Rapid Transit - stalled but not dead?
This article first appeared in Transit's Viewpoint column on 26 May 2006
The Government's 10-Year Transport Plan's promise of "up to 25 new lines" by 2010 quickly turned out to be a false dawn: many of the assumptions which underlay the plan turned out to be incorrect. Then there was Hatfield: we now see that, when much of the Department for Transport's cash was being swallowed by the imperatives of the heavy rail network, light rail had to take a back seat.
If only they had said so at the time, promoters, bidders and advisers would have been spared much agony. Instead, people have done huge amounts of work, and spent large dollops of cash, in trying to adjust schemes to meet what they perceived to be Government requirements.
Some have complained that the Department for Transport and the Treasury kept shifting the goalposts: in reality, promoters were playing rugby and the Government soccer. You had to get the ball under the bar and not over it in order to score. The only trouble was that nobody told the players.
It did not help that there were serious problems with several of the schemes presented to Government. Bidders complained of over-optimistic revenue forecasts, understated operating cost estimates, poorly prepared and inadequately researched designs and attempts to shift too many risks to the private sector (particularly utility diversions).
Meanwhile, systems in operation continued to experience financial problems - with substantial losses incurred in Croydon, Manchester and the West Midlands. In all three cases, lack of patronage was at least partly to blame. In Manchester's case, the problem came only on the Eccles Line: on the initial route, the problem remains peak overcrowding.
Though Midland Metro seems to have stuck at annual patronage of around 5m, the news is better in Croydon. Fare changes and Oyster have prompted strong patronage growth, so that Tramlink has grown by 50% to 22m annual journeys.
Ridership on the Tyne & Wear Metro extension to Sunderland continues to disappoint, though, causing problems for Nexus: from a near break-even situation in 2001, the system incurred losses of over £8m in 2004/05.
On patronage, the really good news comes from Nottingham, where NET carried an on-target 8.5m passengers in its first year and grew by 15% to 9.7m in its second. So far, the combination of park and ride provision and integration between bus and tram (yes, even in a deregulated environment) has paid off. Work continues on plans for two southward extensions, and a decision from Government on the business case is expected shortly.
Work has continued on developing other schemes too. In London, work continues on a variety of tram and busway schemes. These include DLR extensions: there's the cross-Thames link to Woolwich under construction, replacement of the North London Line to Stratford, projects to expand capacity to six-car trains plus extensions eastward to Dagenham and westward to Charing Cross. There are Tramlink extensions, new tramways for the Uxbridge Road and Central London, and busway schemes in eastern and southern suburbs. In London, the very high volumes of public transport use mean that the tram offers the prospect of genuine cost savings when compared with the bus alternative.
In Edinburgh, revised phasing seems to have dealt with cost inflation problems - at least for the moment. The plans have achieved their construction powers, and the full business case is due for submission later in 2006.
In Manchester, promoters continue to pick up the pieces of the "big bang" Phase 3 extension project. The primary focus is on upgrading the Bury-Altrincham route - almost 15 years old and showing signs of age - as well as promoting planned extensions. Oldham-Rochdale is the most urgent: on the verge of conversion to light rail for many years, required renewals cannot be postponed for much longer.
Merseytravel remains committed to the Merseytram project, which is at the heart of the PTE's Local Transport Plan. How this will play in Whitehall remains to be seen - but relationships could hardly be worse than they have been since the abortive attempt to use the courts to force the Government to fund Line 1.
In South Hampshire and Leeds, meanwhile, promoters are currently exploring the bus-based alternatives to which they were directed by DfT.
Elsewhere, the development of bus-based rapid transit systems proceeds apace, with 16 schemes either open or being developed. Kent Fastrack Phase 1 opened in March, with other phases to follow. The second route in Crawley opened in last August, and the West Edinburgh project has also been completed. Two contrasting schemes in Tyne and Wear are now operating successfully.
Work continues on other systems in Luton, Cambridge and Greater Manchester, and new projects are under development in Cleveland and Coventry.
Considerable development work has taken place with other guidance systems in Europe, including optical, electronic and magnetic systems. However, at least four of the new UK systems plan to use 'low tech' kerb guidance. Others are not bothering with guidance at all.
Improved vehicle design has long been held to be vital to development of bus-based rapid transit - hence the keen interest in this month's launch into service of the 'ftr', a tram-style articulated vehicle built by Volvo and Wrights in partnership FirstGroup. Its launch was not exactly untroubled - but then those of us with long memories remember that the Routemaster - that icon of UK public transport - did not have an untroubled entry into service, and was disliked by many passengers, back in 1959.
Overall, it would be wrong to assume that the development of rapid transit in the UK was completely stalled. These schemes - and many more of them - will be needed if congestion charging is to be successfully extended beyond central London. The Government's new Transport Innovation Fund should help to fund them: the question is whether they will happen soon enough.