Union Internationale des Transports Publics International Association of Public Transport Internationaler Verband fr ffentliches Verkehrswesen

May 2001

Conclusions
A light rail or tramway line has to provide high performances in terms of service quality. At stake are its modern, efficient image as well as its structuring capacity. Therefore, interruptions or even disruptions to services must not be viewed as plausible and acceptable occurrences. Moreover, the diversion of utility networks is a very costly business that is likely to extend time limits for building work on any new tramway project. As a result, it is in everyones interests to avoid unnecessary work and ensure that interventions by the various utility companies are properly co-ordinated. Therefore : All manhole covers must be moved to a location away from the track bed. Along-track utility networks generally should be displaced. The only pipes that may be left in place beneath the track bed are those on which maintenance is unlikely to disrupt operation of either the transport system or the pipes themselves. Cross-track utility networks generally are left in place, but should be the subject of necessary measures so that their operation and servicing is possible without disruption to the transport system. Protection against stray current should be ensured according to the state of the art. In every instance, it is important to obtain precise knowledge of the location of utility networks as early as possible in the project design process. Any promoter of a light rail or tramway system should give serious consideration to alternatives to systematic network diversions. The configurations for sharing the costs inherent to displacements vary from one country to the next and even from city to city within the same country. Any promoter of a light rail or tramway system will set out to minimise the costs they face and avoid procedures that may become the basis for litigation causing uncertainty to develop over the cost and time limits of the necessary displacements.

CORE BRIEF
Diversion of Public Utilities for the construction of light rail and tramway systems
Technical, Legal and Financial Guidelines from a few examples worldwide
The diversion of existing street-based public utilities to make way for a new light rail or tramway system can be costly, difficult and contentious, and in some cases has amounted to at least 10% of the total project cost, depending on the extent of running on existing streets. It is therefore essential to begin work early on this potentially difficult topic and approach it carefully, logically and positively.

Cost-sharing for utilities re-routing

Two major groups of policies clearly exist: In one type of policy, one or other of the parties bears all the rerouting costs. - 1st case: The tramway owner has to assume all the costs of the rerouting works. This is the case of the Zurich, Milan and Tunis networks. This is also true in Belgium where a estimate of the required works is drawn up after discussions with the related public utilities. This was also the case in France until the legal precedent with the construction of the Saint-Denis Bobigny tramway questioned this principle. - 2nd case: Public utilities must pay for all the re-routing works. This is the case in France where the situation is currently defined by the above-mentioned legal precedent. In Hong-Kong this is also true for any government owned project. In the second policy, re-routing costs are shared between the tramway owner and the public utilities. This is followed in Great Britain and in Germany. The general guideline is that the public utilities pay for the works that benefit them.

This Core Brief has been prepared by the UITP Light Rail Committee.

A Core Brief is a UITP information sheet

English version

The benefits for public utilities are mainly: Network improvement (rationalisation, capacity increase), Accessibility improvement, Gain from the replacement of old conduits by new ones. This last point entails rates that depend on pipe age and condition.

The guideline is clear; its implementation less so. This specifically concerns the meaning of the word benefit, and what it is supposed to include. Consequently, there is much contention on details. The difficulty in accurately evaluating the accrued benefit has prompted public utilities companies to challenge applicable rates and calculation methods, even if they generally do not take issue with the overall guideline.

Cross-track utilities The almost universal solution is to leave cross-track utilities where they are and implement additional measures, if needed. These measures can involve jacketing or concrete coating, with deeper embedding at tramway track base level, or the building of a load-sharing raft foundation.

Additional Protective Systems Underground conduits are exposed to stray currents generated by the traction current feedback along the rails. Technically, their protection can be handled with electrolytic devices. Financially, the tramway owner is in most cases in charge of setting up these cathodic protections, that can prevent premature corrosion of the conduits. This is the case, for instance, in Hong-Kong and Berlin.

On the basis of this principle, two policies are being explored in Great Britain and Germany: - 1st case: Cost-sharing based on an accurate evaluation of utilities rerouting on a case by case basis. - 2nd case: Cost-sharing based on a flat fee that is simple, hence it has the advantage of avoiding constant disputes.

The set-up of utilities in the neighbourhood of an existing tramway

Technical solutions
Along-track utilities Although it may be necessary to alter some utilities, because embedding depth is too shallow, this reason is not very important. Actually, along-track utilities have to be moved not so much because of depth and load but due to accessibility and uninterrupted tramway service when works are required on these utilities. These are the main reasons why along-track utilities have to be moved outside the tramway track bed. It is also for these reasons that some exceptions were tolerated in different transport networks: In Manchester, Nantes, Grenoble, Cologne for example the choice was made to keep under the tracks some sewers, which satisfied these conditions (if necessary with a mechanical reinforcement). Only the manholes need to be moved on an accessible conduit whose remaining life is long enough. In this case, a life cycle estimate warranting the non removal of a utility may stem from an economic evaluation assessing re-routing costs compared to the restrictions incurred by continued tramway service.

Technical principles The layout of new utilities within tramway right-of-way is never allowed except for cross-track installations. In this case, the appropriate construction methods have to avoid any tramway service disturbance, as much as possible. Financial principles Concerning the costs, the public utility is responsible for all of these. In any case, it is generally admitted that all the effects of utilities works on tramway operations have to be assumed financially by the public utility company. This is the case in Milan also in Germany, where the public utilities companies accept the risks incurred by stray currents and have to take care of protecting their installations themselves.