible to NGT specification to demonstrate applicable to approved funding Delivered within the Programme Entry funding approval Dedicated stops for guaranteed availability, legibility and higher quality

I I

I I I

Low Cost Alternative

I I I I I I I Holt Park to Stourton alignment, not powered from overhead lines Vehicles provided by commercial operators upgrading existing routes (no through service) Park & Ride at Bodington and Stourton Additional P&R service from Stourton to University Priority measures to improve journey times and punctuality for all buses, particularly aimed at the sections with the highest passenger loadings Delivered for maximum of 50m outturn funding (estimate of what could be made available without DfT NGT funding) Improvements in level of quality at existing stops

Appendix C

CONTROL SHEET

Project/Proposal Name Document Title Client Contract/Project No. SDG Project/Proposal No.

Leeds New Generation Transport Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives M1028729 224944 ISSUE HISTORY

Issue No. 3.1

Date 24/01/14 REVIEW

Details Updated issue for TWAO team review

Originator Other Contributors Review by:

Steve Hunter Jon Peters, Tony Walmsley Print Sign Neil Chadwick

DISTRIBUTION Client: Steer Davies Gleave: Metro

\\sdgworld.net\Data\Leeds\PROJECTS\224\9\44\01\Outputs\Reports\Alternatives Review\Core_Document_C-1-1_NGT_Alternatives Review Report_Final.docx

Control Sheet