Sei sulla pagina 1di 15

Pergamon

Pll: 80967-070X(%)00023-6
Transporr Policy, Vol. 3. No. 4, pp. 2255239, 1996
Copyright ( 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0967-070X/96 $15.00 + 0.00
Developing new urban public transport
systems
An irrational decision-making process
Marion Edwards and Roger L Mackett
Centre for Transport Studies, University College London, Gower Street, London WClE 6BT, UK
The decision-making process for planning new urban public transport systems in the UK is
examined by studying 11 new and planned systems. The objectives of building the systems relate to
transport and development issues. A number of key factors are taken into account during the
decision-making process: forecast demand, image, deregulation of buses, technological innovation,
private sector involvement and the funding mechanism. The requirement for proven technology and
the forecast demand for the systems reduces the choice to one of light rail or bus. The effects of
bus deregulation, funding and image, essentially reduce that choice to light rail or nothing. Cost
should be kept low, which suggests a bus based system, but current legislation favours more
expensive light rail systems. The conclusion is that although transport planners make rational
decisions within the current political framework, the framework, and therefore some of the
decisions, are not rational. Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd
Keywords: public transport, light rail, bus, urban development
This paper is concerned with the decision-making
process surrounding the method of planning new urban
public transport systems in the UK. It is recognised that
there is a need to reduce urban traffic congestion caused
by the increasing use of private cars. The problem
cannot be solved by increasing the capacity of the road
infrastructure and it requires a package of measures,
including improvements to public transport facilities so
that they provide a more attractive alternative to private
cars (Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution,
1994).
There has been a significant decline in the use of
public transport in the UK in recent years, partly as a
consequence of the growth in the use of the motor car.
For example, in 1951, 14% of households owned one
or more cars and over 60% of travel in the UK was by
public transport. By 1993, 68% of households owned
one or more cars and public transports share of travel
had declined to 11%. (All figures based on Department
This research has been funded by the UK Engineering and Physical
Sciences Research Council under grant CR/H 78481. The authors
would like to acknowledge the assistance of the experts in providing
the information used. Any errors of interpretation or otherwise are
the responsibility of the authors.
of Transport, 1995.) Many factors have led to the modal
shift, for example the motorway programme, increasing
incomes, the dispersal of cities, and the relative levels
of investment.
There has not been the same pattern of decline in
public transport patronage in continental Europe. For
example, over the period 1966 to 1993, bus patronage
in terms of passenger-kilometres, declined by 32% in
the UK, but increased by 16% in the Netherlands,
34% in Germany, and 52% in Belgium. The picture
does not appear to be so gloomy for rail in the UK
because the number of passenger-kilometres increased
by 3% between 1966 and 1993, mainly because of an
increase in trip length. However, this is a very modest
increase compared with that elsewhere, with increases
of 52% in France, 58% in Germany, 71% in Italy,
100% in the Netherlands, and 109% in Belgium
(Department of Transport, 1979, 1995).
The picture is similar if cities are considered. It has
been shown that, compared with other countries in
western Europe, urban transport in the UK has higher
fares and poorer quality in terms of frequency, punctu-
ality, cancellations, and age of rolling stock (Mackett,
1993). Combined with a greater bias towards the car in
225
terms of price, investment and personal taxation, this
has led to a greater rate of decentralisation of popula-
tion and employment in London than in most other
major cities in western Europe.
In recent years there has been a major difference
between the UK and the rest of Europe in the attitude
to urban public transport. This has not always been the
case. In fact, Britain led the way in urban public trans-
port, opening the worlds first metro in 1863, from
Paddington to Farringdon, and the first deep tube
tunnel in 1890 from Elephant and Castle to the City of
London. Within a few years central London had an
excellent metro system. There was also a comprehensive
tram network. Later, trolley buses and diesel buses were
introduced in London, improving the service to the
suburbs. Other cities in the UK also had comprehensive
public transport systems, usually in the form of dense
tram networks. However, the tram systems were all
closed down (apart from the single line left in Black-
pool). The last tram ran in Manchester in 1949, in
London in 1952, in Birmingham in 1953, and in Shef-
field in 1960. In Leeds a new line was opened as late as
1949, but the whole system was scrapped by 1960. The
last trolley bus ran in Bradford in 1972 (Hall and
Hass-Klau, 1985). The closure of these systems took
place for a number of reasons, linked to the need for
investment, partly as a result of war damage, and the
belief that buses, with their greater flexibility, could
provide an adequate service. More recently, the growth
in road congestion caused by increasing car use, and
the poor image of the bus has led to the decline in its
use in the UK. This has led to an increasing need for
subsidy. Concern about rapid growth in the level of
bus subsidy was instrumental in the deregulation of
buses in areas of the UK outside London under the
1985 Transport Act. The government believed that, by
opening up the bus market to competition, operators
would be better able to match passengers needs and so
stem the fall in patronage. Competitive pressure was to
force costs down thereby facilitating greater innovation.
In fact, bus patronage continued to decline in areas
outside London (White, 1995) and a small number of
major operators are emerging by means of takeovers,
often producing local monopolies.
As indicated by the figures cited above, the picture is
rather different elsewhere in Europe. Rather than
closing down the tram systems, they have been devel-
oped into modern, fast, efficient light rail systems.
There has been a completely different attitude to the
provision of urban public transport. For example, Hall
and Hass-Klau (1985), comparing the provision of rail-
based public transport in Germany and the UK, found
that not only did all large cities in Germany have
modern systems, they also benefitted from complemen-
tary measures such as comprehensive pedestrianisation
of the city centre. Similarly, Hill (1995) compared the
development of the metro in Toulouse with the light rail
system in Sheffield and found very different attitudes. In
Toulouse there was unequivocal support for the new
system with funding being made available and other
public transport being planned to complement it,
whereas in Sheffield a much more modest system has
been developed, which has to compete against privatised
bus and rail networks.
It should be recognised that there has been a growth
in interest in the development of urban public transport
systems in the UK in recent years. The Tyne and Wear
Metro, a light rail system based upon Newcastle upon
Tyne, was opened in 1980, using former British Rail
tracks, but with new tunnels to provide access into the
city centre. No other new systems were opened until
the Docklands Light Railway in 1987 which was an
integral part of the regeneration process of the london
Docklands. The recognition of the growth in road
congestion, and hence the need to provide an attractive
alternative to the car has stimulated the authorities in a
number of cities to develop such systems. Two light rail
schemes have opened in recent years: Manchester
Metrolink in 1992 and Sheffield Supertram in 1994.
There are a variety of public transport technologies
available, including metro, light rail and kerb-guided
bus. Transport planners have to decide which public
transport technologies are most appropriate for their
particular city or corridors within their city. Since few
systems have been constructed recently in the UK there
is limited expertise in deciding which is the most appro-
priate technology for a particular city. However, there
are over 30 projects at various stages of planning and
development (Local Transport Today, 1995). There is a
need to transfer the experience from one city to another,
rather than each one starting from first principles each
time. One way to do this is to provide tools which
support the decision-making process and facilitate the
transfer of knowledge. The aim of the UTOPIA (Urban
Transport Operations and Planning using Intelligent
Analysis) project, which has been carried out at Univer-
sity College London, in the University of London
Centre for Transport Studies, was to investigate the
decision-making process with a view to developing an
expert system to act as a decision support tool. Expert
system are sophisticated computer programs that
manipulate knowledge to solve problems efficiently and
effectively in a narrow problem area (Waterman, 1985)
and they are used to solve problems which usually
require human expertise or knowledge, for example,
planning, diagnosis and interpretation. The case for
developing an expert system to help select appropriate
technologies for urban public transport systems is
presented in Mackett and Edwards (1995).
Central to expert system development is an under-
standing of the decision-making process. This paper
describes an investigation of this process, and develop-
ment of a model of the decision-making process on
which an expert system could be based.
The paper falls into three main sections. The
following section describes the knowledge acquisition
226
Building new urban public transport s_vstrms: M Edwards and R L Muckett
phase of the project, discussing how cities were selected
for investigation, and the techniques used to elicit
knowledge about systems in those cities. The next
section discusses the results of knowledge acquisition,
including the reason for building new public transport
systems, the alternative solutions and the alternative
public transport modes which were considered, and the
factors used in making the decision. This is followed by
a section describing the decision-making process and
discusses whether or not it can be modelled.
Methodology: the knowledge acquisition process
In this paper the planning and development of new
public transport systems in the UK is considered in
detail. However, reference is made to systems outside
the UK where appropriate. The information is from a
world-wide survey carried out in the course of the
UTOPIA project. The first stage of the survey involved
the identification of suitable experts and systems to
investigate. For a system to be investigated, it had to
satisfy the following criteria:
(1) The country should have a planning system
comparable to that in the UK (eliminating
developing and former eastern bloc countries).
(2) The system should either have been built, be
under construction, or be planned (not merely
proposed).
(3) Existing systems should have been opened in the
last 20 years (post 1974).
(4) Bus-based systems should be a system and more
than just bus lanes and bus priorities.
In the case of UK systems a number of systems and
experts were known to members of the project team,
and additional systems and experts were suggested by
these experts. Overseas systems were identified using
Bushel1 (1994).
Knowledge acquisition has been based on a question-
naire which focused on the decision about the choice of
technology, that is, light rail, heavy rail, guided bus
and so on. The topics addressed in the questionnaire fall
into two classes as discussed below.
(1) Factual information about the system, for
example:
(4
(b)
(cl
The alternatives considered, both other
modes and other ways of achieving the
objectives, such as road building.
The factors taken into account in deciding
on the most appropriate mode.
The degree of segregation of the system
and its relationship with the highway. For
example, the system may run in tunnels or
on elevated structures; on the surface but
away from the highway; along the edge or
median of the highway, segregated from
the highway, except at junctions; on the
highway, competing with cars for road
space.
(d) The nature of the traffic priority regime if
there are conflicts with road traffic at
junctions.
(e) The effects of utilities (e.g. gas, electricity,
water and telecommunications) on the
construction programme.
This information is necessary to understand the
physical constraints affecting the modes.
(2) More qualitative information about the system,
for example:
(a) The background to and objectives of
building the system.
(b) The effects of funding availability.
(c) Implications of building the system in
terms of the economic and environmental
impacts that it has had, and what would
have happened had it not been built.
These questions are often more important in
understanding the decision-making process
than the questions which elicit factual
information.
Where possible, technical reports were obtained to
supplement the answers given but these tend to provide
information relating to the first rather than the second
class of question.
For all the UK systems (and a few of the overseas
systems) it was possible to have a meeting with the
expert to discuss the system. The process was as follows:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
arrange an interview;
send the questionnaire;
interview the expert using the questionnaire as a
basis for discussion (the interview is tape
recorded);
transcribe the tape recording of the interview
(supplementing it with contemporaneous
written notes);
analyse the transcript to identify the key
features of the systems and critical decisions
made.
For systems outside the UK, if an interview could not
take place, a written version of the questionnaire was
sent. As this tends to receive a briefer response than a
verbal interview, and since no transcription is necessary,
it is much quicker to analyse, but a written response
produces less detailed information than an interview.
Results fromthe survey
The results presented are for the UK systems, but infor-
mation relating to overseas systems is included where
appropriate. In total nine cities were investigated which
covered 11 different systems at different stages of devel-
opment (Table 1). There are two cities which have two
systems. In Leeds a kerb-guided bus system is now
227
Table 1 New and proposed public transport systems in Great Britain
City System Status Contact person Position Organisation
Birmingham Light rail
Bristol
Croydon
Leeds
London
Docklands
Light rail or
Guided light
transit
Light rail
Light rail
Kerb-guided bus
Automatic
light rail
Ultra light rail
Manchester Light rail
Newcastle upon
Tyne
Light rail
Nottingham Light rail
Sheftield Light rail
Authorised
Planned
Authorised
Authorised
Opened 1995
Opened 1987
Planned
Opened I992
Opened 1980
Authorised
Opened 1994
Ray Hughes
David Keay
Robert Tarr
Roger Newport
Jon Willis
Adrian Pope
Jon Willis
Bob Miller
Bill Tyson
Tony Young
Brian Martin
Tony Ridley
Rafael Cuesta
David Andrews
John Jordan
Head of Development
Principal Engineer for Midland Metro
Director General
Project Manager, The Westway
CENTRO
Avon CC
Rail Development Manager
Former Deputy Director of Planning
Rail Development Manager
Transport Planner
Director of Planning and Promotion
Operational Planning Manager
Former Managing Director
Former Director-Genera1
Principle Planner LRT Project Team
Programme Manager
Development Manager
London Transport
Leeds MDC
London Transport
London Docklands
Development
Greater Manchester
PTE
Martin and Voorhees
Associates
Tyne and Wear PTE
Nottinghamshire
County Council
South Yorkshire PTE
operational and a light rail system has been authorised.
In London Docklands there are the existing light rail
system (referred to as the DLR) and the proposed ultra
light rail system in the Royal Docks area. The informa-
tion discussed below is drawn primarily from the inter-
views and the information in technical reports is used
only to clarify points made during the interview, and
usually relates to factual information.
The objectives ojconstructing the transport system
During the interviews the experts identified two
different types of reason behind wanting to have a new
public transport system. The reasons are generally either
transport issues or economic and development issues,
and these are summarised in Table 2.
Transport issues. The commonest reason for building
the systems is to reduce traffic congestion. The logic is
that a new, fast, comfortable, public transport system
Table 2 Objectives of constructing public transport systems
will offer a lower disutility to some travellers who will
be attracted from their cars. In theory, this will mean
that there will be less traffic on the road and so the
remaining cars will travel faster and there will be less
congestion. In practice, this is unlikely to occur
because the suppressed demand for car travel means
that the space released by those transferring to the new
mode will be filled by other cars (Mackett, 1995;
Mackett and Edwards, 1996b).
Two other transport reasons for constructing new
systems are to improve the public transport service and
to improve access to the city centre. The former reason
follows directly from the construction of the new
system. The latter reason follows from the nature of
public transport which is better at serving large flows
which tend to focus on the city centre where most
economic activity occurs and interchange can take
place. An interesting variant on this is to provide trans-
port from the inner city where there is often high unem-
City Reduce
trafllc
congestion
Improve
public
transport
Serve the
city centre
better
Improve
the
environment
Stimulate
development
Other
Birmingham 0 l l l
Bristol l 0 l
Croydon l l 0 l
Leeds l
0 l
Leedsh l l
London Docklands 0
London Dockland& l 0 0
Manchester l l
Newcastle upon Tyne 0 0 l
Nottingham l 0 0
Sheffield l a
Light rail; hKerb-guided bus; Automatic light rail: %lltra light rail.
22x
Building new urhun public trumport .cy.c/ems: M Edwurd.t rmd R L Macketr
ployment to new regional job markets, e.g.
Birmingham. Another reason in some cases, such as
Manchester and Newcastle upon Tyne, was the need to
take action to deal with heavy rail lines which were in
serious need of investment.
Development issues. A major reason for the
construction of such systems is to stimulate
development. In the case of London Docklands, the
automatic light rail system (DLR) was an integral part
of the redevelopment of the area. Part of the original
rationale of the Birmingham light rail was to assist in
the regeneration of the Black Country around
Wolverhampton. The ultra light rail system in
Docklands is to help the development of an urban
village. In Bristol, Croydon and Leeds the objective of
building the light rail systems is to help stimulate
development in the city centre by providing easier
access to the economic activities there.
General
promotion of economic development in the urban area
was cited for Nottingham. However, there is little
evidence that building new public transport systems
does stimulate development (Dunphy, 1995; Hall and
Hass-Klau, 1985; Mackett and Edwards, 1996b), but it
is more likely to do so if a comprehensive plan is being
followed or if complementary means of encouraging
development are used (Walmsley and Perrett, 1992).
Shifts in the rationale. It can be seen that the new public
transport systems have been planned for a variety of
reasons. In some cases it was stated that the rationale
underlying the decision had shifted, reflecting the issues
under debate at the time, for example, from urban
regeneration to traffic congestion in Birmingham, and a
shift from environmental concerns to helping to reduce
increasing unemployment in Bristol.
Alternative solutions
All the cities studied had transport-related problems,
and all except Manchester and Docklands (DLR) expli-
Table 3 Modes considered of the systems
citly wanted to reduce road congestion. A number of
cities considered highway-related measures, but recog-
nised that there was no satisfactory road-based solution
(e.g. Newcastle and Leeds), but some cities are introdu-
cing demand management measures (e.g. Leeds and
Bristol). In fact this is now a requirement of the Depart-
ment of Transport to be carried out in conjunction with
the development of the new public transport system. In
North America high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes
are often evaluated as an alternative to public transport
developments. HOV lanes do support public transport
in so far as buses can use the lanes as well as cars with
more than a specified number of occupants.
Alternative public transport modes
In most cases a wide range of modes are considered
(Table 3). However, some of these modes are only
considered fleetingly, and others are considered only to
satisfy the governments rules for funding under Section
56 of the 1968 Transport Act. (This permits the govern-
ment to pay for forecast non-user benefits such as the
relief of road congestion, road accident reduction and
job creation. Whether such effects actually occur is
another matter (Mackett and Edwards, 1996b).) While
the majority of the modes listed are based on proven
technology, some new modes have been considered.
For example, Guided light Transit (GLT) is under
consideration in Bristol; the Briway system was evalu-
ated in Birmingham and Leeds; and the Parry People
Mover is being considered for the Docklands ultra light
rail system. GLT is an articulated rubber-tyred vehicle
that can run along a guideway using electric power from
an overhead cable or on the road using current from an
on-board diesel generator (Freeman and Tazewell,
1993). The Briway system uses light-weight, fully auto-
mated vehicles with horizontal guide wheels bearing on
side rails and running on an elevated track. The Parry
People Mover is a light-weight rail vehicle powered by
a fly-wheel which picks up electric power from line side
stations, and hence it does not have overhead wires.
LRaqb Tram Ultra ALRTd VAL Metro Heavy Bus Trolley KGB GLTg Innovative Road-
LR rail bus technology based
Birmingham * oh l l l
Bristol l l
Croydon * 0 j
0 a
l
Leeds * Oh 0
London Docklands
* ok
0 0 * 0 l
London Docklands * l o
Manchester * l p 0 0
Newcastle * l
Nottingham * 0 0 Er 0
Oq
0 0
Sheffield * OF
*Mode selected; 0 Mode seriously considered; 0 Mode considered initially.
Distinction between LR and tram seems to depend on the amount of street running and the degree of interaction with other traffic; Light rail;
Ultra light rail; dAutomatic light rail; Standard diesel bus (unless otherwise stated); Kerb-guided bus; Guided light transit; hBriway: Demand
management; Improve existing services; kDemand management and highway investment; Existing Docklands light railway; mProposed ultra light
rail; Either ultra light rail or Parry People Mover;
battery bus; Including articulated bus.
OMidibus; PRenovation of existing lines and 0 in tunnel; qCity centre travelators; Including
229
Building ~CM urban public transport systems: M Edwurds and R L Mackett
A number of automated technologies have been
considered including automated light rail, the VAL
metro system and Briway, but only one of the systems,
the London Docklands Light Railway, is automated.
An automated mode is only appropriate if the entire
route, and any possible extensions, are completely segre-
gated from road vehicles.
Making and justifving the decision
Local factors. The interviews show that decisions are
not based purely on objective transport criteria. In
addition, local circumstances influence the way in
which projects develop, making generalisations
difficult. Such circumstances include the following.
(1) Past experience: in a number of the cities
examined there had been one or more previous
attempts to develop systems (e.g. Birmingham,
Bristol, Docklands (DLR), Leeds and
Manchester). This influences future decisions in
relation to, for example, route alignment,
technology choice, or political approach. For
example, Manchester and Docklands (DLR)
(the first attempt at the Jubilee Line) failed due
to lack of funding; and previous light rail
systems in Birmingham and Leeds failed for
political reasons. Consequently, the corridor
chosen for Line 1 in Birmingham was
deliberately non-controversial, using a former
rail corridor, in order to minimise the
destruction of the urban fabric.
(2) Existing rail services: the decisions in both
Newcastle and Manchester were influenced by
factors relating to existing rail services funded
under Section 20 of the 1968 Transport Act.
Section 20 rail services are those identified as
making an important contribution to the public
transport in the area and for that reason may
be subsidised by the PTE (Public Transport
Executive). In Newcastle, when the PTE was
established, it was going to have to take over
the cost of subsidising the services, and in
Manchester an important issue was the cost of
the subsidy. These cities were looking at
existing rail services and existing rail
infrastructure. Similarly, Croydon was looking
at ways of improving and developing existing
rail services.
(3) Context: often decisions about public transport
are made in the context of an overall transport
plan for the city. In the case of Newcastle and
Docklands the plan extended beyond
transportation issues. In the former case, the
Tyne and Wear Plan considered planning issues
for the region, and the development of DLR
was an integral part of the regeneration scheme
of Docklands. Current developments in Leeds,
Birmingham, Bristol and Nottingham are being
looked at in the broader context of city wide
transport studies. Indeed, future applications
for funding under Section 56 of the 1968
Transport Act will only be considered if the
system forms part of a transport strategy
(Berry, 1995).
Capacity. A critical factor in mode selection is
forecast demand (Catling, 1994). This was confirmed
by Hellewell (1995) who stated light rail is justified on
the forecast number of passengers. Clearly different
modes can carry different numbers of passengers, A
mode will have a maximum theoretical capacity
(determined by the minimum headway and maximum
vehicle capacity) and a minimum capacity (determined
by economic viability). A number of authors have
indicated capacity ranges which are satisfied by
different modes (Table 4). Even though the columns of
the tables are not directly comparable, it can be seen
that in most cases there is considerable overlap
between the capacities of the different modes. For
example, according to all the authors except North
(1993), any of the modes, except metro, would be
suitable for a flow of 6000 passengers per direction per
hour. There is a wide variation between the authors in
the suggested capacities. Figures on the predicted peak
capacity of the new UK public transport systems have
been difficult to establish, but they are summarised in
Table 5. These figures suggest that the planned
capacity of the systems for which information is
available, with the possible exception of Manchester
(with high predicted flows in the city centre) and
Birmingham (predicted patronage in 2023) could be
met by buses. This suggests that light rail cannot be
justified solely on the grounds of the capacity required
to meet the demand. London Transport Planning
(1995) suggests that light rail is suitable for flows of
about 3500 passengers per hour, although it recognises
that other factors may modify the decision.
However, Table 6 shows current capacities of a
number of overseas light rail systems and indicates that
most of them are operating below maximum capacity.
Table 6 also shows that both the current theoretical
and actual maximum capacities of many systems are
low compared to the ranges given in Table 4, suggesting
that most of these cities could be served by buses.
Based on the capacity figures given in Table 4 and the
forecast capacities of Table 5, it is apparent that the
decision in UK cities today lies between some form of
bus system and a light rail system. This is also apparent
from the interviews where the alternatives most
seriously considered in addition to light rail were: kerb-
guided bus (Birmingham and Croydon); busways or
bus-based systems (both Docklands schemes, Sheffield
and Newcastle); and GLT (still under consideration in
Bristol). Only in Docklands (DLR) was a metro consid-
ered seriously, and this has since come to fruition in the
230
Building new urhan public transport systems: M Edwards and R L Mackett
Table 4 Capacity ranges of different modes (passengers/direction/hour)
Mode North (1993)
Shared right
of way
Bus lanes
Catling (1994) Smyth (1994)b Vuchic (1981) Other
Minibus
Buses
1500-2200 5400~9000
72Oc9600 14400-19200 500-7000 1500-7000 (I 5 000) 4000-6300
250&7000 (25 OOO)d
Trolley bus 5400-8 100 II 000-16000 1500~7000 2000-7000
Articulated buses 5000-8500 600~10000f
Kerb-guided bus I9 00&29 000 200&7000 250&7000 (25 000)
Guided light transit 250&6000 (25 000) 2000-7000
Light rail 9000-25 000 350&20 000 400&l 0 000 (20 000) 10000-16000h 3500-20 000
(SOOcrl5 0009) 8000-I 5 000 3000-20 000
VAL (automated metro) 5000-I 6 000
Metro 35 000~70 000 30 00@48 000
Maximum range; Typical ranges (with maximum in parentheses); Gives maximum values for maximum and moderate lines. Maximum lines
represent capacities that can be achieved with careful design and strict, competent operation. Moderate lines are capacities achievable under most
conditions without special efforts. Maximum values for moderate lines are given; dBusway; London Transport Planning (1995); Biehler (1989)
on busways; Optimum; hStreetcars (equivalent to street running trams); Light rail on segregated right of way; jparkinson (1989).
Table 5 Predicted peak capacities for British systems
City Predicted peak capacity
(passengers per
direction per hour)
Comment
Birmingham 3240-7500 7500 achieved by 2023 by using additional vehicles and increased
frequency
Croydon 1080, 1800, 2295
Leeds 5900
For the three different line&
For line I by 2010 (Leeds City Council and West Yorkshire PTA,
1991, p. 100)
London Docklands
(automatic light rail)
London Docklands
(ultra light rail)
Manchester
4400
400
1000-5000
(IO 000 in city centre)
Predicted for 1991 (Docklands Public Transport and Access Steering
Group, 1982, p. 12)
Journeys per hour by public transport for ultra light rail or Parry
People Mover (interview)
Interview
Nottingham 2400-3000 Based on 5 minute peak frequency and 200-250 space vehicles
Sheffield 3000 Based on 5 minute peak frequency and 250 space tramsd
Taken from Centro leaflet Midland Metro Line 1. Line I Appraisal- Key Facts.
hCalculated from Kennedy Henderson, G. Maunsell and Partners, The MVA Consultancy, 1991, p. 97.
Frequency and vehicle capacity taken from publicity leaflet Greater Nottingham Rapid Transit. Planning for the Future.
dFrequency and vehicle capacity taken from Pont and Boak (1992).
Jubilee Line Extension which is now under construc-
tion.
If capacity requirements alone are insufficient to
justify the choice of light rail, other factors must be
used to justify the choice. These factors are discussed
below.
(2)
Cost. For seven of the systems, the need to minimise
cost was a factor that was explicitly taken into account,
and it has influenced the designs of the systems in a
number of ways as discussed below.
(3)
( 1) Selecting the mode. For example, capita1 costs ruled
out the use of buses in Newcastle and Manchester
and operating costs ruled out buses in Croydon.
However, in genera1 bus-based solutions are
(4)
cheaper than rail-based ones (especially if there is
no existing rail infrastructure) particularly at
lower capacities (e.g. Biehler, 1989; City of
Winnipeg Transit Department, 1990; London
Transport Planning, 1995).
Selecting the route. For example, the need to
build an affordable system was behind the
choice of Line 1 as an initial route in
Birmingham (it was the cheapest route because
it used an existing rail alignment).
Reducing the operating costs and subsidy of
existing heavy rail lines. For example in
Newcastle the PTE had to take on the Section
20 subsidy for the lines, and in Manchester it
was necessary to reduce the Section 20 funding
of the suburban rail network.
Tracksharing. Cost is the reason behind the
investigations into sharing the track with heavy
231
Building new urban public transport systems: M Edwards and R L Mackett
Table 6 Theoretical and actual capacities of operating systems
System Theoretical maximum Current maximum
Calgary 14580 6318
Guadalajara 10560 4100
Nantes 6880 4128
Portland 6720 2490
Sacramento 2240 1920
San Diego 2440 1920
Tuen Mun 22 800 9700
Tunis 9405 8000
Vancouver 29 000 7300
Source: The figures come from Hellewell ct al. (1991) except for
Vancouver (Parkinson, 1992).
rail for part of the route of the proposed light
rail scheme in Nottingham.
(5) Tunnelling. Tunnelling was excluded from a
number of systems (e.g. Croydon, Leeds,
Manchester and Sheffield) mainly on the
grounds of cost, but also for accessibility and
safety reasons.
Discussion of most of the following factors takes into
account, either explicitly or implicitly, the need to mini-
mise the cost of the system. In this, the funding or urban
public transport systems in the UK is no different from
that in many other countries.
I mage and public perception. An objective of
constructing seven of the systems is to stimulate
development, either in redevelopment areas
(Birmingham, Leeds and both Docklands schemes) or
to support and maintain the city centre (Bristol,
Nottingham, Croydon and Leeds). In either case both
the route pattern and the mode selected must support
the achievement of this objective. For example, a
system may not support the city centre if it also serves
an out-of-town shopping centre (for this reason the
proposed route in Bristol does not serve the shopping
centre at Cribbs Causeway). The effect of Sheffields
Supertram, which serves the Meadowhall shopping
centre, on the city centre has yet to be determined.
Similarly eight of the systems have the objective of
reducing traffic congestion, so the mode and routes
must attract people out of their cars.
In order to meet these two key objectives, the
perceived image of the modes, by both the public and
developers, is critical. Light rail is perceived as able to
both stimulate development and attract people from
their cars, but buses are not perceived as having this
image (e.g. Kilvington, 1992). The positive impact of a
rail-based rapid transit system has been used as an argu-
ment for its construction. For example, part of the
rationale behind the Dallas light rail system was to
promote Dallas as a world city. Similarly, in one UK
city the leader of the City Council saw the new auto-
mated VAL metro in Lille and decided that his city
had to have one, because it contributed to his image of
a major European city. In Dallas the case for light rail
was supported by more substantive arguments, and the
system is being constructed. In the latter case, a VAL
system could not be justified, although a conventional
light rail system is now authorised.
Part of the positive image of light rail may be derived
from the presence of a fixed infrastructure (suggested in
Croydon and for the Docklands ultra light rail system)
which is seen as a commitment to an area, and it implies
permanence in the system to both potential developers
and users, unlike the perceived transience of bus services
in the present deregulated climate. The Government
also perceives that a fixed rail infrastructure has a posi-
tive effect on encouraging development (Department of
the Environment and Department of Transport, 1994).
Unfortunately, the evidence to support the effect of
light rail on stimulating development is weak (Hall and
Hass-Klau, 1985) or only occurs if certain criteria are
met (Walmsley and Perrett, 1992), for example, when
the system offers a significant improvement in access
and service quality and the area around the stations is
already economically buoyant (Gomez-Ibanez, 1985).
The difference in perception between bus and light rail
extends beyond the perception of the public and develo-
pers to the attitudes of transport planners and highway
engineers towards the two modes. For example, it is
generally recognised that the on-street sections of a light
rail system require some form of priority, e.g. priority at
signalled intersections, lanes restricted for use by light
rail vehicles or shared with buses. It is also accepted that
the utilities need to be moved from under the tramway,
not only to avoid problems with stray currents, but to
ensure that the service is not interrupted by work on
the utilities. There is not the same acceptance of the
need for similar priority for buses running in the city
centre.
Political consensus. A number of experts stressed the
importance of having a local political consensus, both
across political parties (Leeds and Newcastle) and
between district councils (Birmingham and
Manchester). Schemes will fail if there is significant
opposition from the local communities (Birmingham
and Leeds). However, the objectives of the different
groups need not be the same, e.g. in Croydon the
objectives of London Transport were to improve public
transport in the area, whereas the Borough Council
was interested in regeneration of the town centre and
the provision of public transport to the socially
disadvantaged. Without a political consensus it is
unlikely that the project will succeed, and it seems to
be easier to get a political consensus for a rail-based
rather than for a bus-based system.
Legislation. There are a number of issues which relate
not to the characteristics of the modes, but to the
legislation surrounding them. For example, if the local
authority decides to build a light rail system then,
although the system may be built and operated by the
232
Building nrtt urhun public rransport .yv.~ten~s: M Edwwd~ and R L Mackett
private sector, the local authority will specify the route
and the service frequency, whereas for a bus-based
system, deregulation leaves the local authority unable
to specify the frequency and quality of service (except
on routes that no operator wishes to run, but that the
local authority deems are socially necessary and so puts
them out to tender). Hence if the local authority wants
to have control over the design of the system, it cannot
be bus-based. The only bus-based initiative considered
is that in Leeds, and this was initiated by Yorkshire
Rider, a local bus company. Similarly, the Badgerline
bus company has suggested a number of initiatives for
Bristol (Freeman and Tazewell, 1993). Bus
deregulation requires that busways and guideways be
open to competition and so must permit buses to pass
one another, which is particularly problematic in the
case of guided buses. It also means that feeder bus
services cannot be integrated into a new light rail
system, nor can bus operators be prevented from
competing with a light rail route.
In terms of funding, there is a recognised route for the
funding of rail-based systems via Section 56 of the 1968
Transport Act. Leeds has secured some funding for a
kerb-guided bus route through the Governments bus
initiative. While Section 56 does not exclude funding
non-rail-based systems, it does not appear to have been
used for them.
Existing rail alignments. One of the more objective
factors used in selecting the mode for a system is the
inclusion of existing rail alignments in the system.
These alignments may be active (as in Newcastle,
Manchester, Croydon and Nottingham) or disused (as
in Birmingham and Docklands). The proposed system
may be based largely on such alignments (e.g.
Newcastle, Manchester and Birmingham (Line 1)) or
use them for a relatively small proportion of the route
(e.g. Sheffield and the ultra light rail in Docklands).
The nature and extent of existing rail alignment
influences the resulting system, biasing it towards a rail
based system, as discussed below.
(1)
If the route interacts with, or is immediately
adjacent to, an operational railway line then
the builders and operators of the new system
will have to co-operate with the train operating
company and Railtrack, and satisfy the
Railway Inspectorate with regard to the safety
of these interactions. These agreements can be
difficult to achieve for rail-based systems, e.g.
Newcastle (interaction with freight services)
and Manchester (potential interactions with
British Rail signalling), and as yet have not
been attempted for alternative modes. In both
Croydon and Birmingham the potential greater
difficulties caused by interactions between a
new non-rail-based system and an existing
railway were cited as reasons for choosing a
rail-based system. A more recent issue is that
of track sharing, where light rail shares the
same track with heavy rail, as occurs in
Karlsruhe, and which is under investigation in
Nottingham. Clearly if track sharing is to be
used, the two modes must have very similar
characteristics.
(2) The physical characteristics of rail alignments
impose restrictions on the type of system which
may utilise them. For example, if a rail
alignment is to be converted to a bus-based
system then the system will probably have to
be guided because the alignments are too
narrow for unguided vehicles to pass each
other at speed (particularly if there are over-
bridges which may also prevent the use of
double-decker buses). Also under certain
circumstances, buses require more
infrastructure than rail, e.g. turning loops at
the end of routes (Croydon and Docklands
ultra light rail) and the provision of access
points and passing points (Birmingham).
(3) In most cases the cost of converting an existing
live railway into a busway has been shown to
be non-viable. In Newcastle and Manchester
the capital costs of conversion were prohibitive,
but in Croydon the capital cost of conversion
to busway was comparable with that for the
light rail system, but due to the capacity
requirements, the operating costs of light rail
were lower than those of buses. An important
issue relating to the use of an existing railway
in conjunction with street running is the choice
between standard light rail and low-floor light
rail vehicles. With the increased requirement
for accessible systems, it is likely that all future
British light rail systems will be low-floored,
and this imposes an additional cost of lowering
existing rail platforms for low-floor light rail
vehicles. Manchester has retained the high
platforms associated with heavy rail and has
high platforms in the city centre. This approach
was adopted for two reasons. First, the
majority of stations already existed with high
platforms and only five new stations had to be
built in the city centre. Secondly, at the time at
which Manchester Metrolink was built low-
floor technology was considerably less well
developed, and consequently more expensive,
than is now the case. If the Nottingham system
includes tracksharing with heavy rail there may
be problems using a low-floor vehicle because
of the different platform heights.
(4) There are two practical advantages in using
existing rail alignments. First, they are
available, and usually owned either by
Railtrack or the local authority. Secondly, they
are not usually controversial, as they do not
233
Building new urban public transport systems: M Edwards and R L Mackett
(5)
involve any property demolition, but in
Nottingham residents living alongside disused
track objected to the noise and visual intrusion
associated with reinstating the line. In Croydon
problems occurred at the interchanges between
street running and rail alignments. While
existing rail alignments may offer easy routes,
they may not form routes which will attract
users. For example, the lines may not access
the main centres (e.g. Birmingham Line 1 has
to leave the rail alignment to penetrate
Wolverhampton town centre).
Manchester and Croydon wanted to extend
existing rail services with street running to
make them more attractive and Newcastle
improved the local rail system by linking two
networks using tunnelling. If the existing routes
are viable, it makes sense to retain a rail-based
system.
Road characteristics. Where routes are designed
which parallel existing highway routes, the road
characteristics may rule out certain modes. Clearly any
system which interacts either with pedestrians or other
road users cannot be automatic. If the system is to run
on-street, sharing road space with other vehicles, then a
kerb-guided bus is not practical unless it is running in
unguided mode, whereas light rail or GLT are as both
of these systems have guidance systems flush with the
road surface. Furthermore kerb-guided buses cannot
run guided through a pedestrian area.
Where the roads are dual carriageways, then the
system might be able to use the central reservation.
However, if the road junctions consist mainly of round-
abouts then light rail may cause an unacceptable reduc-
tion in the capacity of the junctions, whereas a kerb-
guided bus may leave the guideway and negotiate the
roundabout in a conventional manner without having
an adverse effect (as is the case with the kerb-guided
bus route in Leeds).
The built-up nature of city centres means that the
system will either run on-street, or possibly in tunnels:
elevated structures are not usually acceptable in the
centre. The physical characteristics of the streets are
more likely to restrict the routes available to light rail
than buses, in terms of tight corners and the spacing of
junctions. The characteristics of the city centre streets
may restrict the length (Manchester) or width
(Nottingham) of the light rail vehicle.
New technologies. There are a number of new
technologies available which only have demonstration
systems, e.g. Briway, GLT and Parry People Mover.
Public sector transport planners may see the
potential of these systems in particular circumstances,
for example, the Parry People Mover is seen by the
LDDC (London Docklands Development
Corporation) as a serious alternative for the
Docklands ultra light rail system. However, both
they and the private sector are, on the whole,
reluctant to take on the risks associated with an
unproven technology (e.g. teething problems and
unexpected costs), particularly in the light of the
problems associated with the choice of an automated
system for the Docklands DLR. For example, in
Nottingham it was stressed that because of private
sector involvement the system had to use a proven
technology. In addition, new rail-based technologies
must satisfy the Railway Inspectorate.
Environmental issues. With increasing concern about
the environment in general and air pollution in
particular, it is becoming important that public
transport is environmentally friendly. Light rail has the
advantage that it is non-polluting in the city centre
(although emissions are produced at the site of
electricity generation) whereas diesel buses contribute
to city centre pollution. However, visual intrusion of
overhead wires has had a negative effect on the
perception of light rail, especially in Manchester where
poles were used to carry the overhead wires rather than
utilising existing street furniture.
Summary. Taking these factors into account it can be
seen that few of them relate to conventional transport
planning criteria, and a number of the criteria are
unique to the planning and funding process which
currently operates in the UK. The following section
seeks to identify the key criteria used in the decision-
making process in the UK and considers whether it can
be modelled.
Making the decision
The choice of mode
The decision to invest in a new public transport system
is essentially a political decision made within the current
economic and legislative framework. In addition, the
objectives of building new systems are not related solely
to transport needs and must be viewed in the broader
context of the socio-economic needs of the city. Central
to this is the need for a political consensus about the
mode and route of the proposed system. Any model
developed must be viewed in this context, and cannot
be regarded as completely objective.
In UK cities the choice is essentially between a light
rail system and a bus system because there are no corri-
dors which are not currently served by metro where
such a system could be justified. This decision is based
on the capacity requirements of the proposed systems
and the capacity capabilities of the different modes.
While other modes such as GLT and Briway offer capa-
cities in this range, they tend to be eliminated on the
grounds that due are unproven technology, and both
transport planners and the private sector seem to be
unwilling to risk choosing a new technology. Kerb-
234
guided bus is a proven alternative to light rail as there
are three systems that have been in operation for several
years (Essen, Adelaide and Mannheim).
In Britain the decision-making process essentially
becomes one of can light rail be justified? for the
reasons below.
(1) Outside London bus deregulation means that it
is not possible for the local authority to ensure
a high quality bus service. The development of
innovative bus services relies on private sector
initiatives. The role of deregulation in shifting
the attention of transport planners from buses
towards light rail has already been recognised
by Pickup et al. (1991).
(2) There is a tried and tested mechanism for
funding rail-based public transport systems
under Section 56 of the 1968 Transport Act.
This mechanism has not yet been applied to
bus-based systems. Even when light rail
systems are funded via Section 56 there may be
constraints placed on those systems. For
example, the nature of the contracts under
which the systems are built, operated and
maintained may be specified, or funding may
be conditional on receiving a financial
contribution from the private sector.
(3) The image of buses is poor relative to that of
light rail. This means that buses are believed to
be less effective at attracting people out of their
cars. In addition, if one of the objectives of the
system is to stimulate or support development
then a bus based system is not perceived as
meeting that objective.
The case for choosing a light rail system, rather than a
bus-based system is summarised in Table 7, which illus-
trates how the factors given in the previous section
support the choice of light rail over buses.
Table 7 Criteria influencing the choice between light rail and buses
Building new urban public transport systems: M Edwards and R L Mackett
There has been considerable concern in North
America in recent years about the building of light rail
systems. There is evidence that some of the patronage
forecasts for some of the planned systems have been
excessively high (Kain, 1990; Pickrell, 1992) that bus-
based systems would have been more cost-effective
(Gomez-Ibanez, 1985; Kain, 1988) and that the subsidy
would have been better spent on bus services in down-
town areas rather than in the low-density, high-income
suburbs which it serves (Wachs, 1993). There seems to
be no evidence that the forecasts have been exaggerated
in the UK, but there is cause for concern that the
funding from central government under Section 56 of
the 1968 Transport Act depends upon the estimated
relief of road congestion, accident reductions, environ-
mental improvements and job creation which are
products of the modelling process, both formal and
informal, rather than any solid evidence of such caus-
ality (Mackett and Edwards, 1996b).
How is light rail justified?
Part of the rationale of the UTOPIA project has been to
develop a model in the form of rules as the basis of an
expert system. In this section the development of some
of the rules is discussed.
In the previous section it was shown that light rail has
been justified in the UK on the basis of remarkably low
projected peak capacity requirements, indicating that
conventional light rail may be financially viable with
no more than 2000 passenger per direction per hour at
peak (this leaves aside the capacity of the ultra light rail
scheme in the Docklands which is designed specifically
for low flows). Hence a rule may be defined:
IF projected peak capacity > 2000
THEN light rail may be viable.
There is one set of circumstances (supported by three
examples) where light rail seems to be the appropriate
For light rail
Image:
perceived as able to attract drivers from cars
perceived as able to stimulate development
seen as requiring priority in city centre
fixed infrastructure implies permanence
Funding available through Section 56 of 1968 Transport Act
Does not cause on-street pollution
Against light rail
High cost restricts amount of network built for a given sum of money
Inflexible route (cannot be altered once built)
Can interact physically with heavy rail
Can run on-street and on existing rail track
For bus
Lower cost increases amount of network built for a given
sum of money
Flexible routes
Against bus
Image:
perceived as unable to attract drivers from cars
perceived as unable to stimulate development
not seen to require priority in city centre
not seen as permanent service
Difficult to obtain funding
Causes on-street air pollution (but modern buses have reduced emissions)
Cannot physically interact with heavy rail
235
Building new urban public transport systems: M Edwards and R L Muckell
choice. In Newcastle, Manchester and Croydon the
following criteria were met:
(1) The systems are based largely on existing rail
services.
(2) The aim was to improve these services by:
(a) improving access of these services to the
city centre;
(b) linking existing city centre railway stations
(Manchester and Croydon);
(c) replacing existing rail services in need of
major investment (Newcastle and
Manchester).
In each case light rail was shown to be the appropriate
decision, even though the decisions were made over a
twenty year period (Newcastle opened in 1980, Manche-
ster in 1992, and Croydon is currently authorised).
However, the three systems do reflect changes over
time: Newcastle provides access to the city centre via
tunnels which could probably not be justified in finan-
cial terms today, whereas both Manchester and
Croydon have sections of street running. Manchester
adopted high platforms in the city centre and retained
the existing station platforms, whereas Croydon has
been able to take advantage of developments in low
floor technology, which improves access (especially in
the city centre) but requires lowering of existing station
platforms. The result of converting existing heavy rail
lines to light rail is an improved network and lower
operating costs of light rail compared to heavy rail.
Hence:
IF system largely uses existing live rail
alignments and
system links existing rail services or stations
and
system improves city centre access
THEN light rail is appropriate.
One of the advantages of light rail is that it can run on
existing rail and can run in mixed traffic on the streets.
The majority of new light rail systems will be street
running rather than using tunnels in the city centre
because of cost, access and safety considerations.
However, Birmingham has authorisation (but not
funding) for a city centre tunnel on Line 2, which was
justified on the grounds of maintaining the reliability
of the service through the city centre.
A second case where the choice of light rail is
logical is where the system either shares track with
heavy rail, or interacts closely with heavy rail (e.g.
running immediately adjacent to heavy rail) because
of the requirements of British Rail, Railtrack and the
Railways Inspectorate. The viability of track sharing
has yet to be proven in the UK, but studies are conti-
nuing in Nottingham, and Karlsruhe successfully
operates track sharing between light rail and heavy
rail (Bushell, 1994). Hence:
IF system shares track with heavy rail or
system operates adjacent to heavy rail
THEN light rail is required.
The case for light rail for the other systems is less clear cut,
concerning in most cases development as well as transport
issues. If one of the objectives is to stimulate development,
then the belief is that this will not be achieved using a bus-
based system. For example, during the course of the inter-
view relating to the DLR it was stated, If the bus[way]
option had been selected. . . it is inconceivable that it
would have generated the Canary Wharf development,
which is what the initial DLR did. While it is believed that
DLR contributed to the development of Docklands, the
relationship between light rail and development is not
proven. In Leeds it was stated that while the cost of a
segregated kerb-guided busway is almost the cost of the
supertram line, it was felt that patronage would not be as
high because the image was not as good.
IF aim is to stimulate development and
system is part of package of development
measures
THEN light rail is appropriate.
One of the key requirements of public transport is relia-
bility which was cited as a factor taken into account in
mode selection for six of the systems and confirmed by
Hellewell (1995). Public transport running without
priority on congested roads will not be reliable. Hence,
in order to be reliable, it must be segregated to some
extent. The segregation may be achieved within the
highway, e.g. running in the central reservation, or adja-
cent to the highway. In the UK systems, there is segre-
gation via off-street running for at least part of the
route. In many cases this right of way is based on
existing, disused, rail alignments. The cheap, non-
controversial, available nature of disused rail align-
ments is an incentive for their use, but their physical
characteristics may make them unsuitable for bus-based
systems, or require the buses to be guided. Hence:
IF physical characteristics of rail alignments
are unsuitable for buses
THEN light rail is appropriate.
The issue of segregation or priority in the city centre is
not dependent on the characteristics of the mode, but
on the extent to which the planners are prepared to give
it priority. It appears that street-running light rail is
perceived as requiring priority, whereas buses, in
general, are not.
Hence it is possible to identify circumstances and
define rules describing those circumstances, which indi-
cate when light rail may be an appropriate mode for an
urban transport system in the UK. However, these rules
are not sufficient to define a comprehensive model of
the decision-making process. In the next section some
issues in the specification of a model of the decision-
making process are addressed.
236
Building new urban public tramport systems: M Edvtzrds and R L Mackett
Can the decision-making process be modelled?
Is the decision-making process surrounding the building
of new urban public transport systems rational? The
answer to this question depends on the perspective
taken. The transport planners, whose objective is to
improve the transport provision for their city, must
work within the political-economic-legal framework
currently in place to achieve their objectives. Their deci-
sions are taken within this framework to maximise the
probability of a successful outcome, and within this
context their decisions are rational. From a wider
perspective the decisions are not rational: limited provi-
sion for expenditure on public transport would suggest
that bus-based systems should be preferred to rail-based
ones. However, because of bus deregulation, funding
and the negative image of buses, the decision to develop
a bus-based system is exceedingly unlikely. Hence,
under the present legal framework it is not possible to
produce a realistic and useful model of the decision-
making process. What the rules given in the previous
section do is to illustrate the circumstances under which
a light rail system may be feasible. Provided that at least
some of the rules are satisfied, including the rule relating
to projected peak capacity, then further investigation of
a light rail system is appropriate.
This is not to say that it is not possible to produce a
model of an idealised decision-making process which
could be used to select the most appropriate mode, but
while the model may give the most appropriate mode
according to, for example, economic criteria, it will not
be useful because it will not take into account the frame-
work within which decisions are actually made. The
irrationality of the decision process has made it impos-
sible to develop an expert system to transfer experience
between cities as was originally envisaged in the
UTOPIA project. However, it has been possible to draw
up a set of guidelines to assist decision-makers involved
in the process of obtaining a new urban public transport
system (Mackett and Edwards, 1996a).
Discussion
The key factors influencing the choice of light rail over
buses are: bus deregulation, funding and image. Bus
deregulation works against the development of new
public transport systems in two ways. First, it prevents
local authorities (outside London) implementing high
quality bus-based systems which might be appropriate
in medium-sized cities. Secondly, it prevents integration
of buses with a light rail system including the provision
of feeder services and control of services which compete
with the light rail system. The integration of buses and
light rail is a feature of many French systems (Walmsley
and Perrett, 1992); for example, in Strasbourg bus
routes were reorganised at the time of opening the light
rail system with a reduction in radial services which
would compete with the tramway and an increase in
orbital services which would complement it (Haydock,
1994). Similarly in North America bus services may be
altered to integrate, rather than compete, with the
system, e.g. Vancouver (Parkinson, 1992) and San
Diego (Larwin and Powell, 1992).
Freedom from government funding reduces the
constraints imposed on the system. For example, in the
USA the San Diego Trolley (a light rail system) was
built without federal funding, so it did not have to go
through an alternatives analysis procedure to select the
most appropriate mode (Larwin and Powell, 1992) or
restrictions on the purchase of imported vehicles
(Wolinsky, 1994). Similarly for the proposed ultra light
rail system in Docklands it is hoped to avoid applying
for Section 56 funding (by using local authority and
private sector funding) which would remove the need
to evaluate a government specified list of alternatives,
and would allow the system to be built more quickly.
However, it is probably not feasible to build a conven-
tional light rail system in the UK without government
funding.
Given the expense of new urban public transport
systems, it is illogical to weigh the scales against bus-
based systems when their cost is less (particularly at
lower capacities), which means that for a given amount
of funding a more extensive system can be built
compared to a light rail system. In fact, according to
the junior Minister of Transport the UK government
does now appear to recognise that light rail is very
expensive and that considerable improvements in cities
could be obtained using guided busways and lighter
rapid transit (Local Transport Today, 1996). However,
this is argued purely in order to reduce public expendi-
ture and ignores the fact that bus-based systems cannot
be developed fully because of the deregulated environ-
ment under which most buses in the UK are operated
and that the private sector prefers to invest in existing
technology, rather than innovation which is implied by
lighter rapid transit. There is some evidence that, on a
world scale, bus systems are increasing in popularity
particularly in North America (for example, Miami
and Winnipeg are currently constructing busway
systems) and Australia where Brisbane has recently
adopted a plan for a segregated busway system. Many
European countries also have an expanding bus market
(Pickup et al., 1991).
The poor image of buses in terms of attracting people
out of their cars and stimulating development requires
further investigation, especially as the role of light rail
in the latter is poorly understood. In Brisbane, where
the busway forms part of a development plan for the
city, it is intended to focus development in areas around
the busway. There is clearly a need to change the image
of the bus, not only in the perception of potential users,
but also of the highway engineers, so that buses can be
given the same priority as light rail when running on-
street.
Investigation of an ultra light rail system in Dock-
lands raises questions as to what is the minimum capa-
237
Building new urban public transport systems: M Edward7 and R L Muckett
city at which a light rail system is viable. While it is
suggested for a conventional light rail system that the
minimum peak capacity is about 2000 passengers per
direction per hour, the ultra light rail system would
serve a route with a requirement for only 400 passengers
per hour, a capacity which would normally be served by
buses. The reason for proposing the ultra light rail
system is largely to do with image (giving a positive
image to the urban village and supporting development
in the area) and implying a permanence in public trans-
port that is not suggested by buses. However, an addi-
tional reason for having a rail-based mode is that one
small section of the route is best served by a guided
mode. By opting for an ultra light rail system it is
intended to operate at a much higher freauencv than
comparison of new fixed-guideway systems. In Light Rail Transit:
New S.v.:.rtem Successm af ,4ffordohle Prices, National Conference
on Light Rail Transit, 8-11 May 1988, San Jo&, California,
Transportation Research Board, Special Report 221, pp. 89-97.
Bushell. C. ed. (1994) Janes Urban Transport Systems 1994-95. Janes
Information Group, Coulsdon.
Catlinr. D. (1994) Identifving the right technologv. In Nebq Svstems
f& ?Jrhan Public Transport. The Right Choicefor Europe, *OPET
workshop T43 on development of innovative public transport
systems, Commission of the European Communities Directorate
General for Energy (DGXVII), Manchester, l-2 February.
City of Winnipeg Transit Department (1990) Rapid Transit for
Winnipeg: Justification and System Selection. Report submitted by
City of Winnipeg Transit Department for a special meeting on
rapid transit of the Committee on Works and Operations on 14
November 1990.
Department of the Environment and Department of Transport (1994)
Planning Policy Guidance: Transport. PPG 13, March.
Department of Transport (1979) Transport Statistics Great Britain
1967-1977. HMSO. London.
could otherwise be achieved. If the system is developed,
and is successful, it has a number of implications for
urban public transport. It opens the way for the evalua-
Department of Transport (1995) Transport Statistics Great Britain
1995. HMSO. London.
Docklands Public Transport and Access Steering Group (1982) Public
Transpori Provi.sion .for Docklands. Summary of the Assessment of
tion of light rail on routes where previdusly it would be
non-viable, and it reinforces the positive image of light
rail over bus, while incurring higher capital costs.
Conclusions
A number of light rail systems have been recently
constructed, or are planned, in the UK. The justifica-
tion for such high quality systems is usually in terms of
their positive image and their role in reducing road
congestion and stimulating development. Neither of
these effects have been substantiated. Such systems are
very expensive and are unlikely to be used to capacity.
Hence there is a need to consider lower cost alternatives.
for example, bus-based systems, or rail-based systems
designed specifically to serve corridors with low flows.
However, the public transport philosophy of the present
government militates against such systems. Bus deregu-
lation means that local transport planners are unable
to develop an integrated and co-ordinated bus system.
Currently there are no operational low capacity rail-
based systems in the UK. The governments require-
ment for the use of private-sector funding means that
technical innovation in this field is stifled. There is a
need for a public transport investment framework that
discriminates less against buses and technical innova-
tion. If, as it appears, there is a trend (in world terms)
towards busways, the UK is out of step by weighting
the decision so far in favour of conventional light rail
systems and against buses. The evidence is that trans-
port planners want the best for their city. At present
the decision is essentially between conventional light rail
and nothing. The legislation should be changed to facil-
itate a more rational decision-making process.
the Options.
Dunphy. R. T. (1995) Review of recent American light rail
exbeiiences. Proceedings of the Seventh National Cotzference on
liphi Rail Transit. Baltimore. Maryland. USA, November, Volume
1:pp. 104-I 13.
Freeman, J. and Tazewell, K. (1993) Some developments of rapid
transit in Avon. Proceedinns of the Institution of Civil Engineerinp.
Municipal Engineer 98, 18?1193.
Gomez-Ibanez. J. A. (1985) A dark side to light rail? The exoerience of
three new transit systkms. Journal of- the American Planning
Association 51, 337-351.
Hall, P. and Hass-Klau, C. (1985) Can Rail Save the City? The Impacts
of Roil Rapid Transit und Pedestrianisotion on British and German
Cities. Cower, Aldershot.
Haydock. D. (1994) Strasbourgs futuristic tramway. In Light Rail
Review 6. eds M. Taplin and P. Fox, pp. 41-50. Platform 5
Publishing Ltd and the Light Rail Transit Association.
Hellewell, D. S. (1995) Interview held on 24 May at University College
London.
Hellewell, D. S., Catling, D. T.. Delpledge. A., Malterre, P. and von
Rohr. J. (1991) Financing light rail-case studies. In Public
Transport 91 Light Rail, Report 7, International Light Rail
Commission, International Union of Public Transport (UITP),
49th International Congress, Stockholm, pp. l-83.
Hill. R. (1995) The Toulouse Metro and the South Yorkshire
Supertram: a cross cultural comparison of light rapid transit
developments in France and England. Trunsport Poliq, 2, 203-
References
Berry. S. (1995) Personal communication dated 6 September 1995
(LTP Division, Dcpartmcnt of Transport).
Bichler, A. D. (1989) Exclusive busways versus light rail transit. A
216.
Kain, J. F. (1988) Choosing the wrong technology: or how to spend
billions and reduce transit use. Journcd of Advanced Transportcition
21, 197-213.
Kain, J. F. (1990) Deception in Dallas: strategic misrepresentation in
rail transit promotion and evaluation. Journal of the American
Planning Association 56, 184 196.
Kennedy Henderson, G. Maunsell and Partners, The MVA
Consultancy (1991) Tramlink. Crc~~don Light Rail- Stage 2.
Report on Options ~~ Te.rt.
Kilvington, R. P. (1992) New modes for old problems. PTRC
European Transport. Highways and Planning, 20th Summer
Annual Meeting. University of Manchester Institute of Science and
Technology. England, I4 I8 September, Proceedings of Semirw D.
Public Transport Plwming and Operotiotu. pp. 5 I-68.
Larwin, T. F. and Powell, L. C. (1992) Light rail transit in San
Diego: The past as prelude to the future. Light Rail Transit:
Planning, Design. and Operating Experience. Sixth National
Confcrcnce on Light Rail Transit, Trtrtrsporttrtioil Rr.verrrch
Rword 1361, 31-38.
Leeds City Council and West Yorkshire PTA (1991) Lcc,t/.\ Trrrmpor/
Stratcg~~ (with the support of the Leeds Development Corporation).
Loc,rr/ Trtrrwport T&t/>, (I 995) Rapid transit: making tracks towards
hcttcr public transport as new options emerge. 167, 13- 19.
Loctrl Trrmsport Todrtj, (I 996) Think hard heforc promoting IICM
light rail schcmcs. Norris tells local authorities. 178, X.
23x
Building new urban public transport .sJ,.vtem.\: M Ed~vard\ and R L Mackrtt
London Transport Planning (1995) NCM. Ideas for Public Transport in
Outer London, London Transport, London.
Mackett, R. L. (1993) Why are continental cities more civilised than
British ones? Proceedings of the 25th Universities Transport Stud)
Group Annual Conference, held at the University of Southampton,
January.
Mackett, R. L. (1995) Planning urban public transport systems:
decisions and impacts. Paper presented at the workshop on
Infrastructure Planning and the Environment organised by the
Special Interest Group 1 of the World Conference on Transport
Research Society held in Cairns, Australia, July.
Mackett, R. L. and Edwards, M. (1995) An expert system to advise on
urban public transport technologies. In Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Computers in Urban Plunning and
Urban Management, ed. R. Wyatt and H. Hossain, held in
Melbourne, Australia, July, Vol. 1, pp. 411424.
Mackett. R. L. and Edwards, M. (1996a) Guidelines for planning a
new urban public transport system. Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers: Transport I 17, 193-20 1.
Mackett, R. L. and Edwards, M. (199613) The impact of new urban
public transport systems: will the expectations be met? (Paper
submitted for publication.)
North, B. H. (1993) A review of people mover systems and their
potential role in cities. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineering: Transport loo,9551 10.
Parkinson, T. (1989) Advocacy for Conventional LR. In Light Rail
Transit: New System Successes at Affordable Prices, National
Conference on Light Rail Transit, 881 I May, San Jose, California,
Transportation Research Board, Special Report 221, pp. 66678.
Parkinson, T. (I 992) Sky Train - the Results. Transport Consulting
Limited, Vancouver.
Pickrell, D. H. (1992) A desire named streetcar: fantasy and fact in rail
transit planning. Journal of /he American Phtnning A.c.wc~iution 58,
158-176.
Pickup, L., Stokes, G., Meadowcroft, S., Goodwin, P.. Tyson, B. and
Kenny, F. (1991) Bus Deregulation in the Metropolitan Areas.
Oxford Studies in Transport, Avebury, Aldershot.
Pont, S. and Boak, J. G. (1992) South Yorkshire Supertram. In Light
Rail Transit: Planning, Design and Operating Experience, Sixth
National Conference on Light Rail Transit. Tran.sportation
Research Record 1361, 106 I 16.
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (I 994) Tramport and
the Environment. Chairman: Sir John Houghton, Eighteenth
Report, HMSO, London.
Smyth, A. W. (1994) Guided bus: anything LRT can do it can do!
PTRC European Transport Forum, University of Warwick,
England, 12-16 September, Proceedings of Seminar E. Public
Transport Plunning and Operations, pp. 153- 168.
Vuchic, V. R. (1981) Urban Public Transportation. Systems and
Technology. Prentice-Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Wachs, M. (1993) Learning from Los Angeles: transport urban form
and air quality. Transportation 20, 3299354.
Walmsley, D. and Perrett, K. (1992) The Qfects of Rapid Tran.sit on
Public Transport and Urhun Development. Transport Research
Laboratory, Department of Transport State-of-the-art-review 6.
HMSO, London.
Waterman, D. A. (1985) A Guide to Experf S),.stems. Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA.
White, P. R. (1995) Deregulation of local bus services in Great Britain:
an introductory review: Transport Reviews 15, 1855209.
Wolinsky, J. (1994) San Diegos LRT- trying to stay lean. Light Rail
Annual and Users Guide 1994, pp. 15- 19.
239

Potrebbero piacerti anche