Sie sind auf Seite 1von 490

Department of Design, Development, Environment and Materials

Faculty of Maths, Computing and Technology

An Assessment of the Cost and


Environmental Performance of Light Rail
and an Equivalent Bus-Based System

A thesis submitted to the Open University


for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

By

Paul Hodgson BEng (Hons) MSc CEng MIET MILT

June 2011
Abstract

Abstract

With a shift in UK transport policy away from ‘grand projets’ and new light rail schemes

specifically, there is an opportunity to develop bus-based systems in lieu of light rail. Bus-

based light rapid transit appears to be less expensive to build and operate than tram

systems but there remain questions of whether it really can approach the performance level

of a tram system and what is the environmental performance of comparable systems?

This thesis addresses these issues, particularly relating to an urban situation of a transit

system to attract discretionary car users. A comparative assessment model has been

undertaken of implementation, operational costs and environmental impacts of a

comparable tram and high quality guided-bus system. The UK situation is ‘modelled by

drawing upon information from elsewhere in Europe and North America. The design of the

bus-based transit system delivers equivalent performance to trams in capacity and

passenger experience.

This ‘equivalence’ model shows that the capital costs of the bus-based system are two-

thirds those of tram, which is less than is often claimed, suggesting that, in practice,

guided-bus systems are built to a lower specification that light rail systems. Operational

costs do not significantly differ. Using hybrid-engine bus vehicles, even CO2 emissions are

similar, although NOx from bus-based transit remains higher than for trams.

Although the cost differences for equivalent systems are less than is often claimed, there

are substantial benefits in the flexible development of transit systems. With it less

vulnerable to variations from forecast ridership numbers, transit systems can be developed

in fundable stages and grow the business case for incremental upgrading. However, it is

concluded that the ‘value for money’ case for bus-based light rapid transit should not be at

the expense of quality and transport planning impact.

i
Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

I have been fortunate to have a supervisory team of three who have been expertly led by

Professor Stephen Potter. The road to completion has been very long and arduous but at no

point did Stephen, Dr. David Gillingwater or Dr. James Warren waver and give anything

other than positive reinforcement and a will to succeed. Each of the supervisors brought a

different focus to the research but a constant yen to achieve academic excellence and an

unrelenting desire to complete the course of study.

I need to pay due recognition and sincere thanks to my wife and children as without their

constant support and encouragement I would not have been able to complete this project.

This project is dedicated to them.

iii
Publications

Publications

Hodgson, P. (2004) A Proposal for the Modelling of Alternative Fuel Traction Supplies for
Light Rail Systems, Paper presented at the 36th UTSG Conference, 5-7 Jan 2004,
Newcastle, UK.

Hodgson, P. (2005) When is a bus not a bus? Redefining transport typology, Paper
presented at the 8th NECTAR Conference, 2-4 June, Las Palmas, Gran Canaria, Spain.

Hodgson, P. (2007) Looking beyond the Guided-Bus. When is a tram not a tram?
Traffic Engineering & Control, 8 (4), pp.183-188

Hodgson, P. (2010) Can bus be the new tram? Paper presented at the 42nd UTSG
Conference, 5-7 Jan 2010, Plymouth, UK.

Hodgson, P., Potter, S. (2010) Refining light rapid transit typology: a UK perspective
Transportation Planning and Technology, 33 (4), pp.367-384

Hodgson P., Potter, S. Can bus really be the new tram? Paper presented at 12th Thredbo
Conference, 11-15 Sept 2011, Durban, South Africa.

v
Contents

Contents
Page
List of Figures xi
List of Tables xv
Abbreviations and Acronyms xix
Glossary xxiii
Introduction 1
1 Chapter 1: Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy 9
1.1 Transport Demand – An Increase in Travel and Transport 9
1.2 The Problems Associated with Increased Travel 12
1.3 Congestion 16
1.4 The Economic Impact of Congestion 18
1.5 The Environmental Impact of Congestion 18
1.6 The Social Impacts of Road Traffic 20
1.7 What can be done? 21
1.8 UK Transport Policy 26
1.9 Key Themes Arising from Policy 40
1.10 The Key Issues 42

2 Chapter 2: Public Transport Systems Review 45


2.1 Background 45
2.2 The Development of UK Tram, Light Rail and related systems 47
2.3 Recent UK Light Rail Developments 55
2.4 A Review of Other UK Light Rail Systems 65
2.5 Summary of Light Rail in the UK 69
2.6 UK Bus-based Systems 70
2.7 A Summary of Selected UK Light Rail and Bus-based Systems 79
2.8 Light Rail and UK Transport Policy 82
2.9 Funding Public Transport Systems and Risk Management 85
2.10 Alternative Funding Sources 87
2.11 Key Issues Arising 93

3 Chapter 3: Transport System Definition 95


3.1 Technology Developments in Public Transport outside of the UK 95
3.2 Bus Vehicle and Technology Developments 96
3.3 Light Rail Developments 108

vii
Contents

3.4 Impacts of the New Technology on Definitional Clarity 110


3.5 Differentiation between Light Rapid Transit System Modes 112
3.6 Current Definitions of Transit Systems 115
3.7 Characteristics that define Transit Modes 116
3.8 Light Rail Definitions 117
3.9 Bus System Definitions 118
3.10 The Need for Clarity 121
3.11 Applying a Nodal Decision Tree to Light Rapid Transit 121
3.12 Wider Implications of Inconsistent Definitions 129
3.13 Summary 132

4 Chapter 4: Research Approach 135


4.1 Current Analysis 136
4.2 The Basis of Comparison 139
4.3 The Need for Quantitative Data 140
4.4 A Framework for the Quantitative Research Approach 142
4.5 Developing the Quantitative Approach 143
4.6 The Research Approach 145
4.7 Constructing the Model 146
4.8 Confirmed Methodology 148

5 Chapter 5: Assessment Development 149


5.1 The Appraisal Summary Table (AST) 149
5.2 Background to Assumed Knowledge 151
5.3 Development History of the Model 152
5.4 The Working Model 152
5.5 The Transit Modes to be Modelled 155
5.6 The Performance Data to be Modelled 157
5.7 The Environmental Aspects of the Appraisal 158
5.8 The Economic Aspects of the Appraisal 167
5.9 Summary of Objectives and Sub-objectives to be Modelled 171
5.10 Project Lifecycle Phase 171
5.11 Selecting the Transit System Location 172
5.12 The Transit Scheme Systems 173
5.13 The Level One Data Structure 173
5.14 The Level Two Data Structure: Definition of the Systems 181
5.15 The Infrastructure Construction 181

viii
Contents

5.16 Level Two Data Summary 190


5.17 Data Sift Summary 195
5.18 Level Three Data 196
5.19 The Model Data Reconciled with the Appraisal Summary Table 199
5.20 Reflection on the Model Development 201

6 Chapter 6: Model Construction and Application 203


6.1 Scoping the System Location to be Modelled 204
6.2 Scoping the System Route 209
6.3 Specifying the System Characteristics 216
6.4 Route Length and Make-up 216
6.5 Specifying the Vehicles 241
6.6 Summary of Development 245
6.7 Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) 246
6.8 Operational Expenditure (OPEX) 266
6.9 Environmental Emissions (ENVEM) 270
6.10 Environmental Emissions Mitigation Cost (ENVEX) 291
6.11 Next Steps 295

7 Chapter 7: Modelling Results 297


7.1 Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) 297
7.2 System Operational Parameters 318
7.3 Environmental Emissions (ENVEM) – CO2, PM10 and NOx 324
7.4 Environmental Emissions (ENVEM) – Noise and Aesthetics 330
7.5 Operational Expenditure (OPEX) 334
7.6 Environmental Emissions Mitigation Cost (ENVEX) 336
7.7 Initial Testing of Results 338
7.8 Results Summary 340

8 Chapter 8: Results Analysis and Discussion 343


8.1 CAPEX 343
8.2 Infrastructure CAPEX 345
8.3 The Vehicle CAPEX 357
8.4 OPEX 364
8.5 ENVEX 369
8.6 ENVEM 370
8.7 Summary of Analysis 377

ix
Contents

9 Chapter 9: Conclusion 381


9.1 The Case for Public Transport Systems 382
9.2 Conclusions to be drawn from the Assessment 392
9.3 The Need for Equivalence 396
9.4 Concluding Summary 400
9.5 Contribution to Knowledge 401
9.6 Further Research Opportunities 403

References 405

Appendix I Infrastructure Construction Level Three Data 435


Appendix II Operations and Maintenance Costs 441
Appendix III Level Three Data Quantity 445
Appendix IV M-AST Data 447
Appendix V Running-way Build-up 449
Appendix VI OPEX Data 451
Appendix VII Listed Structures in Reading 461

x
Figures

Figures

Chapter 1 Page
Figure 1-1 Transport Mode Distances Travelled 1952–2007 9
Figure 1-2 UK domestic CO2 emissions by source category in 2007 13
Figure 1-3 CO2 emissions from UK Transport, by source in 2007 13
Figure 1-4 NOX Emissions in the UK 14
Figure 1-5 UK PM10 Emissions 1970 – 2007 15
Figure 1-6 UK PM10 Road Vehicle Emissions 1970 – 2007 15
Figure 1-7 The Effects of Vehicle Speed on Emissions 19
Figure 1-8 NAIGT Technology Roadmap 22
Figure 1-9 TDM and Technology Measures - Combinational Effects 23
Figure 1-10 UK Transport National Organisation and Policy 27
Figure 1-11 UK Strategic Transport Connections 38
Figure 1-12 UK Transport Policy Development 41

Chapter 2
Figure 2-1 Selected UK Light Rail Development 48
Figure 2-2 Tyne and Wear Metro 49
Figure 2-3 Docklands Light Rail Network 49
Figure 2-4 Proposed Manchester Metrolink extensions 51
Figure 2-5 Sheffield Supertram at West Street 53
Figure 2-6 Merseytram Proposed Three Line Network 56
Figure 2-7 Merseytram Proposed Line 1 Route 57
Figure 2-8 NET Finance and Funding 64
Figure 2-9 Utility Diversion Works on Princes Street, Edinburgh 68
Figure 2-10 Timeline for Selected Bus-based Systems in the UK 71
Figure 2-11 A Typical Kerb-guided bus guidance wheel 72
Figure 2-12 Crawley Fastway Network and Routes 73
Figure 2-13 An ftr vehicle at Luton Airport Parkway Rail Station 76
Figure 2-14 Proposed Cambridge Guided-bus Route 77

Chapter 3
Figure 3-1 Las Vegas Firstbus Streetcar RTV 97
Figure 3-2 The first Trolley-bus (1882) 98
Figure 3-3 UK Trolley-bus in 1959 98
Figure 3-4 The Cristalis vehicle in use as a trolley bus in Bologna, Italy 99

xi
Figures

Figure 3-5 Civis Bus operating in Las Vegas 100


Figure 3-6 Bus Routes in Eindhoven 102
Figure 3-7 Cross-section of the Eindhoven transport corridor 103
Figure 3-8 Transport routes in Eindhoven 103
Figure 3-9 Segregated bus route in Eindhoven 103
Figure 3-10 The Route 401 Flightforum Stop 104
Figure 3-11 A Phileas Vehicle at the Eindhoven Stadium 104
Figure 3-12 Translohr System in Padova, Italy 107
Figure 3-13 Translohr guide rail and vehicle-mounted guidance wheels 107
Figure 3-14 Cost-Performance Relationship for Transit Modes 111
Figure 3-15 Light and Heavy Rail Vehicles using the same track in Ersingen 112
circa 1994
Figure 3-16 The FirstBus ftr vehicle in service in Leeds 113
Figure 3-17 Two views of a ‘bus-stop’ in Quito, Ecuador 115
Figure 3-18 Nodal Decision Tree 123
Figure 3-19 Nodal Decision Tree applied to transit mode definition 125
Figure 3-20 Extract of Nodal Decision Tree as an illustrative example 126
Figure 3-21 Light Rapid Transit Typology with System Examples 128

Chapter 4
Figure 4-1 Inductive and Deductive or Top-down - Bottom-up Approaches 144
Figure 4-2 Overview of the Research Approach 146
Figure 4-3 Worked Example of Model Concepts 147

Chapter 5
Figure 5-1 Data Structure 154
Figure 5-2 Merseytram landscape assessment drawing 166
Figure 5-3 Level 1 Data Structure 175
Figure 5-4 Bridge to accommodate the Sheffield tram alignment 183
Figure 5-5 Croydon Tram Stop at East Croydon station 184
Figure 5-6 Road junction signalling near the Eindhoven football stadium. 185
Figure 5-7 Nottingham Tram Wilkinson Street Depot Footprint 186
Figure 5-8 Edinburgh Tram Services Diversions 187
Figure 5-9 Model Development Summary Process 201

xii
Figures

Chapter 6
Figure 6-1 Reading Area Map Overview 208
Figure 6-2 RUN System Western Loop 210
Figure 6-3 RUN System Western Extension and depot link 211
Figure 6-4 RUN System Central Section 212
Figure 6-5 RUN System Southern Extension 213
Figure 6-6 RUN System Eastern Extension 214
Figure 6-7 RUN System Route-map 215
Figure 6-8 An example of a grass-track section 219
Figure 6-9 Examples of Granite Setts 220
Figure 6-10 A Phileas on the dedicated elevated section in Eindhoven 222
Figure 6-11 Track Switch and Crossing (S&C) Configurations 223
Figure 6-12 Single face and island platforms 225
Figure 6-13 Degraded Mode Operation and S&C Location 229
Figure 6-14 The RUN system scheme 230
Figure 6-15 Sheffield Supertram S&C 231
Figure 6-16 Typical Traction Power Substation Schematic 232
Figure 6-17 NET Substation at Moorbridge 233
Figure 6-18 Heavy-duty ‘H’ Section single-central pole used on Croydon 233
Figure 6-19 Simple, single-central pole used on Sheffield SuperTram 233
Figure 6-20 Simplified Communications System Overview 234
Figure 6-21 Merseytram Depot Planning Direction Drawing 238
Figure 6-22 Midland Metro Control Centre 239
Figure 6-23 RUN Light Rail Depot Facility 239
Figure 6-24 NET Depot Wheel Lathe 240
Figure 6-25 Face-lifted DE60LF 243
Figure 6-26 Cost Framework 247
Figure 6-27 Light Rail Level 2 Data Table 249
Figure 6-28 Guided-Bus Level 2 Data Table 249
Figure 6-29 Transit System Delivery Organisation 255
Figure 6-30 Face-lifted DE60LFA 262
Figure 6-31 Light Rail Level 2 Data Table - OPEX 269
Figure 6-32 Guided-Bus Level 2 Data Table - OPEX 269
Figure 6-33 Phileas Emissions 279
Figure 6-34 Conservation Areas in Reading 290

xiii
Figures

Chapter 7
Figure 7-1 Cost Framework 298
Figure 7-2 Construction Net Cost 301
Figure 7-3 Construction Cost Add-ons 303
Figure 7-4 Total Project (Infrastructure) Cost 307
Figure 7-5 RUN Service Diagrams 309
Figure 7-6 Light rail peak period timetable 313
Figure 7-7 Guided-bus peak period timetable 314
Figure 7-8 Vehicle Costs and Total Project Capital Cost 317
Figure 7-9 Light Rail and Guided-bus CO2 emissions 325
Figure 7-10 Light Rail and Guided-bus NOx emissions 327
Figure 7-11 Light Rail and Guided-bus PM10 emissions 329

Chapter 8
Figure 8-1 Populated Cost Framework 344
Figure 8-2 Incremental System Implementation Cost 355
Figure 8-3 Trial Running Costs 359

Chapter 9
Figure 9-1 Transport for London Fuel Cell bus in service in London 386
Figure 9-2 Light Rapid Transit Typology with System Examples 390
Figure 9-3 Improving cost and environmental performance 395
Figure 9-4 Stops on Phileas in Eindhoven and NET (Nottingham) 399
Figure 9-5 Internal views of Phileas and NET Tram 400

xiv
Tables

Tables

Chapter 1 Page
Table 1-1 Increase in UK Population Travel 12
Table 1-2 DaSTS Priority Conurbations 37

Chapter 2
Table 2-1 Estimated annual Metrolink Patronage by previous mode 50
Table 2-2 Merseytram Demand and Mode Transfer 57
Table 2-3 Selected passenger volumes on UK light rail systems 80
Table 2-4 DfT Decision Timescales 85
Table 2-5 Funding Mechanism Case Studies from the US 92

Chapter 3
Table 3-1 Transit Mode Vehicle Capacities and Equivalence limits 122
Table 3-2 Nodal Decision Tree – Disallowed Modes 127

Chapter 5
Table 5-1 Appraisal Summary Table (AST) 150
Table 5-2 Early Top-down Analysis in a Matrix format 153
Table 5-3 WebTAG Unit 3.3.2, Noise 159
Table 5-4 WebTAG Unit 3.3.3, The Local Air Quality Sub-objective 160
Table 5-5 WebTAG Unit 3.3.5, The Greenhouse Gases Sub-objective 161
Table 5-6 WebTAG Units 3.3.7, The Landscape Sub-objective, Unit 3.3.8, 163
The Townscape Sub-objective, Unit 3.3.9, The Heritage of
Historic Resources Sub-objective
Table 5-7 WebTAG Unit 3.3.10, The Biodiversity Sub-objective 164
Table 5-8 WebTAG Unit 3.3.11, The Water Environment Sub-objective 164
Table 5-9 WebTAG Unit 3.3.12, The Physical Fitness Sub-objective 165
Table 5-10 WebTAG Unit 3.3.13, The Journey Ambience Sub-objective 167
Table 5-11 Data Codification 174
Table 5-12 AST – Model Scope Coverage 180
Table 5-13 Operating Costs 188
Table 5-14 Light Rail Infrastructure Level 2 Data Codes 193
Table 5-15 Guided-Bus Infrastructure Level 2 Data Codes 194
Table 5-16 Level Three Data Summary (Build) 196
Table 5-17 Operational Costs 197
Table 5-18 M-AST: Modified AST for the Purposes of this Project 200

xv
Tables

Chapter 6
Table 6-1 RUN System Route Sections 217
Table 6-2 RUN System Route Type Summary 218
Table 6-3 RUN System Stops 226
Table 6-4 Configuration of Stops and S&C on UK Light Rail Systems 228
Table 6-5 Road Junctions and Crossings 235
Table 6-6 UK Light Rail Depot Footprints and Vehicles 237
Table 6-7 Light rail and guided-bus data Summary 244
Table 6-8 Transit System Preliminary Costs 251
Table 6-9 Civis Guided-bus vehicle costs 261
Table 6-10 Light Rail and Guided-bus System Speeds 265
Table 6-11 Light Rail Noise Estimated source contributions 272
Table 6-12 PM10 and NOx Emissions 275
Table 6-13 Comparative Sources of PM10 and NOx Emissions Data 276
Table 6-14 CO2 data for Electricity Generation 281
Table 6-15 Emissions data Comparison 284
Table 6-16 Emissions Standards Comparison 285
Table 6-17 Emissions Data for the Model 286
Table 6-18 Classification of Landscape and Townscape Quality 288
Table 6-19 Impact Significance Criteria 289
Table 6-20 Built Heritage Significance Criteria 289
Table 6-21 Typical Sound Levels from Construction Plant 292

Chapter 7
Table 7-1 Light Rail Infrastructure Net Cost Summary 300
Table 7-2 Guided-Bus Infrastructure Net Cost Summary 301
Table 7-3 Construction Cost Add-ons 302
Table 7-4 Total Light Rail Services to be provided on the Reading System 310
Table 7-5 Guided-bus Service Provision based upon Equivalent Weekly 310
Capacity
Table 7-6 Guided-bus Service Pattern based upon Equivalent Weekly 311
Capacity
Table 7-7 Guided-bus Service Density based upon Equivalent Weekly 312
Capacity
Table 7-8 Total Vehicle Costs 316
Table 7-9 Vehicle Emission Rates 318
Table 7-10 The distance travelled per vehicle per week 319

xvi
Tables

Table 7-11 Determination of the total operating distance per vehicle/annum 320
Table 7-12 The vehicle power demand – Light Rail 321
Table 7-13 The vehicle power demand – Guided-bus 321
Table 7-14 Vehicle emissions – Light Rail 322
Table 7-15 Vehicle emissions – Guided-Bus 323
Table 7-16 Emissions Data for Light Rail and Guided-Bus on the Reading 324
System
Table 7-17 Noise increase impacts 331
Table 7-18 RUN Areas potentially susceptible to Noise and Vibration Impacts 331
Table 7-19 Route Aesthetic Assessment 332
Table 7-20 OPEX 335
Table 7-21 Light Rail – Operations and Maintenance Costs 337
Table 7-22 Guided-bus - Operations and Maintenance Costs 337
Table 7-23 Comparison of Transit System CAPEX Costs 339
Table 7-24 Reading Urban Network, Modified Appraisal Summary Table 341

Chapter 8
Table 8-1 CAPEX and ENVEX Costs 345
Table 8-2 Comparative costs of Construction 346
Table 8-3 Construction Cost Add-ons 351
Table 8-4 Utilities, Land Acquisition and Compensation Costs 354
Table 8-5 Capacity Normalised Infrastructure Costs 356
Table 8-6 Vehicle Costs 357
Table 8-7 Vehicle-Capacity-Kilometres 362
Table 8-8 Capacity Normalised System Costs 363
Table 8-9 OPEX Summary Costs 364
Table 8-10 Equivalent Guided-Bus services for CO2 equality 372
Table 8-11 Reduced Guided-Bus services for CO2 saving 372
Table 8-12 Guided-Bus service capacity for CO2 saving 373
Table 8-13 NOX Emissions 374
Table 8-14 Equivalent Guided-Bus services for NOx equality 374
Table 8-15 PM10 Emissions 375
Table 8-16 Equivalent Light Rail services for PM10 equality 375

Chapter 9
Table 9-1 Equivalence characteristics in application on the Reading scheme 397
for the bus-based system

xvii
xviii
Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviations and Acronyms

The following abbreviations and acronyms have been used in this thesis.

AC Alternating Current
APS Alimentation par sol
APTS Advanced Passenger Transport Systems
AST Appraisal Summary Table
BCR benefit:cost ratio
BERR Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
BTS Bus Transit Systems
Cambridge CC Cambridge County Council
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
CAST.IRON Cambridge to St.Ives Railway Organisation
C-charge Congestion Charge
CCTV Closed Circuit Television
CHUMMS Cambridge-Huntingdon Multi-Modal Study
CLG Communities and Local Government
CNG Compressed Natural Gas
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CoCP Code of Construction Practice
CUTE Clean Urban Transport for Europe
DaSTS Delivering a Sustainable Transport System
dB(A) Decibel A-weighted
DC Direct Current
DETR Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
DfT Department for Transport
DLR Docklands Light Railway
ECMT European Conference of Ministers of Transport
Edinburgh CC Edinburgh City Council
EEBPP Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme
EERE US Department of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
EEV Enhanced Environmentally-friendly Vehicle
EIA Energy Information Administration (US)
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EMC Electromagnetic Compatibility
ENVEM Environmental Emissions
ENVEX Environmental Mitigation Costs

xix
Abbreviations and Acronyms

EPA Environmental Protection Agency


ES Environmental Statement
EU European Union
F&A Franklin and Andrews
FTA Federal Transit Administration
g Grams
GAO General Accounting Office
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GMCA Greater Manchester Combined Authority
GWh Giga Watt Hours
HC Hydro-Carbons
HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle
HSC Health and Safety Commission
HSE Health and Safety Executive
HV High Voltage
ICE Internal Combustion Engine
KGB Kerb-guided Buses
km Kilometre
kWh Kilo Watt Hours
LAeq Equivalent continuous sound level
LPG Liquified Pertroleum Gas
LRT Light Rail Transit or Light Rapid Transit (context confirmed in text)
LRTA Light Rapid Transit Association
LRV Light Rail Vehicle
LTP Local Transport Plan
Luton BC Luton Borough Council
m Metres
M&E Mechanical and Electrical
M-AST Modified - Appraisal Summary Table
mph Miles per Hour
MUDFA Multi Utility Diversion Framework Agreement
NAEI National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory
NAIGT New Automotive Innovation Growth Team
NAO National Audit Office
NATA New Approach to Appraisal
NET Nottingham Express Transit
NO2 Nitrogen Oxide
Nottingham CC Nottingham City Council
NOX Nitrogen Oxide
NPV Net Present Value

xx
Abbreviations and Acronyms

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory


OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OLE Overhead Line Electrification
ONS Office for National Statistics
OPEX Operating Expenditure
PFI Private Finance Initiative
PM10 Particulate Matter (less than 10 microns in diameter)
PTE Passenger Transport Executive
PTEG Passenger Transport Executive Group
PVC Present Value of Costs
Reading BC Reading Borough Council
ROGS Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations
ROTS Railways and Other Transport Systems
ROW Right of Way
RSD Railway Safety Directive
RTV Rapid Transit Vehicle
RUN Reading Urban Network
S&C Switch and Crossing
SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SEU Social Exclusion Unit
SHRT South Hampshire Rapid Transit
SPL Sound Pressure Level
Sussex CC Sussex County Council
T&WM Tyne and Wear Metro
TaSTS Towards a Sustainable Transport System
TDM Transport Demand Management
TEE Transport Economic Efficiency
TfL Transport for London
TIE Transport Initiatives Edinburgh
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSGB Transport Statistics Great Britain
TVR Transport sur Voie Réservée
TWA Transport and Works Act
UITP International Association of Public Transport
ULR Ultra-light Rail
ULSD Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel
UTC Urban Traffic Control
WebTAG Web-based Transport Analysis Guidance
WPL Workplace Parking Levy

xxi
xxii
Glossary

Glossary

The following terms that have been used in this thesis are defined thus:

BRT Bus Rapid Transit, a bus-based system that has guidance systems
and/or overhead line power.
Busway A busway is a reserved right of way used by buses only.
Civis The Civis vehicle is a guided-bus vehicle that uses white line
guidance (see Figure 3-5). The Cristalis vehicle (Figure 3-4) was a
later development on Civis.
CR-4000 The CR-4000 is the Bombardier light rail vehicle used on the
Croydon Tram system.
DE60LF The DE60LF is a bus model produced by New Flyer of the US.
DE60LF is code for Diesel-Electric-60 feet long-Low-Floor.
Examples are shown in Figures 6-25 and 6-30.
EURO IV The EURO IV is the European Union vehicle emission standard
enforced since 2005.
EURO V The EURO V is the European Union vehicle emission standard
enforced since 2009.
ftr The ‘ftr’ is a recent bus-vehicle produced by Firstbus. ‘ftr’ is text-
speak for ‘future’. Examples are illustrated in Figures 2-13, 3-1
and 3-16.
Intermediate Intermediate mode, or alternatively ‘semi light rail’, is a mode
Mode between conventional bus and light rail, for example, high
technology guided or trolley-bus. These vehicles can have sub-
surface guide rails, for example the Translohr, see Figures 3-12
and 3-12.
Light Rail A light rail system is a rail-based, on-street capable transit system.
LRT Light Rail Transit has been used and referred by others as a system
used by light rail vehicles,
Or,
Light Rapid Transit is a more generic term used to describe all
systems which for the purposes of this research is intended to
include all modes of tram train, light rail and bus rapid transit as
depicted in Figure 3-21.

xxiii
Glossary
Model The term given to the framework used for assessing the data
associated with the development of the guided-bus and light rail
system in Reading.
Phileas The Phileas is the vehicle developed by APTS which was first
used in Eindhoven. Following a visit to Eindhoven, the Phileas
vehicle was used as the basis for seeking light rail mode
equivalence.
Tram A tram is an alternative term for a light rail vehicle.
Tramway Tramway is used describe the running way used by light rail or
tram vehicles.
Transitways This term is used to describe the running ways used by all forms of
light rapid transit.
VDLSB200 The model number of a single-deck bus produced by VDL Bus
International.
WSG1068 The WSG1068 is the model number of a Liquefied Petroleum Gas
engine produced by Ford used on Phileas vehicles.

The following terms are used in the assessment model:

Transit Mode:

Guided-bus Denoted by ‘GB’ – the assessment of the transit system associated


with guided-bus.

Light Rail ‘LR’ - the assessment of the transit system associated with light
rail.

The Assessed System

Infrastructure ‘I’ – all of the built elements of the transit system that includes
running way, stops, power supplies, depot facilities, traffic
management control etc.

Vehicle ‘V’ – the vehicle operating on the developed transit system.

xxiv
Glossary

Transit development Phase:

Build ‘B’ – the construction phase of the transit system development.

Operate ‘O’ – the operational phase of the transit system development.

Assessment Output:

Cost ‘C’ – the value in UK currency for the build and operate phases of
the transit system development.

Environment ‘E’ – the various emission outputs of the assessment model that
are further measured by aesthetics, greenhouse gases, local air
quality and noise (see below).

Specific Environmental Impacts:

Aesthetics ‘A’ – the aesthetic impacts of the visual impact of the transit
system development.

Greenhouse Gases ‘G’ – the greenhouse gas impacts measured in volume of CO2 and
the costs to mitigate the effects.

Local Air Quality ‘L’ – the local air quality impacts in the assessment measured in
volume of PM10 and NOx and the costs to mitigate the effects.

Noise ‘N’ – the noise impacts in the assessment and the costs to mitigate
the effects.

xxv
Introduction

Introduction

This thesis has been researched and written to provide an insight in to the comparative

costs and environmental performance of light rail and a modern, equivalent guided-bus

system. A comparative assessment model has been undertaken of a UK transit system

application and an assessment completed for a validating case study in Reading. The

output of the model indicated that when striving for equivalent performance, the bus-based

system can be implemented for around two-thirds of the light rail cost and the vehicle

emissions could be similar with some fine-tuning of the bus service off-peak frequency.

After completing a Masters Degree in Engineering Management in 2001, I was keen to

continue my studies toward an alternative Masters Degree, Engineering Doctorate or PhD.

The PhD option very quickly became the preference after initial discussions with Dr.

Stephen Potter at the Open University early in 2003. I am a rail professional having been in

the industry since 1988 and most recently as an Engineer for Crossrail in Reading. In the

time it has taken to complete this thesis I have worked on many schemes including UK

airport rail access studies and a number of rail implementation schemes.

I initially considered a study area concerning the development of a business model for

long-term de-commissioning of electrification on the West Coast route with hydrogen-

powered trains. But after seeking counsel with the supervisory team, this was withdrawn

from the thinking. In place of the proposal for a heavy rail project, we looked at the

research issues surrounding light rail.

As a consulting engineer in 2001, I assisted with the assessment of the traction power

systems on the Nottingham Tram system and had therefore some professional interest in

light rail systems. At the time, light rail was being reviewed for implementation in a

1
Introduction

number of cities including Liverpool, Leeds and Portsmouth. These were notoriously

expensive and questions were being asked about the cost of the systems. One significant

benefit of conventional light rail systems being emphasised was that they were

environmentally-friendly; certainly more so than stereotypically dirty, smelly buses. The

systems were considered ‘emission free’, without noting the (unwritten) caveat that this

was at the point of use. The emissions were, of course, from the central electricity-

generating power stations. In discussions with the supervisory team about light rail, the

question arose whether it would be possible to compare the environmental and cost

performance of light rail and a bus-based system. The output of this assessment would

potentially allow an assessment of a bus-based system and whether this could be developed

to deliver the benefits of light rail at a lower cost. In order to satisfy the use of a bus-based

system as an alternative, any proposed system would need to be considered equivalent to

light rail, i.e. the bus should be able to deliver similar performance and modal transfer rates

as light rail. As the project developed it became clear that guided-buses would emerge as a

viable alternative to light rail and hence guided-bus was a key area of focus in this work.

The aim of the project was therefore to be able to contribute to transport planning in terms

of providing cost and environmental data that would demonstrate the validity of a bus-

based system in place of light rail. Necessarily this would need to investigate and address

the issue of equivalence between transit modes.

When the research initially commenced there were a number of light rail schemes that

were being promoted by Liverpool, Leeds and Portsmouth which received (at least) initial

DfT (Department for Transport) approval for funding. Other schemes were also considered

which did not reach this stage, for example in Bristol. Soon after the project work

commenced, the schemes in all locations were cancelled – the key issues being cost and

2
Introduction

funding. This gave a new impetus to the development of the ‘modelling’ work as it

appeared that the policy direction meant that light rail was practicably no longer an option.

From the peak in 2001 where the UK government were actively promoting light rail

schemes, 25 in ‘Transport 2010: Meeting the Local Transport Challenge’ (DETR, 2001) to

2004 where with the publication of ‘The Future of Transport: A Network for 2030’ (DfT,

2004a), light rail was no longer on the agenda at all. The change in policy direction

appeared to give the study, which started in 2003, more credence and the objective to

confirm a viable alternative to light rail more relevance.

The concept of transit mode equivalence surfaced early in the studies. If an alternative to

light rail was to be proposed it needed to be able to deliver the same benefits as light rail. A

review of UK and worldwide systems identified issues of definition in the light rapid

transit field. This was noticeable where the application of technological advances was

blurring the boundaries between ultra-light rail, bus, light rail and metro systems. So, prior

to developing a ‘model’ to address cost and environmental performance, equivalence to

light rail needed definition.

The basis of the assessment structure was determined to be necessarily quantitative to

provide a data output that would allow direct comparison between modes. The UK

government transport scheme appraisal process WebTAG (web-based Transport Analysis

Guidance) was identified as being able to provide a suitable framework for presenting the

‘model’ output and thereby confirmed the aspects that the comparison needed to be able to

address in terms of providing a construction and operations costs along with the vehicle

emissions in CO2 (Carbon Dioxide), PM10 (Particulate Matter, less than 10 microns in

diameter), NOx (Nitrogen Oxide) and noise.

3
Introduction

The construction of the model was iterative and was eventually developed in a structured,

top-down method. The collation of data to populate the model required information from

varied sources including a firm of construction economists, vehicle manufacturers,

governmental organisations and various technical and academic documents. The output

from the model indicated that a bus-based equivalent system could be constructed for

about two-thirds the cost of a light rail system and that the operational costs were very

similar. Vehicle emissions were generally comparable with per vehicle bus CO2 emissions

lower than light rail but to achieve equivalent capacity bus-fleet emissions were higher.

However, by fine-tuning the bus service, equivalent CO2 emissions could be achieved. The

PM10 emissions were lower for the bus-based system but the NOx emissions were lower for

light rail. It was not practical to configure the service density to achieve similar emissions

for PM10 and NOx.

The thesis is structured around the development of the research described above. The

chapters are summarised below to provide a guide through the thesis.

Initially, it is important to understand the context of the need for


public transport systems and how this has been addressed by UK
transport policy. There is a need to tackle road congestion issues
and the consequential effects on the environmental, economic and
Chapter 1 social well-being of the UK. The research questions postulated
were:
Transport Trends
• Can a bus-based system offer a credible alternative to the
Impact and Policy
private car, change behaviours and generate modal transfer?
• How plausible is the bus compared to the light rail alternative?
• What are the comparative cost and environmental performance
characteristics of bus and light rail?
These issues were refined and evolved through the research process.

4
Introduction

The ability to deliver public transit systems has been poor in the
UK with high costs, programme delays and inflexible funding
Chapter 2
sources. There are notable failures in Liverpool and Leeds but
Public Transport also successes in Manchester and more recently, Nottingham.

Systems Review Overseas examples appear to indicate that there are successful
means of delivering new technology light rail and bus-based
systems with alternative funding mechanisms.

Whilst the UK has used conventional light rail or kerb-guided


buses, evidence from over-seas indicates that technological
Chapter 3 advances in buses and light rail are being made, implemented
Transport System and performing well. This has led to some definitional issues
Definition between modes and this chapter provides a framework for a light
rapid transit typology. This proposes the means by which a
transit system can be considered equivalent to light rail.

The current means of comparing transit modes either relies on


empirical systems from different locations or hypothecated non-
equivalent systems where the ‘lesser’ mode is not as highly
Chapter 4
specified in order to achieve a lower cost. This chapter makes the
Research
case for the equivalent performance and specification for both
Approach
light rail and bus-based system, thereby enabling a like-for-like
comparison. The assessment criteria framework is to be
developed from WebTAG using predominantly quantitative data.

5
Introduction

The relevant aspects of the WebTAG tool are reviewed to


ascertain which assessment criteria can be used to scope the
Chapter 5 model. Construction and operational costs are readily identified
Assessment along with quantitative measures for CO2, PM10 and NOx. Also
Development qualitative measures for noise and visual impacts are noted. The
development of a top-down data structure is provided indicating
the large data set to be populated for bus and light rail.

Cost and emissions data has been collected from various sources
Chapter 6
and applied to a system developed for Reading in the UK, called
Model
RUN (Reading Urban Network). This chapter provides the route
Construction and
infrastructure and vehicle specifications based upon conventional
Application
light rail and the Phileas and DE60LF buses.

Taking the system specification from chapter 6 and populating


the structure developed in chapter 5, the model provides outputs
Chapter 7 in terms of construction and operation cost and emissions data
Modelling Results for CO2, PM10 and NOx for both light rail and bus-based systems.
An assessment of the cost data with that for Cambridge guided-
bus and Merseytram validates the model data.

The light rail system is more expensive to construct than the bus
system and the majority of this difference is in the utility
diversions, track and power systems. The bus system costs about
Chapter 8 two-thirds the light rail system for an otherwise equivalent
Results Analysis specification. The emissions are similar for the vehicles; CO2 per
and Discussion bus vehicle is less but due to a lower capacity the
emissions/passenger is greater for the bus. The NOx and PM10
emissions differ, with NOx lower for the light rail and, perhaps
surprisingly, PM10 is lower for the bus.

6
Introduction

It is concluded that a bus-based system could be viable as an


alternative to light rail if equivalent performance was sought. The
costs for the equivalent bus system are higher than conventional
bus due to the higher infrastructure specification but less than
light rail. Emissions performance can be equivalent for CO2.
There are opportunities to develop the research to consider wider
issues of equivalence and the emergence of bus-based systems
Chapter 9
and how these can support the incremental development of
Conclusion
transit system, ultimately leading to conventional light rail. It is
hoped that the reader obtains an understanding of the key issues
that underpin this research and how, as a contribution to the field,
this project has proposed a transit system typology (using a
decision tree) and collated data from a wide range of sources,
tested and applied the data to a like-for-like light rail and
equivalent bus-based system comparison.

7
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

1. Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

1.1. Transport Demand - An Increase in Travel and Transport

UK travel data shows that the volume of personal travel has been increasing for a sustained

period. The data published by the Department for Transport (DfT, 2009a) in Transport

Statistics Great Britain (TSGB) - provides a detailed view on the trends associated with all

UK transport. The focus in this research is on local and inter-urban personal travel; hence

freight and longer distance modes are not considered in detail.

The graph in Figure 1-1 shows the distance travelled by UK residents over the period from

1952 to 2007.

Figure 1-1 Transport Mode Distances Travelled 1952 – 2007

(Adapted from DfT (2009a) TSBG data)

900

800

700
Passenger Kilometres (Billions)

600

500 Bus and Coach

Car, Van and Taxi


400
Motor Cycles

Pedal Cycles
300
Rail
200 Air

All Modes
100

0
1952

1956

1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984

1988

1992

1995

1999

2003

2007

Year

The trend to note is the growth in passenger kilometres made by car. In 1952 this was 58

billion kilometres compared with 685 billion kilometres in 2007. The ‘all modes’ trend is

9
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

seen to closely match the car distance travelled, especially after 1968 where car is

overwhelmingly the dominant mode. The bus and coach and rail figures in 2007 are

relatively close (50 and 59 billion kilometres respectively) whereas bus and coach in 1952

was more heavily patronised. The overall trend is that both these modes had levelled-off

over time but are now increasingly slightly.

The increase in growth of motor car use can also be considered in terms of the mode share

of kilometres travelled over the same period, again using TSGB data (DfT, 2009a). Since

1952 car use has grown from a relatively low value of 26% compared to bus and coach at

42%. In 1952 even the pedal cycle mode share was 11%. The car mode share had grown to

84% in 2007. Car mode share has actually reduced from a peak of 86% in 2002, as minor

gains have been made in rail, bus and coach, motorcycle and air travel. Bus and coach

travel has suffered a significantly dramatic loss as car has seen growth. The bus and coach

mode share has fallen from 42% (the highest in post-war UK in 1952) to a mere 6% -

although it has held this level since 1991.

One of the reasons for the growth in car use is undeniably that they are now so much more

affordable than in the 1950s and 60s. Responding to questions in the House of Commons,

Clark (House of Commons, 2009) stated that between 1979 and 2008 the real cost of

motoring declined by 17% whereas bus and coach fares increased by 55% and rail fares

increased by 49%.

The car has had a liberating effect on society giving people an affordable freedom of

choice of when and where to travel. The constraints of a bus or train timetable is simply

not an issue; the car is simply more convenient than public transport and this has led to the

10
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

widespread growth – as the car became more affordable this offered wider employment,

business, recreation and housing choices (Vuchic, 1999).

The fabric of cities and towns has changed over time alongside the increase in car use.

Globally there were 53 million cars in 1950 and 400 million in 1990 (Barry, 1991). Vuchic

(1999) identifies that former ‘walking cities’ with highly concentrated areas of housing,

industry, stores and shops have over time decentralised through the mechanisation of

transport. This started with the replacement of horse drawn transport with trams and then

railways. This created ‘transit cities’ with a smaller centre and wider dispersed populations

along tram and rail corridors. Vuchic continues that this was further influenced with the

growth in private car use that has led to low-density developments and in poorly planned,

sprawling suburbs that ultimately have proved divisive, resulting in inequalities across a

range of social aspects. For example, in the UK, between 1951 and 1981, Manchester's

population dropped from 703,000 to 462,700 inhabitants as its population dispersed (Mace

et al, 2004).

So, the desire and ability to travel has been increasing since the 1950s. The total distance

travelled in 1950 was 218 billion kilometres. Even allowing for population growth, the

incidence of travel has increased dramatically. Using population data from A Century of

Change: Trends in UK statistics since 1900 (House of Commons, 1999) and the DfT

(2009a) TSGB data the per capita distance travelled can be determined. This is illustrated

in Table 1-1.

11
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

Table 1-1 Increase in UK Population Travel

Travel per
Population Travel
Year capita per year
(UK Millions) (Billion km) (km)
1951 50.29 218a 4335
1961 52.81 295 5586
1971 55.93 419 7492
1981 56.35 495 8784
1991 57.81 681 11780
2001 59.01 765 12964

As can be seen, with an increase of 9 million in population, each person travels an average

of nearly 13,000 km per year compared to 4,300 km per year in 1951.

1.2. The Problems Associated with Increased Travel

Whilst the opportunity to travel has increased – and has been taken, this has come at a cost

to society, the economy and, of increasing concern recently, the environment. Transport is

a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and problems of local air quality.

As illustrated in the chart shown in Figure 1-2, Transport CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) emissions

play a considerable role in the overall UK emission levels. It can be seen that road

transport, specifically, accounts for 22.4% of overall emissions. The transport sector as a

whole can be further analysed as shown in Figure 1-3 where passenger cars make up nearly

60% of emissions and in combination with vans and HGVs (heavy goods vehicle)

contribute 89.5% of UK transport emissions.

a
Travel data is for 1952 but used as approximation to 1951

12
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

Figure 1-2 UK domestic CO2 emissions by source category in 2007 (DfT, 2009b)

Figure 1-3 CO2 emissions from UK Transport, by source in 2007 (DfT, 2009b)

Transport-based CO2 production in the UK was 47% higher in 2002 than for 1990, whilst

over the same period; total UK greenhouse gas emissions declined 10 per cent from 777.3

million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent to 696.5 million tonnes. (ONS, 2004)

Transport emissions are ‘bucking the trend’. Nitrogen oxides (NOX) are acid gases and

ozone pre-cursors and, as well as affecting vegetation, NOX is thought to have acute and

chronic effects on airways and lung-function, particularly affecting asthmatics (Defra,

2010).

13
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

Figure 1-4 NOx Emissions in the UK (Adapted from Defra, 2010)

1600 3,500

Road transport
1400
3,000
Energy Industries
Other
1200
Total 2,500

1000
2,000
Thousand Tonnes

Thousand Tonnes
800

1,500
600

1,000
400

500
200

0 0
1970 1980 1990 2000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year

Figure 1-4 illustrates that NOx emissions have been in decline since 1990 and road

transport NOx emissions have followed this trend year on year reducing at an average of

33.5 thousand tonnes (1990 – 2000) and reducing by 44 thousand tonnes per year on

average over the period from 2000 to 2007.

Particulate matter (PM) from road vehicle use is quantified by the size of the matter

emitted. Of particular interest to this study, as it is referred in UK government Web-based

Transport Analysis Guidelines, WebTAG, (DfT, 2011a), are those that are less than 10

microns in diameter (PM10). PM10 emissions can be carcinogenic, reducing lung function

leading to asthma, bronchitis and are most liable to affect the young and elderly. PM10s

also can affect vegetation and damage buildings and is a pre-cursor to acid rain (Bae,

2004). UK emissions of PM10 are in decline, largely due to the reduction on coal-fired

power stations, but transport still contributes a sizeable proportion.

14
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

Figure 1-5 UK PM10 Emissions 1970 – 2007 (Adapted from: NAEIb, 2007)

500 25

Road Transport All Except Road Road Transport % of Total


450

400 20
PM10 Emissions (Thousand Tonnes)

350

% orf Total Emissions


300 15

250

200 10

150

100 5

50

0 0
1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005
Year

Figure 1-5 shows that whilst road vehicle emissions were relatively low in 1970 (5%) and

overall emissions have fallen considerably, road peaked in 2004 and from a high

contribution of 22% in 2002 have fallen to 18% of overall emissions (24.72 thousand

tonnes).

Figure 1-6 UK PM10 Road Vehicle Emissions 1970 – 2007 (Adapted from: NAEI, 2007)
50

Road Transport - Automobile Tyre and Brake Wear


45
Road Transport - Mopeds & Motorcycles
Road Transport - Heavy Duty Vehicles
40 Road Transport - Light Duty Vehicles
Road Transport - Passenger Cars
PM10 Emissions (Thousand Tonnes)

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Year

b
NAEI – National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory

15
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

However, the vehicle emissions are not all due to tail-pipe exhaust as illustrated in Figure

1-6, where 39% emissions are due to tyre and brake dust in 2007.

Transport noise is also a widespread issue, 92% of UK dwellings in a sample survey,

recorded noise due to a nearby road (Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution,

1995). Noise and vibration caused by road vehicles causes stress that can trigger

respiratory, arterial hypertension, digestive problems and nervous disorders – insomnia, for

example as cited by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD, 2007).

As has been discussed above, transport and road vehicles in particular, contribute a

significant amount to emissions in the UK. These emissions are made worse by the effects

of congestion that exacerbates an already serious issue not only in environmental terms but

also impacting economic and social well-being.

1.3. Congestion

A key indicator to the volume of traffic on roads is the resulting congestion. Congestion is

defined as the difference in travel times along roads between 'free-flow conditions' and the

actual average travel times across the day (Highways Agency, 2005a). This definition was

used as it was considered most representative of the impacts of congestion that mattered

most to business. Congestion is commonly considered in terms of highways and traffic

jams but can also be applied to other transport networks, but it is the road network that is

of interest in this thesis.

Congestion is widely perceived as a problem; issues associated with congestion include the

obvious effects of delay and reduced reliability on business and personal travel.

16
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

The long-standing approach has been to build more road capacity; the ‘demand-led’

approach to accommodate an increasing volume of road traffic rather than restraining it

particularly emanated from ‘Traffic in Towns’, the seminal Buchanan report of 1963

(Buchanan, 1963). Despite policy moves towards transport demand management, this

attitude pervades today. For example, the A65 road into Leeds is a congestion black-spot.

The local council in response to public consultation note the need to reduce the need for

people to travel, e.g. encourage or enable local employment. Yet, Councillor Cleasby

(Anon., 2010a) considers a less than radical step, “Instead of roundabout [sic] there should

be traffic lights because you have got to give way to cars people are constantly chancing

when they go forward. At least with traffic lights the timings can be adjusted.” This

appears to be treating the symptom and not the cause – accommodation not reduction.

There is a balance to be struck with an acceptable level of congestion as it would be

inefficient to have congestion free networks all of the time (Button, 2004). Travel demand

is derived - the journey is usually a means to an end and demand is not constant; hence

peak periods of traffic volumes occur – either daily or seasonal, and at these times

congestion, is experienced. At other times near free-flow conditions exist. It is increasingly

recognised that travel time reliability, and its valuation, is important to travellers, and

hence should be given greater emphasis in transport policy and performance management

(Li et al, 2010).

The effects of congestion can be considered in three categories: economic, environmental

and social (ECMTc, 1999) The following sections review congestion’s economic and

environmental impacts, with a review of social impacts covering both those associated

with congestion and traffic growth as a whole.

c
ECMT - European Conference of Ministers of Transport

17
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

1.4. The Economic Impact of Congestion

There is a requirement for resilient transport links and networks that otherwise can present

barriers to economic growth. Transport networks provide opportunity for business

efficiency, investment and innovation, support for clusters of economic activity, labour

market efficiency, increased competition, increasing domestic and international trade and

the attraction of a globally mobile activity (Eddington, 2006). However, whilst transport

systems can drive economic prosperity, the resulting economic success can result in

increasing transport demand and an over-subscribed network can result in economically

damaging congestion and delay. Congestion dampens economic growth (Eddington, 2006).

In 2004 the estimate was that congestion cost the UK economy £20 billion per annum,

increasing to £30bn by 2010 (Goodwin, 2004).

Historically, there is a strong link between transport and economic prosperity and only by

addressing congestion and bottlenecks can economic growth and productivity be improved

(Eddington, 2006).

1.5. The Environmental Impacts of Congestion

The dominance of the road vehicle has lead to the creation of a significant environmental

problem. The environmental cost of transport and travel is receiving apparently increasing

attention; although the Romans were aware of the ‘time of day’ chariot – traffic congestion

in an early historical form Banister and Button (2003). Modern day road transport is

perceived to be the big environmental issue because it is visible and tangible. People see

cars, witness the urbanisation of the landscape and the loss of countryside and make the

link to the (presumed) environmental impact created by roads and traffic (Banister and

Button 2003). It is perhaps due to this public visibility that transport has attracted such

government focus and policy directed at addressing traffic and congestion.

18
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

Figure 1-7 The Effects of Vehicle Speed on Emissions (Highways Agency, 2005b)

CO2 Emissions (g/km)


700

600

500

400

300

200

100
Vehicle Speed
0

100
105
110
115
120
125
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
NOx Emissions (g/km)
3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5
Vehicle Speed
0
100
105
110
115
120
125
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95

PM10 Emissions (g/km)


0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
Vehicle Speed
0
100
105
110
115
120
125
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95

19
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

The effect of lower speed journeys is confirmed by the graphs illustrated in Figure 1-7. As

can be seen travelling on slower congested roads can dramatically increase the emissions

of CO2, NOX and PM10.

A key effect of congestion is that more fuel is used by vehicles stuck in traffic jams leading

to greater air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions due to increased idling, acceleration

and braking. Pollution is hence worsened by slow moving traffic.

As discussed above, the environmental effects of congestion are centred on gaseous

emissions but also include noise impacts. The effect of congestion on noise is not all

negative however, whilst rolling and aerodynamic noise is reduced by congestion, noise is

generated by successive stop-start-acceleration (ECMT, 1999) and occasional use of

vehicle horns which become a cause of noise nuisance (OECD, 2007).

1.6. The Social Impacts of Road Traffic

The social impacts of road traffic include direct and indirect health effects and issues of

social exclusion and severance. Health impacts due to road transport can be direct, in the

case of injury and death resulting from accidents. This appears to mostly affect the young

and adolescents. In the UK the number of people killed in road accidents fell by 14% from

2,946 in 2007 to 2,538 in 2008. In accidents reported to the police 28,572 people were

killed or seriously injured in 2008, 7% less than in 2007. There were just under 231,000

road casualties in Great Britain in 2008 (DfT, 2008a). But compare this to deaths resulting

from violent assault – in 2008, 338 people were victims of a violent death, a figure from

the UK Office for National Statistics which is only 13% of that for the total road deaths

(ONS, 2009). There is the potential that people leave anecdotally crime-ridden city centres

for suburbia, only to put themselves at greater risk with more traffic (Hall, 2003).

20
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

More subtle and cumulative indirect effects involve behaviours and lifestyle. The Social

Exclusion Unit reports that as mobility independence is lost as traffic and congestion levels

have increased, this reduces social interaction and the associated support networks and

health risks (SEU, 2003). The young have also lost access to safe, accessible play and

exercise spaces along with the opportunity to explore their environment – even with the

simple walk to school. The nature of an aggressive, noisy and dirty car-laden streetscape is

the catalyst to a generation of sedentary children who are likely to become sedentary

adults. “Congestion is smothering mobility, and mobility is corroding community”

(Hawken et al, 1999).

Whilst the car has contributed to mobility, this is only to those who are sufficiently wealthy

and healthy and not those who suffer ‘transport deprivation’ – children, the elderly and

those who cannot drive due to mental, financial or physical reasons (Hendriks, 1999).

Furthermore, the car contributes to social inequality; indeed, the car is seen as a major

means by which social inequality is maintained (Reade, 1997). The car has provided a

stimulus to city migration of the relatively wealthy to the suburbs as ‘social sorting’.

However, this leaves behind the various social problems of unemployment, an unsafe

environment, addiction, sub-standard housing, heavy traffic and exclusion. The car

reinforces and confirms social contrasts (Hendriks, 1999).

1.7. What can be done?

Increasingly, road building is viewed as an inappropriate policy response to address

transports’ environmental, social, economic and congestion impacts. Irrelevant of road

building plans congestion would get worse as creating capacity would generate more

demand (Banister, 2002). Consequently, managing transport demand is emerging as an

important policy response, combined with technology developments to make vehicles

cleaner and safer.

21
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

Reducing the use of cars can be achieved through changing attitudes to travel through

transport demand management (TDM) measures (Ison and Rye, 2008). Meyer (1999)

makes the direct link to congestion recognising that TDM is an action or set of actions that

present alternative transport options and, or, address congestion by changing behaviours.

Common examples of TDM can include combinations of road-use charging (toll-roads and

congestion charging), fuel tax, public transport development and subsidy, park and ride,

parking controls and car-sharing.

The technology-based actions are focussed on the vehicles. Clean fuel technologies and

cleaner fuels (e.g. unleaded petrol as an early example) are emerging as a means to cut

emissions with growing focus on electric, fuel cell and hybrid vehicles. The OECD (2002)

refers the Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme (EEBPP) which targets low

efficiency practice where, for example, the incorrect tyre inflation pressure can burn fuel

unnecessarily; tyre type (4%) and pressure (2%) can affect fuel consumption (Lay,1990).

More recently there has been the promotion of electric vehicles with the NAIGT road map

(Figure 1-8) envisaging a transition to battery-electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles.

Figure 1-8 New Automotive Innovation Growth Team Technology Roadmap (NAIGT, 2009)

22
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

Whilst each of the TDM or technology measures can act alone, a combination of measures

will deliver greater benefit. A simplified diagram has been developed to illustrate the

combinational effects of TDM and technology-based actions to address car use and

congestion. This has four quadrants into which combinations of technology, best practice

and demand management measures are mapped that can together improve the functioning

of a transport network through a reduction in congestion. This is shown in Figure 1-9,

where there are four areas (quadrants) of policy mix or strategy.

Figure 1-9 TDM and Technology Measures - Combinational Effects


Transport Demand Measures Active

Potential
Public Traffic
Vehicle
Transport Use Volume
Numbers
Increased Reduced
reduced
per Vehicle
Emissions
not abated

Some Incentivisation Vehicle


Behaviours
for Modal Transfer to Emissions
Changed
Public Transport Reduced

Maximum Congestion Traffic Volume


Remains Unchecked
No Transport Demand Measures

& Emissions

Behaviours Travel Choices


unchanged Unchanged

No Incentive to Cleaner Fuels, Best Practice


Change Transport Lower Emissions Efficiencies
Choice per km in place

Existing Technologies and Practices New Technology and Best Practice

23
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

1.7.1. No demand measures and existing technologies and practices –

(lower left quadrant)

This effectively represents the status-quo with no strategic intent to reduce the number of

vehicles on the road and a reliance on existing technologies across transport systems. Any

change to travel choice will be through external effects, for example changes in

employment or social centres

1.7.2. No demand measures but improved technology and best practice

(lower right quadrant)

Whilst there is no action to affect mode shift, there is the application of new technologies

and practices, e.g. active traffic management to enable the existing traffic levels to make

better use of the existing networks. Public transport provision may be faster, carry more

passengers or be cleaner in environmental terms. The mode choice will be unchanged

however, which could still see a mode shift but without demand management, active

encouragement to change travel choice will not yield the results that a combinational

strategy could achieve.

1.7.3. Demand measures in place but no improvement of technology or practice

(top left quadrant)

A policy mix that relies on this strategy seeks to change people’s travel choices using

existing technologies and modes of transport. The basic means of achieving this result

could be to employ higher parking charges and other means of charging (taxing) vehicle

drivers without a complementary improvement in transport system technology. So a

workplace parking levy could be introduced meaning the choice for the individual becomes

whether to pay more for the car journey, switch mode to public transport, walk or cycle or

not make the journey at all. There could be positive inducements to change mode, for

24
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

example, concessionary or subsidised fares for public transport – at least this allows the

individual to assess the transport ‘contract’ and it becomes calculative rather than the

penalising, coercive form of TDM.

1.7.4. Demand measures, technological and best practice improvements

(top right quadrant)

The combinational effect of providing the motivation for mode change through TDM and

transport system improvements should provide the greatest opportunity to generate modal

shift away from road vehicles. This strategy should allow the individual to make a rational

choice on the most cost and time-effective means of travel. ‘The Future of Urban

Transport’ (DfT, 2009c) provided best practice examples of spatial planning to create

pedestrianised areas. Technology can be used to assist road management and also in the

vehicles that use the roads, for example, compare the kerb-guided-bus being introduced in

Cambridge using technology first seen in the UK in 1984 in Birmingham to the

Bombardier wireless-powered tram system which uses magnetic induction as a source of

power, or the magnetically-guided Phileas bus-vehicle. Technology can be used to provide

TDM systems; for example the number plate recognition systems and automated billing

used for the congestion charging scheme in London.

By changing people’s attitudes to transport through demand management measures and a

viable public transport alternative to the private car the benefits of the combination of

actions can lead to reduced traffic levels and less emissions also. An optimised volume of

road vehicles would counter the economic and social impacts of congestion.

The means by which the UK government sets out the strategy for transport is through the

publication of policy and associated plans. There have been a number of attempts at

25
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

creating a coherent, deliverable transport policy in the UK since the late 1990s. A review

of these attempts is provided below.

1.8. UK Transport Policy

Ever since the Buchanan (1963), ‘Traffic in Towns’ report, there has been a long-standing

pre-occupation with road building programmes in the UK to accommodate the ever

burgeoning traffic levels, rather than the implementation of measures aimed at reducing the

traffic volumes (although this did also feature in ‘Traffic in Towns’). This appears to be a

case of responding to the symptoms of the problem and not the root cause.

When the Labour Government came to power in 1997 it set about creating Governmental

bodies and started making pledges (to back up the manifesto) about how the Government

was going to tackle the transport problem. The Department of the Environment, Transport

and the Regions (DETR) was established in 1997, soon after coming to power to

emphasise regional development. In 2002, the Department for Transport (DfT) was created

to reflect political prominence (Jones et al, 2007).

A timeline of the creation of the Governmental bodies and policies and publications is

provided in Figure 1-10. From this it can be see that the earliest publication considered

here post the 1997 election, was the 1998 ‘A New Deal for Transport: Better for

Everyone’. A summary of the policies and other documents is provided chronologically.

26
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

Figure 1-10 UK Transport National Organisation and Policy

Labour Government A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone


Elected

Department of the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force -


1996
Environment, Transport: The Way Forward
Transport and the 1997
Regions created Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan
1998

Cleaner Vehicles 1999


Task Force formed Transport 2010:
2000 Meeting the Local Transport Challenge

Commission for 2001


The Future of Transport: A Network for 2030
Integrated Transport
formed 2002

2003
Integrated Transport: The Future of Light Rail and
Modern Trams in the United Kingdom
Department for 2004
Transport (DfT)
2005 The Eddington Transport Study
created
2006 Stern: The Economics of Climate Change

2007
Towards a Sustainable Transport System: Supporting
2008 Economic Growth in a Low Carbon World

2009
Delivering a Sustainable Transport System
2010

The Future of Urban Transport

1.8.1. A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone (DETR, 1998)

This was the initial transport White Paper from the new Labour Government. A reference

is made to the Buchanan report saying that ‘building more and more roads was not the

answer’. The cost of congestion is noted (c£15bn) and that CO2 was the fastest growing

contributor to UK emissions.

The White paper set out the framework for addressing the transport and congestion malaise

through Local Transport Plans (LTPs) to drive the delivery of integrated transport

strategies.

27
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

The intention was to devolve responsibility to local authorities; ‘The New Deal for

Transport’ had some key objectives:

• Reduced CO2 emissions and improved air quality (legally binding target to reduce

CO2 emissions by 20% by 2010)

• Improved, clean fuel-efficient vehicles – to meet EU standards

• Improved public transport

• A fairer and more inclusive society with reduced severance, better transport choices

and reduced crime

The White Paper sought to change travel habits to create sustainable transport (quoting the

1987 Brundtland Report – ‘Our Common Future’), but noted, “people will not switch from

the comfort of their cars to buses that are old, dirty, unreliable and slow”, a second class

transport.

1.8.2. Transport: The Way Forward. Report of the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force

(DETR, 2000a)

The Cleaner Vehicles Task Force was created in 1997 by the newly formed Labour

Government. This report, published in 2000 followed the interim report of 1999 and

focussed on the achievement of lower environmental road vehicle impacts. It provided a

set of action plans and best practices to be adopted to reduce emissions.

These were to be delivered through governmental incentives in taxes and grants to support

the development of technology, and through better public awareness of road vehicle

emissions and choices. Manufacturers and operators were to be targeted as fleet

management can improve the environmental performance of new and current vehicles. The

push for cleaner fuels and technologies would be pivotal to this.

28
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

Low emission zones were introduced where low emissions vehicles would be permitted in

certain areas designated by local authorities with the aim of improving local air quality,

particularly in the case of heavy goods vehicles.

The key to the action plans was summarised that everyone involved in the supply and

operation of road vehicles had a part to play, where necessary bringing enforcement to bear

to maintain improvements.

1.8.3. Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan (DETR, 2000b)

This was the follow-up to the White Paper discussed above, and provided the 10 year route

map to deliver manifesto and White Paper pledges with ‘certainty’ and ‘coherence’. The

plan mapped out the intention to tackle congestion and pollution by improving all types of

transport, thereby increasing mode choice. The delivery of the programme was to be

through the LTPs where local authorities would be required, by law, to deliver their

integrated transport needs, noting that failure to deliver LTPs would “reflect” in future

funding decisions.

A number of headline figures were provided, including road schemes that seemed at odds

with the ‘build no-more road’s approach – 360 miles of road widening, 80 junction

schemes, 100 new bypasses and 130 other major road improvement schemes were

proposed. The latter included lower noise surfaces, HGV lanes, cleaner vehicles and a

target reduction to reduce the number of people killed by 40%. There were no TDM

measures apparent.

In public transport terms, 25 new rapid transit lines were to be delivered and an increase of

bus ridership by 10%, fare reductions (in deprived areas) and priority running schemes

29
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

with an integrated bus and light rail network. The Plan recognised that light rail can assist

in reduced journey times, increased convenience and reduced congestion and pollution. For

societal effects the Plan recognised the recommendations of the ‘Towards an Urban

Renaissance’ report (Urban Task Force, 1999) that recognised the role of transport in

creating effectively functioning neighbourhoods.

1.8.4. Transport 2010: Meeting the Local Transport Challenge (DETR, 2001)

This was a further distillation of the White Paper and the 10 Year Plan that provides more

detail on funding. The document laid out how the LTPs would ‘implement the

Government’s vision’. The New Approach to Appraisal (NATA) is referred as the

mechanism by which transport schemes have been assessed and goes onto to detail the

approved schemes. Light rail extensions to the Midland Metro and Manchester Metrolink

systems and guided-buses for Crawley and Leigh receive mention, amongst other bus

schemes and numerous bypasses, urban relief roads and others. The light rail extensions

are ‘in addition to the 5 lines already approved in the 10 year plan period’. These were 5

specific schemes under consideration in the 10 year plan in amongst the stated 25 to be

delivered by 2010, including South Hants and Leeds but no approved schemes. The 10

Year Plan provided targets across the range of concerns, but not on economic benefits. The

nature of the challenge is that people want reliable, convenient, accessible, safe and

affordable public transport. The pollutants that the LTPs are to address are PM10, NOX,

CO2 and noise.

Of particular note for this thesis is that the document states that there should be at least 10

bus-based major public transport schemes, such as guided buses, as these offer many of the

advantages of light rail at a lower cost.

30
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

1.8.5. The Future of Transport: A Network for 2030 (DfT, 2004a)

This White Paper was a follow-up to the Transport 2010 White Paper published in 2000

and sought to update the original White Paper by modifying some of the objectives and

undertakings. The first noteworthy issue is that transport had assumed such priority that the

foreword was penned by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair. In this foreword he mentions

TDM and the 10 year plan had become a 30 year plan in this document with funding

assured for 15 years; so the delivery was now to be implemented over a longer period.

One early message that is maintained is that light rail is no longer favoured. So, there is a

cut from 25 schemes in the ‘New Deal for Transport’ in 1998, to 5 approved and some in

the pipe-line by the ‘10 Year Plan’ in 2000, to none at all by 2004. Indeed, in reviewing the

10 Year Plan, the successes are associated with the delivery of road schemes, the turn-

around of the heavy rail sector, the implementation of LTPs and some bus priority

schemes.

What becomes more obvious in this policy than previously are improvements are needed in

transport management and not necessarily a reliance on infrastructure schemes as a

solution to the (congestion) problem. It is noted that congestion is still projected to

increase and a focus will be brought on congestion management, road tolls, pricing and

charging and travel plans. Technology measures seem to be limited to cleaner cars and the

application of data capture and management on road-side automatic signs etc.

Light rail does receive a mention in the ‘rail’ section – but is not as a part of the integrated

local travel plans section, where buses appear. The Docklands Light Railway is considered

a light rail system as one of the success stories along with Manchester Metrolink, unlike

31
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

the ‘unsuccessful’ schemes in Sheffield, Croydon and Birmingham. Interestingly, 3 pages

earlier, Croydon is cited as ‘getting on with delivery’.

“Buses are flexible too – they can be deployed quickly in response to changing demand.

And unlike rail or metro systems, buses do not require substantial infrastructure so can

rapidly boost the supply of public transport”. This statement appears to make a stronger

case again for buses against light rail. The supply of buses can be boosted, but only to good

effect if there is the demand.

The environmental aspects of the White Paper are considered in terms of the effects on

NOX, PM10 and CO2. The development of low carbon systems and hydrogen fuel cells and

bio-fuels were reviewed. This is set against the EU standards for emissions.

1.8.6. Integrated Transport: The Future of Light Rail and Modern Trams in the United

Kingdom: Government Response to the Committee's 10th Report of Session

2004–05 (House of Commons, 2005)

This paper was a ‘special report’ providing responses to the development, or rather the lack

of development, of light rail schemes. Since the publication of ‘The Future of Transport’

and the dearth of light rail schemes, this report appeared in response to light rail promoters.

The DfT stated that light rail can deliver fast, reliable services but countered this with

statement that no future light rail scheme would be considered unless this was part of an

integrated transport package.

There is recognition given to UKTram (formed in 2004 of designers, operators, promoters

and suppliers of light rail systems), the Passenger Transport Executive Group (PTEG) and

the work that these and other organisations were doing to reduce light rail costs and

32
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

maximise the benefits. UKTram were to establish a common set of standards which the

DfT were looking to adopt as the standard specification for scheme assessment. Part of the

drive to reduce costs was to seek a risk-based approach to utilities diversions and a

different, cheaper, mechanism to relocate them (UKTram, 2009).

The DfT position was made clearer in this special report, specifically citing the need for

improved public transport in conjunction with demand management measures to tackle

congestion.

1.8.7. The Eddington Transport Study (Eddington, 2006)

The Eddington report on transport was unusual in that it was commissioned by the

Treasury, not the DfT; hence the focus was primarily on the economics of transport. The

report made the case for improvement but without the detail on what needed to be done.

The case was made early in the report that the UK is a well connected country and that

transport is an enabler to economic prosperity – 5% reduction in travel time equates to

£2.5bn reduced costs (≡ 0.2% Gross Domestic Product); the report argued that

improvements should be made to existing networks rather than creating new ones.

The ‘why, where, what and how’ is spelt out citing the need for behavioural change but

noting that transport is a low priority target for emissions reduction as the results will be

difficult to achieve and the return will be relatively low – there are other targets that can

abate more cheaply, for example the power generation industry. Eddington seizes on the

theme of TDM as a different policy focus in the context of the cost of travel should meet

the full environmental cost of the journey. This pricing will begin to regulate transport

demand.

33
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

The ‘how’ for Eddington is clear; he sees the need to create a prioritised transport policy

that initially influences demand before increasing supply - which is presented as the right

policy mix. There should be a targeted infrastructure investment programme to ensure the

public transport provision maximises returns – he notes that in places buses can offer

higher returns as a more flexible and responsive solution rather than the fixed

infrastructure associated with light rail.

1.8.8. Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change (Stern, 2006)

As with Eddington, this was a report also announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

This review considered the economic impacts of climate change from a global perspective,

necessarily requiring a global response. Human-induced climate change is an ‘externality’

and those who create greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are those who generate electricity,

power factories and heat homes, cut down forests, fly in planes, or drive their cars and do

not have to pay climate change costs resulting from their contribution to the GHG gases in

the atmosphere. Stern addresses these issues and considers the responses to the costs of

climate change.

In a transport context (as others), Stern advocates carbon pricing; the development of clean

technologies and the instigation of behavioural change. As with Eddington, transport is

noted to be a low priority target for emission reductions and that it could be, ‘among the

last sectors to experience absolute levels of emissions cuts’.

34
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

1.8.9. Towards a Sustainable Transport System - Supporting Economic Growth in a

Low Carbon World (DfT, 2007a)

This ‘discussion document’ (TaSTS) is a high-level response to the Eddington Report and

Stern Review. The response to Eddington was a position statement on how the DfT

transport policy will improve economic growth and productivity. In tandem with the

improvements, the document also responds to how this will be achieved at the same time

as lowering emissions in response to Stern. The Eddington view on a long-term strategy

with the correct policy mix with targeted infrastructure schemes is also seized upon.

The discussion is maintained at a high level throughout where some detail on funding is

discussed and specific schemes are limited to those that are very large scale, for example

Crossrail and Thameslink. Light rail does not feature at all.

1.8.10. Delivering a Sustainable Transport System (DaSTS) (DfT, 2008b)

The follow-up to the DfT’s initial response to Stern Review and Eddington Report was

detailed in this plan (DaSTS). One of the key factors that separated the publication of

TaSTS and DaSTS was that the global economy went into recession and economic

prospects in the UK were poor. So, DaSTS was also positioned in consideration of how

transport should contribute to the support needed for the UK’s people and businesses.

The DaSTS plan was based around five goals which address the issues of economic,

environmental and social impacts created by a congested transport system. These were to:

• support economic growth and competitiveness;


• address climate change;
• enable better safety, security and health;
• promote equal opportunities for all
• improve the quality of life through a healthy natural environment

35
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

Of these the greatest challenge was acknowledged as being the objective to tackle climate

change through carbon reduction in transport, for example, through rail electrification and

de-carbonisation of electricity generation. In aligning economic growth and the

environment, the Stern message that ‘poor = green’ and ‘rich = dirty’ as a false dichotomy

was reinforced.

DaSTS provides detail on the background to the necessity to address the economic,

environmental and social issues that leads to the five goals. The creation of an action plan

that achieves the five goals is framed in the context of the Eddington Report, where noting

that the UK’s transport system provided good connectivity and concentration should be

placed on the strategic transport network (for example, the London to Manchester road and

rail links), key urban areas and international gateways (ports and airports). The focus was

to be on the 10 ports and 7 airports; the 10 largest conurbations representing over a third of

the population and the 14 strategic transport corridors, as illustrated in Figure 1-11. A

cautionary note was included noting that actions resulting from DaSTS would not ignore

the ‘other areas of the country’. The conurbations listed in DaSTS are shown in Table 1-2.

These have been provided with a view to subsequent discussion on the provision of transit

systems in these cities.

36
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

Table 1-2 DaSTS Priority Conurbations (DfT, 2008b)

Population
Location Key Transit Systems (rail-based)
(millions)
Docklands Light Rail, Croydon Tramlink,
London 8.75
London Underground
Birmingham 2.3 Midland Metro
Manchester 1.75 Metrolink
Newcastle 0.8 Metro
Sheffield 0.75 Supertram
Liverpool 0.75 -
Leeds 0.7 -
Bristol 0.65 -
Nottingham 0.6 NET
Portsmouth 0.5 -

The DaSTS action plan was confirmed as seeking to make better use of the existing

network. Current plans in this area include Crossrail, although this requires a significant

volume of new infrastructure. Following on from the previous plans the investment of

£1.4bn had seen 25 implemented schemes including four specifically identified schemes –

a bus/rail interchange in Barnsley, a bypass on the A19, a new dual carriageway in Bodmin

and a new rail station with bus interchange facilities in Coleshill on the Birmingham to

Nuneaton route.

37
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

Figure 1-11 UK Strategic Transport Connections (DfT, 2008b)

The action plans resulting from DaSTS are aligned to the priorities identified by Eddington

as improvements to existing systems and international transport hubs.

38
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

Four potential schemes are provided which are:

• A555 relief road for improved Manchester Airport access;

• A160/A180 junction improvements for Immingham Port access

• Traffic management measures on the A12 to reduce congestion to the Haven

Gateway Ports

• North London Line rail improvements for freight train access to Thames Gateway

and London Ports.

Other schemes that are mentioned include the improvements to Tyne and Wear Metro and

extension of Manchester Metrolink, but otherwise the investment focus will be on ‘smaller

local schemes’, e.g. junction improvements and maintenance works. The national networks

will benefit from new Inter-city trains rolling stock and a £6bn road improvements

programme. No further public transport schemes are detailed. Beyond 2014, however,

consideration will be given to ‘whole new lines’, including, for example high speed rail.

Traffic demand measures are considered, again after 2014, to encourage ‘smarter travel

choices’, including vehicle and fuel standards and investments in new technology.

1.8.11. The Future of Urban Transport (DfT, 2009c)

This final, and most recent piece of work for the Government’s Strategy Unit and the DfT,

focuses on transport in cities and how a good transport system benefits the city. Reference

is again made to Eddington in that good transport links are needed for economic

productivity, growth and stability. Data is provided on the issue of air quality, with evidence

of 12-24,000 premature deaths per annum. Air pollution from man-made particulates is

estimated to reduce overall life expectancy by 7-8 months per person and costs the UK

between £4.5bn and £10.6bn per annum. In urban areas transport is still the most

significant contributor to emissions of PM10 and NOX. The impacts of transport on

greenhouse gases and other health aspects are discussed.

39
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

The key theme for the paper is the triple win; improvements in transport in the urban

landscape will benefit the economy, health and urban environment, where “positive

outcomes to all of them: triple win outcomes.”

The Strategy Unit has identified six Traffic Demand Management (TDM), or intervention

policies:

• Increasing the costs of private car use, by taxation, road and parking charges;

• Making public transport more attractive and generating modal shift;

• Restricting traffic through regulation;

• Better management of the road network to increase capacity, for example in

parking restrictions or optimised road signal timings;

• Better management of temporary effects to roads due to roadworks or accidents;

• Improving information about journey times, routes and choices

The greater use of buses is given some consideration, noting that modal shift from car to

public transport can generate benefits as a credible alternative to the car thereby reducing

congestion. Improving the bus provision can help improve local air quality and enhance

accessibility to public services for the most excluded.

1.9. Key Themes Arising from Policy

Since the Labour Government came to power in 1997 there has been a gradual shift away

from high cost infrastructure schemes to a combination of traffic demand management

measures coupled with targeted investment for new transport systems. The disappearance

of light rail from the agenda is clear and underpins the change in direction.

40
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

However, light rail is lauded as the answer to modal transfer to achieve the congestion

reduction a credible public transport needs to deliver. Buses are still considered largely to

be a second class offering but the development of new higher technology systems is a key

theme that has remained part of the plan since the New Deal for Transport in 1998. The

bus, in conjunction with traffic demand management measures needs to be able to deliver

modal transfer, congestion reduction and the associated economic, environment and social

corrections to the current situation.

Figure 1-12 returns to the 2x2 matrix presented in Figure 1-9 and plots the various UK

transport policies outlined above.

Figure 1-12 UK Transport Policy Development


Transport Demand Measures Active

The Future of
Urban Transport X

2009

2007 Towards a Sustainable


Delivering a Sustainable Transport System
Transport System
2008

Future of Transport:
2004 A Network for 2030

A New Deal
for Transport
No Transport Demand Measures

1998

Transport 2010:
2000 The 10 Year Plan

2001 Transport 2010:


Meeting the Local Transpport Challenge

Existing Technologies and Practices New Technology and Best Practice

41
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

The earliest intentions were about building infrastructure which were introduced through

the White Paper and more fully described in the 10 Year Plan. This represented the peak in

proposed infrastructure schemes. From this point onward, the emphasis changed with the

realisation that the proposed schemes (roads and public transport) were not necessarily

affordable, or failed to have a sufficient positive cost-benefit ratio.

By 2004 and the publication of the Future of Transport (DfT, 2004a), the infrastructure

schemes had been scaled back and light rail in particular was off the agenda. More focus

was being considered at this stage on demand management measures. The Eddington and

Stern reviews confirmed the need for targeted infrastructure investment and a wider

consideration of traffic demand management. The government response to this was one of

accord recognising the need for the delivery of economic and environmental benefit with

the right policy mix of technology, infrastructure and demand management measures.

The Strategy Unit and DfT combined effort took this further with the development of six

demand management measures and the continued statements of intent for finding the right

policy mix to improve transport and alleviate congestion.

1.10. The Key Issues

Government policy has shifted considerably but there is still a reliance on achieving

behavioural change and getting people out of their cars and onto public transport or less

congestion-inflicting, environmentally-damaging modes. However, with the lack of

investment and delivery of light rail schemes, is it reasonable to expect bus-based systems

to make-up the shortfall and become a form of transport that passengers can come to

expect as reliable, clean, punctual, fast and environmentally-friendly?

42
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy

The issues that are emanating from the discussion above are:

• Can a bus-based, in particular a guided-bus system, offer a credible alternative to

the private car, change behaviours and generate modal transfer?

• How plausible is the guided-bus alternative compared to light rail?

• What are the comparative cost and environmental performance characteristics of

guided-bus and light rail?

These issues will evolve and be refined through the development of the research project to

address the objective; to provide a comparative assessment of the cost and environmental

performance of light rail and an equivalent bus-based system. Guided-bus systems were to

be a key area of the study in first determining viability as a light rail alternative and then as

a means to assess relative cost and environmental performance.

43
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

2. Public Transport Systems Review

This section considers the development of public transit systems in the UK and how this

relates to UK transport policy, in particular concerning light rapid transit. This is to address

an objective of the research to determine whether an alternative system can be promoted

that has the benefits of light rail but at a lower cost. The review looks in detail at the light

rail systems that failed to be implemented, for example Liverpool and Leeds, and the

reasons why this was the case, as well as the ‘success’ stories. Some recent bus-based case

studies are presented to provide a comparison to light rail. A further review compares the

UK situation to worldwide systems, their delivery and technology.

This section deals with the key aspects of light rail and guided-bus technical performance

and passenger experience. The differences in performance represent a key issue to be

considered in the development of the research in seeking to determine, and then assess, a

viable alternative to light rail. As such, it is appropriate to review the current status of light

rail and bus-based systems in the UK and overseas.

2.1. Background

The previous section discussed the development of transport policy in the UK since the

Labour Government came to power in 1997. Following on from the original, ‘New Deal

for Transport’, the framework to enact this policy (the ‘Ten Year Plan’) set ambitious

infrastructure-laden plans that included the development of ‘25 new rapid transit lines’

(DETR, 2000b). Over the development of successive policies, the promises of new

infrastructure have dwindled, especially in the provision of light rail. Knowles (2007)

argues that the marginalisation of light rail started in 2002 with the scrapping of the target

to double light rail passenger use in a ten year time frame. The publication of the 2004

45
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

report by the National Audit Office (NAO), ‘Improving public transport in England

through light rail’ (NAO, 2004) provided further credence to the government position by

bemoaning the high cost to promote and build schemes, poor financial performance, slow

planning and delivery timescales and a lack of local expertise (Knowles, 2007). Eddington

in his review of transport does not favour ‘grand projets’ where resources are tied-up

developing iconic projects, and says resources would be better used elsewhere. If light rail

schemes costing several hundred million pounds are ‘grand projets’, then perhaps smaller

scale investments that deliver similar overall benefits should be sought.

The most recent work reviewed in the previous section was a joint report developed by the

DfT (Department for Transport) and the government Strategy Unit; ‘The Future of Urban

Transport’ (DfT, 2009c). The emphasis on intervention and demand management measures

recognised the necessity for modal shift, and whilst light rail is absent from the thinking, it

is noted that improved bus services are likely to be a cost effective way to encourage

modal shift and reduce congestion. The report considers that modern, reliable services can

provide a credible alternative to the car hence creating the opportunity to improve local air

quality and reduce social exclusion (DfT, 2009c). Furthermore, the new coalition

Government, elected in 2010, commenced a series of spending cuts across the range of

transport schemes.

What is of interest for this public-transit related study is whether modern buses can fill the

gap left by light rail in generating modal shift? The performance of the most-recently

commissioned scheme indicates that, of the annual 10m passengers using the Nottingham

Tram, 30% of these have transferred from car. Moreover, as well as providing a service for

those who do not have access to a car, the tram has improved accessibility for travellers,

including those that had trouble using existing bus and rail services. Around 10% of tram

46
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

passengers have mobility issues including those with a permanent disability or adults with

young children in pushchairs. For example, in Nottingham, social inclusion has been

improved with feeder bus services and a restructured bus network that targets integration

with the ‘kangaroo’ through ticketing system (Nottingham CC, 2005).

A key question that must be addressed in the shift of policy away from light rail is whether

the qualities and performance of bus systems can deliver such benefits comparable to light

rail? What are the differences between the modes and how are these significant? To begin

exploring these issues it is useful to consider recent developments in bus and light rail

systems in the UK and also to relate these to government policy publications.

2.2. The Development of UK Tram, Light Rail and Related Systems

The development of key light rail systems in the UK is summarised in Figure 2-1. The first

system shown has been in operation since 1885 in Blackpool. This is a heritage tourist

system as much as it is a means of public transport. The system employs historic vehicles

to add to the tourist-attraction nature of riding the tram rather than being part of the local

transport system. All other tram systems from this period were closed by the 1960s.

In the 1980s two rail-based systems were developed: the Tyne and Wear Metro (T&WM)

in Newcastle with overhead power supplies and later, in 1987, the Docklands Light Rail

(DLR) system that employed a third rail system. Both of these systems have been extended

since they were first constructed. The T&WM uses track-sharing with heavy rail running to

complete the extension to Sunderland in 2002 which completed the last new line on the 60

station 77km network (Nexus, 2010) and in 2002-03, 37 million passenger journeys were

made (NAO, 2004)

47
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

Figure 2-1 Selected UK Light Rail Development

1885
Blackpool Tram
Tram Introduced
1980

Tyne and Wear Metro


1987
Tram Scheme Approved

Docklands Light Rail


1992
Tram Scheme Cancelled
1993
Manchester Metrolink
Other Metro Introduced
1994

Sheffield Supertram
1995
Policy
1996

Birmingham Midland Metro


1997
A New Deal for Transport:
1998
Better for Everyone
Croydon Tramlink
1999
Transport 2010: The 10 Year
2000
South Hants, Bristol & Leeds Approved
Transport 2010: Meeting the
2001
Local Transport Challenge
Merseytram Approved
2002

The Future of Transport: A


2003
South Hants & Bristol Cancelled Network for 2030
2004

Nottingham Tram (NET) Integrated Transport: The


2005
Future of Light Rail and
2006
Modern Trams

Leeds and Merseytram Cancelled


2007 The Eddington & Stern Reviews
2008
Delivering a Sustainable
 2009 Transport System
Edinburgh Tram

2014 The Future of Urban Transport


 At the time of writing the Edinburgh
Tram was planned to open in 2014

The T&WM system is currently subject to a wholesale modernisation programme and as

part of this plan the operations, maintenance and refurbishment of the rolling stock is to be

contracted out of the otherwise publicly owned arrangement.

48
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

Figure 2-2 Tyne and Wear Metro (Source: Enoch, 2004)

In February 2010, DB Regio won the contract to operate the T&WM (Anon., 2010b) and

the UK government also awarded £580m toward the 11 year investment plan.

Figure 2-3 Docklands Light Rail Network (Transport for London (TfL), 2009)

The DLR is operated by automated vehicles. The original network, shown in red in Figure

2-3 has grown considerably and further extensions are currently being constructed to

Dagenham Dock and Stratford International. Passenger ridership on the 27km network in

49
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

2002-03 was 46 million passenger journeys (NAO, 2004). Of the six ‘light rail’ systems in

existence (excluding Blackpool) in 2003, the combined passenger journeys of T&WM and

DLR accounted for 60% of all journeys made.

The Manchester Metro was the first of four systems opened in the 1990s and was built

upon the re-use of extensive lengths of former heavy-rail alignments. The original 1984

plans were revised in 1987 and with a £45m (33%) government grant towards the £145m

total cost (NAO, 2004) the system was commissioned in 1992. The routes out of the city

centre use the former heavy rail alignments to Altrincham (south) and Bury (north) with a

new cross-city, on-street link joining the two rail termini at Piccadilly and Victoria. Whilst

dated, a 1993 survey confirmed the early success of the Manchester system. This is

illustrated in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1 Estimated annual Metrolink Patronage by previous mode


(adapted from Knowles, 1996)

If Metrolink
Journey Metrolink Metrolink Metrolink
had not been
Mode/Source Forecast Actual Impact
implementedλ
New trip 2.5 2.3 0.2
1.3
Car 3.3 0.7 2.6
Bus 3.0 2.6 1.0 1.6
Rail 7.6 3.5 3.3 0.2
Other 0.0 0.2 0.3 -0.1
Total 11.9 12.1 7.6 4.5
λ – i.e. if the lines had remained as formerly used as heavy rail (British Rail) services

The overall impact of the Metrolink system (in 1996) is measured by the number of

passengers that used the Metrolink compared to those that would have used the former rail

service. So, even though the transfer from bus is lower than forecast, for example, there is

still a positive benefit as an additional 1.6 million journeys were made by Metrolink

50
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

compared to the former rail service as mode transfer from bus. The passenger numbers

have grown and in 2002-03 the system delivered 19 million passenger journeys (NAO,

2004). Expansion of the original system has already included a new route to Eccles and

work is ongoing to a station at MediaCityUK from this branch. Ambitious plans for a third

phase include extensions to Oldham and Rochdale, Ashton-under-Lyne, East Didsbury and

Manchester Airport. These extensions are illustrated in Figure 2-4.

Figure 2-4 Proposed Manchester Metrolink extensions (Source: Google Maps, 2010)

East Didsbury

Existing Lines

Proposed Lines

5km

51
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

Manchester was one of the fastest growing UK economies in 2008 and the threat of

congestion constraining economic growth led to the major transport investment plan being

conceived (Sharpe, 2008).

The planned £600m Metrolink extensions was part of the £2.8bn investment plan in

Manchester’s public transport provision ahead of the introduction of proposed congestion

charging (c-charge) in 2013 (Randall, 2008a). The government were to grant £1.5bn with

the rest funded from ‘local borrowing’ (Randall, 2008b). Critically, the local borrowing

was to be repaid from c-charge revenue. The infrastructure investment and the use of c-

charging appear to combine demand management with infrastructure development as the

measures to tackle congestion.

A further development later in 2008 saw the offer of a concession to low-paid workers,

who would be given reduced public transport fares being made in advance of a referendum

on the proposals for c-charging. This was set against a warning from the Transport

Minister that if the referendum failed to find in favour of c-charging, the £1.5bn

government funding would be withdrawn (Salter, 2008). However, the referendum held in

December 2008 resulted in a resounding ‘no’ with the scheme rejected by 79% of voters

(Sturcke, 2008). As a result the transport plan was re-cut and lower priority schemes

deleted. Funding was reviewed to discount the c-charge conditional element and amongst

other measures a 3% increase in council tax, generating £649m, has been agreed to fund

the transport schemes (Donohue, 2009). Despite the spending cuts enforced by the 2010

coalition Government, the extensions to Ashton-under-Lyne and East Didsbury should

proceed (Leather, 2010). So, despite a funding difficulty, Manchester is expanding its light

rail system.

52
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

The Sheffield Supertram system followed two years after Manchester when operations

commenced in 1994. This system again uses former heavy-rail line alignments as part of a

3-line network. The 48-stop, 29km system cost £241m to construct and in 2002-03, 12

million passenger journeys were made (NAO, 2004). Of the £241m, £220m was provided

by central government and only the remaining £21m (9%) from ‘other’ sources. Plans were

made in 2003 to extend the Sheffield system but these failed to secure government funding

and were scrapped in 2006 (Anon., 2006a).

Figure 2-5 Sheffield Supertram at West Street (Source: Potter, 1995)

The Midland Metro tram system in Birmingham was opened in 1999. The route follows a

former heavy rail alignment and runs between Wolverhampton St.Georges and

Birmingham Snow Hill station. When opened St.Georges station did not have any other

public transport services connected and at the Birmingham end, Snow Hill is 10 minutes

walk from the City Centre and the Bull Ring shopping development – at the time of

construction the largest city-centre shopping area in Europe. In terms of connectivity the

Midland Metro development appears flawed at both ends of the network as the termini are

53
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

remote from the City centres and a faster, cost-effective alternative exists for end-to-end

travel with the existing rail service linking Wolverhampton and central Birmingham (New

Street station). The Metro fare from Wolverhampton to Snow Hill costs £5.00 for a

standard return takes 35 minutes (National Express, 2011) whereas you can make the

journey in 17 minutes (centre to centre) for £6.60 (Nationalrail.co.uk, 2011).

Extensions to the Midland Metro have long been proposed and in March 2010, government

approval was given for £81m of the total £127.1m cost (Rail Technology, 2010) to extend

to Brierley Hill, a ring around Wolverhampton and critically to Five Ways via Birmingham

City Centre and the main rail station at New Street. The connection via the city centre will

provide direct access and penetration into the city centre, something that has been lacking

since the system was first introduced. A ‘phase 2’ of extension schemes is also planned to

extend the tram to destinations including Great Barr, Quinton and Birmingham Airport.

Earlier approval for the extension of the system included a business case approval in

December 2000, where the scheme was proposed at £114m (Symons, 2003a). This earlier

approval, in the wake of the governments transport policy agenda, would have seen trams

running in 2007. The timings associated with the planning and development of tram

schemes is emphasised by the long, drawn-out timescales associated with the Midland

Metro extensions. The UK coalition government undertook a spending review in the

autumn of 2010 where the Midland metro scheme was under threat of cancellation;

however, the route to New Street appears to have survived the transport scheme cull (DfT,

2010).

54
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

2.3. Recent UK Light Rail Developments

The previous discussions have focussed on the schemes that have been implemented. This

section now looks at those more recent systems illustrated in Figure 2-1 that have, in the

main, failed to be delivered. In the case of Liverpool and Leeds light rail, the review

considers why the systems were not completed and contrasts these with the successfully

implemented Nottingham system.

2.3.1. Liverpool Merseytram

Of all the light rail schemes that have failed to be realised, the proposal for the Liverpool

system was the one that was the closest to being delivered. A lot of time and money was

invested by the promoter, Merseytravel, in producing detailed feasibility studies and

options that led to a Transport and Works Act submission with all supporting

documentation. A review of the development of the proposal and key events is provided

here.

The original Merseytram submission was based upon obtaining approval for Line 1 of

what was to be a three line system. Figure 2-6 illustrates the overall three line network and

Figure 2-7 illustrates a more detailed view of the Line 1 route included in the Engineering

Proof of Evidence (Mack, 2004). In the DfT response to the planning application, which

resulted in conditional approval, the Inspector noted that the route would run through some

of the most deprived areas of the UK. This would raise Liverpool’s profile and motivate

inward investment and continue the regeneration effort on Merseyside. The Secretary of

State concurred with the Inspector and furthermore felt the system would produce

regeneration and socio-economic benefits – 64% of households on Line 1 do not have

access to a car (Sully, 2003). Transport benefits would lead to good integration and would

assist in a modest modal shift from car use to public transport.

55
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

Figure 2-6 Merseytram Proposed Three Line Network (Source: Mack, 2004)

The Merseytram Transport and Works Application outlined the proposed 2010 demand

and the sources of the demand. This is detailed in Table 2-2. The King’s Waterfront

development (* in Table 2-2), was one of seven development areas on the proposed route

and whilst the others saw the benefits of the tram scheme as important, the King’s

Waterfront development was seen as key part of the developer’s case (Gilder, 2004).

56
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

Table 2-2 Merseytram Demand and Mode Transfer (Source: Eyles, 2004)

Demand Source Demand (Millions) % Demand


Bus Transfer 6.58 66.7%
Rail Transfer 0.99 10.1%
Car Transfer 0.45 4.6%
P&R Transfer 0.40 4.0%
Generated Demand 0.21 2.1%
Walk Trips 0.81 8.3%
King’s Waterfront* 0.41 4.1%
Annual 9.86 100%

Line 1 was to be the link from Liverpool City Centre to Kirkby.

Figure 2-7 Merseytram Proposed Line 1 Route (Source: Mack, 2004)

The system was proposed as being a twin-track conventional light rail system and the route

was selected as it ran through the main city-centre commercial areas and also the cultural

centre of the City with access to museums and the docks. The route was designed with

57
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

over 89% of on-street (but segregated) track (16.3km), 460m of integrated running with

other highway users, and with only 1.6km of segregated running.

As with many transport schemes, the cost for the Merseytram system increased during the

development and planning processes, ultimately to the point that the system was cancelled

in January 2006. A review of the transport press reveals the chronology and events that

went from ‘Trams for Liverpool’ in January 2003 (RailStaff, 2003) to a planning

application (October 2003) and planning approval in December 2004. A particularly telling

contrast was the headline ‘Merseytram – on time and with money to spare’ headline from

January 2005 (Scales, 2005) and 12 months later that Merseytram had been cancelled,

apparently due to funding issues (Anon., 2006b).

The original scheme quoted costs (November 2002) as £210m for Line 1 (Briginshaw,

2002) and a total cost of £400m for all three lines. Merseytravel would receive a £170m

grant from government, but the plans for a 2006-2007 opening appeared optimistic. In

addition to government funding, £25m was to be provided from ‘European Objective One’

European Union (EU) development funding with the balance of £30m from the private

sector (Symons, 2003b). In July 2004, the focus on the Merseytram project included

financial, planning application aspects and the programme to construct the system.

Programme delays meant that assurances were being sought by local authorities that the

construction programme would not impact on the 2008 Capital of Culture celebrations

(Black, 2004). Liverpool City council had by now also ‘demanded’ that the proposed route

for Line 2 was to the Airport and not the third line (Lawrence, 2004a). This demand was

subsequently withdrawn and by this time £16m had already been spent on route surveys

(Scales, 2005).

58
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

The first real indications of financial problems began to surface early in 2005. The NAO

report into light rail had raised questions over the necessity for relocating buried services

and hence the associated costs (NAO, 2004). At the same time Merseytram dismissed

Balfour Beatty and the associated design/build/operate consortium, as costs provided by

the contractor, ‘did not represent best value’ – designs were based upon heavy rail

technology and costs, and not the light rail specification intended (Anon., 2005a).

The government withdrew support for Merseytram on the 13th June 2005 because full

funding had not been secured by Merseytravel. The scheme was still to receive £170m

from government and £25m from the EU. However, this apparently left a shortfall of £34m

and there was no mention of the £30m that was due to be generated from the private sector.

However, it was reported that Merseytravel had ‘expected’ £204m from government. That

meant the overall cost had risen to £259m [£204 (government) + £25m (EU) + £30m

(private sector)] from £210m. The funding ‘gap’ of £34m was the difference between the

£170m promised and £204m expected from government. Merseytravel considered other

sources of funding, including rescinding the promise of free travel for the elderly from

June 2006 (worth £8m), public loans and increased tolls for the Mersey Tunnel. The costs

incurred were of the order of £36m and it was costing £50,000 a week to keep the project

ready for the main works commencement (Anon., 2005b).

“Whether the scheme goes ahead now is purely political”, Mark Dowd, Merseytravel

Chairman stated on the 4th October 2005. There was a flurry of activity looking to achieve

savings with a reduction in contingencies and savings that could have left the shortfall at

£20m. The £170m government funding was withdrawn when the local councils failed to

approve the scheme and underwrite any cost overruns. The scheme schedule had slipped

59
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

and construction was planned to finish at Easter 2008 with a service operating from April

2009 – cutting right through the Capital of Culture year (Anon., 2005c).

With Merseytram on the brink of failure, Liverpool City Council did try to establish

whether the funding could be used for other schemes (Anon., 2006b). A press release on

the 20th February 2006 stated that Merseytravel would not be going to the Court of Appeal

for a hearing into the Judicial Review of Merseytram despite their lawyers confirming they

have an arguable case. Merseytram remained in the Local Transport Plan but there were no

apparent plans to (re)commence development (Audit Commission, 2008).

It would appear that the Merseytram scheme ran out of money. The costs did not rise

significantly and the original government funding was in place and a relatively small

shortfall of £34m was sufficient to make the local authorities deliberate and concede to not

granting their own approvals. It appears that Merseytram missed the opportunity to secure

EU funding and looked at alternative sources too late in the day.

2.3.2. Leeds Supertram

The proposal for a new light rail system first featured in the Leeds Transport Strategy of

1991, in the wake of Sheffield’s Supertram being approved and under construction. The

Leeds plans also included the guided-bus schemes, which saw implementation on two

corridors.

The proposed Leeds Supertram scheme was promoted by Metro, a partnership of Leeds

City Council and West Yorkshire PTE (Passenger Transport Executive). The scheme was

similar to the later Liverpool system in a number of ways; early works were to commence

in January 2003, construction in 2004 and trams were to be running in 2007 (Briginshaw,

60
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

2002). Like Liverpool, the Supertram scheme was also made up of three lines, was

estimated to cost £487m and was targeting 25% of passengers from modal shift from cars,

compared to 10% on Merseytram in 2010. This would represent 64 million car kilometres

removed from Leeds roads. The UK government allocated £355m funding for the scheme

in March 2001 (Sully, 2003). The government provided £12m to fund ongoing

development in December 2002 (Anon., 2003a) and following earlier preparatory works,

the official start of the Leeds Supertram was made on the 10th March 2003, with a road

scheme on the A61 to make room for the trams (Anon., 2003b).

The initial significant signs of cost increases surfaced early in 2004. A potential increase of

£100m was being cited due to inflation and changes in specification. The government was

not to increase the £355m allocated in 2001, and suggested a phased approach to the

system by deferring the third line (Symons, 2004a). Transport Secretary, Alistair Darling,

met with Metro and confirmed that the £100m additional cost was unacceptable and bus-

based solutions should be considered (Anon., 2004a). A further issue with passenger

forecasts being overestimated meant the Treasury’s ‘golden rule’ might be broken as

revenues would not be sufficient to cover operating costs (Jack, 2004). In January 2004,

Atkins was commissioned to undertake an assessment of bus alternatives to light rail on

behalf of Metro, which was submitted to the DfT in November 2004 (Atkins, 2005).

A month later scheme costs had doubled to £1bn and that the promoter was seeking an

additional £300m from government on top of the £355m allocated. The scheme was put on

hold (Symons, 2004b) and then deleted from the government’s plans in June 2004

(Hansford, 2004). Later in 2004, the promoter was to return with a revised proposal that

had costs approaching the original sum of £500m. A number of measures were sought to

halve the costs without compromising the quality of service system size. Alternative

61
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

funding options were being considered and revised contracting mechanisms that separated

the operations from design and build to ‘isolate risks and cut costs’ (Anon., 2004b). The

separation of the contract phases, reducing the number of lines and not relocating utilities

was anticipated to save around £250m (Lawrence, 2004b).

There were further submissions and discussions with the DfT but no government

commitment was obtained. By September 2005, £39m had been spent over 15 years but

Leeds was no closer to having a light rail system (Anon., 2005d).

In August 2005, Atkins was commissioned to complete a follow-up report on the earlier

work to seek alternatives to light rail in Leeds – in particular ‘high quality buses’. This

report concluded that a high quality bus rapid transit (BRT) alternative would largely offer

the same benefits of light rail but at a lower cost. There would be some compromises on

journey time and ride quality, and emissions at the point of use would be higher (Atkins

2005). The report concluded that the BRT costs varied between £163.2m and £208.5m

pending the final route selection – but in any case the truncated tram system costs were still

over double the BRT costs.

The NAO was called upon to investigate the role of the DfT in the Leeds Supertram and

also the Manchester and South Hants schemes. The NAO criticised both the promoter and

government on not having a clear set of criteria upon which the scheme was to be assessed.

Interestingly, First Group was identified by the NAO where they had apparently lobbied

the DfT to develop a bus-based alternative scheme (NAO, 2007).

Whilst the Leeds project was cancelled, again due to financial issues, these appear to be

considerably different to the Merseytram scheme. Whilst the Liverpool system suffered

62
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

from a shortfall of just £34m, the Leeds cost doubled from £500m to a reported worst case

of £1bn. The reasons behind the demise of the Leeds system and the failure to secure

government approval and funding were detailed in the NAO report discussed earlier from

2004. The cost increases meant the benefit:cost ratio (BCR) had been undermined and the

DfT stated that Bus Rapid Transit would improve the BCR and this option should be

pursued (NAO, 2004).

2.3.3. Nottingham Express Transit - NET

The Nottingham tram, NET, was built at about the same time as the proposals in Liverpool

and Leeds were lurching toward failure, and this became the last of the UKs light rail

schemes to be completed. The NET Line 1 opened for business in March 2004, 16 years

after Nottingham City Council and County Council together first considered the transport

needs for the City for a public transport solution that would not contribute to congestion

and pollution. Government permission to build the system was granted in 1994 under the

Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Act (1994). Construction commenced in June

2000 with 10km of track running alongside an existing heavy rail route and 4km of on-

street non-segregated running.

The Promoters of the £179m scheme awarded a private finance initiative (PFI) concession

to Arrow for a period of 30.5 years with consortium members having raised the necessary

funds which the government were due to repay over the concession period (Sully, 2003).

Arrow Light Rail Ltd was purposely formed to design, build, fund, operate and maintain

NET. Arrow is owned by five partners that included a 3.5 year fixed price turnkey contract

to a Bombardier Carillion consortium for the design and construction of the trams, power,

signalling and communications systems (Bombardier), and Carillion the civil engineering,

track and tramstops. Arrow has let a contract to the Nottingham Tram Consortium,

63
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

comprising Transdev and Nottingham City Transport to operate and maintain the system

for the balance of the concession (27 years).

The funding arrangements for NET were presented by Transdev at the Light Rail and

Rapid Transit conference in 2003 (Perin, 2003) when the prospects for further light rail

development were still promising. At this time the NET system was nearing completion

and the working financial model had been established.

Figure 2-8 NET Finance and Funding (Adapted from Perin, 2003)

Pre-Completion (Planning & Construction) Post-Completion (Operations)

Bank Loans Availability Fees

75%
(£200m Facility) from Promoter

Funding Revenue
Equity &

25%
Passenger Fares
Subordinated Debt

Arrow
Light Rail
Limited Loan Interest &
Capital Repayment
Bank & Arrangers
Fees (Fixed)
Operating &
Cost Expense Maintenance Contract
Turnkey Contract
(Fixed)
Dividends

The NET finance model is discussed later in this chapter when considering wider aspects

of funding and risk allocation. However, the key point to note at this stage is that in the

arrangement illustrated in Figure 2-8, the risk to the project construction and operation is

transferred from the concessionaire in the PFI framework. This risk mitigation gave greater

cost certainty to the government funding. This was probably a crucial factor in NET’s

success.

64
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

Whilst the NET Line 1 system was developed and successfully commissioned in March

2004, with the regime described above in place, subsequent plans for extensions have not

been without controversy and funding difficulties. The planning application for two further

lines was submitted in April 2007 and in July 2009 conditional approval was given by the

City Council (Nottingham CC, 2011), with government funding set at £437m and a further

£100m to be raised. More recently the cost for the two new lines has risen requiring £530m

from government (an increase of £93m) with £150m (up by £50m) from the Council

(Railway Gazette, 2009). The total estimated funding requirement had grown from £537m

to £680m.

The most contentious funding source was to be the introduction of a demand management

measure with a Workplace Parking Levy (WPL) to part fund the NET expansion. A public

consultation saw 68% support for the idea but Boots the Chemist (an iconic Nottingham-

based company and major employer) objected as this would result in a £0.5m cost to the

company by 2015 (Butcher, 2010). The NET WPL scheme was introduced in October

2011 but no charge will be levied to employers until April 2012 (Nottingham CC, 2009).

2.4. A Review of Other UK Light Rail Systems

Since the late 1990s there have been numerous light rail schemes that have been promoted,

but of these only Nottingham has been commissioned and Edinburgh is under construction.

The reasons for failing to implement other schemes (shown in Figure 2-1) appear to

surround funding, but not all of these issues are of the same making.

65
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

2.4.1. Bristol

The £194m Bristol Tram satisfied government economic and technical criteria, and

Transport and Works Act (TWA) powers were to commence in March 2001. Subsequent

local government political differences on funding eventually killed the scheme. The

Liberal Democrats sought the introduction of a c-charging scheme to pay for the system

whereas the Conservatives wanted the system built before c-charge was introduced,

leaving a funding shortfall (Symons, 2003c). The Transport Minister also issued his

requirements including reassurance that a workable c-charge scheme would be able to raise

25% of the system cost, or that alternative funding was available (Symons, 2004c). The

final act was that £1.5m earmarked for the tram system development was used instead to

cap council tax rises (Anon., 2004c).

2.4.2. South Hampshire

The proposed scheme in South Hampshire – SHRT – was to link Portsmouth, Fareham and

Southampton with local towns. The scheme was consulted in 1996 and in 2001

government announced that £190m funding would be provided and work towards the

planning application should commence (Sully, 2003). Portsmouth City Council planned a

‘land-sale lifeline’ to raise funds as the costs started to grow. By August 2003 a shortfall of

£74m had been identified – in part due to a change in specification for a tunnel beneath

Portsmouth Harbour (Anon., 2003c). The costs increased further to £270m by mid-2004

but this was reduced by £70m and re-submitted in spring 2005. Despite the resubmission,

after 25 years development, costing £10m, the government withdrew their support (Anon.,

2006b).

66
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

2.4.3. Edinburgh

Since the completion of the NET system in 2004, the Edinburgh Tram represents the only

light rail system to be developed to construction in the UK. The system, like Leeds and

Merseytram, was proposed to be built in three phases. The delivery of Phase 1a (at £500m

and 1b to follow at £92m) was programmed with construction to commence February 2008

with revenue service operating from the first quarter 2011 as reported by Transport

Initiatives Edinburgh (TIE, 2007). The Scottish government were committed to funding

£500m (allowing for inflation) and £45m from the City of Edinburgh Council (TIE, 2007).

As with the SHRT scheme, Edinburgh have engaged in land-sales to generate funds but

notably are able to sell land at premium prices along the tram route (Anon., 2004d). This

premise is similar to the successful strategy employed by the Hong Kong Mass Transit

Railway where land adjacent to stations and depots has been developed with the revenue

from developers being used to offset up to 20% of operating costs and in some cases

capital costs (Enoch et al, 2005).

The utility diversions contractor (Carillion who took-over from Alfred McAlpine) was

engaged under an arrangement known as ‘Multi Utility Diversion Framework Agreement

works’ (MUDFA). Carillion have encountered problems with uncharted services to be

diverted and several archaeological finds (including human remains and air-raid shelters)

that delayed progress (Dalton, 2009). The City of Edinburgh Council (Anderson, 2010)

announced in March 2010 that the Carillion works were considered complete effective

November 2009 when the original plan was to complete in November 2008. Attempts are

being made to close the Carillion account whilst Clancy Docwra and Farrans complete

remaining diversion works (Anderson, 2010).

67
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

Figure 2-9 Utility Diversion Works on Princes Street, Edinburgh in May 2008
(Source: Hodgson, 2008)

The consequential impact to the main works contractor, Bilfinger Berger, has been

significant with disputes between the contractor and TIE leading to a claim for 816

additional items of which some have been withdrawn and some settled at a value of

£23.8m (Audit Scotland, 2011). The route has been scaled back and Bilfinger Berger had

confirmed to the Council that remaining construction would be complete in 2013. In

December 2010 28% of construction work had been completed but £402m (79% of the

total cost) had been sunk.

The reduced system network means that surplus trams may be leased to Croydon as the

demand for more trams grows to support increasing demand (Audit Scotland, 2011). It

could be argued that this stemmed from inadequate assessment of the utilities diversion

works and the consequential effects. Unlike Nottingham, risk exposure was not mitigated

and has resulted in delay and cost escalation.

68
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

2.5. Summary of Light Rail in the UK

Many light rail schemes were lauded by government policy for implementation in the late

1990s and into the 2000s, but in practice after an initial group of 4 schemes in 1992-2000,

only the Nottingham tram has subsequently been built. The Edinburgh tram system was to

have repairs completed to track work on Princes Street that was to be completed in May

2012; anticipating completion for initial services in summer 2014 (Edinburgh CCd, 2011).

It appears the main issue with delivering light rail is the cost and risk of a ‘big-bang’

approach. There are apparent differences however in the way that the schemes in

Liverpool, Leeds, South Hampshire and Bristol failed financially and the extent of the cash

shortfall. There were different reasons for cost escalation that had in the case of Liverpool

a relatively small impact on projected cost whereas the Leeds costs appeared to grow

disproportionately to the original budget. There were differing funding issues associated

with each system but the result was ultimately the same – no funding alternatives could be

‘tapped’ to support development.

Once established with proven performance, extending an initial system is made more

deliverable. The extension the existing systems in Manchester and Birmingham are still

on-track for delivery despite delays in approvals dating back to the late 1990s. Like the

new system build attempts, funding issues have existed with some of the extension

schemes with Nottingham being successful in generating a new source of finance through

the parking levy, albeit delayed from the original commencement. Manchester on the other

hand failed to obtain public consent to introduce a congestion charge.

d
Edinburgh City Council

69
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

2.6. UK Bus-based Systems

This section briefly reviews the use of UK bus-based systems that aspire towards high

quality performance. The concept of a high quality ‘system’ is more than just the vehicle; it

is where there is some form of complementary infrastructure or vehicle technology that

enhances it to be more than a simple, conventional bus operation. The timeline for selected

bus-based system development is illustrated in Figure 2-10.

In the early 1970s, the Runcorn Busway was introduced which was formed of a 20km

segregated system (but with no guidance) and it represented the first system of its kind in

the UK. Thirty years on Halton Council have stated that they will, “continue to recognise

the importance of the Runcorn Busway system as an integral part of the transport network,

and will implement improvements to maximise its potential” (Halton BC, 2007). The

Busway was revolutionary in some respects as the role it played in town planning was

innovative for the design of the new town in 1964. Key aspects of the design included

‘clustering’ of services and activities along the busway and a system of nested loops with

reduced waiting times due to the concentration of the population into narrow corridors that

can support frequent and direct services, plus no delays due to the exclusive right-of-way

(TRB, 2003a).

The only non-UK system illustrated in Figure 2-10 is that of the Adelaide O-Bahn system

that was introduced in 1986. This was the longest guided-bus system operating in the

world at 20km until the 26km Cambridge system was completed, but interestingly has

never been the subject of expansion. Whatever success it has seen has been deemed to be

insufficient to warrant the further development of the system. The Adelaide system opened

between the implementation and removal of a short guided-bus scheme in Birmingham –

this was to be the last guided-bus in the UK for 9 years.

70
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

Figure 2-10 Timeline for Selected Bus-based Systems in the UK

Runcorn Busway
Guided-Bus Introduced
1971
Birmingham Tracline 65 (600m)
Where a distance is indicated,
1984 this is the extent of the
guided-busway route for the
Adelaide O-Bahn
1986 system

1987
Birmingham Tracline 65 Guided-Bus Scrapped

1995
Ipswich (200m) Policy
1996

Leeds Guided-Bus #1 (1.5km)


1997
A New Deal for Transport:
1998
Better for Everyone
Leeds Guided-Bus #2 (2km)
1999
Transport 2010: The 10 Year
Bradford (2.3km)
2000
Transport 2010: Meeting the
2001
Crawley Fastway Guided-Bus (1.5km) Local Transport Challenge
2002

Edinburgh Guided-Bus (1.5km) The Future of Transport: A


2003
Network for 2030
2004
Thames Gateway (Unguided)
Integrated Transport: The
2005
Future of Light Rail and
Leeds FTR & York FTR (Unguided) Modern Trams
2006

2007
Luton Airport FTR (Unguided) The Eddington & Stern Reviews
2008

Swansea FTR (Unguided) Delivering a Sustainable


2009
Transport System
2010
Edinburgh Guided-Bus
The Future of Urban Transport
2011

East London Transit (Unguided)

Cambridge Guided-Bus (26km)

71
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

A slight resurgence in guided-bus came about in the mid-1990s with the Leeds and Ipswich

schemes. These are all bus-based systems with a proportion of guide-way used by kerb-

guided buses (KGBs) which in places was short, for example, only 200m in Ipswich. An

extension to Leeds followed in the 1990s again with KGB over selected sections of the

system.

Figure 2-11 A Typical Kerb-guided bus guidance wheel (Source: Fastway, 2005)

Crawley Fastway was conceived in the Crawley ‘Urban Transport Plan’ of 1996 (West

Sussex CCe, 2011), to be constructed to serve Gatwick Airport and local towns. Included in

Phase 1 were 650m of guideway and 1300m of otherwise dedicated bus-way (Fastway,

2011). The network now comprises 3 routes – more extensive than when reported in 2005

(see Figure 2-12).

e
Sussex CC – Sussex County Council

72
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

Figure 2-12 Crawley Fastway Network and Routes (Source: Fastway, 2010)

The system uses GPS vehicle positioning and real-time passenger information to provide

real-time data at stops and traffic controls ensure fast passage through congested locations.

The initial cost for the system was £32m (£16m government funding) and notably not all

works required planning permission; thereby reducing the risks associated with delayed

approval timescales.

73
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

One of the original benefits of the scheme was to provide a fast, reliable public transport

network to serve Gatwick Airport. The service was not specifically aimed at airline

passengers, but more at the local population that is employed at the airport. New vehicles

were provided in 2009 with part leather seats to emphasise the quality aspects of the

journey experience.

A guided-bus system was constructed in Edinburgh in 2004 but as anticipated this was

scrapped in favour of the light rail scheme being developed along the same alignment in

2009. This strategy is interesting because it uses the implementation of a separated

guideway for buses as a means to create the route for the light rail system, even though this

was planned only a few years later.

A further busway system is the Thames Gateway Fastrack developed in response to the

creation of new conurbations along the Thames estuary. The 40km system has priority

junction signalling, dedicated rights of way (for over 50% of the route) and bus lanes, but

no guidance. The Fastrack vehicles in the future will be, “what is known as the

‘intermediate mode’ vehicle – a vehicle that combines the benefits of running on rubber

tyres with the many attractive and distinctive characteristics of the modern tram.”

However, the system currently uses conventional buses as the ridership does not provide

justification for new vehicles. The service is connected to the high speed rail station at

Ebbsfleet and in the first year carried 1.75m passengers (Fastrack, 2006). It is

approximated that 19% of passengers are modal transfer users from private cars, 60% have

transferred from other bus services, 10% caught Fastrack instead of walking, 4% using the

bus in place of a taxi and 6% who would not have previously made the journey (Fastrack,

2007).

74
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

In terms of vehicle design, the most notable in the UK is the Streetcar ‘ftr’. Wrightbus and

First Group developed the ftr concept (ftr is ‘text-speak’ shorthand for ‘future’) as a

modern bus that offered a high-quality bus-based service with real time information, on-

board infotainment screens, “communal seating” (sic) – face-to-face seating as opposed to

back-to-back, air conditioning and anti-glare glass etc (First Group, 2006). The first system

was launched in York in 2006 and whilst the route is referred as the ‘track’ this is no more

than a bus-lane system with some priorities at junctions and a raised kerb at bus-stops to

enable step-free access. Further systems have been delivered in Leeds, Swansea and as

illustrated in Figure 2-13 operating between Luton Airport and Luton Airport Parkway

station. The buses are not guided nor do they run on dedicated routes; however they do

represent an improvement in vehicle image and quality that is otherwise missing from UK

guided-bus and busway systems.

The First Group website cites one benefit of the vehicle as having, ‘ergonomic seating’.

The definition of ergonomic is, “designed to minimize physical effort and discomfort”; so

it would seem that ergonomic seating design is a pre-requisite in any case rather than a

potential differentiator over a standard bus. First Group (2006) also provides headline costs

for the ftr system as an alternative to light rail:

• Light rail corridor: Would require 10 double car light rail vehicles (£2m each) =

£20m, 7km of track at up to £20m per double track kilometre = £140m.

• ftr corridor: Probably needs 15 ‘ftr’ vehicles = £4.5m, Extensive Guideway and Bus

priority works would cost £10m

Hence, First claim that the total light rail cost would be £160m and ftr would be £14.5m

for the same system – less than a tenth of the cost.

75
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

Figure 2-13 An ftr vehicle at Luton Airport Parkway Rail Station (Source: Hodgson, 2009)

Some of the systems discussed above have guidance in places, albeit minimal and others

have high-technology vehicles. The first major guided-bus systems to be developed in the

UK were to be in Cambridge, Luton and Leigh.

2.6.1. Cambridge Guided-Bus

The Cambridge system, when seen to full implementation, will be the longest kerb-guided

system in the world. Of the 25km system, 16km is planned on former rail-alignments, 3km

on new roads and 6km on existing roads. The system employs kerb-guidance and the rail

alignment has been upgraded to accommodate double-decker buses (Gibbins, 2008). The

Transport and Works Act application was submitted in 2004 (Cambridgeshire CC, 2004a).

The proposed route is shown in Figure 2-14.

The guided-bus system in Cambridge has been the subject of a lot of debate and opposition

since first mooted in 2001 in the Cambridge-Huntingdon Multi-Modal Study (CHUMMS).

In December 2003 the government awarded £65m to the scheme (Jack, 2003) that would

link Cambridge and Huntingdon along a former heavy rail alignment costing £75m overall.

76
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

Figure 2-14 Proposed Cambridge Guided-bus Route (Source: Cambridgeshire CC, 2004a)

The public inquiry was completed at the end of 2004 with numerous objectors still

apparent including local councils but others had withdrawn their objections including the

RSPB, Network Rail, English Heritage and the Environment Agency (Anon., 2005e).

One party (CAST.IRON – Cambridge to St.Ives Railway Organisation) preferred the

former rail-line to be returned to heavy rail use with a complementary bus network and

park and ride sites, feeling this would offer similar benefits and be cheaper than the bus

alternative being promoted. The rail-instatement alternative was dismissed by the council

on flawed analysis, claims CAST.IRON, stating that the council appointed consultant

(Atkins) evaluated the rail scheme at £354m; hence the guided-bus scheme was given

preference by public inquiry. This was disputed by CAST.IRON and also the Association

of Train Operating Companies (Anon., 2009a). Construction of the guided-busway began

in early 2007 with a debate on funding ongoing, with a Cambridge Council member stating

that funds were coming from central government and developers as well as the county

council (Anon., 2007a). By November 2007, the cost for the system had risen to £116m, up

77
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

by £41m (55%) since government funding was awarded in December 2003 (Anon.,

2007b). The local and national government contribution to the scheme was at £92.5m

(Gibbins, 2008). This pattern of cost escalation seems similar to that noted earlier for light

rail schemes.

The construction of the system has been hampered with problems and delays. It has been

reported that the final cost of the busway will be £187m, an increase of £71m on the

original cost. The busway was handed-over by the contractor, Bam Nuttall, two years late

at the end of April 2011 and will open for service in early August 2011 (Cambridge News,

2011).

The Cambridge Liberal Democrat MP, Julian Huppert as a member of the recently elected

coalition government, called for an inquiry in to the scheme delivery and costs and has

prompted calls to question why more funding has been provided to a similar scheme in

Luton when the lessons have yet to be learned from the failings of the Cambridge

implementation (Cambridge News, 2010).

2.6.2. Leigh Guided-Busway

The route from Leigh to Salford is another scheme that has struggled to get to a point

where implementation is imminent, although this has taken a considerable time to achieve

this status. The plans were first tabled in 1996 but it was not until 2002 that a public

inquiry was held and 2003 that provisional approval was granted, with the Inspector

concluding that there was a 'need for the scheme' which was 'robust economically'. The

newly-formed coalition government in June 2010 maintained approval for the scheme

despite the public spending cuts introduced in the same year (Salter, 2010).

78
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

2.6.3. Luton to Dunstable Busway

A further system that survived the public sector spending cuts in 2010 was the guided-bus

system in Luton. The proposed route is from a new housing development (with 43,000

homes) to central Dunstable, into Luton and onward to the rail stations and Luton Airport.

The local roads are subject to congestion, the 6 mile journey between Luton Station and

Dunstable by car can take 40 minutes at an average speed of 9 miles an hour. The Borough

Council (BC) notes, “For some time the congestion along the route has made it impossible

to provide a fast and reliable public transport service.” (Luton BC, 2010). Since the late

1980's potential solutions, including heavy rail, light rail, and conventional buses, have

been assessed. The guided-bus solution has been selected as the most appropriate with the

rationale pinned on the ‘proven successes’ of Leeds in its passenger growth compared to

the original bus route (the first section of guideway has seen a 75% increase in passengers

since 1995). The Crawley Fastway system is also seen as a success and a basis for the

Luton system (Luton BC, 2010).

2.7. A Summary of Selected UK Light Rail and Bus-based Systems

This section has considered the development of light rail and bus-based systems in the UK.

The light rail renaissance of the 1990s has subsided and once the Edinburgh tram is

complete, only extensions to existing light rail systems are under development. The light

rail systems that are in use have largely been successful. The use of bus-based systems has

seen success, especially in the cases of the Crawley Fastway and Thames Gateway

Fastrack systems. Elsewhere the Cambridge guided-bus is struggled toward completion

and the real test of long-term patronage levels is yet to come.

The success of the light rail systems can be considered in terms of the passenger volumes,

illustrated in Table 2-3.

79
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

Table 2-3 Selected passenger volumes on UK light rail systems

Route Passengers/
System Passengers Source
Length Route Length
Manchester 20m 37km 0.54m/km Metrolink, 2009
Croydon 26m 28km 0.93m/km TfL, 2010
Birmingham 5m 20km 0.25m/km Centro, 2009
Sheffield 15m 29km 0.52m/km Stagecoach, 2010

The data in Table 2-3 illustrates that there were 66 million journeys made in a single year

across four of the major light rail schemes in the UK. The Manchester system is being

extended to improve connectivity to outlying areas, whereas Birmingham Metro is being

extended via the city centre to generate the necessary penetration to improve passenger

numbers on the existing route. This has been the weakest of the light rail systems and it is

hoped that the extension should improve the low passenger/km value compared to the

other operations. Passenger volume data were not available for Fastway or Fastrack bus

systems; hence no comparison can be drawn between bus-based and light rail systems.

This chapter has noted that there were a number of light rail systems that failed to be

delivered, despite initial government approval for funding. Merseytram seems to have

suffered from cost escalation due to inflation with the extended time from planning

submission, but had government approval to the point where construction was to

commence. The original scheme cost was £210m rising to £225m against which £170m of

government funding was secured. The promoter appeared to inadequately plug the funding

gap and by the time inflation was added in 2006, the anticipated or required government

funding was £204m, where it remained at £170m. At the time the mechanisms to raise

further funds were not available.

80
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

Leeds Supertram simply appeared to let the costs for the system grow out of control. The

DfT was criticised for poor time-performance in responding to planning submissions and

this will have contributed to inflationary costs but the premise of reducing the scope of the

system to be implemented and the knock-on effect to benefit will not have helped. There

were no apparent, or publicised alternative funding methods mentioned, such as the

demand management congestion charging or workplace parking levy considered

elsewhere.

Broadly, the recent performance of light rail scheme delivery is poor with NET being the

last commissioned in 2004. Edinburgh is on the way to completion, albeit late, over budget

and with significant contractual issues. Extensions are being planned for Manchester and

Birmingham. The guided-bus case is not much improved with cost escalation, delays and

contractual disputes in Cambridge but the proposed schemes in Leigh and Luton have

survived the summer 2010 spending cuts.

There have been issues in planning, funding and finance which have led to the failure to

implement light rail and bus-based schemes or at best have resulted in over-budget,

contractually problematic, late delivery systems. Moreover, this has arisen in the delivery

of standard technology systems – the kerb-guided technology is proven and the

infrastructure involves only standard engineering design.

In the previous section a review of UK transport policy was completed and the key aspects

of policy timing have been illustrated in the timeline diagrams. It is worth looking back at

the policies and seeing how this relates to the development of the light rail and bus-based

systems.

81
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

2.8. Light Rail and UK Transport Policy

As was discussed in the previous policy review section, when the ‘New Deal for

Transport’ and the ‘Ten Year Plan’ were published, there was a strong indication that light

rail was the way forward as part of an integrated transport solution. In 2003, the positive

attitude to light rail as a part of integrated transport plans resulting from ‘Transport 2010’

appeared to prompt Nabarro Nathanson (Lyon, 2003) to publish, ‘Light Rail – a guide to

the practical, financial and legal issues’. Upbeat statements, for example, “Recent UK

government policy has ensured that light rail is very much back on today’s transport

agenda” reflected this positive mood. To reign-in the enthusiasm slightly, Lyon (2003) did

voice some cautiousness when referencing the ‘New Deal for Transport’ (1998), citing the

high capital costs [of light rail] compared to bus priority measures and more modest guide-

bus schemes. The message was that, whilst light rail was in favour at that time, it would be

necessary to ensure costs were managed as there were to be no ‘blank cheques’. Even so,

the May 2000 inquiry publication, “Light Rapid Transit Systems” (House of Commons,

2000) which was very positive about the value of light rail, included the development of 25

new lines prescribed in Transport 2010 (Lyon, 2003). Despite this optimism; however,

support quickly waned for light rail and when ‘The Future of Transport’ was published in

2004 the further development of light rail had disappeared altogether. This was around the

same time that Merseytram, Leeds and SHRT were scrapped.

The NAO conducted a review of the planning process for light rail examining the DfT’s

work in funding the light rail systems (NAO, 2004) and also investigated the specific

failings of the Leeds, Liverpool and SHRT schemes (NAO, 2007). In the 2004 report the

NAO provided the main reasons why local authorities had failed to promote light rail

schemes in local transport plans (LTPs) – which the evidence suggests would have not

82
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

been approved in any case. The top four issues for not including light rail in LTPs were

(NAO, 2004):

 Light rail is too costly compared to other options, e.g. buses

 Poor financial performance of existing schemes

 Potential to secure local funding for the system

 Long planning timescales

The key issues regarding the headline costs were identified as a lack of standardisation

driving up costs; costs are inflated by light rail adopting heavy rail specifications and

safety arrangements, and that utility diversions are expensive. Whilst the DfT has an

interest in controlling costs, as it can fund up to 75% of the construction cost, the scope of

influence extends only to procurement methods and risk allocation, for example revenue

risk can be allocated between public and private sector (NAO, 2004). The inflationary

measures that drive-up light rail costs were considered to be outside of the control of the

government, yet the long planning timescales are materially impacted by government

controlled planning offices. In response to the standardisation issue, ‘UKTram’ was

formed by light rail suppliers, contractors and professionals to develop the light rail market

in the UK (UKTram, 2009). An initial step was to develop a standard set of specifications

that the DfT could adopt as the benchmark for submissions for approval; as indeed the

NAO (2004) recognised that, ‘lack of standardisation drives up costs’.

The NAO report noted that funding sources needed to be identified other than the taxpayer.

It suggested that if it were not possible to sufficiently reduce costs to the budget and there

were still a business case at the higher cost, then additional funding needed to be sought.

Despite enacting the use of c-charging as a means to raise funds for light rail schemes

through the Transport Act (2000), until the Metrolink extensions were proposed in

83
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

Manchester, no authority had tried to take up this opportunity. The Greater Manchester

Combined Authority (GMCA) LTP considers funding sources post the ‘C-Charge

referendum’ which prioritised the schemes from various sources including the Regional

Funding Allocation from the DfT and the annual levy for transport services, but

specifically no alternative funding sources (GMCA, 2011). The dichotomy that Bristol

struggled with, for example, is the issue of introducing a c-charge before there is a viable

public transport alternative (Symons, 2003c). In practice, funding through c-charging has

proven not to be a realistic option and other funding options are very limited.

The issue of funding sources and cost escalation are compounded by a further factor in the

government appraisal process. In the six years to 2004, there had been five major changes

to the governmental appraisal process and requirements, making it difficult for a promoter

to know the form and content of a business case to meet the DfT’s requirements. The

Merseytram business case took 18 months to approve due to evaluating cost-benefit issues;

hence the DfT considered this an incomplete submission from the outset. In 2007, the DfT

reinforced the message to the light rail industry at a forum in Manchester, saying that

incomplete or ‘weak’ submissions would not be considered by government (Anon., 2007c).

The issue of planning timescales were also scrutinised in the NAO report (NAO, 2004). A

summary table of the planning timescales presented a useful overview of the DfTs

response times to an approval application, i.e. the time to make a decision on the approval

of an application. Some notable examples are provided in Table 2-4.

84
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

Table 2-4 DfT Decision Timescales (Adapted from NAO, 2004)

Application Total Time


Scheme / Application Application - Decision
Date
(Months)
Manchester Metrolink Airport Extension Aug’ 1994 28
Manchester Metrolink Trafford Park Jan’ 1998 37
Tyne & Wear Sunderland Extension May 1997 19
South Hants Rapid Transit (SHRT) Mar’ 1998 38
DLR Woolwich Arsenal Extension May 2002 21

Note that, with the exception of the SHRT scheme, these examples are for extensions to

existing schemes where one would expect less resistance to a planning application than for

a new scheme. The typical DfT decision time of 2-3 years would incur inflationary cost

increases. For example for the 3 years from the start 2000 to the end of 2002, the rail cost

indices provided by Franklin and Andrews grew by 13.2% (F&A, 2007a).

2.9. Funding Public Transport Systems and Risk Management

The failure to deliver Leeds, SHRT and Merseytram has been discussed above, and other

systems have also been briefly reviewed. The obvious issues with these schemes appeared

to be matters of funding, which the NAO noted as a key issue. Across the schemes, the

need for additional funding was for inflationary costs, inaccurate or incomplete initial

estimates (upon which funding may have been approved) or changes in scope following

governmental approval.

Overall, the NAO report considered that light rail was thought to be too costly compared to

other options (e.g. buses) and that local funding for light rail systems was difficult to

secure as the benefit, which would motivate local funding, were difficult to demonstrate or

model.

85
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

In the UK context, in the last decade, light rail has become increasingly unaffordable.

McIntosh (2003) presented the arguments about dimensions of affordability and how the

different parties involved in developing, building and running a transit system have

differing financial motivations:

• The promoter has to satisfy transport plan and wider governmental objectives, “we

thought we were building a tramway, not regenerating a city”

• The Concessionaire aspires to a good return for all stakeholders

• Any investors will be looking to secure financial reward

These financial requirements need to be met for a UK scheme, and with a variety of factors

pushing up costs, light rail in the UK has become too risky and costly an option.

However, among the UK schemes, Nottingham’s NET tram stands out as having managed

the finances and risks well. As seen earlier the NET tram was implemented on a PFI basis.

There were three key aspects that mitigated risk and limited the concessionaire to the

problems of cost escalation or revenue decrease (Perin, 2003):

• The construction risk was exported to the turnkey consortium on a fixed price

contract

• The passenger revenue was limited to 25% of income where 75% would come from

the Promoter (based upon service performance)

• The operator took on the risk for performance standards with penalties for under-

achievement

The NET system was constructed and whilst it was late and had a cost overspend in the

region of £20m (completion cost was around £200m), the system has been considered

sufficiently successful to warrant extension plans that by mid-2010 were at the stage that

86
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

the tenders for construction being under review with a potential to start construction in

2011 (Nottingham CC, 2011). Compare this scenario with the events in Edinburgh where

construction risk has apparently not been adequately managed. The inability to mitigate the

risk associated with utility diversions in Edinburgh has meant cost overruns and put overall

completion at risk, let alone planned completion timescales. Service diversions were near

to completion (97% in February 2011) but it is not known when trams will run (Audit

Scotland, 2011), who ‘make sure organisations that spend public money in Scotland use it

properly, efficiently and effectively’.

The diagram shown in Figure 2-8 illustrates the basic NET financial model. The system

build costs were fixed and any overruns had to be absorbed by the turnkey contractor. So

whilst the contractor lost money on the contract (Potts, 2008), as is currently the case in

Edinburgh, the extent of overspend and financing strategy ensured that the sponsor was not

exposed to additional cost.

The delivery of light rail in the UK has suffered from issues of delay and cost overruns and

a very carefully designed financial structure is required. NET has appeared to have

employed a successful structure, but this seems an exception rather than the rule.

2.10. Alternative Funding Sources

As considered above, if it is not possible to reduce the cost of light rail schemes, without

adversely affecting the benefit that can be provided and hence still have a business case for

implementation, then the solution would be to find alternative funding, over and above

central government contributions.

87
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

Compared to the UK, many other countries have access to a wider range of funding

options. For example, in May 2009 the French government announced a grants programme

that could see €1bn being invested in light rail schemes as part of an overall €5.6bn

implementation plan. There were 30 schemes across 21 French towns and cities that were

earmarked for implementation by 2014 (Anon., 2009b). It is notable that the government

funding represents only 18% of the capital investment. The ability of the French to develop

light rail schemes in comparatively small towns in contrast to the failure in the UK to

implement schemes in the largest cities has drawn discussion from town planners. Hall

(2011) cites evaluation criteria, political will as well as finance as the reasons why France

has seen a proliferation of light rail schemes being introduced. The evaluation of proposed

systems is not heavily biased toward cost-benefit as in the UK and greater consideration is

given to urban development and regeneration. The political savvy that is exhibited by

French politicians is key; the Lille Mayor was also Prime Minister and perhaps this

explains why an industrial region (akin to Manchester in the UK) has a High Speed Rail

link, diverted from the notional main route, and new tram links. Hall (2011) refers the

‘Versement Transport’ (see 2.12.1) as a “remarkable tax” recognising that this would not

be agreeable to the UK Treasury.

In the UK, the traditional sources of funding are inadequate (Enoch et al, 2005). Whilst

loans can be used there needs to be a revenue stream to service the loan interest and capital

repayment. One solution could be to increase the fares for the transport system, but this can

reduce patronage and revenue (Enoch et al, 2005). However, higher fares coupled with a

further disincentive to car users, through the c-charge, could have an overall positive

revenue effect. In practice, raising fares alone seems viable, but not introducing charges on

car users.

88
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

The report ‘Fair and Efficient Pricing in Transport –The Role of Taxes and Charges’

(Branden, 2000) provides a review of funding mechanisms. In all, 17 forms of taxation and

charging were identified which were grouped into nine categories. Briefly these were:

2.10.1. Employer, Employee and Local Income Taxes

Can be national or local taxes that are earmarked for transport systems, the best known

example is ‘Versement Transport’ in France. In Lyon, for example, funding has been

raised through Versement Transport which in 2008 raised €230m (Plisner, 2009). Other

examples include payroll taxation in Oregon used to generate over 50% of the transport

systems budget.

2.10.2. Property Taxes

As property value increases through good transport links this is subjected to ‘value

capturing’ – an earmarked tax on the increased property value. A subset of this is the tax

on those in walking distance of a transport facility (Benefit Assessment Districts). For

example this funds 40% of the local metro’s operating budget in Minneapolis (Enoch et al,

2005). More recently, in the UK, the Crossrail project is to be part funded by a business

rate supplement introduced by the Greater London Authority. It is anticipated that this will

raise £4.1bn (Gannon, 2010).

2.10.3. Development Levies

This is potentially the most common unconventional funding mechanism in use. Enoch et

al (2005) considered the wider aspects of transport funding through property taxes, values

and development levies in the cases of compulsory, voluntary and land endowment

mechanisms. In Hong Kong, when the Mass Transit Railway is developing new lines, the

89
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

development opportunities are sought at the outset as a key part of planning the overall

metro system (Enoch et al, 2005).

2.10.4. Parking Levies

Whilst car-parking charging is commonplace, the use of this revenue to fund public

transport is not. This mechanism provides the means to demand-manage road traffic levels

and also environmental planning by providing a disincentive to car use. This funding

stream is being employed to fund the NET extension as discussed in 2.3.3.

2.10.5. Roadspace Charging

As far back as the late 17th Century the concept of road charging has existed with many

US roads built as toll roads. Road charging is subtly different from congestion charging

where the former is based upon beneficiary pays and the latter more concerned effectively

with the polluter paying the cost of congestion.

2.10.6. Local Motoring Taxes

This is a relatively common form of levy in the US at state level (for example–

Washington and Florida) which is based upon local additions to fuel taxation and road fund

licence taxation. This is considered to be a relatively fair tax as for the most part, the

beneficiary pays.

2.10.7. Cross-utility Financing

This means of funding is quite literal – the funding of transport schemes from, say,

subsidies from electricity power sales or, as in Wuppertal in Germany the public utility

company that is responsible for public transport, gas, water and electricity supplies.

90
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

2.10.8. Consumption Taxes

The use of consumption tax has potential wide-ranging applications including Beer Tax

(Alabama, US), gambling (Pennsylvania, US) or general local sales taxes (Reno, US).

2.10.9. Other Unconventional Charges

The collection of charges that essentially do not fit elsewhere but do not warrant their own

category include a surcharge on student fees at the University of California and a surcharge

on air fares from JFK Airport to fund a new rail link.

In a development of this work, Ubbels and Nijkamp (2002) subsequently discussed the

nine ‘unconventional’ funding mechanism categories above and provided a systematic

assessment of these. This paper uses the Oscar Faber case-studies as part of the assessment.

Ubbels and Nijkamp employed a ‘categorical data matrix’ to record qualitative data on 11

attributes (e.g. complexity, flexibility, ambition, ‘linked to transport policy’ etc) of the

funding mechanisms to determine which of the attributes critical success factors for the

transport funding proposal were. The results indicated that of the four UK case studies

analysed that Cambridge road user charging and Milton Keynes parking charges presented

‘unknown outcomes’, London Airports parking charges was ‘moderately successful’ and

Birmingham ‘consumption taxes’ were very successful. This is not conclusive in UK terms

where for example in the US, the case study results (listed in Table 2-5) show that 8 US

locations successfully implemented alternative funding mechanisms, a further 10 were

moderately successful and only Aspen resulted a potentially unsuccessful scheme.

91
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

Table 2-5 Funding Mechanism Case Studies from the US


Adapted from Ubbels and Nijkamp (2002)

Location Mechanism Outcome


Arizona Consumption Taxes Moderately Successful
Aspen Parking Charges Hardly a Success/Not Successful
Atlanta Consumption Taxes Successful
Austin Consumption Taxes Successful
Berkeley Consumption Taxes Successful
Florida Consumption Taxes Successful
Forth Worth Consumption Taxes Successful
JFK airport Other Moderately Successful
Los Angeles Property related Moderately Successful
Pennsylvania Consumption Taxes Moderately Successful
Portland Employer taxes Moderately Successful
Pullman, Washington Cross-utility Moderately Successful
Reno Consumption Taxes Successful
San Diego Road user charges Successful
San Francisco Development levy Moderately Successful
San Francisco Road user charges Moderately Successful
San Francisco Property related Moderately Successful
Vancouver Property related Moderately Successful
Washington State Local motor taxes Successful

So, whilst unconventional means of funding could be employed and the NET tram project

provided an example of how financial risk can be managed and mitigated, it appears that

the UK is unable or unwilling to engage alternative funding methods. Manchester Metro

extensions failed to implement c-charging following a referendum, i.e. failing the ‘public

acceptability’ attribute (Ubbels and Nijkamp, 2002). In many cases, such funding

mechanisms are simply unavailable in the UK.

92
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

2.11. Key Issues Arising

There are a number of issues that have affected the ability to build light rail systems in the

UK. Light rail is expensive and this has been compounded with cost escalation in the case

studies discussed in this chapter. To overcome the problems associated with high initial

costs and to manage subsequent cost increases a robust and flexible financing arrangement

needs to be put in place. Funding of light rail in the UK appears to rely on conventional

methods with only the Nottingham Tram extension being able to resort to a new, but

delayed, parking levy to raise cash. It is arguable that Nottingham has only been able to use

this funding mechanism for the extension scheme now that the success of the original

system has been demonstrated and perhaps would not have been successful if trying to

fund the initial route by unconventional funding means. Whilst it appears that it is easier to

finance extensions to UK light rail systems (Birmingham and Manchester in addition to

Nottingham being planned) these have not been able to secure alternative funding despite

the efforts in Manchester to implement a c-charging scheme. Conversely, overseas systems

appear to have wider sources of funding and accordingly a lesser requirement on central

government funding.

To overcome the issues of the initial high costs and risks associated with cost escalation,

particularly with service diversions, consideration could be given to phased

implementation. A conventional light rail system is highly specified and relies on large

infrastructure investment in the vehicles, permanent way and power systems. The use of a

high-technology bus vehicle on a guided or busway system has the potential to be an

intermediary system. If bus-based systems are to be used in lieu of and potentially as a

fore-runner to light rail with subsequent, incremental development, this raises the question

of what aspects of bus-based and light rail systems need to be assessed to compare the

two?

93
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review

Key issues arising from the discussions in the thesis have been that transport systems are

required to address the problems of congestion and need to be cost effective. The

environmental impact of congestion provides the rationale for developing such transport

systems. Hence, the comparison between light rail and guided-bus systems needs to

consider aspects of cost and environmental performance.

Can a bus-based alternative provide similar costs and environmental performance to light

rail? In what way does a bus-based system provide a more flexible and phased transport

system?

94
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

3 Transport System Definition

The need to address the issue of congestion for the benefit to the UK economy and the

environment is not disputed, as is argued by Eddington and Stern. In the previous section

the issues associated with developing light rail and bus-based systems in the UK were

discussed. In the UK, the initial high cost of light rail has proven to be prohibitive for

development, and both light rail and bus-based systems appear to be subject to cost-

escalation problems. The preference for light rail, with its potential for good modal

transfer, no appears longer credible and an alternative needs to be found to ‘Grand Projets’

(Eddington, 2006). The alternative needs to provide the opportunity for modal transfer

where this may be lacking with conventional bus services, but at a cost appropriate to the

funding mechanisms used in the UK.

Assuming that a conventional bus service will not provide sufficient motivation to generate

mode transfer away from private car use, is it possible to develop a bus-based system to be

considered a viable alternative? But what constitutes a viable alternative? A means of

determining equivalence to light rail needs to be conceived in order that systems can be

proposed and compared.

3.1 Technology Developments in Public Transport outside of the UK

The UK has a relatively poor track record for implementing even the most basic and

conventional higher performance bus systems, yet in mainland Europe and the USA,

transport systems have been the subject of technological innovation and development

leading to full implementation. Some of these are considered here to provide a review of

the technology and designs now available. This then leads to a consideration of the how the

characteristics of various systems can be analysed in a definitional framework.

95
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

3.2 Bus Vehicle and Technology Developments

As discussed in the previous chapter the development of bus-based systems in the UK has

been limited. Guidance systems in the UK, where they are employed, are limited to kerb-

guidance using a small ancillary wheel as illustrated in Figure 2-11. Alternative means of

guidance have been developed in Europe using magnetic and ‘white-line’ visual guidance,

for example, the systems used on ‘Phileas’ and ‘Civis’ guided-buses are detailed later in

this section.

3.2.1 Alternative Fuel Buses

One key feature of trams is that they are powered by electricity, with no emissions at the

point of use and where there is the potential to utilise renewable or other ‘clean’ electricity.

Matching the environmental performance of trams is thus important for advanced bus

systems. A number of alternative fuel sources have been developed for buses. The Energy

Saving Trust produced ‘The Route to Cleaner Buses - A guide to operating cleaner, low

carbon buses’ in 2003. This provides a summary review of alternative fuels which has been

adapted and presented below (Energy Saving Trust, 2003):

• Water Emulsion Diesel - Lower emissions of NOx and particulate matter, possible
CO2 benefits from improved fuel consumption, no modifications needed to engine.
• Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) - Low CO2 emissions, similar to diesel; generally
low levels of other pollutants; low levels of engine noise; low fuel duty compared
with diesel.
• Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) - Low CO2 emissions, similar to diesel; generally
low levels of other pollutants; low levels of engine noise; low fuel duty compared
with diesel. Vehicles widely available in Europe.
• Battery Electric Vehicles - Zero emissions at point of use; extremely cheap fuel;
silent operation
• Biodiesel (blended with ULSD – ultra low sulphur diesel) - Lower CO2 emissions
on a ‘life-cycle’ basis plus a reduction in particulate matter and hydrocarbons;
driving experience very similar to diesel vehicle; no modifications needed to the
engine; lower fuel duty for the biodiesel component compared with diesel.

96
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

The combination of a two or more fuel sources used to power a vehicle can be referred to

as a ‘hybrid’ vehicle. Hybrid buses have been developed in three typical configurations

(Tbus, 2011):

• Diesel-electric – combustion engine with an electrical generator and electric motor

final drives. The engine can be fuelled by LPG, bio-gas or other diesel alternatives.

• Hybrid – as the diesel-electric versions with a combustion engine with electrical

generator and also batteries.

• Duobus – as diesel-electric but with overhead power supplies and connections to

provide a trolley-bus vehicle.

There have been some developments in bus drive technology in the UK some of which

have been exported to the US. The Streetcar ftr vehicle, discussed in chapter 2, has been

rebranded as the Streetcar RTV (Rapid Transit Vehicle) for use in Las Vegas. The RTV

has a hybrid engine with electrical final drive but no guidance system and is the first hybrid

configuration of its type in the US (Wright Group, 2010). The RTV is shown in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-1 Las Vegas Firstbus Streetcar RTV (Source: Rapid Transit Press, 2010)

97
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

Beyond the conventional hybrid types, a cooperative including Skoda and Proton have

developed a triple-hybrid bus that does not have a combustion engine at all. The three

power modes are fuel cell, battery and ultra-capacitors (Sharpe, 2009). The vehicle

otherwise takes the form of a standard 12m bus and has a range of 250km between

hydrogen refuelling of the fuel cell. As with electricity, emissions depend on how the

hydrogen is manufactured.

3.2.2 Trolley-Buses

The use of alternative fuels and fuel sources has been used on buses for many years in the

case of trolley-buses. A trolley-bus has overhead wire connections similar to conventional

light rail but with a positive and negative connection to the roof-mounted pantograph (on

conventional trams, negative current is returned by the steel wheels and rails to the power

source). The trolleybus was first tried by von Siemens in 1882 in Berlin and trolleybuses

were in wide use in the UK, with the last system in Bradford closing in 1972.

Figure 3-2 The first Trolley-bus (1882) Figure 3-3 UK Trolley-bus in 1959
(Source: Barry, 2010) (Source: Valentine, 2009)

There are now many trolleybus systems in use worldwide in Asia and Oceania, Europe,

North and South America. Since 2000 alone, 5352 trolley-buses have been ordered (Bruce,

2009). The trolleybuses is set to return to the UK with the confirmation that Leeds will

receive government funding of £235m toward the £254m cost a trolley-bus system

98
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

(Hookham, 2010). It appears that modern trollybuses could well have the potential to

provide near tram performance in terms of passenger attractiveness and clean operations,

but with a significant saving on capital costs. This is demonstrated by some modern

trolley-bus systems, including an example in use in Lyon called the Cristalis vehicle

supplied by Irisbus, who are also the supplier of the Civis guided-bus. The Cristalis uses

white-line guidance, as illustrated in Figure 3-4. This ensures precision stopping of the

trolley bus to permit step free access.

Figure 3-4 The Cristalis vehicle in use as a trolley bus in Bologna, Italy (Source: Irisbus,

2010). Note the white lines used by the vehicle for guidance and the detector mounted

centrally above the vehicle driver’s cab. For further details see data from the US Federal

Transit Administration (FTA, 2004).

3.2.3 New Guidance Systems – Civis and Phileas Buses

Other developments that have seen varied success include the Civis and Phileas buses.

These vehicles were developed with non-mechanical guidance systems, i.e. a move away

from kerb guidance.

99
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

The Civis concept was originally developed for Rouen in France where light rail vehicles

would be unable to negotiate steep gradients in the town. The Matra and Irisbus joint

venture was launched in 2001, two years after the decision was taken to develop the

optically-guided solution (Matra, 2001). Further, key reasons cited for adopting the bus-

based system were that the passenger demand for the system would be unable to justify the

cost of a light rail system but would be greater than could be delivered by a conventional

bus scheme (TRB, 2003b). A further Civis-based system was implemented in Las Vegas in

2004, in only two years from the initial application for federal funding (FTA, 2005). The

use of the Civis vehicle, an import from Europe, appeared to introduce the concept of Bus

Rapid Transit to the US. The speed of implementation is particularly of note.

Along with the 2004 Las Vegas scheme, further systems based upon the Civis or sister

model the Cristalis have been delivered in Lyon, Milan, Clermont-Ferrand, Rouen,

Limoges and St Etienne. It is interesting to note that despite already having a service

operated by Civis guided-buses, Las Vegas has recently introduced the Wrightbus RTV

unguided vehicle (Figure 3-1).

Figure 3-5 Civis Bus operating in Las Vegas (Source: FTA, 2005)

100
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

3.2.4 Phileas

Early in this research project the development of the Phileas vehicle was identified as

representing a radical guided bus development, initially through a presentation made by

C.Brader at the ‘Buses 2020’ conference in January 2005 (Brader, 2005). As part of this

research, an interview was conducted with Brader, a visit to the system in Eindhoven and

an e-mail ‘interview’ with a representative of APTS (Advanced Passenger Transport

Systems) – the developer of Phileas (Klostermann, 2006).

In summer 2006 the Phileas system in Eindhoven was visited as part of this study. The

objective of the visit was to travel on a Phileas bus and see the associated infrastructure to

gain first-hand experience of the vehicle to get the passenger’s perspective.

The Phileas routes in Eindhoven begin from the town’s rail station which is a local

transport hub with the main bus station co-located with the rail station from where the

main bus routes radiate (see Figure 3-6). There is also ample bicycle parking and taxi

facilities.

A journey was made on a conventional bus from the rail station to the Eindhoven airport –

this route being one of two routes (401 and 402, illustrated in the map shown in figure 3-6)

operated at the time by the Phileas vehicle. There were some notable aspects of the

infrastructure and operational characteristics. At one point during the journey whilst the

bus was stationary at a stop, a following service on a different route was able to overtake

safely.

101
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

Figure 3-6 Bus Routes in Eindhoven (Adapted from Hermes 2006)

The route provided some prioritised running for the bus services. There were extensive

sections of the route that were segregated and through one area this provided a cross-

section of transport systems as illustrated in Figure 3-7. There was a section of the route

that was elevated and appeared to represent a significant investment in the infrastructure as

this was purpose-built for the bus route to the airport through a business park under

development. Along the majority of the route there were lamp posts that were closely and

regularly spaced and these appeared to be heavy duty. The posts could potentially be used

to support overhead catenary and associated electrification infrastructure should this be a

future requirement.

102
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

Figure 3-7 Cross-section of the Eindhoven transport corridor (Source: Hodgson, 2007)

From left to right the systems are heavy rail, bicycle lane, single direction road lane,

segregated bus lanes, single direction road lane, bicycle lane and finally a footpath.

Figure 3-9 Segregated bus route in


Figure 3-8 Transport routes in Eindhoven Eindhoven. Note the lamp posts that appear
as illustrated in Figure 3-7 heavy duty and could potentially support
(Source: Hodgson 2006) overhead line electrification equipment
(source: Hodgson, 2006)

The stops were equipped with real-time information signs, modern-styled shelters, CCTV

and signs more usually associated with tram or train stations. The Flightforum stop is

illustrated in Figure 3-10. This illustrates the slightly raised platform area that ensures step-

free access when a Phileas vehicle uses the stop. The glass telephone-kiosk styled structure

to the right of the photograph of the Flightforum stop is actually a lift down the road level

below – the route is elevated at this point. This infrastructure provision for a bus system

appears to represent a significant investment.

103
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

Figure 3-10 The Route 401 Flightforum Stop (Source: Hodgson, 2006)

The segregated route from the rail station to the airport runs past the town football stadium

(PSV Eindhoven - the Dutch national side were due to play there the evening of the study

visit) and this section is illustrated with a Phileas vehicle en-route to the town centre in

Figure 3-11.

Figure 3-11 A Phileas Vehicle at the Eindhoven Stadium (Source: Potter, 2006)

104
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

It is evident that a significant investment had been made in the infrastructure and vehicle in

Eindhoven. For the most part this has resulted in a high-quality system that is comparable

in ride experience, say, to the Nottingham Tram service also experienced by the author.

The ride on the Phileas vehicle was fast, in terms of overall speed and acceleration; the

interior space was light and airy, bright and appeared modern and functional.

The interview conducted by e-mail with Klostermann (2006) of APTS revealed some

interesting details regarding the development of the system. For example, the original

requirement for a transit system was established as long ago as 1992 by the local authority

(Eindhoven) and whilst the Bombardier GLT vehicle was first considered, a contract was

awarded to APTS in 1999. The time from the initial realisation of the need for a transit

system to contract placement was seven years and a further 5 years to 2004 years before

the system was operational with a demonstrational system (Jansen, 2008).

The interview specifically asked about the guidance system used on the vehicle and why

this was selected over white-line guidance, for example. At the time there were teething

problems with the system, apparently linked to failings with the guidance system. The

question raised was, “What was the key factor to select magnetic, say, over optical (white-

line) guidance?” The response was unequivocal in substantiating ‘odometric guidance’:

“It’s a totally different principle with much more robustness. We don’t use sensors to

“follow a line” which is marked in the infrastructure. This is like driving a blinded car

manually, with just a small window in the bottom of the car to follow a white line!! This is

possible as long as the curvature or the speed is limited. With a combination of high speeds

and tight curves you will loose [sic] the white line and not be able to recover! The Phileas

vehicle calculates its actual path independently of the infrastructure, using internal sensors

like gyroscopes and wheel encoders. It compares this path with the pre-programmed route

and corrects its course if necessary. This principle is called “odometry”. Because with this

105
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

method you have cumulative errors, we use additional sensors to detect magnets in the

road surface, of which the coordinates are known exactly. This info is used to correct the

odometric calculations. If the sensors don’t see any magnets for some time (for example

because the driver wants to drive around an obstacle) the Phileas still knows its position on

the basis of the odometric navigation.”

The key issue appears to be that in order to have a high running speed in combination with

curvature in the route, i.e. to achieve light rail running speeds, then white line guidance is

not preferred.

From the perspective of the passenger, the Phileas vehicle and to some degree the

infrastructure does have the look and feel of a tram system. The bright, airy and fast

vehicle was complemented with the style and technology of the stops and the elevated

section, guided-running, junction priority and lighting columns suggested a system of

greater permanence that a regular bus service.

The Phileas hybrid engine and drive technology means the vehicles are more

environmentally sound than a conventional diesel bus, a considered advantage of light rail

(zero emissions at point of use) and the attainable acceleration is easily a match for light

rail. Other characteristics appear comparable to light rail – the width and throw of the

vehicle and the build of the stops, by example. The guidance technology can provide a

high quality ride-experience and interfaces to the stops, very much in the guise of light rail

as if working on fixed running rails. The vehicle can be integrated in to the existing

highways network and could support an upgrade to overhead wires, running rails or both.

A more thorough review of the Phileas system can be found in ‘Beyond the Guided-Bus?’

(Hodgson, 2007).

106
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

3.2.5 Trams with Tyres

There are two systems that have been developed that appear to form a hybrid of bus and

light rail. The Translohr and Bombardier TVR (Transport sur Voie Réservée) systems have

rubber tyres and no running rails but have an overhead power supply like a tram or trolley-

bus. There is guidance however with the provision of a central, subsurface guiding rail.

Translohr has been labelled as the ‘Tram on Tires” – by the manufacturer, Lohr - and is

now in use in 6 locations in China and Europe (Translohr, 2007). The vehicle has a tram-

like appearance, as illustrated in Figure 3-12. Note the absence of running rails (just the

single guidance ‘slot’, see Figure 3-13) and the lack overhead wires as this section runs

across a historical city square and to be unobtrusive an on-board ‘traction pack’ power

supply is used.

Figure 3-12 Translohr System in Padova, Italy. (Source: Translohr, 2007)

Figure 3-13 Translohr guide rail and vehicle-mounted guidance wheels

107
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

The TVR system is used in Caen and Nancy and is similar to Translohr as it has overhead

power, rubber tyres and a single centrally located guidance rail. The Caen TVR system was

beset with problems and there were two accidents associated with a failure in the vehicle

early in the operating period which resulted in a lack of confidence in the system and a

reduction in running speed (that made it slower than the equivalent bus service).

3.3 Light Rail Vehicle Developments

As described above there have been and continue to be, developments in bus vehicle

technology. The relatively mature technology used in light rail vehicles has been subject to

some development also. This has typically been in response to particular system

requirements, where operation without an overhead wire was necessary, for example in

Bordeaux. Some of the developments are considered here.

3.3.1 Bordeaux Tram - Alimentation par sol (APS)

The commissioning of the Bordeaux tram in December 2003 represented a technological

breakthrough for light rail. The system was the first to employ a new style third rail power

supply system (‘Alimentation par sol’ – APS) located between the running rails in

locations where a overhead wire system was deemed unacceptable. A digital-radio

switching system ensures that the third rail only becomes live when a tram is directly

overhead. The vehicle effectively shields any electrically-live parts from any pedestrians

who can otherwise stand directly on the third rail when there is no tram present. This is a

re-invention of ‘stud’ technology used on tram systems in the UK, for example up to the

1920s and in Bordeaux until the 1950s (Jackson, 2004). The stud system comprised of a

cable that ran beneath the centre of the tracks with a metal stud approximately every 1.5

metres pushed down against a spring to make contact with the cable and hence provide

energy to the collection shoe under the tram. There were problems with the system

however where studs remained dead under the tram creating a ‘jerky’ movement or

108
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

remained live after the tram had passed with the obvious hazard to pedestrians and

particularly metal-shod horses (serec, 2008)

The requirement for the tram to run without wires was at the insistence of the French

Minister of culture who wanted to protect the historic facades of the city (Wansbeek,

2004). However, the system is approximately four times more expensive that conventional

overhead systems.

The Bordeaux system has since been extended and in early June 2009 the system had run-

up 6 million km of operation. Other locations that have used APS include Angers, Reims

and Orléans. The first implementation outside France was the Al Safooh system in Dubai.

(Barrow, 2009)

3.3.2 Contactless Light Rail Systems

Further innovation in the traction power systems has led to the development of a contact-

less system that is also mounted between the running rails. This system is designed such

that a street-buried cable acts as a primary coil on a transformer and through magnetic

induction, a coil on the tram vehicle acts as a secondary winding and converts the magnetic

induction to electricity that can then be used for traction power (Anon., 2009). This system

is called ‘Primove’ and has been developed by Bombardier in Germany. Another system

uses the charge-capacity of ‘ultra-capacitors’, this has been pioneered by CAF in Spain

(Anon., 2009), Ansaldo has developed its own ground-based power supply called

Tramwave (Barrow, 2009) which is similar in principle to the APS system.

109
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

3.3.3 Energy-storage Systems

Recent developments in energy–storage systems, mean high-capacity, smaller sized

batteries have enabled light rail vehicles to have battery systems for short on-street sections

where overhead wires are not practicable and the costs associated with ground-based

power is not justifiable. In November 2007, Nice became the first French city to use

battery power where the route runs across historic squares in the city centre. (Barrow,

2009) Siemens have developed a hybrid energy storage system which combines capacitors,

batteries and regenerative braking to power the vehicle through non-overhead wire areas

(Barrow, 2009).

3.4 Impacts of the New Technology on Definitional Clarity

As can be seen from this review of systems, there has been an increase in the diversity of

urban transit systems. However there appears to be a focus on certain characteristics, in

particular, alternative transit modes seek to imitate the performance characteristics of a

higher cost mode but in a more economical way (e.g. guided bus imitating trams, and light

rail imitating metro systems). Figure 3-14 illustrates the relative positions of cost and

performance of various public transport modes. The positioning is indicative, with the cost

dimension being that of infrastructure and vehicles for the system and performance an

amalgam of the speed, comfort, capacity and network density of each system.

The arrows in Figure 3-14 show potential development routes for systems although these

operations can co-exist, e.g. light rail can have complementary (or competitive)

relationship to bus services. Typically, as performance requirements increase, so does cost.

To overcome financial and funding constraints, transit modes are attempting to move into

the markets traditionally served by more complex modes by imitating their operating

characteristics. For example, some trolley-bus and guided-bus applications are imitating

110
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

light rail; there are also tram-train developments, with the use of light rail vehicles on

heavy rail or metro networks interfacing with ‘conventional’ light rail operation.

Figure 3-14 Cost-Performance Relationship for Transit Modes

Examples of tram-train systems include in the Netherlands between Rijn and Gouwe and in

Karlsruhe in Germany as illustrated in Figure 3-15. Such a system was due to be trialled

from 2010 on the Penistone line to Sheffield in the UK although this does not now appear

to subject to development but a similar scheme linking Sheffield to Rotherham, as an

extension to the Sheffield Supertram network, is to have a business case study undertaken

(Silvester, 2011).

111
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

Figure 3-15 Light and Heavy Rail Vehicles using the same track in Ersingen circa 1994

(Source: citytransport.info, 2006)

The discussion in the thesis has been centred on light rail not being financially viable in the

UK and the need to find an alternative, so with the development of new systems it is

important to consider what constitutes an alternative. Prior to considering alternatives, it is

first necessary to define what light rail, bus and other modes are within the general

typology of light rapid transit. This will then set the foundation for a detailed comparative

study.

3.5 Differentiation between Light Rapid Transit System Modes

It is the area of Light Rapid Transit that this issue of blurred boundaries is now coming to

the fore. According to the Light Rapid Transit Association, light rail is perceived to be

clean, environmentally-friendly, modern, fast, efficient, safe and secure with state-of-the-

art ‘stops’ (LRTA, 2003) – in fact everything that many commuters feel the stereotypical

bus is not. Developments in bus vehicle and system technology have been focussed on

making conventional buses look and feel more like light rail systems on the basis that light

rail is a ‘preferred’ mode. For example, internal modifications are made to the vehicles to

make them more akin to a light rail vehicle (LRV) which includes seating arrangements,

decals, passenger info and low floor configuration.

112
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

Externally, wheels tend to be covered to give the impression of an LRV (as in the First

Group ftr vehicle). Bus propulsion systems are also moving away from the conventional

diesel internal combustion engine, albeit slowly. Alternative fuels and hybrid engines are

now in use, as well as the use of overhead electrification with a resurgence of the

trolleybus. Fuel cell-powered buses have been trialled in nine EU cities under the CUTE

programme - Clean Urban Transport for Europe - (European Commission, 2004). This is a

development that could render overhead electrification unnecessary. As noted above in the

Phileas and Civis cases, some of these new bus-based systems also include automated

guidance systems which could provide equivalence to an LRV’s rails (FTA, 2004).

Configuration and capacity of buses is changing to provide a look and feel of an LRV – the

articulated bus was probably not intentionally made to look like an articulated LRV but

this configuration has been exploited to take an LRV-stylised form. The photograph of the

ftr vehicle shown in operation in Leeds, in Figure 3-16 illustrates this point. Compare the

ftr in Figure 3-16 to the Las Vegas version, operating as ‘RTV’, illustrated in Figure 3-1.

Figure 3-16 The FirstBus ftr vehicle in service in Leeds – note there is no complementary

infrastructure for the bus but there is a kerb-separated cycle-lane.

113
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

The discussion in the BRTuk Handbook about the ftr (BRTuk, 2010) focuses wholly on the

vehicle with no mention of infrastructure measures. The definition of the vehicle is

confused however with the general manager of the operation noting, “I’d say it is like a

train on tyres” (BRTuk, 2010). He goes on to state that every aspect of the system is

“designed to operate like a light rail system”; but there is no reference to how this is

achieved with the infrastructure. Only the vehicle characteristics (a slanted windscreen,

large windows, low floor as part of a sleek modern design) are mentioned.

A key difference between bus and light rail operations, outside of vehicle concerns, is that

of the infrastructure, particularly the use of a dedicated or prioritised right of way. In

seeking to emulate light rail, bus-based systems have sought the permanence offered by

light rail; for example in route prioritisation, reserved running, guidance systems and

prioritised signalling at junctions. In some systems, bus stops are becoming more like

stations and other facilities have been updated, again modern decals are important. Figure

3-17 illustrates a stop on a trolley-bus system in Quito, Ecuador showing infrastructure

normally associated with light rail: it has segregated lanes and segregated, raised platform

access where passengers pay prior to boarding the bus (Transport Alternatives, 2004).

Many bus systems now include the provision of real-time passenger information displays,

raised kerb stops and the design of shelters and ticket machines. These have aided the

perception that the bus service is about permanence and a system does not need to have

steel running rails to ascribe to this. Individually the developments would still leave the

look and feel of a conventional bus, but overall the sum total of these design considerations

begins to make buses more light rail-like.

114
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

Figure 3-17 Two views of a ‘bus-stop’ in Quito, Ecuador. Note that passenger access is via

a ticket barrier, functionality more commonly associated with metro or rail operations and

the vehicles are operating on a dedicated bus-way. (Source: Potter, 2004)

The convergence or overlapping of the performance of transit systems raises a key issue

for transport planners trying to evaluate what sort of transit system might be appropriate in

particular situations. If alternatives are to be evaluated, then they need to be defined as an

equivalent. In other words, when does a bus-based system become equivalent to a tram?

There are a number of authors that have sought to define transit systems or have implied

certain specific definitions. These existing definitions are considered in the following

section.

3.6 Current Definitions of Transit Systems

To classify transit systems it is necessary to understand performance and cost

characteristics of the different modes to match them to local conditions. Furthermore,

classification will provide an understanding of the regulatory basis and safety regimes for

system implementation and operation.

115
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

3.7 Characteristics that define Transit Modes

Vuchic (1999) defines characteristics of ‘urban transit systems’, of which light rapid transit

is a component. Vuchic recognises that classification based upon vehicle and technology is

insufficient given the developments in transit modes – including in ‘light rail transit’ and

bus transit systems (BTS). He therefore uses three defining criteria: Right of Way (ROW),

technology (infrastructure and vehicle) and type of operation. Three ROW categories are

defined as:

• Category A Fully separated for use by rail vehicles only. These are higher cost

systems, due to separated tunnels, bridges, and stations and with

appropriate guidance. Will generally offer high capacity and speed.

• Category B Partial separation – potentially using kerbs. Crossings are ‘at-grade’

with signal control and suitable for light rail and BTS with buses on

transit-ways that exclude other vehicles.

• Category C Low investment street and road running without separation. Suitable for

buses, trolley-buses etc – low performance/cost characteristic

Vuchic notes that performance and cost increases from C through to A, and category A is

stated to be for rail vehicles only. However some practice leads to categorisation problems.

For example, Essen has a bus operated service that uses concrete running-ways set outside

of the steel rails in fully segregated sections (category A) of the light rail system. The light

rail system has grade-separated areas imitating metro system operation. So whilst the

system has been implemented for light rail as category A, this is used for a category C type

vehicle.

The ROW requirements increase from C through to A, producing increased performance in

terms of speed and capacity. This leads to greater technical dependency for operation and

116
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

control, typically in the specification of power supplies, signalled-control and passenger

interface. For example, a category C system using standard technology bus vehicles will be

cheaper in capital investment and running costs offering lower performance (speed and

capacity) compared to a fully signalled, high technology, high capacity metro operating on

a Category A system. The transport planning issue is whether the higher capital costs can

be justified, or if a lower cost system can provide an adequate performance.

3.8 Light Rail Definitions

A key work in the field of rapid transit is ‘Bus or Light Rail: Making the Right Choice’

(Hass-Klau et al, 2003), which seeks to differentiate between different transit modes,

analysing the benefits and disadvantages of each type. In order to do this there is a pre-

requisite to define the transit modes being compared and early in the report definitions are

presented. Initially, the definitions cover only light rail, busway and guided-busway. A

further, more detailed, review is later provided that infers a hierarchy from urban surface or

underground rail to light rail and tram and ‘traditional’ bus options.

In addition to issues of definition, there is a problem of inconsistent use of terms. A

common (UK) theme in defining light rail is the tendency to label fully-segregated systems

as ‘light rail’, whereas definitional systems, such as those provided by Vuchic and Hass-

Klau et al, define these as metro systems. The National Audit Office (NAO, 2004) refers to

Docklands Light Rail (DLR) and the Tyne and Wear Metro (T&WM) as light rail systems.

This is a view consistent with the LRTA, Taplin (1995) and Barry (1991). Barry uses the

term light rail, as it ‘simple and precise’ and is necessary as ‘there is a lot of confusion’.

However, both the DLR and T&WM systems are fully segregated, fully signalled systems

(Vuchic’s Category A). The overall system capacity also indicates metro operation – to

year end 31 March 2006 the T&WM and DLR systems carried 35.8 and 52.0 million

passenger journeys respectively (DfT, 2006). The next highest were the partly-segregated

117
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

Manchester (19.9 million) and Croydon (22.5 million) systems. Notably, the Manchester

system operates over 39km compared to the 30km DLR system (DfT, 2006). In

definitional terms, the DLR and T&WM systems are metros. Another example of

imprecise use of terms is the LRTA report (LRTA, 2003) which refers to the Talent

Bombardier diesel unit as a ‘light rail vehicle’, but heavy rail line operation in Rostock

(Germany) questions this definition. However, in contrast a similar diesel-powered unit

operating in Zwickau, also in Germany, could be considered light rail given that it operates

non-segregated on-street.

The terms ‘Tram’ and ‘Tramway’ is usually applied to a historic system that might be

upgraded to ‘light rail standards’ (Taplin, 1995). Hass-Klau et al (2003) agrees and refers

to a definition of light rail from the European Conference of Ministers of Transport that

provides a route for the staged development of transit systems from (historical, but

modernised) tramway to light rail and furthermore to operations on fully-segregated,

underground or elevated routes. Each stage should permit development to the next. Light

rail and tram are interchangeable (and now ‘technically inseparable’) but distinct from

metro, underground and subway as these are fully segregated and are usually powered

from a third electrified rail, whereas light rail systems are usually overhead electrified.

3.9 Bus System Definitions

Guided-bus is considered an intermediary mode between tram and bus. It can be guided or

running on a separate right of way. Vehicles can be diesel, electric or hybrid powered with

guidance being mechanical, optical or electronic.

Busways (or the US variant, ‘transitways’, or as termed by Vuchic (1999), ‘bus transit

systems’) are reserved running lanes for conventional buses, e.g. ‘Fastrack’ in Kent (Kent

Thameside, 2007). These do not allow other traffic to enter the system and sometimes have

118
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

grade-separated crossings. The simplest ROW ‘C’ system is the bus lane. Here, the

segregation extends only to demarcation with colour-schemes for conventional buses using

the ‘system’ and whilst potentially protected by legislation, there is little to prevent other

road users using the bus lane thereby abusing lane grading (indeed many systems permit

sharing with taxis, cyclists and, in some cases, trucks).

3.9.1 Bus Rapid Transit

The term ‘Bus Rapid Transit’ is used for a range of bus-based systems. The report,

‘Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit for Decision-Making’, (FTA, 2004) sponsored by the

US Department of Transportation, strongly advocates Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). This

report contains some useful and illuminating definitions.

An early definition in the report states that BRT is a ‘flexible, high performance rapid

transit mode’, which although vague gives an overall vision of BRT. The flexibility is

dimensioned by stating that BRT has a variety of ‘physical, operating and system

elements’. The use of the word ‘variety’ provides options for running ways, stations, and

vehicles. ROW can vary from physical separation (guide-way) to differentiation through

colour schemes (i.e. less expensive painted bus lane), tending toward ROW category C.

The FTA (2004) continues to consider BRT attributes, ‘in a permanent integrated system’

and having ‘unique identity’. Permanence and identity seem to be a popular consideration

to why light rail is perceived as more attractive than conventional bus; however, the case

studies presented in the report do not necessarily provide permanence and identity. Some

of the examples given are little more than regular bus systems with bus lane provision.

Others do not even have bus lanes, for example, the ‘Chicago Express’ is a 59km system

operated entirely in mixed flow traffic with no guidance, traffic signal control or running

way marking. In other words it is a regular bus service. Other systems (Oakland, Los

119
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

Angeles) are the same with only one out of the ten systems considered in the report having

guidance (the optically guided Civis Las Vegas system). The similarity to regular bus

systems continues when examining the vehicles. Of the ten systems, eight are powered by

internal combustion engine (seven diesel-fuelled). Only the Civis has an electrical final

drive and all ten are standard, articulated or stylised-standard configuration design being

essentially a modern bus. Few case studies provide evidence of permanence and identity.

The FTA (2004) go on to define a bus shelter with a kerb standing as a ‘station with a

platform’, which perhaps stretches the definition of a station. Other areas considered are

not BRT specific, for example, fare collection, passenger information and operational

management and can equally apply to regular bus systems. In summary the case for BRT,

as a concept separate to bus and hence having different characteristics and permitting clear

definition, is not affirmed by this report. Systems are described as BRT implying a level of

complexity or improvement over a normal bus, but in practice most of the BRT schemes in

this report represent little if any enhancement.

In the UK, the ‘innovation’ already discussed in the thesis is the First Group ‘ftr StreetCar’

concept (Wright Group, 2005 - see Figure 3-16). At the Bus 2020 Conference (Daniels,

2005) the StreetCar was presented as the “future of bus”; in the context of the holistic

system, not merely the vehicle. Although the need for complementary measures for

operator provision were stressed, these were never detailed, although there were hints at

the need for segregation and identity, to give the light rail ideal of permanence.

Furthermore, the synthesised photographs illustrated the vehicle in city centres with no

apparent demarcation or complementary system identification. In the context of the UK’s

privately owned and deregulated bus operating regime, for the StreetCar to generate

revenues to offset higher capital and operating costs, it will probably require exclusivity on

route operations through a Quality Bus Contract.

120
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

Transdev launched a concept in Nantes in 2006 called ‘BusWay’® under the banner of,

“BusWay Commitment: Tram Quality” (Transdev, 2009). This claimed to reinvent bus

transport with the principles that have made tramways successful. The BusWay solution is

considered viable where the ridership cannot be justified for a light rail system with a limit

of 40,000 passengers/day quoted with headways of 6–10 minutes. The BusWay BRT

system is intended to run high-quality, low-floor, hybrid vehicles on dedicated routes for as

much as practicably possible (80% of the route in Nantes) at a fraction of the cost of light

rail (Transdev, 2009). The benefits of buses (cheaper, lightweight and flexible operations)

are combined with the quality and performance of light rail to deliver a green, all-inclusive

mode of rapid transit. The BusWay is considered viable in addition to existing systems,

including, light rail.

3.10 The Need for Clarity

A conclusion of this review is that there are different definitions, meanings and views of

what constitutes different the forms of transit. This confusion has been exacerbated with

the new forms of transit that are trying to look and feel more upmarket. This confusion

cannot be helpful for system promoters, planners and potential users. There is a need for

clarification on definition.

3.11 Applying a Nodal Decision Tree to Light Rapid Transit

For the transport planner and policymaker, a key aspect in considering alternative transit

systems, for example to evaluate what is the most cost-effective, is the concept of relative

performance and equivalence. To provide a definitional framework that presents such an

understanding, a ‘nodal decision-tree’ has been developed as part of this thesis’ research.

121
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

This is designed around three tests for equivalence to conventional light rail, which have

been developed from the literature reviewed in this chapter. The three tests are:

Vehicle Capacity: The capacity of the vehicle, or vehicles operating in multiple for usual

operation, should be greater than 100 but less than 300. This is the range found in light rail

vehicles. System capacity is a function of the number of vehicles, the vehicle capacity and

the operating headway (a function of control system, vehicle acceleration/deceleration and

route dynamics). Typical vehicle capacities are given in Table 3-1. These figures provide

the rationale to the limits determined for equivalence so as to exclude Ultra-light Rail

(ULR) and Metro systems for having insufficient or too high a capacity respectively.

On-Street Running: The system must have a capability for on-street running. One of the

key benefits purported for successful light rail systems is the ability to penetrate the centre

of social, commercial and residential areas for maximised integration.

Vehicle Guidance: The system must have a capability for non-discretionary guidance. A

development in bus technology, in imitating light rail, has been the advent of more

complex non-mechanical guidance. This adds to the feel of permanence associated with

running rails.

Table 3-1 Transit Mode Vehicle Capacities and Equivalence limits

Example System/Vehicle† Capacity‡ Reference

B7TI Double-Deck Bus 90, single vehicle Volvo,2002

Articulated Citaro Bus 160, single vehicle Mercedes Benz,2006

Parry People Mover PPM80 80, single car unit Parry People Movers,2007

Translohr STE4 (32m) 170, single 4 module unit Translohr,2007

Phileas (18m) 103, single articulated vehicle APTS,2006a

122
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

Example System/Vehicle† Capacity‡ Reference

Croydon Tramlink 178, single 2-car unit Kiepe Electrik,2000

Nottingham Express Transit 191, single 5 segment unit NET,2005a

Paris Metro 489, single 4 car train Bombardier,2011

Jubilee Line, London Tube 964, one -Car train TfL,n.d.

† - Built systems only, no concept vehicles have been referred.

‡ - Capacity stated for a standard vehicle configuration (seated and standing to 4/m2).

3.11.1 Design of the Nodal Decision Tree

The three tests described above have been structured into a Nodal Decision Tree. The

concept of the Nodal Decision Tree used in this study has been adapted from a form of

decision tree available as an internet resource is illustrated in Figure 3-18 (DTREG, n.d.).

Figure 3-18 Nodal Decision Tree

Node 1
Records
- Characteristics
- Tests
- Variables

Node 2 Node 3
Records Records
- Characteristics - Characteristics
- Tests - Tests
- Variables - Variables

Node 4 Node 5
Records Records
- Characteristics - Characteristics
- Tests - Tests
- Variables - Variables

In Figure 3-18, the boxes are called nodes. Node 1 is the start, ‘root’ node and nodes 1 and

3 are interior nodes. Nodes without child nodes are called terminal nodes (2, 4 and 5).

123
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

The Decision Tree used in the study is illustrated in Figure 3-19. Each node (black dot)

represents a characteristic selection to be made – by looking at the criteria presented at the

left hand side of the tree aligned with the node. A characteristic is defined as being in place

(‘yes’ – dashed line, to the left of the node) or not a characteristic of the system (a ‘no’ –

solid line, to the right of the node). Starting from the top-most node the categorisation of

the transit modes is possible, see the worked example in Figure 3-20.

As previously mentioned, the main purpose of this study is to define forms of light rapid

transit that have equivalence to light rail systems; hence the decision tree analysis is

focussed in this area. The initial point in the analysis determines the common characteristic

of light rapid transit systems – the notion of a local, intra-urban service. The next test

establishes whether the system is road or rail based with a qualification on rail-based

services to understand whether it replaces a heavy rail operation. The concept of guidance

is tested in two ways. The initial characteristic is used to determine whether the vehicle can

be directed entirely at the driver’s discretion. In the case of an overhead line power supply,

the driver may retain full directional control but must stay within the limits of the overhead

wire to maintain operation; hence cannot operate at their own discretion but are not guided

per se. The latter test identifies whether there is any form of guidance control applied

whether by physical, optical or magnetic means.

Finally, to determine equivalence, vehicle capacity is tested, with between 100 and 300

considered equivalent based upon the limits described above. When the definition has been

developed to this point and the mode is equivalent to light rail there are five further

distinctions drawn on the nature of power supply and guidance to fully define the different

sub-modes.

124
Transport System Definition

Figure 3-19 Nodal Decision Tree applied to transit mode definition

Inter-
Determination of LRT System

Regional
Service Characteristic
Steel
Running Heavy Motor System does NOT
Rails Rail Coach System HAS HAVE
Characteristic Characteristic
Heavy Rail
Non-Equivalent
Replacement To Light Rail
Systems
On-Street
Capability
Determination of Mode

Full
Discretionary
Bus
Guidance d

Capacity
>300 Metro Metro
a b c e

Capacity
Mini- Fully Reserved Guideway
<100 ULR ULR ULR ULR
Tram Guided-bus
f

Fully non-
Tram Train Tram Train Light Rail Tram Train
self powered (OLE) (OLE) (OLE) (OLE)
Determination of Sub-Mode

Hybrid with
Tram Train Tram Train Tram Train Tram Train Light Rail Light Rail Tram Train Tram Train
OLE (Hybrid) (non-OLE) (Hybrid) (non-OLE) (Hybrid) (non-OLE) (Hybrid) (non-OLE)

Equivalent to
Guidance Light Rail Tram Trolley- Hybrid
Systems Tyre bus Hybrid Trolley-bus
Guided-bus
Non-
Mechanical Non-Mech
Guidance Guided-bus

Reserved
Disallowed Modes a - f are detailed in Table 3-2 Guideway Kerb
Running Guided-bus Guided-bus

125
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

3.11.2 Nodal Decision Tree worked example

An example of using the Nodal Decision Tree can be the ‘Translohr’ system in Padua, and

illustrated in Figure 3-20 (see also Figure 3-12). Translohr is not an inter-regional system

and does not have steel running rails. The system is on-street capable and does not have

full discretionary guidance; note that the first ‘system’ type dismissed here is the bus.

Moving on, the vehicle capacity is less than 300 but greater than 100 and at this point has

been determined as equivalent to conventional light rail. The use of overhead

electrification with on-board batteries means that it is not fully non-self-powered and, as it

uses a central guidance rail, it is considered a hybrid guided trolley-bus system. Without

guidance it would be considered a hybrid trolley-bus.

Figure 3-20 Extract of Nodal Decision Tree to illustrate the Translohr definition example

On-Street
Capability Characteristic

Full
Discretionary System does
Bus System HAS
Guidance NOT HAVE
Characteristic
Characteristic
Capacity
>300
Disallowed
Mode
Capacity
<100 "Mini-Tram"

Fully non-
self powered

Hybrid with
OLE

Guidance Tram Trolley- Hybrid Hybrid


Tyre bus Guided Trolley-bus
Trolley-Bus
Non-
Mechanical
Guidace

It is noteworthy at this point to consider the ultra-light rail (ULR) type systems. In

developing the definitions, this system type appeared to fit most definitions where capacity

was less than 100 passengers per vehicle. There are few ULR systems that have been

126
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

proposed, for example in the UK the ‘Parry People Mover’ ULR has seen numerous trials

without full implementation until December 2008 when a service commenced on the

former heavy-rail 1 kilometre branch line from Stourbridge to Stourbridge Junction (Parry

People Mover, 2008). It seems that ULR is seeking to address a number of market niches,

most of which are already occupied by an established transit mode which may explain why

the ULR is struggling to find a market.

Wherever the end of the tree is reached by a triangle, this denotes that the system

characteristics do not have a real-world example; effectively these are ‘disallowed’

systems. There are five cases where these have been identified in Figure 3-19 and these are

provided in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2 Nodal Decision Tree – Disallowed Modes

Ref Description of Disallowed Mode

On-street capable, steel rail system used as a replacement or interfacing to


a
heavy rail with a vehicle capacity exceeding 300

On-street capable, steel rail system not used as a replacement or interfacing to


b
heavy rail with a vehicle capacity exceeding 300

c Rubber-tyred vehicle with guidance system and capacity >300

d Rubber-tyred vehicle with no on-street capability and no guidance system

Rubber-tyred vehicle with no on-street capability, with a guidance system and


e
capacity >300 per vehicle

Rubber-tyred vehicle with no on-street capability, with a guidance system and


f
capacity <100 per vehicle

3.11.3 Transit Mode and Sub-mode Definition

The decision tree illustrates the route to defining the modes. To conclude this exercise it is

necessary to draw together the different sub-modes from the tree in Figure 3-19 into the

proposed overall typology.

127
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

The four modes are, in order of increasing performance;


• Guided-bus: kerb-guided bus, non-mechanically or guide-way guided-bus
• Trolley-bus: hybrid trolley-bus, hybrid guided-bus, trolley-bus and tram-tyre
• Light Rail: light rail (non-OLE), light rail (hybrid) and light rail (OLE/third Rail)
• Tram Train: tram train (non-OLE), tram train (hybrid), tram train (OLE)

A summary representation of the proposed typology is illustrated in Figure 3-21. Note the

‘hierarchy’ in Figure 3-21 compared to the relationships detailed in Figure 3-14.

Figure 3-21 Light Rapid Transit Typology with System Examples

Tram Train (OLE) Karlsruhe (Vuchic, 1999)


Tram Train (Hybrid) Kassel (Heuer, 2005)
Tram Train Tram Train (non-OLE) River Line, Camdon-Trenton (Taplin, 2004)

Light Rail (OLE) Metrolink, Manchester (Taplin, 1995)


Light Rail Light Rail (Hybrid) Bordeaux (Veolia, 2006)
Light Rail (non-OLE) Sapporo (Phraner, Roberts, 1999)
LRT
Light Rapid
Transit Tram Tyre TVR, Nancy (Hass-Klau, 2003)
Trolley-bus Szeged, Hungary (NDA, 2007)
BRT Trolley-bus Hybrid Guided-bus Phileas (Eurotransport , 2011)
Hybrid Trolley-bus King County, Seattle (Metro Transit, 2005)

Guided-bus Guideway Guided-bus O-Bahn, Adelaide (Hass-Klau, 2003)


Non-mechanical Guided-bus Phileas, Eindhoven (Hodgson, 2007)
Kerb Guided-bus Leeds (Leeds City Council, 2006)

Mode Sub-Mode Sub-Mode Example System

 - OLE = Overhead Line Electrification

The definitions drawn from the typology in Figure 3-21 are:

Light is defined as a transit system that is constituted of vehicles with necessary


Rapid and complementary infrastructure that provides permanence and identity
Transit through guidance systems and/or fixed power supply infrastructure
Tram A system where light rail vehicles operate on heavy rail
Train infrastructure
Light Light rail vehicles operating on permanent way rails with/without
Rail OLE
Bus Rapid Transit: A bus-based system that has guidance systems
BRT
and/or OLE
A bus-based system that has OLE with/without
Trolley-bus
guidance
A bus-based system that has some form of guidance
Guided-bus
if not exclusively guided

Note there are other forms of BRT that are not included because they do not provide
equivalence to light rail.

128
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

3.12 Wider Implications of Inconsistent Definitions

Whilst the definition of transit systems is important for this project there are wider issues

with the confirmation of a light rapid transit typology. A key aspect of transport planning is

to reduce road-traffic congestion by using cost-effective transit schemes that have a

business-case underpinning any investment decision. Clarity in definition of transit

schemes should inform this selection process by allowing the costs/benefits of each system

to be identified for equivalent performance. As well as the issue of system equivalence for

planning purposes, there is a mode definitional aspect to safety and competition regulation.

3.12.1 Safety Regulation

Until 2006 the UK safety legislative system categorised all rail-based modes together,

thereby raising the cost of lower specification bus-based systems. The need to re-shape the

safety framework in accordance with European Union requirements had been recognised.

The framework, the Railway Safety Directive (RSD, Office of the Rail Regulator (ORR),

2006) and ‘Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006

(ROGS)’ are enforced by the ORR (Enforcing Authority, ‘EA’). The framework targets a

number of objectives, amongst which were identified in the early stages of the consultation

for the 2006 Act (HSC, 2004)f, these included:

• Commonality with EU Safety and Interoperability Requirements

• To streamline safety requirements to allow greater risk proportionality and reduce cost

• To apply principles of regulation for non-interoperable (rail) systems but again

proportional to risk and characteristics of the system

The final item is of particular interest. The systems covered by the RSD, include tramways

and other guided transport systems but specifically excludes any system that uses, ‘trolley

f
The HSC (Health and Safety Commission) was the EA at the time of consultation in 2004. The ORR was
the EA at the time that the legislation was enacted in 2006.

129
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

or guided buses’. The excluded systems are legislated using the existing ROTS (Railways

and Other Transport Systems) legislation as described above, including road-based with

rail guidance, road-based with side-guidance and track-based with side-guidance (HSC,

2004). In consequence, a partition has been created between rail-based systems (heavy,

light rail and metro) covered by ROGS, and other guided-systems, which are in ROTS.

Prior to 2006, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) would approve guide-wheels and

guide-ways of guided bus systems only; all other aspects were a DfT undertaking. An

‘untested’ concept in the UK is that of optical or magnetic guidance. These do not involve

guide-wheels, so where does the regulatory obligation lie? The ORR and HSC have a

Memorandum of Understanding in place (HSE, 2006). This Memorandum of

Understanding places the EA for guided and trolley buses with the HSC and not ORR,

including optical and magnetic guided systems. This again reinforces the partition between

the rail and non-rail systems and the implementation of all types of bus-based systems

should now be less stringent than the pre-2006 legislative framework. Hence, it is clear that

approval of optically and magnetically guided-bus systems rest with the HSC entirely. To

summarise, the change in legislation has removed a substantial barrier to use of innovative

guided-bus systems in the UK

3.12.2 Competition Regulation

UK bus services, for the majority of operations, were de-regulated in the 1980’s and

remain as such, and only London and Northern Ireland operate outside of this regime. One

of the motives for de-regulation was to promote competition between operators, improve

passenger service and reduce costs (Glaister, 1991). Under a relatively open-access

arrangement the viability of a service is dependent on the level of competition for revenue

versus the cost to operate the service. The need to keep costs low will preclude

infrastructure provision and investment in new technology vehicles; in some cases aged

130
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

buses are being given an extended serviceable life. Without assured operational exclusivity

to maximise revenues, contrary to the open-access provision, operators may not be

motivated to make a large capital investment.

The lack of sub-definition of bus operating modes may cloud the issue of bus service

competition regulation. On one hand, under the former safety legislation, a guided bus was

considered to require similar provisions to a rail vehicle but was still subject to a bus-based

competition framework. There seems little motivation to introduce a system other than a

regular bus service, with kerb guidance at best (as has happened in some UK cities, but

with local authorities funding the guide-ways). The case for the newer technology in the

UK, intermediate systems, for example the Phileas and Civis systems discussed earlier, is

unclear – a significant amount of time and resources (cost) would be required to

demonstrate feasible implementation that would then be in competition with lower cost bus

operations of commercial rivals. This further supports the case for operators to seek

exclusivity to maximise revenue to offset cost.

3.12.3 Implications of Competition and Safety Regulation

The paradox is that, with the current impasse on light rail schemes in the UK, there appears

a case for more cost-effective intermediate modes, yet competition and safety regulation

makes this difficult to achieve. The ‘time to market’ and implementation costs for light rail

schemes are prohibitive yet the lower cost, quicker to implement intermediate systems

have been inhibited by a regulatory structure that possibly involves an inappropriate

classification of transport modes.

So, the definitional issue is important. There is a growing recognition that the transit

systems need to be differentiated in order to permit reasonable apportionment of safety

131
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

approval, risk and cost, and also to identify the boundaries of the deregulated bus market.

Differentiation could have the effect of making road-based systems more cost effective and

attractive for UK implementation. This further indicates the requirement for transit mode

definition, as without this definition, intermediate transit modes can be inappropriately

classified thereby making implementation more difficult or costly than need be.

3.13 Summary

This chapter has shown that the current definitions used to describe transit systems are

inconsistent and at times misleading. Transport policy would benefit from a clearer

definition and in the case of UK the safety legislation has changed to provide a reasoned

approach to regulation of non-rail guided systems. This may provide greater opportunity

for the development in the UK of systems such as Civis, Translohr and Phileas and may

then begin inform the travelling public about modern buses, operating on infrastructure

with a greater degree of permanence. Ultimately this could lead to the promotion of light

rail equivalent systems thereby providing a modern, high quality transit solution, and these

could be implemented more quickly and cheaply than a conventional light rail system.

The UK lags behind Europe in the development and implementation of new transit modes.

The move by the HSC and ORR can perhaps provide the catalyst to more systems being

promoted without the burden of unwieldy, unnecessary and costly safety regulation. Until

2006, there was no middle ground for the sort of promising intermediate systems being

built elsewhere in Europe and the US. The UK is now better placed to develop

intermediate bus-based systems that bridge the gap between standard bus routes and full

light rail implementation. However, whilst the safety legislation has been addressed,

current regulatory constraints make it harder and more financially risky to implement

intermediate bus-based solutions.

132
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition

This chapter has presented a definition of light rapid transit modes. The key issue arising

from this is to be able to distinguish what constitutes an equivalent to light rail. The

diagram illustrated in Figure 3-21 which is based upon the definitions made in the Nodal

Decision Tree (Figure 3-19) provides system examples that could be considered to be

equivalent to light rail. Now that a framework to identify equivalence to light rail has been

determined, the next step is to consider how the alternative to light rail could be assessed to

determine relative performance.

133
Chapter 4 Research Approach

4. Research Approach

The research project is exploring whether ‘semi-light rail’ systems can deliver a near

equivalent performance to light rail at a cost and environmental burden that will permit

widespread use in the UK. To test the premise that equivalent performance between these

modes can be demonstrated, it is necessary to assess and compare the cost and

environmental performance of the light rail and equivalent systems. In the previous chapter

the equivalence of systems has been discussed and the systems that can be considered

equivalent to light rail have been determined. The issue explored in this chapter is what

method can be applied to answer the research question in a defendable and robust way.

There is much debate about the development of transit systems in the UK, with lobbyists

varying from those that appear to be enthusiasts, for example in the case of light rail the

Light Rapid Transit Association (LRTA), to professional consultants who have a vested

interest in the development of schemes, across to locally based pressure-groups who are

either pro or anti one particular solution or another. Examples include organisations such

as ‘The Electric TBus Group’ (TBus, 2011b), the ‘Friends of the Earth West London Tram

promotion’ (Friends of the Earth, 2005), ‘CAST.IRON’ – the anti-Cambridge Guided-Bus

lobbyists (CAST.IRON, 2011) and ‘Trams for Bath’ (2011).

The issue of ‘bus versus light rail’ is often the topic of professional transport practitioner

conferences in the UK In 2007 conference titles included ‘Light Rail ‘07’, ‘UK Bus

Awards Seminar’, ‘Bus as Rapid Transit’ and ‘Light Rapid Transit’. The latter conference

considered, “……how schemes should be developed and planned, and costs kept under

control, implications of the Planning Bill on new schemes and how the alternatives (such

as guided bus) fare”.

135
Chapter 4 Research Approach

This context is important in considering the method of investigation to be adopted. The

results from the analysis in this research study need to be deemed as valid to the

stakeholders of the ‘light rail vs. bus’ debate - a potentially highly-opinionated audience.

This suggests that the output from the analysis needs to have a basis in objective, robust

data. This data should be gathered and analysed in a way acceptable to transport planning

professional or lobbyists. The research needs to find acceptable evidence to inform the

debate about the relative merits of light rapid transit alternative systems.

The development of the research needs to consider a method that will allow a comparison

between equivalent modes that can present clear, objective data. Initially, a review of

existing sample comparative data between light rail and bus-based systems is discussed

before considering the method to be used in this study.

4.1. Current Analysis

There are a number of sources of comparison of light rail and bus-based systems that have

been produced by a number of researchers and commentators who contribute to the debate

about comparing light rapid transit-type modes in a wider transport context.

Hass-Klau et al (2003) with ‘Bus or Light Rail: Making the Right Choice’ provide a direct

example of comparisons between light rail and bus-based systems. Hass-Klau et al (2003)

focus largely on quantitative comparisons in many aspects of transit system operation. As

discussed earlier in this thesis, when defining the transit modes, Vuchic (1999) provides a

hierarchy of characteristics. Barry (1991) also considers light rail against other modes in

his light-rail promoting book.

136
Chapter 4 Research Approach

The US government General Accounting Office (GAO) published ‘Bus Rapid Transit

Shows Promise’ in ‘Mass Transit’ (2001) which provided some comparative detail based

upon constructed systems and also refers to transport planners and professional transport

consultants. The report concentrates on a comparison of unit costs, for example capital

costs, vehicle operating costs and operating costs per revenue mile or passenger trip. The

GAO report did provide some background on why cost differences existed, for example,

due to a wider right-of-way width for bus compared to light rail. Other aspects briefly

considered included ridership and system speed. The data was based upon measured

quantities from systems that had been constructed.

Other studies have considered aspects other than cost as a means of comparing bus and

light rail. With some relevance to this research project, the direct and indirect energy

requirements of ‘LRT’g and ‘BRT’ were assessed and found to be very similar. The study,

(Rahman, 2009), addressed the energy efficiency over the system life cycle for a system in

Ottawa. The key difference (up to 12%) was associated with the energy to construct and

maintain the enhanced ‘LRT’ infrastructure.

Henry (2009) considered the options for incrementally developing light rail systems from

established bus-based systems and in doing so provided a comparison between the system

costs relative to the complexity and functionality of the system. For example,

‘signalization’ was a cost that could be avoided by implementing the bus system but this

was at a detriment to the operational efficiency. This may affect ridership and a subsequent

comparison concludes that “LRT tends to attract more ridership” and that “trip-lengths

tend to be longer (for equivalent station spacing)”. This was based upon American Public

g
LRT in this context is Light Rail Transit as opposed to Light Rapid Transit

137
Chapter 4 Research Approach

Transportation Association (APTA, 2006) data, citing that the average trip length in 2005

on LRT was 4.5 miles and 3.7 miles on bus.

The city of Los Angeles and a single ‘transit agency’ (equivalent to a UK Passenger

Transport Executive ) was the subject of a multi-modal analysis to compare travel speeds,

trip lengths, capacities, operating costs, and capital costs of four bus modes and two rail

modes (Stanger, 2009). The key areas of comparison included average peak hour speeds,

average trip lengths, daily ridership, operating costs and subsidies per passenger mile. If

there were differing characteristics for the bus-systems these were further assessed; for

example the different operating modes and routes presented significantly different average

speeds, ranging from 12.8mph for local buses to the express systems at 32.2mph (Stanger,

2009). The necessity of this further break-down in the analysis shows that the systems are

not all directly comparable.

Areas such as mode usage, costs and corridor loadings are considered by Spencer and

Andong (1996) when reviewing bus and light rail options for Beijing. The output of the

study actually identified that a 2000 forecast of passenger demand could be carried by a

busway system and that this option was the only one that justified the investment (based

upon cost – benefit assessment) compared to light rail and a capital-intensive ‘skytrain’

option.

In the UK, the National Audit Office (NAO) report on light rail (NAO, 2004)

predominantly addresses cost, funding and the time issues associated with the construction

and operation of UK light rail systems. Some qualitative assessment is reserved for less-

tangible dimensions by the NAO, for example measures for reduction in road accidents,

reduction in pollution or for a ‘fast, frequent, reliable journey’.

138
Chapter 4 Research Approach

Comparisons between light rail and bus vehicles tend to be detailed where promoting the

ability of a bus to take-on the appearance of a tram. The ‘ftr Streetcar’ is a good example

of trying to make a bus look like a light rail vehicle, ‘with many features of a modern tram

yet liberated from rails’ (Wright Group, 2007). The Streetcar has covered wheel-arches,

‘ergonomic communal seating’ (First Group, 2006) and highly visual decals. Softer, non-

vehicle specific measures include text-ticketing and the notion that the vehicle is driven by

a ‘pilot’. The measure of how well these softer issues are perceived by the system users are

qualitative comparative aspects.

Empirical quantitative data used in comparison of systems is generally accepted but, as

Hass-Klau et al (2003) illustrate (and has been demonstrated in this research), the data used

are not usually comparing systems directly like-for-like. For example, average speeds are

compared but these are by definition in different locations and have different route

characteristics; hence the comparison may not be valid without some complex factoring for

vehicle acceleration, capacity and occupancy, or route gradients, turning radii (requiring

the vehicle to slow down), traffic control and prioritisation or the number of stops on the

route. Other more subjective, qualitative characteristics are compared – the notion of

attractiveness to passengers and the look and feel of the vehicle. This suggests that the

research project should seek to provide a valid like for like comparison and that this should

be an important part of the research design.

4.2. The Basis of Comparison

Stanger (2006) considers that transit mode comparison has fallen into two general

categories; (1) planned systems where the comparison is using as part of a planning

process and can only draw on forecast or projected data and (2) implemented systems that

may not be comparing like-for-like systems and characteristics. For example Kühn (2002)

139
Chapter 4 Research Approach

drew data from bus systems globally and considered these as ‘BRT’ without recognising

the potential nuances associated with each system and hence how this affects comparison.

In the case of (1), the planned systems, this also can struggle to use a common basis of

comparison if, as seen with Henry (2009) the vehicle and infrastructure requirements differ

and do not provide an equivalent basis for comparison. The comparison did not appear

‘normalised’.

The review of existing literature and research has identified a potential weakness in that the

public transport system comparisons are not based upon equivalence and hence the

comparison is not valid to substantiate the research question posed for the purposes of this

study. This research project was hence to focus on providing a like-for-like comparison

between light rail and an equivalent system drawing on the ‘planning’ based comparison

but for equivalent performing systems.

4.3. The Need for Quantitative Data

There is a need to provide a robust, data-driven comparison of equivalent systems. The

need for rigorous data is necessary to minimise subjectivity which supports the use of

quantitative methods. To counter the feeling of infallibility, however, Fred Menger is cited

in a number publications having been attributed with the comment, ‘If you torture data

sufficiently, it will confess to almost anything’ (Kordon, 2010). This suggests the need for

objective data that is structured and analysed in a way that it clear to the reader, who can

understand how it has been obtained, any assumptions involved and how any variations in

sources have been treated. The need for objective data can sound very deterministic and

care needs to be taken not to trust too much in the objectivity of ‘hard facts’. Jankowicz

(2000) discusses the way in which personal views are formed on what constitutes

140
Chapter 4 Research Approach

knowledge, evidence and proof and conversely what does not. Referred to as

‘epistemology’, these issues are framed in the form of two questions:

• What counts as knowledge?

• What establishes it as knowledge, what counts as evidence or proof?

Jankowicz continues to note that all research attempts to convince others that the outcome

of the research makes sense. The latter point raises the question as to whether the research

design will represent evidence that stakeholders will accept and will be viewed as a valid

research answering the research question.

As has been noted, the use of quantitative analysis is common-place when comparing

transit modes and the obvious numerical dimensions such as speed, cost and ridership. The

research needs to be based upon a quantitative assessment of the performance

characteristics being compared. Cryer (2001) simply confirms the ‘traditional research

paradigm’ as that which relies on mathematical or statistical treatment of data, attributed to

highly valid and reliable research where variables affecting the work can be identified,

measured and manipulated. The alternative interpretivist paradigm is primarily based upon

descriptive data and the emphasis is on exploration and insight rather than the

mathematical treatment of data, i.e. a more qualitative approach.

This exploration of the research approach has confirmed the use of a predominantly

quantitative-based study but consideration may need to be given to qualitative measures as

required.

141
Chapter 4 Research Approach

4.4. A Framework for the Quantitative Research Approach

The quantitative approach to be adopted in this study is one that is frequently used in

evaluating alternative options in developing a transport solution in the UK. The means by

which this is to be achieved is by using the UK Department for Transport (DfT) internet-

based Transport Analysis Guidance tool called WebTAG and the ‘Appraisal Summary

Table’ (AST) to define measures and boundaries (DfT, 2004b). As the name suggests, the

AST is a summarised form of the data used to appraise proposed transport schemes.

Nellthorp and Mackie (2000) provide evidence of 68 road schemes using the AST. Whilst

the assessment criteria are labelled as quantitative and qualitative, the overall assessment

refers the quantitative data wherever this is provided. Qualitative impacts are referred as

relatively positive or negative.

The WebTAG appraisal tool is used by the UK government to assess major transport

schemes under the ‘New Approach to Appraisal’ (NATA). NATA is the analytical

framework used by the government to assess transport schemes, from a trunk road scheme,

to a rail-system, to air transport and sea port strategies (DfT, 2005). NATA was introduced

in 1998 by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions as part of the

White Paper, ‘A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone’ (DETR, 1998). Whilst

NATA is still in use it has been the subject of consultation by the DfT to verify the validity

of the framework given the ten years that has elapsed and the initiatives introduced since

1998 (DfT, 2007). For the purposes of this project, which commenced before the 2007

consultation process, NATA and WebTAG have been applied as the means to assess

transport schemes in the UK.

So, whilst the quantitative method is used in ‘real-world’ transport scheme assessments via

the AST, for the purposes of this thesis it is important to reflect upon the method adopted

142
Chapter 4 Research Approach

in order to be sure that, at the strategic level, it is an appropriate way to investigate the

research question set. Given the status of these UK frameworks and guidelines this should

provide validity among transport professionals in this field of study. The use of WebTAG

and the AST is discussed in greater detail in the model development chapter.

4.5. Developing the Quantitative Approach

Given that a quantitative approach is to be adopted, there is a further methodological issue

to be clarified, which is the nature of the quantitative scientific method. Phillips and Pugh

(2000) introduce two methods: hypothetico-deductive and inductive. Phillips and Pugh go

on to insist that a research student should comprehend the differences in these two methods

to avoid the inappropriate feelings of ‘cheating’ or not undertaking the research properly.

The inductive process is stated as a mistaken premise for a scientific research method that

relies on raw evidence and unbiased and unprejudiced observation. This is built bottom-up

from observations that are generalised based upon patterns in the observations. These are

in-turn hypothesised that then form the basis for theories (Trochim, 2006). The two

methods are illustrated in summary form in Figure 4-1. Phillips and Pugh (2000) warn that

there is no such thing as an un-biased observation as these are a function of prior

experience; hence the resulting generalisations may be skewed.

Deductive reasoning conversely builds top-down from a theory which is then hypothesised.

Observations are then collected which confirms or denies the hypothesis. Hypotheses or

predictions are based on inspiration or guesswork and must be tested thoroughly. Testing

can render the hypothesis valid or invalid and so the process can start again to test a new

hypothesis or in an attempt to disprove the existing.

143
Chapter 4 Research Approach

The use of either approach for the development of this model is linked closely, for

example, with software development as this is essentially what the model work represents.

Masi (2008) notes that there is debate over which is the superior method. In a top-down

approach an overview of the ‘system’ is developed at a specification level. This

specification is then taken and broken down in to a series of subsystems that is then split

down again to a finer degree of detail. This process is completed until sufficient granularity

exists upon which the system can be built.

Figure 4-1 Inductive and Deductive or Top-down – Bottom-up Approaches

Bottom-up
Theory Unit
Inductive Reasoning

Hypothesis System

Generalisation Sub-System

Bottom-up
Observation Elements Software Development

Top-down
Theory Specification
Software Development

Hypothesis 1st Tier System

Observation Sub-system

Top-down
Deductive Reasoning Confirmation Elements

A bottom-up design is the reverse of this. The base elements of the system are identified

and then grouped or linked together to form a larger sub-system. The grouped systems are

then reviewed again and grouped to form a smaller set of second-tier subsystems. The

process is repeated until a top-level set of systems is reached, nominally one.

144
Chapter 4 Research Approach

Phillips and Pugh (2000) further warn the prospective researcher to be wary of the

psychological behaviour associated with the hypothetico-deductive method with recourse

to guess-work, re-work, corrections and blind-alleys a necessary part of this method.

The early attempts at the model structure leant heavily on the more inductive, bottom-up

approach. From an early stage in this project, an awareness of the data and analytical

methods used in the rail sector has been used. This has been beneficial in terms of

providing excellent access to raw data but has also been constraining in terms of not be

able to challenge elements of the data at a detailed level. Any reservations about the

validity of the data has led, at a number of points, to the inclusion of cross-checks and

explorations (often of dead ends) in order to ensure confidence that the data used was fit

for purpose.

4.6. The Research Approach

The broad approach adopted is a quantitative analysis in which data is defined, gathered

and analysed in a structured manner, from which conclusions are drawn. This is

represented diagrammatically in Figure 4-2.

From Figure 4-2, the Outputs are the costs and environmental data that will emerge from

the Model, which is constructed to provide an equivalent performance of alternative light

rail and bus-based system designs. The output will be presented in an extract form of the

AST. The Inputs, Constraints and Resources are all part of refining the model design and

data used in order to provide equivalence. Full details of how these data were obtained and

the design of the equivalence model appear in the following sections. However, first there

is a consideration as to why this research approach has been used.

145
Chapter 4 Research Approach

Figure 4-2 Overview of the Research Approach

Resources

The factoring to be
applied to the inputs

The characteristics
of the system

Inputs The Model Outputs


The data to be
analysed for
comparison
The form that the
data needs to take

Constraints

4.7. Constructing the Model

Developing Figure 4-2, it is possible to provide some definition to the concepts of inputs,

outputs, resources and constraints. The links between these concepts can be illustrated by a

worked example: Assume that one of the outputs will be the cost for the track work

associated with a light rail scheme. The constraints confirm the data format; that the output

should be in the form of capital cost and operational cost. The resources therefore need to

provide a cost per unit for construction and a cost per unit for operation of the track.

Finally, the nature of the input can be defined as being the characteristics of the system that

the resources are factored on – in this case the length of the route that track work is

required for. Together these factors specify the data needed for the track. This is illustrated

re-using Figure 4-2 for this example in Figure 4-3.

146
Chapter 4 Research Approach

Figure 4-3 Worked Example of Model Concepts

Cost/m to Construct Track Work


Cost/m to Maintain Track Work

Route Length £ Capital Cost


(m) of Track The Model £ Operational Cost

Cost Output to be expressed in


Capital and Operational Terms

As discussed earlier one limitation of the existing analysis of planned systems is that these

are not always developed using equivalent system specifications. This means that any cost

comparison, for example, is not based upon the same characteristics and there is no

evidence of normalisation to address this. The principal aim of this project is to provide a

like-for-like comparison of cost and environmental performance between transit modes. If

the system specification, that provides the inputs, is the same for each (hypothetical) transit

system being modelled then this will provide a direct like-for-like basis for analysis. It is

believed that this modelling is not freely available in this form elsewhere and is an original

aspect of this research.

Having covered the strategic design of the research approach and explored the principles of

the components making up the equivalence model, the first stage of model development

needs to confirm the nature of the outputs.

147
Chapter 4 Research Approach

4.8. Confirmed Approach

In summary, the current literature does not appear to provide a direct comparison between

modes using normalised or equivalent data. The debate over the relative benefits of various

light rapid transit modes, for example between light rail and guided-bus, has elements of

qualitative analysis when considering subjective aspects of the modes. Quantitative

analysis is used predominantly and will form the basis for this research. The model will

attempt to provide data to support the cost and environmental analyses and inform the

debate accordingly. The conclusions drawn from the analysis will be data driven.

The need for quantitative analysis is supported by the traditional research paradigm and the

hypothetico-deductive method. The research question has proposed that an equivalent

performance system to light rail has potential for UK implementation on the basis of

comparable cost and environmental performance. To tie this back to the epistemological

stance, the project needs to evidence the case for the cost and environmental performance

dimensions and this need to be substantiated in a robust, data-driven way. The issue being

that a quantitative framework needs to be developed for both the cost and environmental

measures. The development of this framework, based upon WebTAG and the AST is

considered in the next chapter.

148
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

5. Assessment Development

Chapter 4 identified that a framework was required for production and analysis of the cost

and environmental performance data for a variety of transport system options. This is

necessary to be able to provide a robust and consistent base for analysing two potentially

fundamentally different transit systems. The most appropriate framework is that which

would be used by the UK government Department for Transport (DfT) in the assessment of

major transport schemes, namely, ‘The New Approach to Appraisal’ (NATA) and the

production, reporting and assessment guidelines presented in the Web-based Transport

Analysis Guidance (WebTAG) suite of documentation that is to be used alongside NATA.

The summary output of transport scheme assessment, requiring central Government

finance, is the Appraisal Summary Table (AST). As confirmed in the previous chapter it is

the AST that forms the basis of the framework of the model. The AST is illustrated in

Table 5-1, directly as presented by WebTAG unit 2.5 (DfT, 2011c).

5.1 The Appraisal Summary Table (AST)

There were two methods identified in chapter 4 that could be used to develop a data

structure; ‘bottom-up’ and ‘top-down’. To develop a bottom-up model required the

piecing-together of a complete transit system from combined basic elements to form the

infrastructure and all interfaces to the vehicle. The top-down method on the other hand

starts with a specification and then systematically breaks this down into a hierarchy of

systems and sub-systems (Masi, 2008). The initial attempts at the model development

relied on a bottom-up approach but it was decided that a top-down method was better

suited to the design.

149
The AST illustrated in Table 5-1, as the name implies, is a structured summary form of the WebTAG assessment criteria.

Table 5-1 Appraisal Summary Table (AST) (Source: DfT, 2011)


OBJECTIVE SUB-OBJECTIVE QUALITATIVE QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT
IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
Noise net population win / lose NPV £m
Local Air Quality Concs wtd for exposure
Greenhouse Gases tonnes of CO2
Landscape Score
Townscape Score
ENVIRONMENT
Heritage of Historic Resources Score
Biodiversity Score
Water Environment Score
Physical Fitness Score
Journey Ambience Score
Accidents PVB £m
SAFETY
Security Score
Public Accounts Central & Local Govt PVC PVC £m
Transport Economic Efficiency: Business Users PVB, Transport PVB £m
Users & Transport Providers Providers PVB, Other PVB
ECONOMY
Transport Economic Efficiency: Consumers Users PVB PVB £m
Reliability Score
Wider Economic Impacts Score
Option values PVB £m
ACCESSIBILITY Severance Score
Access to the Transport System Score
Transport Interchange Score
INTEGRATION Land-Use Policy Score
Other Government Policies Score

150
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

The top-down approach has been adopted in a more systematic way – it was possible to

start with an agreed analysis framework (WebTAG and the AST) and build from this.

This is better suited to the development than starting with discrete items of

infrastructure to build toward the AST, assuming or making it fit the AST structure.

One danger of starting with detailed elements using the bottom-up method is that the

level of detail to start at is often too great. The following sections explore how the AST

objectives and sub-objectives are adapted to be used in the model and the methods to be

applied.

5.2. Background to Assumed Knowledge

The top-down approach commenced with the AST objectives and sub-objectives and

then followed through the life-cycle phase of the project as the basis for development of

a notational system. This approach then considered each element of the infrastructure

and vehicle, which could then be applied to and assessed for applicability prior to

further, more detailed, breakdown and assessment. Whilst the AST was used as the

primary source of reference, other documentation was consulted including various

Transport and Works Act applications (Merseytram, Edinburgh Tram and Cambridge

Guided Busway) and the Railway Safety Principle Guidelines.

The top-down approach was supplemented with the use of a comprehensive systems

integration diagram developed for the Jubilee Line Extension project by the London

Underground project team. This is appropriate because the diagram would allow for

more complexity than any proposed light rapid transit system, so would cover any

eventuality. The final structure was developed to the more detailed levels by referring a

cost break-down structure for a number of light rail and guided-bus proposals.

151
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

5.3. Development History of the Model

There were a number of attempts at starts and re-starts to develop a model structure,

initially using the bottom-up method. The development of the data has been protracted –

early attempts were made soon after the high-level model had been proposed early in

the project.

The top-down model developmental approach commenced using with the cost and

environment NATA objectives as the top level data requirement to deconstruct into

greater levels of detail. However, at this stage the robust method had still not been

finalised, thus a concept was developed, following a supervisory review of the proposal;

a matrix was produced. The matrix is discussed in the next section.

5.4. The Working Model

The AST illustrated in Table 5-1, whilst summarising the data used in the assessment of

transport schemes into 23 sub-objective areas, still required a huge volume of data to be

collated in order to populate the table. The aim of the project was to model the cost and

environmental performance of light rail and equivalent alternative systems. In order to

focus the model towards relevant areas of cost and environmental performance, it was

necessary to develop a data structure that was consistent and applicable to the transit

modes being modelled based upon the AST. The framework would result in a set of

data for each transit mode that permits a like-for-like comparison without over-

complicating the analysis by using data outside the model boundary. The first attempt at

providing a framework is illustrated in Table 5-2.

152
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

Table 5-2 Early Top-down Analysis in a Matrix format

Objectives

Environmental Cost

Vehicle Vehicle
Build
Infrastructure Infrastructure
Phase
Vehicle Vehicle
Operate
Infrastructure Infrastructure

This was conceived on the basis that it would be possible to ‘drill-down’ from each of

the combinations of outputs from the matrix. The ‘codified’ results of the matrix were:

 Build - Vehicle - Environmental BVE


 Build - Vehicle - Cost BVC
 Build - Infrastructure - Environmental BIE
 Build - Infrastructure - Cost BIC
 Operate - Vehicle - Environmental OVE
 Operate - Vehicle - Cost OVC
 Operate - Infrastructure - Environmental OIE
 Operate - Infrastructure - Cost OIC

The problem with this framework was that it was possible that elements of

environmental performance could have a cost impact. However, the proposed matrix did

not support this analysis. This is where the lack of robustness was identified: the

outcomes did not have the combination of environmental and cost performance, i.e. in

the codification; there was no ‘C’ associated with an ‘E’. For example, if it was

necessary to provide mitigation of noise impact this would be expressed as a cost but

this was not a valid combination from the matrix.

153
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

However, use of a matrix resulted in the beginnings of the development of codified data

structure that allowed a short-hand notation to be read and translated in to the long-form

version of the data being modelled. It was at this stage that a decision-tree structure

(Figure 5-3) was considered where the transport system could be defined from the

highest-level (objective and sub-objectives) through lifecycle phases to the contributory

systems; whether vehicle or infrastructure. The hierarchical structure developed is

shown in Figure 5-1.

Figure 5-1 Data Structure

Mode

A light rapid transit type, in this example,


light rail or guided-bus
Objective

The measure of performance for the transit


mode – either Cost or Environmental
Sub-Objective

The performance measure contributing to the


objective, for example, Noise and Vibration
Phase

The stages of scheme implementation, either


Build or Operate
System

The key elements that comprise a light rapid


transit scheme –the vehicle and infrastructure
Component

A constituent part of the system – e.g. track or


structures
Element

A further breakdown of system component,


e.g. slab track or crossover

ef - a b c d / x y

Level One

Level Two

Level Three

Figure 5-1 illustrates the (arbitrary) selection of the codes used for the build-up of the

model data structure. These are mostly independent of one another except in the case of

154
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

the ‘x’ and ‘y’ data where the elements are obviously linked to the system that they are

a constituent part of. As illustrated in the example in Figure 5-1, this is where slab track

(y) is part of the overall permanent way system (x).

The following section describes the development of the structure above and how the

breakdown was arrived at. This starts at level one by defining the transit mode,

objectives, sub-objectives, the phase of the scheme and the system.

5.5. The Transit Modes to be modelled

Through the early stages of the project, many systems were reviewed in order to explore

all potential alternatives to light rail systems. The review identified examples of transit

systems illustrated in Figure 3-21.

In an earlier part of the thesis the notion of equivalence was discussed at some length in

terms of determining what systems should be modelled when comparing to light rail.

This equivalence work-stream is also relevant when considering the appropriate data to

be modelled.

The starting point was to define the base case, i.e. the transit mode that an alternative

and equivalent transit mode is to be tested against. Given that the model provides a

comparison to light rail, light rail is the base case. When considering conventional light

rail systems there are two key pieces of infrastructure that are required for such a

system. These ‘core’ pieces of infrastructure are the running rails (the permanent way)

and the overhead power supplies that differentiate light rail from a regular bus vehicle.

The model is to focus on equivalents to light rail in terms of service provision; hence

the modes to be modelled should not have both elements of core infrastructure but can

have one of either guidance (in place of track) or overhead electrification (OLE). On

155
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

this basis, three systems were initially selected: conventional light rail, a system without

OLE but guided and an OLE powered system but without guidance (with definitions

consistent with Figure 3-21):

• A light rail system

• A system without overhead power but with guidance – a guided-bus

• A system without guidance but with overhead power – a trolley-bus

The model was initially developed considering these three modes: light rail, guided-bus

and trolley bus. However, shortly after the visit to Eindhoven in order to survey the

Phileas system, it became apparent that from a customer’s perspective and from a

systematic view, that Phileas was seeking equivalence to light rail. At the same time the

development of the model was beginning to produce a sizeable quantity of data for each

system. At this point the decision was taken to limit the model to address light rail and

guided-bus.

However, in 2006 the ongoing teething problems that the Phileas vehicle in Eindhoven

was suffering culminated in the re-equipping of the fleet with a new drive train. The

U.S. market had seen the implementation of a number of hybrid buses, including the

New Flyer model DE60LF that used a hybrid diesel-electric drive. The major

components in the DE60LF drive train are the Cummins ISL diesel engine and a GM

Allison EV50 Drive with Ni-MH battery power storage (EEREh, 2004). The Phileas

was re-equipped, at considerable cost, with the same Allison EV Drive and a diesel

engine that has subsequently been used on vehicles to be supplied to Istanbul (Allison,

2008a).

h
US Department of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

156
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

It was at this time that UK promoters were starting to look to guided-bus, for example,

the Cambridge Guided-bus Transport and Works Act application made in February

2004 (Cambridgeshire CC, 2004a). The development of the Cambridge system meant

that there were data available to use in the model for both guided-bus and data for light

rail was also available.

So, in summary the two transit modes to be modelled were the guided-bus (based upon

a provision similar to Eindhoven) and conventional light rail. The guided-bus vehicles

to be considered were the Phileas and the New Flyer DE60LF. Reference would also be

made to the Irisbus Civis as a further new-technology guided-bus as required. It is fully

anticipated that the model could be adapted to permit the comparison of other

alternatives to light rail and this represents an opportunity for further work outside of

the scope of this project.

5.6. The Performance Data to be Modelled

Having identified the two transit modes, the next issue concerned what specific data

was to be used i.e. the selection of the AST sub-objectives to be analysed in the model.

The initial approach was to dismiss the WebTAG requirements for the safety,

accessibility and integration objectives and associated sub-objectives (see Table 5-1).

This is simply because the model is addressing cost and environmental performance and

each of safety, accessibility and integration measures will be met in the way in which

the system is implemented. It follows that the means to implement the system is by

provision of new infrastructure or modifications to the existing infrastructure. In both

cases these changes attract a cost that will be captured, for the purposes of this research

in the economic sub-objective.

157
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

The AST sub-objectives (Table 5-1) for the environment and economy objectives have

been reviewed and the relevance of these to the model discussed below. A reference to

the appropriate WebTAG section has been included. There are a number of ways in

which the sub-objectives can be assessed, an obvious distinction being either qualitative

or quantitative outputs. As discussed in the previous section, the output from the model

will be predominately quantitative and this is where the review of the AST sub-

objectives focuses, but necessarily noting any potential use of qualitative measures and

impacts.

It should be noted that when referring the sub-objectives these are done in the context of

the application being considered, whereas these can be used to assess a much wider

range of proposals including road schemes, seaports and multi-modal studies.

5.7. The Environmental Aspects of the Appraisal

This section focuses on the environmental aspects of the model and how these feature in

the AST based upon the associated WebTAG units.

5.7.1. Noise

As a key environmental consideration, noise can be assessed in terms of the cost to

mitigate noise impacts and any increases on noise levels (Table 5-3). Whilst not

specifically called for in the AST, there is a requirement to consider the effects of

vibration and this issue features in the Environmental Statements (ES), for example,

Chapter 13 of the Edinburgh Tram ES for line 2 (The Scottish Parliament, 2003) refers

the need to accord with BS6472, ‘Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in

buildings, Vibration sources other than blasting’ (2008). Whilst it is not possible to fully

include vibration, it can be commented upon as part of the comparison between modes.

158
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

Where stated in the development of the model as ‘noise’ there is an implied link to

vibration. Noise (and vibration) will need to be considered through the construction of

the infrastructure to the operation of the transit system.

The AST calls for the NPV of costs attributed to noise; consequently ideally the model

would output a mitigation value for noise in the context of a construction cost. Also, the

model will provide a commentary on properties likely to be affected by the system with

an indication on noise levels in dB(A) where practicable.

Table 5-3 WebTAG Unit 3.3.2, Noise (DfT, 2011b)

AST - PVi of
Qualitative Assessment Quantitative Assessment
Costs

Highlighting those factors not readily The estimated number of people who
net
understood from numbers, e.g. large are likely to be annoyed in the longer
population
increase in night-time noise, or term in the without scheme scenario
win / lose
effects on particularly sensitive and the with scheme scenario in the
NPV £m
receptors. fifteenth year.

However, the model will not be able to address net population effects as this will be

unknown for the simulated system being modelled. The output from the model will be

an approximate cost incurred for the mitigation of noise pollution where identifiable.

5.7.2. Local air quality

The effects of nitrogen oxide (NOx or NO2) and particulate emissions, specifically

PM10, (the notation PM10 is used to describe particles of 10 micrometres or less) should

again be considered in terms of the cost to mitigate impacts and the actual emission

value (Table 5-4). There will be a construction impact due to the use of construction

machines and plant and operational effects of the transit vehicles. The abbreviated AST

term, “Concs wtd for exposure”, is the concentrations weighted for exposure – this

i
Present Value

159
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

allows for the diminishing effects of emissions the further the monitor point is from the

source. (DfT, 2011c)

Table 5-4 WebTAG Unit 3.3.3, The Local Air Quality Sub-objective (DfT, 2011a)

AST – PV
Qualitative Assessment Quantitative Assessment
of Costs

The number of properties where air


A commentary supporting the
quality would be improved and the
Concs wtd quantitative assessment including
number where the situation would be
for exposure rationale for counting demolished or
worsened. These impacts are
constructed properties.
recorded for NOx and PM10.

The inclusion of the demolished buildings may appear unusual in the context of air

quality assessment. However, by recording the number to be demolished and the

residents by inference relocated by this action, this actually constitutes an improvement

to the air quality exposure, i.e. the residents are no longer affected by the scheme.

Conversely, any construction is seen as detrimental where residents are affected by the

scheme. (DfT, 2011a)

5.7.3. Greenhouse Gases

The issue of greenhouse gases in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2) is the dominant

global environmental marker. The AST (Table 5-5) calls for an emission value (in

tonnes). There is little that can be done to mitigate CO2 emissions other than by

treatment at the source of the CO2 or the use of fuels with a reduced CO2 content. This

could be either on the vehicle, or at the generation point in the case of electrical energy

supplied to an electrically-powered vehicle. Hence the cost of mitigation is already

accounted for in either the cost of the vehicle or the cost of the energy.

160
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

Table 5-5 WebTAG Unit 3.3.5, The Greenhouse Gases Sub-objective (DfT, 2011d)

AST - PV of
Qualitative Assessment Quantitative Assessment
Costs

An indication of any special features


The total change in tonnes of carbon
tonnes of of the appraisal including the key
emitted should be recorded for
CO2 drivers responsible for the change in
with/without scheme.
carbon tonnage emitted.

The effects of CO2 will be due some consideration during construction, but this is a

potential key area of comparison during the operation of the transit system which

essentially will be based upon the emissions generated from powering the vehicles.

5.7.4. Landscape, Townscape and Heritage of Historic Resources

These are three areas of built environmental concern that can be difficult to distinguish

between; this is acknowledged in paragraph 1.1.4 of The Townscape Sub-Objective

(WebTAG Unit 3.3.8), noting that, ‘it is often the success of the interaction between all

three that determines how well a place works.’ (DfT, 2004a)

Moreover, WebTAG unit 3.3.6 (DfT, 2003a), ‘The Environmental Capital Approach’,

notes that these areas are subject to qualitative assessment unlike quantitative analysis

better suited to noise and air quality appraisal. The three sub-objectives are considered

together here given the stated analysis similarities and that they are qualitative-driven

(and the model is quantitative). The qualitative 7-point scale is to be used (DfT, 2004c):

• Large beneficial (positive) effect

• Moderate beneficial (positive) effect

• Slight beneficial (positive) effect

• Neutral effect

• Slight adverse (negative) effect

161
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

• Moderate adverse (negative) effect

• Large adverse (negative) effect

The landscape sub-objective concerns the effects that the transit scheme can have on the

physical and cultural characteristics of the land (DfT, 2004d). The way an individual

perceives the characteristics of the land gives it its ‘sense of place’ and contributes to

local distinctiveness. Clearly the implementation of a transit scheme can alter the fabric

of the landscape but also play more subtly in the ways in which it was conceived.

The same is true for townscape; which is analogous to the landscape sub-objective

(DfT, 2004c) except that this focuses on the physical and social aspects of the land and

buildings. The management of an urban area, that is how the features are used, indicates

the social characteristics. For example, a pedestrian-only town centre conveys a

different social characteristic than that of the same area but with road vehicles allowed –

physically the alterations are minor but the perception of the area is significantly

different.

The heritage of historic resources concerns the man-made historic environment. This

can be such features, for example, as parks, gardens, buildings, ancient monuments or

where there is evidence of human effects, e.g. battlefields that have an architectural or

historic significance.

The appraisal of landscape, townscape and heritage sub-objectives relies heavily on

detailed data from the existing features. Given that this is unlikely to be available for the

model, it is not appropriate to consider the impacts in the same detail required for AST,

i.e. quantitatively, other than for some notional costs to mitigate visual blight. It may

162
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

also be possible to provide commentary on likely issues associated with the transit

modes being modelled to allow for a minimal high-level comparison.

Table 5-6

o WebTAG Unit 3.3.7, The Landscape Sub-objective (DfT, 2004d)


o WebTAG Unit 3.3.8, The Townscape Sub-objective (DfT, 2004c)
o WebTAG Unit 3.3.9, The Heritage of Historic Resources Sub-objective (DfT, 2003b)
AST - PV of
Qualitative Assessment Quantitative Assessment
Costs
Notes regarding the typical route
characteristics and associated
features and a summary on how the The assessment will not be truly
Score project overall affects the landscape, quantitative but scaled (AST standard
townscape and historic resources. 7-point scale).
This should also include mitigation
measures indicated where this exists.

The ‘working detail’ will be high-level, at best; hence the three sub-objectives have

been drawn together under the term of, ‘aesthetics’. Whilst this may appear to focus on

the physical aspects of the assessment, it is difficult to gauge the softer aspects of how

these areas are being managed prior to the scheme implementation; hence any post-

implementation impacts can only be generalised.

The use of the appraisal 7-point score is used by WebTAG when assessing these sub-

objectives. This may be used as a basis to provide the comparison between modes but is

still essentially a qualitative assessment and hence will not feature in the main element

of the (quantitative) model.

5.7.5. Biodiversity and Water Environment

Two further sub-objectives (bio-diversity and water environment) feature in the

WebTAG environmental capital approach and these are treated in the same manner as

163
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

the landscape, townscape and heritage of historic resources sub-objectives but these

have less substantive correlation with the model. The biodiversity sub-objective

considers the effects on biodiversity and earth heritage, or geological interests as shown

in Table 5-7.

Table 5-7 WebTAG Unit 3.3.10, The Biodiversity Sub-objective (DfT, 2004e)

AST - PV of
Qualitative Assessment Quantitative Assessment
Costs
Notes regarding whether biodiversity
An assessment is conducted on a
and earth heritage features are typical
matrix that categorises the Nature
of the locality and summarise the
Score Conservation Value of sites affected
overall effect of the scheme on
by the scheme and the level of
biodiversity and earth heritage
impact.
interests.

As with the landscape et al sub-objectives, there is a heavy reliance on empirical data

regarding the route of the transit system and given the largely urban environment the

biodiversity sub-objective is not going to be developed as there would be little to

demonstrate to differentiate between transit modes.

The appraisal for the water environment sub-objective considers all manner of water

courses and effects including rivers, floodplains, groundwater, seas and estuaries, lakes

and ponds (DfT, 2003c). This is shown in Table 5-8.

Table 5-8 WebTAG Unit 3.3.11, The Water Environment Sub-objective (DfT, 2003c)

AST - PV of
Qualitative Assessment Quantitative Assessment
Costs
A qualitative summary of impacts is
Notes regarding whether water
to be provided with an assessment
course features are typical of the
score based upon 7-point scale.
Score locality and summarise the overall
Assessed on matrix of importance of
effect of the scheme on the water
water attribute against magnitude of
environment.
impact.

164
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

The level of data required for meaningful assessment of the water environment sub-

objective is outside the scope of this project and will not be considered further.

Figure 5-2 illustrates the consideration given to the landscape, townscape and heritage

of historic resources. Where appropriate this would also illustrate water course effects

(as detailed in the key). This type of diagram is used to illustrate how the tram system

was to be incorporated into the landscape.

5.7.6. Physical Fitness and Journey Ambience

These two sub-objectives are relatively self-explanatory with the physical fitness sub-

objective attempting to qualify the health benefits of the transit scheme Table 5-9). The

health promoting aspects include enabling access to employment, recreation, social

services, physical fitness whereas health damaging includes emissions, noise, stress,

loss of land and blight for example (DfT, 2009d). Some of the health impacts are

considered in the noise, air quality and greenhouse gas sub-objectives.

Table 5-9 WebTAG Unit 3.3.12, The Physical Fitness Sub-objective (DfT, 2009d)

AST - PV of
Qualitative Assessment Quantitative Assessment
Costs
A commentary supporting the
The changes in the numbers of
quantitative assessment, i.e. how are
cyclists and pedestrians making
Score more (or less) pedestrians and
journeys of more than 30 minutes
cyclists envisaged as a result of the
due to the scheme
scheme.

There will not be any empirical data that further supports an economic or environmental

measure specific to the assessment of the physical fitness sub-objective; hence this will

not be considered further.

165
Figure 5-2
Merseytram landscape assessment drawing
extracted from Environmental Statement
(Source: Merseytravel, 2003)

166
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

Table 5-10 WebTAG Unit 3.3.13, The Journey Ambience Sub-objective (DfT, 2003d)

AST - PV of
Qualitative Assessment Quantitative Assessment
Costs
A qualitative summary of impacts is
The significant issues associated with to be provided with an assessment
Score the scheme should be recorded and score based upon 7-point scale
how these have been appraised. indicated using numbers of travellers
affected per day.

The journey ambience sub-objective aligns more with a pre-requisite for equivalence

between modes (Table 5-10). There are issues of journey ambience that are likely to be

similar between the modes and there are those that need to be similar for the purposes of

equivalence. The former could be vehicle cleanliness, anti-social passengers, noisy

children or other issues of the social environment. Areas that need to be similar for

equivalence could include décor, air conditioning, and upholstery for example.

The difference between these issues for each transit mode cannot be ascertained within the

scope of the project and hence cannot provide any basis of comparison between modes in

environmental and cost performance terms and will not be considered further.

5.8. The Economic Aspects of the Appraisal

The second key aspect of the analysis to be provided by this study is associated with the

cost performance of the transit modes. The financial appraisal for transit schemes detailed

in NATA is unsurprisingly extensive. The focus for this research is on the cost to construct

and operate the system as outlined below. The economic objective is sub-divided in to the

following facets as described in Unit 2.5, The Appraisal Process (DfT, 2011a):

• to get good value for money in relation to impacts on public accounts

• to improve transport economic efficiency for business users and transport providers

• to improve transport economic efficiency for consumer users

167
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

• to improve reliability

• to provide beneficial wider economic impacts

Overall the appraisal balances the benefits (expressed as a financial value) of a scheme

against the costs of implementation using a cost-benefit analysis. The calculation of the

costs also includes an assessment by applying a monetary value to the impacts of the

scheme on other road users, including pedestrians and cyclists. The data required to

develop a cost benefit analysis for the model along the lines of NATA would be outside the

scope of this project. The proposal is to assess the construction and operation cost to

provide a comparison between the modes. So how, if at all, does the proposed analysis

align with the economic sub-objectives that lead to the cost-benefit analysis?

5.8.1. Public Accounts Sub-objective

The ‘public accounts’ sub-objective is a complex measure, albeit in the AST this appears

as a single entry of cost - PVC, the ‘Present Value of Costs’ (incurred by central or local

government bodies). The development of the single item PVC is made-up of many

contributory factors that are summarised in the first instance in the ‘Public Accounts’

Table (DfT, 2011e)

This captures, for local and central government, the costs associated with:

 Revenue (a negative cost)

 Operating Costs 

 Investment Costs 

 Developer and other Contributions (negative cost)

 Grant/subsidy payments

 Indirect tax revenues (central government only)

168
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

Further cost analysis is conducted and presented in the ‘Analysis of Monetised Costs and

Benefits’ table (DfT, 2009e). This assigns a monetary value to other facets of the transit

scheme including some previously considered sub-objectives that are added to provide a

present value of benefits. Monetary values are assigned to noise, local air quality,

greenhouse gases, journey ambience, accidents, consumer users, business users and

providers and reliability. Note, that the costs assigned here are for the impacts on residents

and businesses affected by the scheme. This is a different measure to that proposed earlier

which represents the cost allowance for mitigation of emissions.

Of the key Public Accounts table factors, it is only intended that the operating and

investment (capital construction) costs are to be calculated (marked  above). It could be a

consideration for further work outside of this study, to explore revenue streams, ridership

and forecasting based on the different transit modes. The issue of grant or subsidy

payment, and developer contributions can be hypothesised but would not be the result of

detailed analysis or empirical data and hence is not considered.

5.8.2. Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) Sub-objective

The Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) sub-objective is summarised in the TEE table

(DfT, 2011f). The purpose of the Transport Economic Efficiency (TEE) table is to

summarise and present transport user benefits and summarises the user benefits of the

scheme, noting that ‘benefits’ also includes ‘disbenefits’ (negative impacts or costs).

This analysis is reliant upon the monetarisation of benefits, i.e. relative improvements to

the existing conditions of the following expressed fiscally:

• changes in travel time;

• changes in user charges, including fares, tariffs and tolls; and

169
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

• changes in vehicle operating costs met by the user (for private car and goods

vehicles).

As with previous examples the scope of this study does not include the capture of data in

such areas. The TEE sub-objective will not be considered further by the model.

5.8.3. Reliability Sub-objective

The concept of the reliability sub-objective is one that scores the ability of the scheme to

improve journey time reliability for transport users, including passengers (and freight)

(DfT, 2009f). Whilst this is an economic objective the output from the analysis presented

in the AST is a score and is reliant on demonstrating the improvement due to the scheme.

To satisfy this requirement would require a lot of site data on existing routes and modelling

of vehicle flows along the route with the new system overlaid, this is clearly not within the

scope of this project and has been omitted. As part of a wider equivalence measure, it

could be argued that the reliability figures should necessarily be comparable between the

modes otherwise in reliability performance terms they would not be equivalent.

5.8.4. Wider Economic Impacts Sub-objective

The wider economic impacts sub-objective considers the measurable effects of the

transport scheme on the local economy including employment, local and regional

regeneration, tourism, services, housing and the attraction of inward investment for

example. This again is outside the scope of the present study.

170
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

5.9. Summary of Objectives and Sub-objectives to be modelled

Sections 5.7 and 5.8 have identified the following areas of appraisal to be modelled:

• Noise, quantitative emissions and mitigation costs

• Local Air Quality, quantitative emissions and mitigation costs

• Greenhouse gases, quantitative emissions

• Aesthetics, quantitative mitigation costs and the some qualitative assessment as a

combining landscape, townscape and heritage of historic resources sub-objectives

• Economy, capital and operational costs

The remaining sub-objectives from NATA and the AST were omitted, with rationale as

either not falling under the auspices of cost or environmental performance, or, because

insufficient base data would be available to provide a reasoned comparison to differentiate

between the modes.

The next step is to consider how the model can be constructed to address the AST items.

This is based upon the data structure illustrated in Figure 5-1.

5.10. Project Lifecycle Phase

The development of a transit scheme is a long and often tortuous process. One of the

criticisms of such developments in the UK is that from recognition of the need and early

planning to implementation takes a significant time. The National Audit Office (NAO)

report, ‘Improving public transport in England through Light Rail’ confirms this citing that

of the seven systems developed in the UK, these took an average of eight and a half years

from seeking powers to the commencement of service (NAO, 2004).

171
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

The model will consider two distinct phases of the lifecycle of a transit scheme: the

construction and operation phases. Development of the early feasibility studies and

planning applications are outside the scope of the model. The services diversions works to

relocate statutory undertakers infrastructure, e.g. cables, gas mains, water pipes etc

potentially represent a significant cost impact to the scheme, and hence these enabling

works need to be considered, at an appropriate stage, in the model.

5.11. Selecting the Transit System Location

In order to provide a meaningful comparison between modes for construction and

operational cost it was important to determine a consistent basis for the analysis. The most

pragmatic means to synthesise the ‘consistent base’ was to develop a system in the context

of a specific town. For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the requirement for the

scheme has been identified for this area and moreover that early option development has

been undertaken to determine an outline route. The model would then simulate the

development of the transit scheme for light rail and guided-bus along the route. The route

should allow the specific requirements or nuances of each mode to be ascertained and

modelled.

It was felt that rather than using a purely hypothetical network it would be better to identify

a UK town or city that:

• had an appropriately large population to warrant a scheme

• was notionally a location where many people commuted to or from

• did not already have, or had tried to implement, a light rapid transit system

172
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

• had apparently disparate transport networks and nodes (i.e. more than one rail

station and motorway connections) that would benefit from being connected and

integrated by means of the proposed transit scheme

The section of the thesis that looks at the data gathering considers the selection of Reading

as the UK location for the model. This emulates a real-world example and provides a

sound basis for a comparison of various characteristics of light rail and bus-based systems.

This effectively befits the ‘planned system’ comparison described by Stanger (2009).

5.12. The Transit Scheme Systems

At this stage there are two fundamental ‘systems’ that require further analysis: the

infrastructure and the vehicle. For the highest level data for analysis (level one data – see

Figure 5-1), it is sufficient to provide the demarcation at this high level (vehicle or

infrastructure) to permit analysis between the modes recognising that there is detailed

build-up to support the single item cost for each ‘system’. The build-up of the system

components is the level two data (e.g. track, traction power) with a further breakdown of

elements at level 3 (i.e. the top-down development methodology).

It is appropriate to now consider in more detail how the AST objectives and sub-objectives

are to be aligned with the lifecycle phase and the transit system. The combination of these

is the level one data.

5.13. The Level One Data Structure

Based upon the above, the data types for level one of the model had been determined, as

illustrated in Table 5-11 as a summary of Figure 5-1. A codified form of each data type

173
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

was assigned with the aim of easily allowing a short-hand notation to be read and

translated in to the long-form version of the data. The level one codes used are as follows:

Table 5-11 Data Codification


Item
Description Code
(Figure 5-1)
Light Rail LR
Mode ef
Guided-Bus GB
Cost C
Objective a
Environment E
Noise and Vibration N
Local Air Quality (LAQ) L
Sub-objective b
Greenhouse Gases (GHG) G
Aesthetics A
Build B
Phase c
Operate O
Infrastructure I
System d
Vehicle V

Now that the level one data types had been determined it was necessary to develop the

linkage between them – the structure for the model. The structure used to develop the level

one data is illustrated in Figure 5-3. The diagram should be read from left to right

following a path through objective, sub-objective lifecycle phase to system. Using the

codes from Table 5-11 gives the codification for each path through the diagram.

For example, starting with ‘Cost’ there are six paths possible to follow to one of the four

Sub-objectives (Noise and Vibration, LAQ, GHG and Aesthetics) or directly to the

lifecycle phase of build or operate. From the four sub-objectives this also then leads to the

Build or Operate lifecycle phase before all paths lead to the system consideration of the

infrastructure or the vehicle

174
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

Figure 5-3 Level 1 Data Structure

System
Performance Performance Contributory
Lifecycle Codification
Objective Sub-Objective System
Phase

Infrastructure 1 CNBI
Build
Noise & Vehicle 2 CNBV
Vibration Infrastructure 3 CNOI
Operate
Vehicle 4 CNOV
Infrastructure 5 CLBI
Build
Vehicle 6 CLBV
LAQ
Infrastructure 7 CLOI
Operate
Vehicle 8 CLOV
Infrastructure 9 CGBI
Build
Cost

Vehicle 10 CGBV
GHG
Infrastructure 11 CGOI
Operate
Vehicle 12 CGOV
Infrastructure 13 CABI
Build
System Performance

Vehicle 14 CABV
Aesthetic
Infrastructure 15 CAOI
Operate
Vehicle 16 CAOV
Infrastructure 17 C-BI
Build
Vehicle 18 C-BV
Infrastructure 19 C-OI
Operate
Vehicle 20 C-OV
Infrastructure 21 ENBI
Build
Noise & Vehicle 22 ENBV
Vibration Infrastructure 23 ENOI
Operate
Vehicle 24 ENOV
Infrastructure 25 ELBI
Environmental

Build
Vehicle 26 ELBV
LAQ
Infrastructure 27 ELOI
Operate
Vehicle 28 ELOV
Infrastructure 29 EGBI
Build
Vehicle 30 EGBV
GHG
Infrastructure 31 EGOI
Operate
Vehicle 32 EGOV
Infrastructure 33 EABI
Build
Vehicle 34 EABV
Aesthetic
Infrastructure 35 EAOI
Operate
Vehicle 36 EAOV

Figure 5-3 shows how the combination of the cost impact of environmental performance

issues and cost issues alone can both be represented, unlike the earlier simple matrix-style

attempt illustrated in Table 5-2.

There is a slight anomaly where cost and environmental objectives are not combined

resulting in only three codes resulting in four of the outcomes (CBI, COI, CBV and COV).

Overall, the structure results in 36 outcomes compared to the 8 possible outcomes from the

175
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

matrix indicated in Table 5-2. The level 1 data therefore accounts for the ‘abcd’ of the

codification given in Figure 5-1 for each mode -‘ef’’.

One issue to note at this stage, which becomes a recurring theme through the development

of the model, is that by eliminating areas that can be reliably discounted from the analysis,

it is possible to reduce the volume of data to be collated and analysed. For example, at this

stage there are 36 possible outcomes from the feasible set; however, if all NATA

objectives and sub-objectives had been considered then the overall set becomes:

− Objectives x2

− Sub-objectives (see Table 5-1) x 23

− Lifecycle Phases x2

− Systems (infrastructure or vehicle) x2

This results in 184 (2 x 23 x 2 x 2) outcomes and the four ‘special cases’ above (CBI, COI,

CBV and COV) need to be added resulting in 188 outcomes for the full set, for one transit

mode; hence 376 items of data in total. Furthermore, the outcomes determined at level one

can be reduced by eliminating irrelevant combinations. The combinations that can be

eliminated are detailed in the data sift exercise that was then conducted.

5.13.1. Level One Data Sift

To further reduce the data to be assessed it is practicable to consider each of the 36 level

one outcomes individually for validity. In review of the Transport and Works Act (TWA)

submission for the Merseytram system (Merseytravel, 2003a) reference to the objectives

can be found in both detailed accounts, such as the Proof of Evidence documentation, for

example, ‘P8/A Proof of Evidence of Steve Mitchell, Noise and Vibration’ (Mitchell,

2004), and also in the AST (Eyles, 2004). Both the AST and other supporting

176
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

documentation were used to help determine which contributory factors are most important

in the final model.

Both of the LAQ and GHG sub-objectives have an environmental and cost performance

implication. So, cost is both a performance objective and a measure of the impact. There is

evidence that the environmental impacts (LAQ, GHG, noise and aesthetics) are recognised

as being of concern during the construction phase of the system. These are items that are

considered in the Merseytram Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) contained in Gilder

(2004). However, the impact is either of such a temporary nature, or that some form of

mitigation can be easily provided, and a proportionate cost allowed for that provision. For

example with reference to noise, “Although I have referred above to ‘impacts’, this is to

reflect the potential for some degree of disturbance, and in the context of the overall metro

development project I do not consider these to be unacceptable”, (Mitchell, 2004). Also, in

respect of air quality, “Overall, construction traffic is not predicted to cause a significant

impact on air quality. However, a slight increase in roadside concentrations of particulate

matter (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is expected on Waterloo Road and on London

Road during the construction phase.” (Gilder, 2004)

On this basis, emissions are usually not considered during the construction phase.

Mitigation measures include plant power-down to reduce noise and engine emissions, use

of hoarding as a sound barrier and to help redirect fumes and damping down dust-creating

works, e.g. concrete cutting detailed in the Merseytram CoCP, section D1.7.1 (Gilder,

2004).

The environmental issues of LAQ, GHG and noise need to be considered in the case of the

operation phase of the project as this creates longer-term environmental management

177
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

issues. This will include noise produced by the operation of the vehicles and non-traffic

operations (e.g. depot facilities) as well as consideration to GHG and LAQ. Gilder (2004)

notes that during operation the changes to traffic patterns and routes mean that, “Overall,

the impact of Merseytram on air quality is neutral. Changes in roadside air quality, both

positive and negative, will be small in magnitude.”

Given the above, the significant concern during the construction phase will be the

investment cost. The investment cost objective will focus on the construction phase

elements and the analyses will specifically those system costs that differentiate between the

different modes. The 36 outcomes from the level 1 data can be rationalised prior to level 2

analyses

All issues of vehicle impacts during the build phase can be negated except for the build

cost. The costs of the vehicles will differentiate between the schemes. Thus there are eight

codes discounted (CNBV, CLBV, CGBV, CABV, ENBV, ELBV, EGBV and EABV).

Further work could be completed in this area to determine the lifecycle costs of the

vehicles where these items would then feature but this is outside the scope of this study.

The environmental impact of the infrastructure during the operation of the system is

negligible as operational environmental impacts for noise, GHG and LAQ will be

apportioned to the vehicle. Any aesthetic issues associated with the infrastructure should

appear as a build cost, i.e. the ‘problem’ should be fixed prior to operation. Thus there are

a further eight discounted outcomes (CNOI, CLOI, CGOI, CAOI, ENOI, ELOI, EGOI and

EAOI).

It is noted that there is opportunity outside of the model scope to provide a mode-relative

qualitative measure of the aesthetic impacts (EAOI). The vehicle aesthetic impact during

178
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

operation can be negated as any vehicle aesthetic impact is again remedied during the build

stage. A further two outcomes are discounted (CAOV and EAOV). Any infrastructure

environmental impact per se (i.e. not environmental objective-lead cost mitigation issues)

during the build phase will be temporary and not measurable or discernable and has hence

been disregarded. This leads to four discounted outcomes (ENBI, ELBI, EGB and EABI).

In summary, this leaves outcomes the effect of the sifting exercise has been to reduce the

modelling criteria from 36 data types to 14 (CNBI, CNOV, CLBI, CLOV, CGBI, CGOV,

CABI, C-BI, C-BV, C-OI, C-OV, ENOV, ELOV, EGOV).

5.13.2. Final Level One Data types

To summarise and conclude the identification of the level one data types these are listed

below for both modes to be modelled, light rail (LR) and guided-bus (GB).

• LR-CNBI • GB-CNBI Where:


• LR-CNOV • GB-CNOV LR Light Rail
• LR-CLBI • GB-CLBI GB Guided-Bus
• LR-CLOV • GB-CLOV C Cost
• LR-CGBI • GB-CGBI E Environment
• LR-CGOV • GB-CGOV N Noise and Vibration
• LR-CABI • GB-CABI L Local Air Quality
• LR-C-BI • GB-C-BI G Greenhouse Gases
• LR-C-BV • GB-C-BV A Aesthetics
• LR-C-OI • GB-C-OI B Build
• LR-C-OV • GB-C-OV O Operate
• LR-ENOV • GB-ENOV I Infrastructure
• LR-ELOV • GB-ELOV V Vehicle
• LR-EGOV • GB-EGOV

179
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

At this stage it is possible to identify the level one data to the areas in the AST together

with the analysis conducted in section 5.7. Table 5-12 is an extract of the AST presented in

Table 5-1 indicating the quantitative scope of the model.

Table 5-12 AST – Model Scope Coverage

Objective Sub-objective Model Scope Codes


Cost to mitigate construction noise CNBI
Noise Cost to mitigate vehicle operation noise CNOV
Noise emissions operating the vehicle ENOV
Cost to mitigate construction LAQ CLBI
Local Air Quality
Environment Cost to mitigate vehicle operation LAQ CLOV
(LAQ)
LAQ emissions operating the vehicle ELOV
Cost to mitigate construction GHG CGBI
Greenhouse Gases
Cost to mitigate vehicle operation GHG CGOV
(GHG)
GHG emissions operating the vehicle EGOV
Landscape/Townscape/
Cost to mitigate aesthetic impacts
Heritage of Historic CABI
(during the construction phase)
Resources
Environment Biodiversity/
N/A -
Water Environment
Physical Fitness/
N/A -
Journey Ambience
Safety Accidents/Security N/A -
Public Accounts
TEE: Business Users &
Cost to construct the infrastructure C-BI
Transport Providers/
Consumers Cost to build the vehicle C-BV
Economy
Cost to operate the infrastructure C-OI
Reliability Cost to operate the vehicle C-OV
Wider Economic
Impacts
Option values/
Accessibility N/A -
Severance/Access
Transport Interchange/
Integration Land-Use Policy/Other N/A -
Government Policies

180
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

5.14. Level Two Data Structure: Definition of the Systems

As highlighted earlier, the definition of a ‘system’ in the context of this project is given to

be the vehicle or the infrastructure. The object of the level 2 data is to provide a further

breakdown of the two systems – these are to be known as the system components.

5.15. The Infrastructure Construction

Some fundamental principles of transit scheme operation need to be established to provide

an understanding of what infrastructure is required for each of the modes to be modelled:

• What preparations and provisions need to be made for the route before, during and

after construction?

• What route is to be taken and how is a right of way provided? Are any structures

required to overcome obstacles?

• Where are the vehicles to be maintained? What facilities are to be provided?

• How are the vehicles controlled whilst operating en-route? What facilities are

provided for other highway users?

• What power supplies are required and how are they controlled for the vehicle, or

the infrastructure?

By answering these questions a schedule of infrastructure components has been developed.

The level two data code, illustrated in Figure 5-1, is represented by an ‘x’ and is an integer

value. There was some iterative work conducted at this stage by using the data sheets used

to produce the final cost data to ‘inform’ the model development. This was done at times in

place of trying to define what data needed to be located and then finding the data sheets to

support the analysis. The codes from 1 to 11 inclusive represent the infrastructure

elements. These are detailed below.

181
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

5.15.1. Site Preparation – Level Two code 1

Site preparation represents the ground-works and making-ready of the route for the build-

up of the highway or permanent way works. This should include drainage and formation

provisions with cable ducts also allowed for.

5.15.2. Highway Works – Level Two code 2

The provision of either a guided-bus or light-rail route will require changes to the highway

for new running ways, upgraded routes or alternative provisions, for example, for

footpaths. This will also include new signs and street furniture.

5.15.3. Environmental, landscaping and architectural – Level Two code 3

Necessarily there will be a need for measures to integrate the scheme in to the local

landscape and townscape. This can include acoustic or visual fencing, landscaping,

planting and lighting. There is an opportunity to enhance the area with art installations.

5.15.4. Structures and Bridges – Level Two code 4

The largest single items of infrastructure will be the provisions made for a route where new

bridges, tunnels, flyovers or grade-separated junctions are required. This also needs to

account for footbridges and other structures required to divert existing traffic away from

the route.

182
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

Figure 5-4 Main Picture: Purpose constructed bridge to accommodate the Sheffield tram

alignment (Source: Google, 2010) Inset: View looking across the bridge (Source:

Hodgson, 2004)

5.15.5. Light Rail Trackwork and Bus-system Right of Way – Level Two code 5

This is the permanent way for the light rail system and includes for the routing of the

vehicles using switches and crossings. All elements of the guided-bus scheme, including

dedicated busway sections are covered in the highway works.

5.15.6. Stops and Stations – Level Two code 6

This cost area is for the boarding and disembarkation of passengers. These will be

specified as step-free raised-kerb stops with passenger information displays, CCTV (closed

circuit television), ticket machines, furniture, signage etc – see Figure 5-5. This will also

cater for ‘Park and Ride’ sites.

183
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

Figure 5-5 Croydon Tram Stop at East Croydon station (Source: Hodgson, 2004)

5.15.7. Traction Power – Level Two code 7

Whilst this could apply to both light rail and bus; as the guided-bus to be modelled is an

Liquefied Petroleum Gas - Internal Combustion Engine (LPG-ICE) based system then the

need for overhead power supplies and the associated management of them is negated. This

will be required for light rail.

5.15.8. Transit System Communications and Control – Level Two code 8

The backbone operations systems of the transit scheme will differ between modes,

insomuch that there will be no traction power control Supervisory Control and Data

Acquisition (SCADA) for the guided-bus. However, the communications system will link

the control centre with vehicle drivers and other operations staff as well as passengers. The

communications system will also provide data connectivity for passenger displays, CCTV

etc.

184
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

5.15.9. Road Junction Signalling – Level Two code 9

The nature of the transit system is that it is required to have a high level of integration with

existing highway users. This will require new and reconfigured priorities and routes for

vehicles and pedestrians. An allowance needs to be made for the introduction of traffic

control measures at road junctions and pedestrian crossing points. Figure 5-6 provides an

example of signalling control.

Figure 5-6 Road junction signalling near the Eindhoven football stadium. Left: car (red

aspect) and bus route (red horizontal lights) prohibited Right: car (green aspect) and bus

route (green vertical lights) permitted (Source: Hodgson 2006)

5.15.10. Ancillary Works – Level Two code 10

The building of the route represents a long, narrow construction site and there may be a

requirement to develop specific measures such as construction access roads. This section

will also account for any buildings that need to be demolished.

5.15.11. Depot – Level Two code 11

The largest single area of land on the system will be required for the depot. The facilities

provided for maintenance and upkeep of the vehicles, for example, as shown in Figure 5-7,

185
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

will differ between the modes and should account for the specific maintenance

requirements of each.

Figure 5-7 Nottingham Tram Wilkinson Street Depot (Source: Google, 2010)

Network Rail route to/from


central Nottingham to Bulwell,
Hucknall and Mansfield

Nottingham Tram (NET) route


to/from Hucknall to central

Depot
Tram
Sidings
Depot

Park & Ride


Car Park

Tram routes in and


around Depot

For example, if in-house wheel re-profiling is to be undertaken on the light rail vehicles

then a wheel lathe is required, including the ability to crane vehicles off wheel-sets. All

vehicles will need access for cleaning but light rail requires a larger footprint and track

connections and overhead power supplies; unlike buses that can be stabled closer together.

186
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

5.15.12. Enabling Works - Service Diversions

One key element of the enabling works associated with the development of a transit

scheme is to identify, and where necessary relocate, statutory undertakers’ services. The

necessity to relocate the services is to ensure the future capability to maintain the statutory

undertakers’ services without disruption to the system by having to dig the road or track

up. Such services include energy supplies (gas and electricity infrastructure), water (mains

and pipes, sewers and drains) and telecommunication networks infrastructure. Figure 5-8

illustrates the level of works that can be associated with service or utility diversions.

Figure 5-8 Edinburgh Tram Services Diversions (Source: Arcadis, 2011)

It is impracticable to assume that a light rail route can be diverted if access is needed to

services beneath the running way; hence all services will be diverted prior to any

construction of the new system is commenced. The same could be true of the bus network

but this will be concentrated on central areas where physical-space constraints will not

allow re-routing of the vehicles even outside of a guided section of the route.

The development of the transit system physical works will start with the services

diversions, levied at 95% of cost to the promoter in the UK, (NAO, 2004) and these can

187
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

take many months. Service diversion costs, as evidenced by Edinburgh can be significant

and will feature in the cost estimate but as a separate element to the infrastructure costs in

the model as an enabling cost.

5.15.13. The Infrastructure and Vehicle Operation

The operational costs associated with the transit system will primarily be based upon the

resources required to maintain and operate the infrastructure and vehicle. The definition of

these resources provides the basis for cost estimation and can include directly employed

labour, contracted services, energy and other services supplies, overheads and spares and

repairs materials. The operational costs can be applied to the level two data (Figure 5-1)

represented by the ‘x’ and is an integer value which are consistent with the infrastructure

and vehicle (i.e. 1 to 11) where these can be identified against individual elements of the

infrastructure. However, there are some costs that cannot be assigned to the infrastructure

or vehicle as these are core overhead and management costs. Table 5-13 summarises cost

areas.

Table 5-13 Operating Costs

Operational
Description
Area

The management team that leads the overall operation and


Business maintenance of the system; hence at the head of the organisation will
Administration include the board of directors but also includes accountants, human
resources, procurement and communication managers.

Headed-up by the Operations Director this is the management team


and staff that runs the system on a day to day basis. This includes
Operations
revenue collection and vehicle operating staff as well as operational
control room staff, scheduling and safety management.

188
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

Operational
Description
Area

Traction Power
The allowance for fuel, be it diesel, LPG or electric.
Supplies

Business There are considerable annual costs for insurances, security


Overheads (including British Transport Police) and general overheads.

Led by the Head of Engineering, this section includes all aspects of


Engineering and infrastructure and vehicle engineering management and support.
Maintenance Engineering teams undertaking mechanical and electrical engineering
Support duties on all aspects of the system as well as maintenance and
cleaning managers

The allowance for the hands-on maintenance of the system including


maintenance and cleaning staff, technicians and assistants with
Production discipline specialism aligned to the engineering and maintenance
management team. There is also a rapid response team for emergency
fault clearing for service-affecting incidents.

Subcontract works for infrastructure cleaning and highways


Infrastructure maintenance. Includes for consumables for depot cleaning and spot-
Maintenance repairs to vandalism or otherwise damaged infrastructure. This cost
can be identified to individual maintained infrastructure elements.

Specialist subcontracts for vehicle maintenance, for example on


Vehicle
proprietary spares, maintenance consumables and vandalism or other
Maintenance
damage repairs.

189
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

5.16. Level Two Data Summary

To summarise, there are 11 systems/components for the infrastructure and one for the

vehicle that need to sifted for further development to level three analysis in the model;

where a further breakdown of the ‘components’ to ‘elements’ of the ‘system’ follows the

level 2 analysis below.

In code-form, the level two data is now developed to this stage:

• LR-CNBI/x • GB-CNBI/x Where:


• LR-CNOV • GB-CNOV LR Light Rail
• LR-CLBI/x • GB-CLBI/x GB Guided-Bus
• LR-CLOV • GB-CLOV C Cost
• LR-CGBI/x • GB-CGBI/x E Environment
• LR-CGOV • GB-CGOV N Noise and Vibration
• LR-CABI/x • GB-CABI/x L Local Air Quality
• LR-C-BI/x • GB-C-BI/x G Greenhouse Gases
• LR-C-BV • GB-C-BV A Aesthetics
• LR-C-OI/x • GB-C-OI/x B Build
• LR-C-OV • GB-C-OV O Operate
• LR-ENOV • GB-ENOV I Infrastructure
• LR-ELOV • GB-ELOV V Vehicle
• LR-EGOV • GB-EGOV x Number 1 to 11

Where x (1 to 11) for the infrastructure ‘build’ and ‘operation’ denotes:

• 1 Site Preparation • 6 Stops and Stations

• 2 Highway Works • 7 Traction Power

• 3 Environmental, landscaping and • 8 Transit System Communications


architectural and Control

• 4 Structures and Bridges • 9 Road Junction Signalling

• 5 Trackwork • 10 Ancillary Works

• 11 Depot

190
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

5.16.1. Level Two Data Sift

As with the level one data development it is appropriate to eliminate areas of analysis that

are not relevant. For each of the light rail and guided-bus modes, there are 74 possibilities

that remain, made-up of 11 infrastructure construction elements multiplied by the

remaining 6 infrastructure (objective/sub-objective/life-cycle areas resulting from level 1),

plus the 8 vehicle components. The remaining data needs specific consideration to further

eliminate irrelevant data codes.

The guided-bus does not have overhead power; hence all traction power data can be

excluded. Fuelling facilities for the self-powered bus-based vehicle will be included as part

of the depot infrastructure cost and has no running rails meaning that trackwork can also be

omitted. The bus guidance system is included in the cost build-up for the route.

The cost of aesthetic impacts can be ignored for a number of infrastructure components

during construction for both modes (CABI). For site preparation and road junction

signalling the nature of the construction work is not visually intrusive for example.

However the construction of the major civil engineering elements (bridges) or buildings,

e.g. communications centre, depot or traction power substations could be visually intrusive

and an allowance should be made. Also, the very nature of undertaking the environmental

and landscaping works is to provide a screen and hence represents a cost in this area.

Looking at more detailed areas, the guided-bus system has been determined not to require

any acoustic barriers but an allowance is to be made for the light rail system – this enables

the disallowing of the CNBI/3 cost for guided-bus.

There are two areas that do not attract a construction cost. When implementing the

highway works it is assumed that all of the heavy-machinery, noise intrusive works will be

191
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

undertaken during the site preparation. For example the excavation works have a potential

to be very disruptive in terms of noise but the laying of new tarmac, stonework or painting

will require negligible noise mitigation and associated cost.

There are some infrastructure works that can only feature during the construction of the

system and hence do not occur as operational considerations (C-OI). These are site

preparation and ancillary works.

Taking in to account the above leaves the data shown below.

5.16.2. Light Rail Level Two Data for Infrastructure

For each of the infrastructure components (x = 1 to 11) these are now assigned to the six

remaining light rail codes from Level One associated with the infrastructure, namely:

o LR-CNBI/x o LR-CGBI/x o LR-C-BI/x

o LR-CLBI/x o LR-CABI/x o LR-C-OI/x

Table 5-14 is a matrix of the above codes and the values of x for Light Rail. This illustrates

the areas that have been excluded as a result of the above discussions.

As mentioned above there are a number of codes that cannot appear against aesthetic

impacts in the build phase ( in Table 5-14) or against operational aspects of the model

( in Table 5-14). Also noise impacts for the highway works has been negated ( in

Table 5-14).

192
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

Table 5-14 Light Rail Infrastructure Level 2 Data Codes

CGBI

CABI

CNBI

CLBI
Light Rail -

C-OI
C-BI
x
Infrastructure Codes

1 Site Preparation LR-C-BI/1 LR-CGBI/1


 LR-CNBI/1 LR-CLBI/1

2 Highway Works LR-C-BI/2 LR-CGBI/2 LR-CABI/2
 LR-CLBI/2 LR-C-OI/2

Environmental/ landscaping/
3 LR-C-BI/3 LR-CGBI/3 LR-CABI/3 LR-CNBI/3 LR-CLBI/3 LR-C-OI/3
architectural

4 Structures and Bridges LR-C-BI/4 LR-CGBI/4 LR-CABI/4 LR-CNBI/4 LR-CLBI/4 LR-C-OI/4

5 Trackwork LR-C-BI/5 LR-CGBI/5 LR-CABI/5 LR-CNBI/5 LR-CLBI/5 LR-C-OI/5

6 Stops LR-C-BI/6 LR-CGBI/6 LR-CABI/6 LR-CNBI/6 LR-CLBI/6 LR-C-OI/6

7 Traction power LR-C-BI/7 LR-CGBI/7 LR-CABI/7 LR-CNBI/7 LR-CLBI/7 LR-C-OI/7

Transit System Communications LR-C-BI/8


8 LR-CGBI/8 LR-CABI/8 LR-CNBI/8 LR-CLBI/8 LR-C-OI/8
and Control

9 Road Junction Signalling LR-C-BI/9 LR-CGBI/9


 LR-CNBI/9 LR-CLBI/9 LR-C-OI/9

10 Ancillary works LR-C-BI/10 LR-CGBI/10 LR-CABI/10 LR-CNBI/10 LR-CLBI/10



11 Depot LR-C-BI/11 LR-CGBI/11 LR-CABI/11 LR-CNBI/11 LR-CLBI/11 LR-C-OI/11

5.16.3. Guided-Bus Level Two Data for Infrastructure.

For each of the infrastructure components (x = 1 to 11) these are now assigned to the six

remaining guided-bus codes from Level One associated with the infrastructure, namely:

o GB-CNBI/x o GB-CGBI/x o GB-C-BI/x

o GB-CLBI/x o GB-CABI/x o GB-C-OI/x

Table 5-15 is a matrix of the above codes and the values of x for guided-bus. This

illustrates the areas that have been excluded as a result of the above discussions.

193
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

Guided-bus systems, as with light rail, have several codes that cannot appear against

aesthetic impacts in the build phase ( in Table 5-15) or against operational aspects of the

model ( in Table 5-15). The cost for Noise mitigation can be disallowed as described

above and this is shown as . Guided-buses as mentioned do not have a requirement for

trackwork () or traction power supplies ().

Table 5-15 Guided-Bus Infrastructure Level 2 Data Codes

CGBI

CABI

CNBI

CLBI
Guided-Bus -

C-OI
C-BI

x
Infrastructure Codes

1 Site Preparation GB-C-BI/1 GB-CGBI/1


 GB-CNBI/1 GB-CLBI/1

2 Highway Works GB-C-BI/2 GB-CGBI/2 GB-CABI/2
 GB-CLBI/2 GB-C-OI/2

Environmental/ landscaping/
3 architectural
GB-C-BI/3 GB-CGBI/3 GB-CABI/3
 GB-CLBI/3 GB-C-OI/3

4 Structures and Bridges GB-C-BI/4 GB-CGBI/4 GB-CABI/4 GB-CNBI/4 GB-CLBI/4 GB-C-OI/4

5 Trackwork      
6 Stops GB-C-BI/6 GB-CGBI/6 GB-CABI/6 GB-CNBI/6 GB-CLBI/6 GB-C-OI/6

7 Traction power      
Transit System Communications GB-C-BI/8
8 GB-CGBI/8 GB-CABI/8 GB-CNBI/8 GB-CLBI/8 GB-C-OI/8
and Control

9 Road Junction Signalling GB-C-BI/9 GB-CGBI/9


 GB-CNBI/9 GB-CLBI/9 GB-C-OI/9

10 Ancillary works GB-C-BI/10 GB-CGBI/10 GB-CABI/10 GB-CNBI/10 GB-CLBI/10



11 Depot GB-C-BI/11 GB-CGBI/11 GB-CABI/11 GB-CNBI/11 GB-CLBI/11 GB-C-OI/11

194
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

5.17. Data Sift Summary

At this stage of the development, the level two data sift has successfully reduced the

number of codes, i.e. the amount of data to be produced, by a considerable amount.

• Level one potential codes: 376 (for two modes, see section 5.13)

Includes all NATA objectives and sub-objectives

• Level one post data sift: 28 (for two modes)

• Level two potential codes: 2256 (no sift at level one or level two)

Level one potential codes (376), half multiplied by 11 infrastructure level 2 codes

and half by 1 for the vehicle per mode (188 x 11) + (188 x 1)

• Level two potential codes: 168 (sift at level one but not level l two)

Level one post data sift (28) half multiplied by 11 infrastructure level 2 codes and

half by 1 for the vehicle per mode (14 x 11) + (14 x 1)

• Level two post data sift: 125 (sift at level one and two)

Made up of 69 Light Rail and 56 Guided-Bus

The continued effort to reduce the amount of data required, by eliminating the irrelevant

codes, is to draw a boundary around the research and to focus the model on what is

important, i.e. what elements could potentially differentiate between the modes. The

importance of the reduction in data is evidenced by the volume of data that needs to be

analysed at level three. From Figure 5-1, the ‘y’ (level three data) is the next data stream to

be considered and this represents the breakdown of the infrastructure in to finite elements

of the system.

195
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

5.18. Level Three Data

The elemental breakdown of the infrastructure has a great deal of detail associated with it.

However, there is too much detail to be discussed and described in the main body of the

thesis; hence this has been provided in Appendix I for construction costs and Appendix II

for operational costs.

The summary of the work covered in Appendices I and II indicate that there are many

infrastructure elements to be costed and assessed. Table 5-16 below summarises the level 3

data for construction costs and Table 5-17 for operational costs in the areas described in

sections 5.15.1 – 5.15.11.

Table 5-16 Level Three Data Summary (Build)

x Component Elements
1 Site Preparation 10
2 Highway Works 13
3 Environmental, landscaping and architectural 11
4 Structures and Bridges 4
5 Trackwork 7
6 Stops and Stations 7
7 Traction Power 4
8 Transit System Communications and Control 6
9 Road Junction Signalling 11
10 Ancillary Works 2
11 Depot 12

To complete the codification, each of the infrastructure elements detailed above are

denoted with a lower-case character for the number of elements for construction. For

example, component 1 (site preparation) is coded 1a to 1k for 10 elements, and component

11 (ancillary works 11a and 11b).

196
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

The development of the operational costs differs to that of the build costs because the costs

are generally associated with activities that are concerned with components of the system

(i.e. level 2) and not elements (level 3). For example, the maintenance of the track work in

a light rail system will be just that, at this stage it is not possible to reconcile the

maintenance costs against different elements of the track, e.g. points or plain line. The data

collection for the operational costs did not align on a 1:1 basis with the construction costs,

so there is a degree of back-fitting the operational cost areas to the codification. This is

because, for example, there will be an electrical maintenance team that will maintain all

aspects of the electrical systems and not just, say, the stops. This means that the cost for

this team has to be apportioned to all appropriate areas. The cost breakdown for the

Operational costs is as detailed in Table 5-17.

Table 5-17 Operational Costs

Operations Cost
Operations Operations/Maintenance
General Built Mechanical and
Codification Vehicle
Overheads Infrastructure Electrical Systems
C-OI/2 - LR / GB LR / GB -
C-OI/3 - LR / GB - -
C-OI/4 - LR / GB LR / GB -
C-OI/5 - LR LR -
C-OI/6 LR / GB LR / GB LR / GB -
C-OI/7 LR - LR -
C-OI/8 LR / GB LR / GB LR / GB -
C-OI/9 - - LR / GB -
C-OI/11 LR / GB LR / GB LR / GB -
C-OV LR / GB - - LR / GB

To establish the operational costs, the data from Table 5-13 are apportioned to the codes

above in Table 5-17 as a percentage allocation of the cost for that item. This process results

197
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

in a large data set (464 for light rail and guided-bus combined for the infrastructure and

vehicle). The amount of data to be computed in the model at this stage has increased

considerably. Appendix III details the volume of data that numbers at 1111 codes in total

for light rail (611) and guided-bus (500) infrastructure construction and operation.

Additionally, there are the level 3 codes associated with the vehicle (which do not require a

further breakdown from level 2); hence these number 16 (8 each for light rail and guided-

bus). The overall total is hence 1127, i.e. there are 1127 discrete items of data to be

calculated for the model output. The final coding for the 1127 codes takes the form as

shown by the following examples and confirmed by Appendix I (for the infrastructure

components):

• The cost to mitigate noise emissions during site preparation works for a light rail

system is LR-CNBI/1b

• The Green House Gas operating emissions for a guided-bus vehicle is GB-EGOV

• The cost to construct a guided-bus facing platform stop and furniture is GB-C-BI/6a

It may not be practicable or necessary to undertake a wholesale analysis at level three;

however, it is necessary to schedule all of the level three data to enable a like-for-like

comparison on selected elements. The focus on the appropriate data at level three would be

identified at level one initially, then two and finally three by ‘posing’ the following

questions to determine the causal factor in differences between the modes:

• What is the cost differential between the modes, for example:

Level 1. Which phase, build or operate?

Level 2. Which infrastructure component?

Level 3. Which element of the infrastructure component?

198
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

The model has been developed using a top-down approach to the stage that 1127 data

elements are identified for assessment or computation. The starting-point of the

development was the AST, as shown in Table 5-1, and the next step in the development is

to tie the construction and operational codes back to the AST objectives and sub-

objectives.

5.19. The Model Data reconciled with the Appraisal Summary Table

By tying the data back to the AST this is effectively ‘closing the loop’ on the model. The

AST objectives that this project was seeking to address were the environmental and

economic types as initially presented in Table 5-12 and these can be expressed in terms of

the investment and operational ‘costs’. The common term in use to describe capital

investment is CAPEX, for example in Emhjellen et al (2002), “the capital expenditure

(CAPEX) of a project is one of the major cash-flows used to calculate net present value”.

This project is not attempting to address NPV, as discussed when reviewing the AST sub-

objectives earlier in this chapter, as this requires an analysis of the full breadth of benefits

and disadvantages of any particular scheme. This project does not go in to this detail but

using NPV does represent an opportunity for future work.

Similarly, OPEX is the common term used to describe Operational Expenditure (Dalzell,

2003). Applying this logic to the environmental measures we can use ENVEX (the costs

due to the mitigation of environmental emissions and ENVEM (the actual emission

values). In summary:

• CAPEX - capital expenditure


• OPEX - the operating expenditure
• ENVEX - the environmental mitigation costs
• ENVEM - the environmental emissions

199
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

The presentation of these costs in investment and operational phases would be:

• CAPEX + ENVEX = Investment ‘cost’

• OPEX + ENVEM = Operational ‘cost’

A further opportunity for work outside the remit of this project, would be to ‘cost’ the

emissions values as described earlier in the chapter as ‘NPV’.

Using the four areas identified, it is possible to align the AST objectives, sub-objectives

and hence the 14 level one data types. This is illustrated in Table 5-18 which represents a

‘Modified AST’ (M-AST) for the purposes of this project.

Table 5-18 M-AST: Modified AST for the Purposes of this Project

Option: Conventional Light Rail or Guided-Bus

Objective Sub-Objective Quantitative

ENVEM

Noise ENOV dB(A)

Environment Local Air Quality ELOV PM10/NOx (tonnes)

Greenhouse Gases EGOV CO2 (tonnes)

Aesthetics None N/A

ENVEX

Noise CNBI £ to mitigate

Local Air Quality CLBI £ to mitigate

Greenhouse Gases CGBI £ to mitigate

Economic Aesthetics CABI £ to mitigate

CAPEX

Public Accounts C-BI + C-BV £ to Construct

OPEX

Public Accounts C-OI + C-OV £ to Operate

200
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

Note that this represents the M-AST quantitative outputs of the model only, qualitative

aspects, where practicable, will be provided as a commentary.

The table provided in Appendix III provides the number of codes that apply to each of the

model codes in the M-AST for the infrastructure. The codes that link to the M-AST are

detailed in Appendix IV.

5.20. Reflection on the Model Development

The model has been developed in a multi-layered fashion and does have some complexity

and a significant volume of data to be identified, processed and analysed. The true test of

the structure will be in the data gathering, computation and analysis to see how easily the

differentiating cost and environmental performance measures can be identified. The model

development can be described diagrammatically, as illustrated in Figure 5-9.

Figure 5-9 Model Development Summary Process

Identified need for a What elements


framework to model of the AST can
Model Level 1
cost and be used, how
With the key systems defined, the sub-systems
environmental can these be
- AST Objectives need to be identified and captured in the structure
performance NATA, webTAG structured?
- Lifecycle Phase
and the AST
- Systems Data Sift

With the
structure defined What further detail
Model Level 3 Model Level 3 Model Level 2
it should now be needs to be provided
tied back to the - AST Objectives to differentiate
- AST Objectives
AST - Lifecycle Phase between modes?
- Lifecycle Phase
- M-AST - Systems
- Systems
- System Components
Data Sift - System Components
- System Elements

The model has been developed in an incremental fashion, as was expected. Section 4.5

discussed the hypothetico-deductive method and the inevitable recourse to guess-work, re-

work and corrections (Phillips & Pugh, 2000). This has certainly been evident in the model

work dating back to the earliest concepts in the design in early stages of the project.

201
Chapter 5 Assessment Development

5.20.1. Top-Down versus Bottom-Up

If a bottom-up approach had been used, the level three data would have been developed

from the infrastructure and vehicle elements and summarized to the point that each item

could be linked back to a point in the AST. Masi (2008) warns of bottom-up projects

suffering from a lack of overall vision and this was the case when initially tried here. The

detailed elements were being put in to a structure without really recognising how the final

output should be addressed by the evolving structure. Conversely the more rigid structure

required for top-down approaches meant that extensibility is difficult; newly identified

facets are required to fit the existing structure or a redesign is required. This was

encountered when trying to ‘fit’ the operational costs where the model structure was

changed to allow capture of operational costs at the same summary level as the

infrastructure or vehicle. This was inappropriate and by applying the model structure this

became evident.

Now that the data structure has been defined it is now necessary to identify and schedule

the data for the proposed system, in Reading, and the associated costs and environmental

factors.

202
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

6. Model Construction and Application

The model development has been based upon quantitative data as this is the most

appropriate means to provide insight into the characteristics of cost and environmental

performance and provide the basis for a robust argument. The development of the how the

data were identified and collated is described in this section, and can be summarised as

follows:

• Initially, a location was selected for the development of a test-scenario scheme

• The system layout and network was then developed based upon the location

• Finally, the detailed aspects of the infrastructure and vehicles required to

implement the network were identified and collated

The need to use a ‘real-life’ location was it provides a consistent basis for analysis between

the light rail and guided-bus modes without any recourse to hypothecated constraints or

benefits being considered that may be the case with a purely notional location and scheme.

Once the network and system layout had been developed the infrastructure and vehicles

required for the system could be scheduled and framed in terms of the cost and

environmental performance measures that would form the basis of the analysis. This would

classify costs and environmental performance in the construction and operational phases of

the system.

The framework to be used is based upon NATA (New Approach to Appraisal) with the

output given in an adapted form of the reduced AST; the modified AST, (M-AST) as

described at the end of the previous section.

203
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

The data gathering therefore needed to focus on:

• Cost Analysis

o Capital Costs for the infrastructure and the vehicle (CAPEX) – Section 6.7

o Operational Costs for infrastructure and vehicle (OPEX) – Section 6.8

• Environmental Analysis

o Emissions for infrastructure and the vehicle (ENVEM) – Section 6.9

o Emissions mitigation for infrastructure and vehicle (ENVEX) – Section 6.10

As has been previously discussed in Chapter 4, it has been necessary to draw boundaries

around the research to try and limit the volume of data to be collated and assessed; hence

the development of data levels and rules to eliminate certain data areas concluded in

section 5.19.

In section 5.5 the different modes that could be modelled were considered, the result of this

discussion being that two modes were selected to be modelled: (1) conventional light rail

and (2) a guided-bus based system; albeit with vehicle alternatives. The key to the model

was that it was to be applied to directly compare these two transit systems and therefore the

data had to have an equivalent UK basis. This required the production of a test case and,

prior to delving into the detail of the analyses; a discussion is included here to describe the

development of the test case system.

6.1 Scoping the System Location to be Modelled

The issues associated with the comparison of transit system costs have been discussed in

Chapter 4. These can be based upon implemented systems, i.e., there is no basis for direct

comparison because, by definition the systems being compared are at best in similar

locations but at worst are in different continents. Alternatively the comparison is between

204
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

hypothetical systems and the specifications and designs are changed to suit the presumed

requirements of a light rail or bus-based system.

Hass-Klau et al (2003) provides a considerable volume of comparative data from real-

world examples but concedes that comparisons between light rail and bus can be flawed or

incomplete. The comparison between light rail and bus in Houston and San Diego cites

‘predictable difficulties’ about poor capital expenditure data and how the introduction of

light rail had altered some bus routes to form feeder routes. By modelling a hypothetical

and critically, equivalent light-rail or guided-bus based system this can mitigate the issues

facing the comparison that using existing empirical data may otherwise present.

One of the key novel research themes is to provide a direct comparison of proposed transit

schemes. The issue was therefore to identify a test case for the proposed system. Rather

than making a comparison of the two alternative modes for a hypothetical town, it was

concluded that using them in an actual location would allow a comparison that was not

skewed toward one case or the other – it would be made to fit the chosen location. For

example, it may be proven that one particular type of light rail track section type has a

disproportionate contribution to capital cost which will be simpler to justify using in an

actual alignment that somewhere purely notional.

The research has been focussed on the UK and the research question directly considers the

UK for implementation; hence a UK location was to be selected for the test case. A few

basic selection criteria were used to determine where the system could be “developed”.

205
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

The selection was subject to the following ‘guidelines’:

• The location should not be one where a light rapid transit scheme had previously

been promoted or implemented. If this was the case it may skew the development

of the proposed scheme to either include or exclude aspects of the previous

proposal.

• A location should be selected that is sufficiently large or populated to warrant a

scheme. This should include existing transit links (trunk roads, bus routes and

mainline rail stations) and key interchanges that would benefit from the integration

that a new scheme could provide.

• The proposed location should provide the opportunity to provide a transport link to

key local origin/destination points, for example a hospital, university, shopping

centres and commercial or business areas.

Based upon the above, Reading was identified as a possible location with a population of

232,662 by the Office for National Statistics (ONS, 2005). Of the 20 larger towns and

cities in the UK, 14 have already got a light rapid transit system in operation or had been

subject to transport studies and proposals based around a light rail system. Reading has not

been the subject of such a study. Reading was also considered favourable as it was a

location known that provided some access to local knowledge and was considered to have

the added advantage that as well as being a commuting centre, it also was a source location

for commuters travelling to London.

The system proposed for Reading needed to have a route ‘designed’. This was done by

extracting mapping and aerial photography from Live Search Maps (Source: Microsoft,

2008). The first stage was to identify what key areas should be served by the proposed

scheme and what areas could be excluded from the immediate catchment area. The first

206
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

map is presented in Figure 6-1 and this highlights the key areas. A working network name

of ‘RUN’ (Reading Urban Network) was adopted.

From Figure 6-1, it can be seen that it would be beneficial for the route to serve the

hospital, university, retail and main commercial areas. It was important to provide a direct

connection to Reading Central station for onward commuting and travel, including the bus

link to Heathrow and rail link to Gatwick. The connections to the M4 (London and

Swindon), A4 (London and Newbury) and A33 (Basingstoke) roads would be good

locations for park and ride schemes. The M4 junction with the A329 (M) provides a dual

carriage-way route direct to Winnersh station with regular rail services to Reading and to

Ascot, Guildford, Staines and London. For this reason it is not intended to provide a link to

the proposed transit system directly at junction of the A329 (M) and M4.

The grey areas on the map in Figure 6-1 are the residential areas. To the north of Reading

Central is Caversham that was advised (by a former colleague who is resident in the area)

is relatively wealthy area that would probably not warrant nor entertain a transit system (it

was noted that the most expensive property in this area sold for £1.13m in the six months

to June 2011 (nethouseprices, 2011)).

To the west and south of Tilehurst station there is a large residential area that would

provide a good catchment area for the transit system. The area between the university and

industrial park to the south of the town should be considered also as this should also collect

patronage from the area to the east of the A327 up to the point where Earley station would

be a more convenient travel origin/destination.

207
Figure 6-1 Reading Area Map Overview of Transit System journey origin/destination points
(Source: Adapted from Maps Live, Microsoft, 2008.)

208
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

The topography of Reading is considered relatively flat for the purposes of the system

design and should present no issues of system routing for either mode. Light rail systems

are typically designed with maximum gradients of 6-9% and can be engineered for

gradients in excess of 10% but this is undesirable as it requires upgraded vehicles (Vuchic,

2007). At this stage, there is sufficient detail known about Reading as the proposed

location to scope the transit system network and infrastructure for the purposes of the

assessment. To plan the detailed implementation of a system, for example to TWA

(Transport and Works Act) Application levels would require significantly more in depth

work but this is beyond the scope of the project. The detail required would be to address all

of the NATA objectives in full where this study addresses the aspects of the AST

confirmed in Section 5.19.

6.2 Scoping the System Route

The route was outlined based upon linking the areas indicated above with a more detailed

analysis on the most likely route for the system considering the local road network, and

type of road, e.g. number of carriageways. The more detailed breakdown is illustrated and

described in the following pages.

6.2.1 Reading West

The western extension of the system has a single-direction loop extending toward the M4

with a park and ride location on the A4. This has been designed to capture patronage in the

Tilehurst area as an alternative to the heavy rail station (Tilehurst) where practicable.

Following the route west from Reading town centre the route diverges to a single-line

section at the Hogarth Avenue stop travelling to the north through New Lane Hill, St.

Michaels to Mayfair. At Mayfair the route turns south toward the A4 via Park Lane and

Langely Hill stops before running along the A4 to the Bath Road Park and Ride site. This

rejoins the two ‘track’ section for the run toward Reading at the Hogarth Avenue stop.
209
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Figure 6-2 RUN System Western Loop


(Source: Adapted from Maps Live, Microsoft, 2008)

Mayfair

St.Michaels

Park Lane

Bath Road Section


New Lane Hill
Langley Hill

Hogarth Avenue
Bath Road
Park & Ride

The Bath Road Park and Ride site has been selected at this location because there is some

undeveloped land that could be converted in to the car park without any property

demolition. By using aerial photography and superimposing a car-park footprint it has been

approximated that about 600 cars could be accommodated at this location. The park and

ride site is located on the A4 around 2½ km from the M4 junction 12 and hence would give

access to central Reading from road travellers arriving from the West by either private car

or to use a bus interchange to the RUN system.

6.2.2 Reading West toward Reading Central

The two ‘track’ section continues from Hogarth Avenue toward the town centre. This runs

along the A4 to the A329 junction at Castle Hill. The route passes through Granville Road,

Southcote Lane and the Courts single-faced double platform stops. A key diversion near

210
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Southcote Lane is where the route to the depot is formed alongside an existing heavy rail

alignment Reading West station to the junction for the Basingstoke and Newbury lines.

Figure 6-3 RUN System Western Extension and Depot Link


(Source: Adapted from Maps Live, Microsoft, 2008)

Central
Section
Reading West Station

Castle Hill

The Courts

Southcote Lane

Granville Road

Hogarth Avenue

 To Newbury
The Depot

To Basingstoke

The proposed depot location is formed south of this rail junction. Figure 6-3 illustrates the

location where a disused rail track forms the north east boundary of this site. The depot

footprint has been approximated for both modes and is considered in more detail later in

the thesis. The main route then moves in to the central section and the town centre.

6.2.3 Reading Central

In the central area of Reading the transit system route is from the west, through the town

centre and diverges east and south. From the west the route runs up a short section of the

A329 through the Chatham Street stop before bearing right toward the heavy rail central

station.

211
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Figure 6-4 RUN System Central Section


(Source: Adapted from Maps Live, Microsoft, 2008)

Reading Central

Eastern Section
The Oracle
Forbury
Chatham Road
Street Kings Road
Watlington
Street
Kingsgate
Castle Hill University
Hospital North

Hospital South

Chancellors

Southern Section

The route section from Castle Hill to Chatham Street has a section of elevated route on a

dedicated structure for both light rail and bus-based systems. The Reading Central stop, at

the main heavy rail station is formed of an island platform and can also act as a turn-back

location. The next stops heading east are located at Forbury Road and The Oracle because

these are adjacent to large offices and a shopping centre respectively.

The route crosses two river bridges (river Kennet) with the Watlington Street stop nestled

between them on the junction of Watlington Street and King’s Road. Here the route splits

to southern and eastern extensions. The route to the east continues along the A4 via King’s

Road and Kingsgate. The route south crosses the A4 London Road on to Redlands Road

and then calls at the University stop. The next two stops are for the adjacent hospital,

‘Hospital North’ and ‘Hospital South’ stops. From the hospital the route continues south in

to a mainly residential area with a further single-faced double platform stop at Chancellors.

212
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

6.2.4 Reading South

The southern route runs for around 9km to a park and ride site adjacent to junction 11 of

the M4. Figure 6-5 illustrates the route from central Reading south to the terminus at the

M4 via the Madejski Stadium.

Figure 6-5 RUN System Southern Extension


(Source: Adapted from Maps Live, Microsoft, 2008)

Chancellors

Cressingham Road
Basingstoke Road

Callington Road

Acre Road

Madejski

Imperial Way

M4 Park & Ride

From the Chancellors stop the route turns west along through the Cressingham Road

residential area to the Basingstoke Road. The route runs alongside the industrial area on

the west of Basingstoke Road and the residential properties to the east via the Callington

213
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Road stop to Acre Road. At Acre Road the route turns west again toward the football

stadium and just on A33 Basingstoke Road there is a stop for the Madejski Stadium

(Reading Football Club). The last section runs along the A33 via the Imperial Way stop,

which is near a sizeable business complex. The route then runs around the top-edge of the

roundabout that forms the intersection of the M4 and A33 (junction 11) to the M4 park and

ride site. This Park and Ride site has been located on the footprint of a highways

maintenance site. Again, as with the Park and Ride site at A4 East, the local authorities

would need to locate an alternative location for this existing facility. The footprint has been

approximated at 600 cars.

6.2.5 Reading East

The eastern extension is relatively short and only has a further 3 stops terminating at the

A4 park and ride site.

Figure 6-6 RUN System Eastern Extension


(Source: Adapted from Maps Live, Microsoft, 2008)

A4 Park & Ride


London Road

St.Barts
Kingsgate

The route runs through mainly residential areas with stops after Kingsgate at St. Barts and

London Road. The London Road stop is a few hundred metres from the main A329/A4

intersection. The A329 is a key route from the Winnersh, Wokingham, Bracknell and

214
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

junction 10 of the M4. Access to the transit system can be gained relatively easily from

junctions 12, 11 and 10 of the M4 serving the west, south and east of Reading respectively.

The Park and Ride site has been located on the A4 on development land being available by

converting some allotments to use as a car-park. It is anticipated that the Reading District

Council would need to re-provide land for allotment use although there is uncultivated land

to the rear of the allotments that could be used. The car-park footprint anticipated for the

car-park could accommodate circa 520 cars. The three park and ride sites would provide

parking for around 1500 cars. The Nottingham Express Transit (NET, 2005b) system has

3107 spaces provided over 5 sites (average of 620 per site) so the Reading system has

fewer overall spaces available but the individual location capacities appear about the same

size as NET.

The route that has been described above can be presented in a diagrammatic manner

indicating the routes and stops as shown in Figure 6-7. This is a view that perhaps a

passenger may expect to see.

Figure 6-7 RUN System Route-map


Mayfair St.Michaels

Park
New Lane Hill
Lane
Langley Granville The Chatham Forbury Watlington London
Kingsgate
Hill Road Courts Sreet Road Street Road

Bath Road Hogarth Southcote Castle Reading The Kings A4


St.Barts
Park & Ride Avenue Lane Hill Central Oracle Road Park & Ride

University

Hospital North

Hospital South

Chancellors

Cressingham Road

Basingstoke Road

Callington Road

Acre Road

Madejski Stadium

Imperial Way

M4 Park & Ride

215
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

With the route established it is possible to start to define the characteristics of the system

for the purpose of providing a comparison between a conventional light rail and guided-

bus-based system.

6.3 Specifying the System Characteristics

The specification of the system characteristics was an iterative process that was in-part

informed by the cost data being collated at the same time. For example, whilst looking-up

costs for a particular item of infrastructure this may have highlighted an additional

(unscoped) item. The system characteristics were re-visited to include this additional item

which was then costed; hence an iterative development. The first step was to measure the

system route length before determining the route type and more detailed system

characteristics that would enable a system to be developed and modelled.

As mentioned previously, the system was being developed only sufficient to provide a

valid comparison between the two modes being modelled and not to the level of detail for

full TWA style application.

6.4 Route Length and Make-up

The mapping and aerial photography was used to scale-off the route to determine the basic

route type measurements. The scaling can only be an approximation due to inaccuracies

introduced by manipulating the downloaded internet map images. However, as both

systems being modelled were based upon the same mapping then any scaling errors apply

equally to each system.

The total route length was determined using the intervals between the stops to describe the

sections as illustrated in Table 6-1.

216
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Table 6-1 RUN System Route Sections

Route Section Track Length (km)


R1 Park Lane- Mayfair - St.Michaels - New Lane Hill Single 2.9
R2 New Lane Hill - Hogarth Avenue Single 0.5
R3 Park Lane - Langley Hill Single 0.6
R4 A4 Park and Ride - Hogarth Avenue Double 0.9
R5 Langley Hill - A4 Park and Ride Single 1.1
R6 Hogarth Avenue - Castle Hill Double 3.1
R7 Castle Hill - Chatham Street Double 0.5
R8 Chatham Street - Watlington Street Double 1.5
R9 Watlington Street - Chancellors Double 1.9
R10 Chancellors - Cressingham Road Double 1.4
R11 Cressingham Road - Basingstoke Road Double 0.8
R12 Basingstoke Road - Madejski Stadium Double 1.7
R13 Madejski Stadium Stop - M4 Park and Ride Double 1.2
R14 Watlington Street - London Road/A329M Double 2.3
R15 London Road - A4 Park and Ride Double 1.2
R16 Depot Feeder (Bath Road) Single 0.8
Total Route Length 22.4

This was then sub-divided in to different route-type lengths for use in the model. Each

route section was then apportioned with the extent of each of the running types from

ballast, paved, grassedj and structure as appropriate to either light rail or guided-bus based

system. There were variations between the two modes; the most obvious example being

that ballasted track is only used on rail-based systems. More subtle differences were also

identified between the systems particular to the Reading test-case. For example, where

there were long runs alongside a highway, light rail could be run in ballast whereas the bus

was either grassed or paved. In the case of running on the highway then both cases

assumed the use of a paved finish. The resulting data is given in detailed form in Appendix

V and has been summarised in Table 6-2.

j
A ‘grassed’ section is where the running ‘line’ (rail for light rail, or pavement for guided-bus) is surrounded
with grass to lessen the visual impact of the route. See Figure 6-8.

217
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Table 6-2 RUN System Route Type Summary

Length (m) Length (m)


Detail
Light Rail Guided-Bus
Ballast 1225 0
Paved 12460 13208
Grass 8259 8736
Structure 499 499
Route Length 22443 22443

Single Track Length 6003


Double Track Length 16440
Effective Track Length (Double Track) 32880
Total Track Length 38882

Segregated 3941
Shared 18501
Route Length 22443

It is important to note here that the route type has been varied to reflect the different nature

of the systems. However, to maintain a consistent approach for comparative purposes the

running ways for route width (single or double) and segregated or shared route have been

kept the same. An allowance of 2.65m can be made for a single light rail running width

and 2.5m for bus. The difference between the system running widths is considered

sufficiently negligible to be priced on the same basis (Laughton and Warne, 2003).

At this stage of the development it was unclear what effect the differences in the route

types would have on the overall cost of the system. The route type lengths were factored

depending on the construction item, for example, for overhead line provision for light rail

this is a function of the total track length, whereas re-surfacing is only considered where

paved sections are used.

218
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Figure 6-8 Left: An example of a grass-track section. This is a mock-up of what

Cambridgeshire County Council (CC) envisaged the Cambridge Guided-Bus scheme was

to look like. (Source: Cambridgeshire CC, 2008)

Figure 6-8 Right: A section of the

Cambridge system in May 2011 after a

dry period meant the grass was not as

lush-looking as intended. (Source:

Warren, 2011)

The identification of the different route types over the length of the system goes a long way

to determining the majority of the system cost build-up. These areas are considered in

more detail here.

6.4.1 Route and Site Preparation (Appendix I, Section 1)

The items covered in this section involve the investigation, clearance and base preparation

for the final highway or rail finish. This includes excavation of the existing route, the

implementation of drainage systems and the removal of lighting columns.

Each of the 10 elements identified for these works are based upon sections of the route

length. In some cases the quantity is based upon a cross-sectional area of the route, for

219
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

example in route clearing, but for excavation of the route to fully prepare the formation of

the track or the highway requires a volumetric quantity, typically metres cubed (m3). This

section is concerned with the preparation of a base for the route to be constructed upon and

hence includes drainage and removal of existing lighting columns.

Note that this work assumes that the enabling works to relocate services (water, electricity

etc) has already been undertaken. So, whilst service diversions will appear as a cost to the

project, it is completed as an enabling stage and is treated separately. The rationale for this

is provided later.

6.4.2 Highway Works (Appendix I, Section 2)

This section is for the completion of the highway works based upon the route length and

type. The route finish has a number of options depending on the route type including

flexible pavement and various commercially available paved finishes, for example

‘Marshalls Mistral’ (Marshalls, 2010) or Granite Setts (see Figure 6-9)

Figure 6-9 Examples of Granite Setts, Left: Close-up view (Source: Bingley Stone, 2010),

Right: In running-way (Source: Onions, 2011)

As with route preparation there are areas for cross-sectional works (m2) and for volumetric

works (m3). There are elements of this section that will equally apply to light rail as well as

220
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

guided-bus, for example, where the light rail track runs on-street, the finish will be the

same whether for tracks or highway. The obvious difference being that light rail will have

the running rails provided within the final paved build.

The highway works section also includes street furniture and signs as well as kerbs and the

reconstruction of footpaths. These are also based upon the length and type of the route.

6.4.3 Environmental/landscaping/architectural (Appendix I, Section 3)

This section essentially deals with the aesthetic and acoustic aspects to be mitigated or

‘managed’ by the implementation of the transit system. This section concerns the provision

of fencing, tree and shrub planting, landscaping and an allowance for public art

installations (2 per system has been envisaged).

There are greater issues associated with noise generated by ballasted routes (Britpave,

2011) than for highway sections. Considerable emphasis has been placed by the light rail

industry on low-noise, low vibration street rail systems. An €18.6m part-European Union

funded project called, ‘Urban Track’, (Urban Track, 2008) focussed on objectives of low

life cycle cost, high performance, modular, safe, low noise and vibration track systems. In

response to the requirement for quieter running, systems have been developed using

embedded rail or sound-absorbing porous concrete (Lloyds Register, 2007).

The noise generated on ballast sections can be due to rolling noise (wheel-rail interface) or

by traction equipment for light rail applications. Noise emissions from the vehicle can be

assessed from manufacturer’s data but the rolling noise will be due to the quality of

infrastructure as much as the vehicle. In the case of RUN the ballasted track is all new and

there is no ‘temptation’ to cut cost and rely on former heavy-rail routes as Manchester

Metrolink and Birmingham Midland Metro did.


221
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

The external noise characteristics of both vehicle types and infrastructure are assumed to

be the same, and hence the same level of screening has been provided for each system as a

function of the route lengths with the exception of the ballasted areas. The ballasted areas

are considered to require timber-fenced acoustic fencing.

When considering the visual impact of the guided-bus based system it is assumed that there

would be an allowance for planting along the route consistent with the landscaping works

which is a function of the route type. The visual impact of the light rail system has an

additional allowance for planting and screening for the substations in particular as there is

little that can be done to hide overhead line masts and supports. In any case the use of

vegetation around the electrical distribution equipment provides an additional maintenance

activity to keep the vegetation pruned back.

6.4.4 Structures and Bridges (Appendix I, Section 4)

The RUN route requires an elevated section between Castle Hill and Chatham Street stops

which is assumed to be required for both modes. This has been envisaged to resemble the

Phileas Eindhoven elevated section illustrated in Figure 6-10.

Figure 6-10 A Phileas vehicle on the dedicated elevated section in Eindhoven


(Source: Hodgson, 2006)

222
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

The footbridges have been provided for busy sections of the route where at-grade crossings

would not be practicable, i.e. the road is too wide or busy to implement street level

pedestrian crossings. Three such footbridges have been allowed for on Bath Road,

Basingstoke Road and London Road.

6.4.5 Trackwork (Appendix I, Section 5)

This aspect of the track work is additional to the highway elements where the running rails

are required in the finished highway surface, the track to be located on the elevated

structural section or the ballasted track.

One key facet of the light rail system included here, that is not required for guided-buses, is

the trackwork ‘functionality’ required to switch vehicles between routes or lines. These

pieces of track infrastructure are known as switch and crossing (S&C) units and can take

the form of a turn-out (converging or diverging routes) or a crossover (to switch between

lines). A crossover can be made up of a series of two turn-outs or four turn-outs and a

diamond crossing. These configurations are shown in Figure 6-11.

Figure 6-11 Track Switch and Crossing (S&C) Configurations

Main route straight on Diverging Left Turn-out Main route straight on


A B B A B

C A C C D
Diverging Right Turn-out Main route straight on Crossover between tracks

Single Turn-out Single Turn-out Crossover


Routes Available: A-B, A-C Routes Available: A-B, A-C Routes Available: A-B, A-D, C-D

Main route straight on Routes are indicated in normal


direction of traffic. Moves would be
A B possible working wrong-line, for
Crossover with diamond.
example in each case from B to A.
C Routes available: A-B, A-D, D-C,
D
D-A, C-B
Crossover between tracks Configurations shown for the purposes
of this study, other configurations are
possible

223
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

The configuration of the S&C developed for the RUN system is related to the location of

the stops to provide operational flexibility.

6.4.6 Stops (Appendix I, Section 6)

From the basic route plan developed, it was a relatively straight forward task to devise the

layout of the route. This is important for light rail because as discussed above, this is a

factor used to determine the number of switch and crossing (S&C) units required.

The number and type of stops is a potential cost differentiator as guided-buses, assuming

doors on one side of the vehicle only cannot use island platforms as illustrated in Figure 6-

12. The cost for an island platform is marginally cheaper than for two single faced island

platforms because station furniture and fittings can be shared in the case of island

platforms and there is physically less materials required for construction; a single island

platform has a normal minimum width of 3m (HSEk, 1997); whereas single facing

platforms could be 3m wide each side.

There is an option with the Phileas vehicle, for example, to have door openings on both

sides; however, this alters the layout of the vehicle by removing the seats. By allowing for

door openings for access/egress this will reduce the seating capacity of the vehicle;

however, standing capacity can be increased and more passengers can stand than can be

seated in the same footprint. For simplicity single side openings will be assumed and

therefore the island stops are not appropriate to RUN for guided-bus.

Figure 6-12 illustrates why an island platform cannot be used for a single-side entry

vehicle.

k
Health and Safety Executive, Railway Safety Principles Guidelines

224
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Figure 6-12 Single face and island platforms

Guided-bus Stop

Guided-bus Island Stop

Guided-bus Stop

Two single face platforms are A single island platform is adequate


adequate for both guided-bus and for light rail, but in the UK is not
light rail use. usable by guided-buses.

Light Rail Stop

Light Rail Island Stop

Light Rail Stop

Bus Vehicle indicating direction of travel

Doors - one side only

Light Rail Vehicle indicating direction of travel

Doors - on both sides

The equipment provided at the stops is also included in the section 6 costs. This allows for

all furniture including shelters, seats, ticket vending machines, passenger information

displays and security measures. The additional equipment and infrastructure required at

Park and Ride sites is scoped in this section. The specification for the bus and light rail

systems is the same.

The arrangement of the stops was proposed based upon a review of the aerial mapping and

trying to space the stops relevant to the likely catchment area. For example, for the

225
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Sheffield Supertram system the city-centre stops are closely spaced (less than 300m in

places) but in less densely populated outlying areas this is over 1km between some stops

(TrackMaps, 2005). The greatest distance between adjacent stops on RUN is 1.4km which

is between the Cressingham Road and Chancellors stops. The shortest distance is only

220m from Hospital North to Hospital South stops. Other town centre stops are close

together, as designed due to the likely high density passenger use, from Watlington Street

to Kings Road and The Oracle. The RUN stops for each of the light rail and guided-bus

proposals are shown in Table 6-3.

Table 6-3 RUN System Stops

Platform Type
Stop Name Stop Type Faces
Light Rail Guided Bus
S1 M4 Park & Ride Park & Ride 2 Facing Facing
S2 Imperial Way Standard 2 Facing Facing
S3 Madejski Stadium Standard 2 Facing Facing
S4 Acre Road Standard 2 Island Facing
S5 Callington Road Standard 2 Facing Facing
S6 Basingstoke Road Standard 2 Facing Facing
S7 Cressingham Road Standard 2 Island Facing
S8 Chancellors Standard 2 Island Facing
S9 Hospital South Standard 2 Facing Facing
S10 Hospital North Standard 2 Facing Facing
S11 University Standard 2 Island Facing
S12 Watlington Street Standard 2 Island Facing
S13 Kings Road Standard 2 Island Facing
S14 Kingsgate Standard 2 Facing Facing
S15 St.Barts Standard 2 Island Facing
S16 London Road Standard 2 Facing Facing
S17 A4 Park & Ride Park & Ride 2 Facing Facing
S18 The Oracle Standard 2 Facing Facing
S19 Forbury Road Standard 2 Island Facing
S20 Reading Central Standard 2 Island Facing
S21 Chatham Street Standard 2 Facing Facing
S22 Castle Hill Standard 2 Facing Facing
S23 The Courts Standard 2 Island Facing

226
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Platform Type
Stop Name Stop Type Faces
Light Rail Guided Bus
S24 Southcote Lane Standard 2 Island Facing
S25 Granville Road Standard 2 Island Facing
S26 New Lane Hill Standard 1 Single Single
S27 St.Michaels Standard 1 Single Single
S28 Mayfair Standard 1 Single Single
S29 Park Lane Standard 1 Single Single
S30 Langley Hill Standard 1 Single Single
S31 Bath Road Park & Ride Park & Ride 2 Facing Facing
S32 Hogarth Avenue Standard 1 Facing Facing

In summary, the number and type of stops are:

Light Rail Guided Bus


• Facing platforms 15 27
• Island platform 12 0
• Single platform 5 5
32 32

With the number and location of stops defined it is possible to determine the location of the

S&C.

6.4.7 Switch and Crossings (S&C) and Route Configuration (Appendix I, Section 5)

The number and layout of the stops on the system have been determined it is now

appropriate to configure the track layout. S&C units are costly items (£0.15m material cost

for one cross-over unit in the highway) that are not required for the guided-bus. The

specification of the track layout with S&C is based upon a review of current UK light rail

systems. The S&C provides the operational flexibility required for light rail allowing units

to change route or move around potential faults on the system. If a system operated with

crossovers only at the extremities of the route, for turn-around purposes, then any incident

in the areas between the crossovers would lead to operational degradation.

227
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Consider the worked example shown in Figure 6-13. This shows an extract of the proposed

RUN system (with southern branch and depot feed excluded for simplicity). Scenario A

shows the effect of the line blocked just west of The Courts stop with minimal S&C

provision at the extremity of the route and for routing on the single line section only. The

entire length of the route shown in blue is effectively blocked to through traffic. The only

route operable would be a shuttle service from Hogarth Avenue to the A4 Park & Ride

stop. This would only allow one vehicle to operate with the service significantly below

capacity.

Scenario B, with more strategically located S&C, shows the route is blocked due to an

incident again west of The Courts stop. The affected section that is blocked to through

traffic, again shown in blue, is considerably reduced. The only single line operation would

be over the 6 stops from Hogarth Avenue to Chatham Street.

Current light rail systems in the UK have been reviewed to verify the distance of S&C

between stops as illustrated in the table below. The Quail Map (TrackMaps, 2005) series of

track plans have been used to determine the number of stops between S&C in Table 6-4.

Table 6-4 Configuration of Stops and S&C on UK Light Rail Systems

System Maximum No. of Stops between S&C (Example)


Croydon 5 (Therpia Lane to West Croydon)
Manchester Metrolink 5 (Timperley to Stretford)
Midland Metro (Birmingham) 5 (Black Lake to West Bromwich Central)
Nottingham Express Transit 2 (David Lane to Basford)
Reading RUN 5 (Cressingham Road to University)
Sheffield Supertram 6 (Birley Lane to Crystal Peaks)

228
Figure 6-13 Degraded Mode Operation and S&C Location
Mayfair St.Michaels
Scenario A - Limited S&C
Incident: Blockage of the line
Park
Lane New Lane
Hill Chatham London
Kingsgate
Langley Granville The Sreet Forbury Watlington Kings Road
Hill Road Courts Road Street Road

Southcote Reading
St.Barts
Bath Road Hogarth Lane Castle Central The A4
Park & Ride Avenue Hill Oracle Park & Ride

Mayfair St.Michaels
Scenario B - Full Operational S&C
Incident: Blockage of the line
Park
Lane New Lane
Hill Chatham London
Kingsgate
Langley Granville The Sreet Forbury Watlington Kings Road
Hill Road Courts Road Street Road

Southcote Reading
St.Barts
Bath Road Hogarth Lane Castle Central The A4
Park & Ride Avenue Hill Oracle Park & Ride

Island, single track stop


Single-faced, double track stop Single Cross-over in track

Single Turn-out in track Double Cross-over in track


Island, double track stop

Key

229
Figure 6-14 The RUN System Scheme

Mayfair St.Michaels

Park
Lane New Lane
Hill Chatham London
Kingsgate
Langley Granville The Sreet Forbury Watlington Kings Road
Hill Road Courts Road Street Road

Southcote Reading
St.Barts
Bath Road Hogarth Lane Castle Central The A4
University
Park & Ride Avenue Hill Oracle Park & Ride

Hospital
North
GreenFields Depot
Hospital South

Chancellors
Single-faced, double track stop
Cressingham Road
Not to Scale

Island, double track stop Basingstoke Road

Callington Road

Island, single track stop Acre Road

Madejski Stadium
Single Cross-over in track
Imperial Way

Double Cross-over in track M4 Park & Ride

Single Turn-out in track

Key

230
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

To summarise, development of the configuration of the stops and the S&C, the

arrangement of the track and the stops is as shown in Figure 6-14. There are 30 turnouts

with 5 crossings located near Reading Central, Watlington Street, Cressingham Road, M4

Park and Ride and A4 Park and Ride stops. The number of S&C units specified above

excludes the depot and these are considered separately even though the depot layout is

shown in Figure 6-14. Figure 6-15 illustrates a typical ballast S&C installation for the

triangular junction at the hub of the Sheffield Supertram system.

Figure 6-15 Sheffield Supertram S&C (Source: Hodgson, 2004)

6.4.8 Traction Power (Appendix I, Section 7)

The need for overhead power supplies for the light rail option means that there is

infrastructure required to power the vehicles. This is made up of an overhead wire

distribution system and power supplies via a series of substations. The traction power

supplies are divided in to the high voltage (HV) alternating current (AC) supplies derived

from the electricity supply company and the rectified direct current (DC) voltage used by

231
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

the traction units. A typical, simplified, substation arrangement for converting the HVAC

in to DC and auxiliary supplies is illustrated in Figure 6-16.

Figure 6-16 Typical Traction Power Substation Schematic

HV AC Incomers from Electricity Supply Company

HV AC Circuit HV AC
Breakers Distribution
Board

Rectifier
Auxiliary Transformer Auxiliary
Transformer Transformer
Rectifier

Main DC Breaker
750v DC
Distribution
Track Circuit Board
Breakers

Track-side Isolators

Track Overhead
Supplies

The low voltage loads can include points heating, signalling supplies and domestic

supplies at the adjacent stops. The photograph shown in Figure 6-17 shows a substation on

the Nottingham Express Transit (NET). This substation is located at the Moor Bridge Stop

and indicates the size of the building and footprint required, typically no more than 40m2.

Note that the two smaller cabinets to the left of the substation are the low voltage

distribution cabinets for the stop power supplies and points operating and heating power

supplies. The number of substations required is dependant on the length of the route, the

number of tracks and the number of vehicles that will be operating on the system.

232
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Figure 6-17 NET Substation at Moorbridge (Source: Hodgson, 2005)

The NET system has 6 substations for the 14km system, including one specifically to feed

the depot and all associated AC and DC supplies, (NET, 2005a). This equates to one

substation every 2.8km (excluding the depot). Hence, assuming that the two systems have

similar service levels and hence power demand, for the RUN system this will require

21.8km/2.8 = 8 substations and one for the depot is 9.

Figure 6-18 Heavy-duty ‘H’ Section Figure 6-19 Simple, single-central pole
single-central pole used on Croydon used on Sheffield SuperTram
(Source: Hodgson, 2004) (Source: Hodgson, 2004)

233
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

The overhead power supplies can be mounted on poles or attached to buildings. Two pole

mounted examples are shown in Figures 6-18 and 6-19. For the purposes of the model the

number required has been assessed on a quantity per km basis.

6.4.9 Telecommunications and Control (Appendix I, Section 8)

Modern transit systems use telecommunications systems for ticketing, security and real-

time customer information screens and signalling and traction power control for the

vehicle. Figure 6-20 illustrates a simplified communications system architecture. This

section includes the Control Centre and associated hardware, the communications

equipment including fibre-optic back-bone routers and hardware and signalling system.

This section also includes for route-length cable ducting for the fibre back-bone. The cost

for the transit system signalling provision is included and the control of the traction power

and other electrical supplies is via a SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition)

system.

Figure 6-20 Simplified Communications System Overview

SCADA Workstation Route Control System Station Operations and Security System

B Line
A Line Communications
Communications Equipment
Equipment

A Line Communications Backbone

B Line Communications Backbone

Station Local Route Control Substation


Comms Cabinet Local Comms Local Comms
Cabinet Cabinet

CCTV PA S&C AC Switchgear


DC Switchgear
Ticket Machines Transit System Signals LV Power Supplies
Help-Points
Points Heating
Interface to Road Traffic Signals
Passenger Information Displays

234
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

6.4.10 System Interfaces – Road Junction Signalling (Appendix I, Section 9)

The RUN system has a number of interfaces that need to integrate with the existing

transport network, in particular at-grade road and pedestrian crossings. The quantity of at-

grade junctions and crossings has been considered for the locations detailed in Table 6-5.

Table 6-5 Road Junctions and Crossings

Light Guided-
Crossing Type
Rail Bus
Standard 'T' Junction 30 12
Standard 'T' Junction (inc Pedestrian Facilities) 10 9
Large 'T' Junction (inc Pedestrian Facilities) 8 7
Standard Crossroads 4 3
Standard Crossroads (inc Pedestrian Facilities) 1 1
Large Complex Crossroads (inc Pedestrian Facilities) 7 7
Roundabout crossing 11 11
Single Pelican Crossing 16 16
Double Pelican Crossing 22 22
Total Junctions and Crossings 71 50

This means that there are 71 junctions on the route that require controls for the light rail

system but 21 junctions do not require control for the guided-bus and the bus will be

controlled as ‘normal’ traffic. The controlled junctions for both light rail and guided-bus

are to provide priority running, and for the light rail system all junctions are controlled to

ensure separation between the rail vehicle and all other road users. The 21 junctions that

are not to be provided with controls are where the route that the guided-bus is taking has

priority in any case, i.e. a ‘T’ junction where the bus route is on the main road. Traffic

controls are provided at these locations for the light rail system to provide additional

protection to ensure mode separation. For equivalence this may not require the same

infrastructure or system provision as similar service levels could be achieved with reduced

infrastructure for the guided-bus.

235
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

The existing road traffic signals will also require changes to the local road system across

the route. The overall system is known as UTC – Urban Traffic Control. A UTC system

ensures that traffic flows are optimised to minimise congestion and hold-ups. The simple

rationale on how these changes are to be captured makes the assumption that for each

junction or pelican crossing this will require changes to the UTC. The quantity of new

interfaces is the total number of new traffic interfaces:

• 109 for light rail (71 road + 38 pedestrian crossings)

• 88 for guided-bus (50 road + 38 pedestrian crossings)

An allowance of 31 for both light rail and guided-bus has been made for changes to

existing major junctions where controls already exist.

6.4.11 Ancillary Works (Appendix I, Section 10)

The work here consists of providing access roads and the demolition of buildings that need

to be removed for the purposes of the system construction. Access roads are typically haul-

roads that are constructed for the works or accesses to sites that do not have an existing

highway link. These roads will be removed after completion of the system. The allowance

made in this section for the access roads assumes that a total of 500m length of road will be

required.

The demolition of buildings has been estimated as seven properties. The majority of the

route has been ‘designed’ assuming that sufficient highway width is available for the right

of way. There will be some demolition required at each of the park and ride sites (three

buildings) and there has been a small allowance made for the town-centre locations to have

four buildings demolished.

236
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

6.4.12 The Depot and Facilities (Appendix I, Section 11)

The depot facility constitutes a significant proportion of the works associated with the

scheme. The footprint of the depot area needs to be sufficient to accommodate the

maintenance facilities and stabling for vehicles. To develop a layout or plan for the light

rail depot area, a number of the light rail schemes currently in use or proposed at the time

of the study in the UK were reviewed. An approximation of the footprint was taken using

aerial mapping (Source: Microsoft, 2008). This was assessed with the number of vehicles

operated by the system to test for a correlation between area and vehicles which from

Table 6-6 is not evident.

Table 6-6 UK Light Rail Depot Footprints and Vehicles

System Area (m2) Vehicles (No.) Area/Vehicle (m2)


Merseytram (Merseytram, 2004) 47600 21 2266.7
Croydon 21700 24 904.2
Midland Metro 24000 16 1500.0
Manchester Metrolink 30000 32 937.5
Nottingham 24500 15 1633.3

It can be seen that from the Merseytram Planning Direction Drawing (Merseytravel, 2004)

shown in Figure 6-21 for the depot that this is a ‘gold-plated’ facility, incorporating a paint

shop, separate sheds for a wheel lathe, two inspection roads, wash facility, depot shunter

siding, delivery line and stabling. Midland Metro on the other hand has all facilities in a

single shed; housing the wheel lathe with an external wash facility and stabling only. The

Midland Metro depot is also the location for the control room, as shown in Figure 6-22.

This view shows the train control, electrical control, station management and CCTV

(closed circuit television) screens.

237
Figure 6-21 Merseytram Depot Planning Direction Drawing (Source: Merseytravel, 2004)

238
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Figure 6-22 Midland Metro Control Centre (Source: Hodgson, 2004)

The depot connection to the main route is illustrated in Figure 6-14. More detail is shown

in Figure 6-23 showing the RUN depot facility, called Greenfields and is equipped with a

wheel lathe, vehicle wash, and accommodation, control centre and security building. The

wheel lathe in use on the NET system at the Wilkinson Street depot is shown in Figure 6-

24; the provision for Greenfields depot would be similar.

Figure 6-23 RUN Light Rail Depot Facility

Substation Secure, Fenced Compound


Staff Welfare &
Accomodation Stabling Sidings
Security

Car Park

Vehicle Wash
Headshunt
Facility

Maintenance Shed
Control Centre
Wheel Lathe Shop
GreenFields Depot

239
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Figure 6-24 NET Depot Wheel Lathe (Source: NET, 2005a)

The footprint approximated for the RUN light rail depot is 21000m2 – based upon the

depot being 300m long by 70m wide. This works out to be 1000m2/vehicle for 21 vehicles

which is in line with the values provided in Table 6-6 for UK systems, being most

comparable to Croydon. The Croydon depot has all of the items considered for Greenfields

and in addition a British Transport Police base (Parascandolo, 2007).

The depot footprint for the guided-bus depot can be made smaller. This is because the

vehicles can be stabled much closer together – side by side. The calculation of the footprint

has been based upon a method used by Franklin and Andrews (a firm of construction

economists – their role in the provision of model data is described later) and this is

described below. The evaluation has been based upon 30 guided-bus vehicles (see 7.1.4).

• The guided-bus is 18.8m long and 2.6m wide, with space allowance the

footprint becomes 25m x 3.5m per vehicle. For 30 vehicles this is 2625m2

• F&A recommend factor of 2 on stabling space for movement – 5250m2

• Total stabling and movement space is hence 7875m2

240
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

• Allow capacity for 5 vehicles in maintenance with space around each vehicle =

30m x 8m x 5 = 1200m2

• Fuelling assumed for 2 vehicles at one time = 25 x 3.5 x 2 = 175m2

• Staff facilities assumed at 500m2

• Control Centre facility assumed at 500m2

• Total Space Requirement = 7875 + 1200 + 175 + 500 + 500 = 10250m2

The land identified for the two systems are 10300m2 for the bus and 21000m2 for the light

rail system.

6.5 Specifying the Vehicles

There has been some detail provided on the specification of the infrastructure and it is of

course important to provide details on the vehicles. This section does that by considering

the operational characteristics of the vehicle and the contribution to environmental and cost

performance is reviewed later in this section when looking at capital and operational

expenditure, environmental emissions and costs (CAPEX, OPEX, ENVEM and ENVEX).

6.5.1 Light Rail Vehicle

The Merseytram Proof of Evidence for Engineering (Mack, 2004) is vague about the

specification of vehicles and states that the vehicles will be, ‘low floor vehicles similar to

those used on many European systems such as those in Strasbourg, Montpellier and in the

UK, the Croydon Tramlink and the South Yorkshire Supertram.’ It is noteworthy that each

of these systems operates different vehicles; Bombardier Eurotram, Alstom Citadis,

Bombardier CR-4000 and Duewag vehicles respectively. Furthermore, the document

confirms that any decision on the selection would be taken by the concessionaire. For the

purposes of the model the Croydon CR-4000 has been used because of the availability of

241
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

technical data (Kiepe-Elektrik, 2000). The CR-4000 is 30.1m long with room for 208

passengers (70 sitting). The average acceleration is 1.2m/s2 and it can attain a maximum

speed of 80km/h. It does use regenerative braking and has 4 motors rated at 120kW (140

amps).

6.5.2 Guided-Bus Vehicle

As has been discussed, the guided-bus vehicle and system are assessed on the basis of

providing an equivalent passenger experience and performance to that offered by a light

rail system. This was initially intended to be the ‘magnetically-guided’ Phileas

manufactured by APTS (Advanced Passenger Transport Systems). However, significant

operational issues have meant that this vehicle is undergoing a drive-train change from a

Liquefied Petroleum Gas - Internal Combustion Engine (LPG-ICE) to a diesel ICE;

however it will retain the hybrid configuration with electrical final drives.

When first selecting a vehicle there was an option to look at the Phileas or the Civis bus as

these had both been introduced in mainland Europe and this gave an ideal opportunity to

visit the system and sample the passenger experience. This was undertaken in Eindhoven

on the Phileas bus. The Civis has been operating in Rouen since 2001 and Las Vegas in the

US since 2004.

In the study trip to Eindhoven, the LPG hybrid was noted as providing a fast and quiet

acceleration and motoring function. These used a GM Allison hybrid EP50 system (APTS,

2008). This system has been attracting a reputation in the United States for saving fuel and

hence emission-efficient power for buses. For example, GM reported that the order for

1700 GM Allison buses would double the fleet size of this vehicle replacing less-efficient

242
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

buses. In Washington D.C., Philadelphia and Minneapolis the annual saving has been

projected at 2.4 million gallons of fuel (General Motors, 2008).

It is not necessarily appropriate to specify a vehicle that, whilst on face-value, has the right

characteristics to be modelled, but does not have a proven service operation. On this basis

alternatives to the Phileas vehicle have been sought.

The first of these is the New Flyer model DE60LF (code for, “diesel-electric-60 feet long–

low floor”). Whilst these have seen widespread use in the US, early versions were

conventional bus-like in appearance but there have been face-lifted versions in light of the

‘BRT’ (bus rapid transit) growth in the US (Weststart-CALSTART, 2006). A face-lifted

version is illustrated in Figure 6-25.

Figure 6-25 Face-lifted DE60LF

These images taken from the New Flyer


website (Source: New Flyer, 2009) illustrate
the exterior and interior of the vehicle. The
large containment on the roof of the vehicle
is for the battery-pack. As can be seen the
vehicle looks modern clean and has a
spacious interior.

243
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

There is good data available regarding then DE60LF but the vehicle is slightly smaller than

the largest Phileas vehicle that would have been used on the Reading system. The 24m

Phileas vehicle provides a capability to carry 129 passengers (46 seated) and can operate at

speeds up to 96km/h, but is limited to 60 km/h when operating in guided-mode with an

acceleration of 1.4m/s2. The DE60LF New Flyer is shorter at 18.8m and has a capacity of

115 (62 seated).

The DE60LF is justified to be used in the study as this uses the same final drive as the

Phileas. Both vehicles use a conventional diesel engine and an electrical final drive with a

GM Allison hybrid EP50 system also (Weststart-CALSTART, 2006). The EP50 Allison

system (Allison, 2008b) can produce 298kW acceleration power and, when not powering

at speeds above 50km/h, will operate in full regenerative braking mode. It is noted,

however, that there are only a few locations on the RUN system where the vehicles will be

able to brake from speeds over 50km/h.

Table 6-7 summarises the basic light rail and guided-bus data. The capacity on the

DE60LF has potential to be increased if fewer seats were provided and more room made

for standees.

Table 6-7 Light rail and guided-bus data Summary

Characteristic CR-4000 Phileas DE60LF Civis


2
Max Passengers (4p/m ) 208 129 115 120
Max Seated 70 46 62 Unknown
Seated/Total Passengers 33.7% 36.7% 53.9% Unknown
Max Speed (Guided) (km/h) 80 60 N/A 70
Max Speed (Unguided) (km/h) N/A 96 Unknown 70
Acceleration (m/s2) 1.2 1.4 Unknown 1.2

244
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

The collation of cost and emissions data for the vehicles has proved to be a considerable

challenge and this is detailed later in this chapter when considering CAPEX, OPEX and

ENVEM.

6.6 Summary of Development

So far this section has provided an overview of the transit system that has been

conceptualised for the model. The areas discussed have been:

• The location for the system – identified as being in the UK, and specifically

Reading in Berkshire

• The route for the system – known as RUN, the Reading Urban Network, has been

scoped to include the likely key origin/destination points in and around the town

• A brief overview and discussion on the infrastructure that needs to be provided for

both the light rail and guided-bus based routes. This has included key areas of the

running way, stops, traction power, maintenance depot, control and integration

with the existing environment. This latter area has looked at a wide range of

integration issues from public art installations to the prioritisation of traffic at road

intersections.

• A short review of the vehicle types following the earlier detailed work on the

vehicles that has settled on a light rail vehicle as used on the Croydon tram system

and New Flyer DE60LF. The Phileas and Civis bus vehicles will also be

considered for the guided-bus system.

The next step is to convert the data above in to a costed model in terms of capital,

operational and environmental expenditure (CAPEX, OPEX, and ENVEX) and

environmental emissions (ENVEM). The next section addresses this and illustrates the

development of the costs and emissions.

245
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

6.7 Capital Expenditure (CAPEX)

The CAPEX cost build-up is relatively straightforward, but requires an introduction to help

explain the rationale behind why certain costs appear in the build-up where they do. The

method used has been adapted from the framework used by Franklin and Andrews (see

below for detail under ‘Cost Data Sources’). Whilst this is made-up of basic computations

in a series of spreadsheets a diagrammatic presentation of the cost framework helps to

clearly illustrate the structure. This cost framework is shown in Figure 6-26 and

summarised below. This section also describes how the data development is framed in

terms of the modified Appraisal Summary Table (M-AST) developed in Chapter 4.

The detailed cost build-up is scheduled for each section is discussed in 6.4.1 to 6.4.12, e.g.

for Section 1, Route and Site Preparation, Section 2 Highway Works etc. For each of the

eleven sections provided in Appendix I, a quantity for the item has been identified from the

system development discussed earlier in this chapter. This is applied to the rate for the unit

specified in Appendix I to produce a cost price for that item. The costs at this stage

represent the model ‘Level 3’ data. The cost data aligns with the tables presented in 5-14

and 5-15 for light rail and guided-bus respectively and also in Appendix IV.

The summary line item per section, for example using the example below (‘stops’) is the

LR-C-BI/6 or GB-C-BI/6 cost for light rail and guided-bus respectively. For example:

• Appendix I, Item 6c, Single platform is costed per platform


• System development identified Light Rail would require 5 single platforms
• The cost per platform is, sayl, £0.15m
• The total cost for light rail single platforms is £0.75m
• The value of LR-C-BI/6c is hence £0.75m
• Appendix IV, Item LR-C-BI/6 is a CAPEX, ‘Public Accounts’ cost

l
This value is hypothesised as data confidentiality prevents actual values being used

246
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Figure 6-26 Cost Framework

Construction Net Construction


Cost Summary Construction Net Cost Cost Add-ons

Level 2 Cost Data Level 1 Cost Data Factored cost - the


Level 3 Cost Data Indirect Costs of
e.g. i.e. Construction
e.g. Summarised Summarised Factored
LR-C-BI/6 LR-C-BI These are like-for-
LR-C-BI/6c GB-C-BI/11 GB-C-BI like for LR and GB
GB-C-BI/11a etc
etc

B D E
A

Environmental Costs are factors of


Level 3, 2 and 1 values. Total Project
E.g. LR-CLBI/6c, GB-CNBI/11a
LR-CLBI/6, GB-CNBI/11
Construction Cost
LR-CLBI, GB-CNBI
This represents the
ENVEX total Construction
M-AST Entry C Infrastructure Cost of
the works due by the
Construction
Contractor
Utility Costs EMC

Utilities Costs -
Electricty, Telecoms
EMC Compliance F
qw eqerfqerfqerf……………….1231 Demonstration Costs
etc
7654

H I
Operator & Land Acquisition
Concessionare & Compensation

Add-on allowance for Land Acquisition and Total Project Cost


Operator & compensation costs (Excluding Vehicles)
Concessionare Costs

This represents the


G J total Capital Cost of
the Infrastructure

Vehicle
Procurement Trial Running
K
Cost to Procure Cost to Test
Vehicle only Vehicle on built
Infrastructure

L M

Total Vehicle Cost

Total Vehicle Cost


Total Project
Cost
LR-C-BV
GB-C-BV
Total Project
N CAPEX

M-AST Entry

247
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

The individual line items are summarised into grouped elements; hence for the above

example a total cost for Stops (C-BI/6a to C-BI/6e) is produced. The sum of all the build

costs (C-BI/1 to C-BI/11) provides all of the elements of C-BI (the cost to build the

infrastructure). This collection of all 11 line items represents the ‘Construction Net Cost

Summary’ (model ‘Level 2’ data, e.g. LR-C-BI/6 in the example above) and the

summation of these provides the ‘Construction Net Cost’ as a single line item. These are

identifiable in Figure 6-26.

From the direct construction costs the allowance for the environmental mitigation costs are

calculated. These are the ENVEX costs that are described in more detail in section 6.10.5.

Figure 6-27 is a copy of Figure 5-14 showing the level 2 data for Light Rail and likewise 6-

28 is provided for Guided-Bus based upon Figure 5-15. The areas covered by the analysis

here (CAPEX) are indicated on these figures as well as those areas covered by OPEX

(circled in red, section 6.8), ENVEM (circled in blue, section 6.9) and ENVEX (greyed-out

areas, section 6.10). Figures 6-27 and 6-28 are indicative only to assist the reader in

understanding what areas of the model are dealt with here by CAPEX. For full details on

the codes please refer back to Tables 5-14 and 5-15.

The data presented in figures 6-27 and 6-28 aligns with the data provided in Appendix IV

and how this contributes to the M-AST.

248
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Figure 6-27 Light Rail Level 2 Data Table

CGOV
CNOV

EGOV
CLOV

ENOV

ELOV
Conventional Electrified

C-OV
CGBI
CNBI

CABI

C-BV
CLBI

C-OI
C-BI
Light Rail

1 Site Preparation LR-CNBI/1  LR-CLBI/1  LR-CGBI/1   LR-C-BI/1      

2 Highway Works LR-CNBI/2  LR-CLBI/2  LR-CGBI/2  LR-CABI/2 LR-C-BI/2  LR-C-OI/2    

3
Environmental/
landscaping/ architectural
LR-CNBI/3  LR-CLBI/3 Mauve
 areas are
 the
LR-CGBI/3 LR-CABI/3 LR-C-BI/3  LR-C-OI/3    
CAPEX Costs
4 Structures and Bridges LR-CNBI/4  LR-CLBI/4  LR-CGBI/4  LR-CABI/4 LR-C-BI/4  LR-C-OI/4    

5 Trackwork LR-CNBI/5  LR-CLBI/5  LR-CGBI/5  LR-CABI/5 LR-C-BI/5  LR-C-OI/5    


Grayed-out areas are
6 Stops LR-CNBI/6  the ENVEX
 Costs
LR-CLBI/6  LR-CGBI/6 LR-CABI/6 LR-C-BI/6  LR-C-OI/6    
OPEX
7 Traction power LR-CNBI/7  LR-CLBI/7  LR-CGBI/7  LR-CABI/7 LR-C-BI/7  LR-C-OI/7    
Transit System
8 Communications and LR-CNBI/8  LR-CLBI/8  LR-CGBI/8  LR-CABI/8 LR-C-BI/8  LR-C-OI/8    
Control

9 Road Junction Signalling LR-CNBI/9  LR-CLBI/9  LR-CGBI/9   LR-C-BI/9  LR-C-OI/9    


OPEX
10 Ancillary works LR-CNBI/10  LR-CLBI/10  LR-CGBI/10  LR-CABI/10 LR-C-BI/10     ENVEM
 

11 Depot LR-CNBI/11  LR-CLBI/11  LR-CGBI/11  LR-CABI/11 LR-C-BI/11  LR-C-OI/11    

12 Vehicle  LR-CNOV/12  LR-CLOV/12  LR-CGOV/12   LR-C-BV/12  LR-C-OV/12 LR-ENOV/12 LR-ELOV/12 LR-EGOV/12

Figure 6-28 Guided-Bus Level 2 Data Table


CGOV
CNOV

EGOV
ENOV
CLOV

ELOV
C-OV
CGBI

CABI

C-BV
CNBI

CLBI

C-OI
C-BI

Guided-Bus

1 Site Preparation GB-CNBI/1  GB-CLBI/1  GB-CGBI/1   GB-C-BI/1      

2 Highway Works GB-CNBI/2  GB-CLBI/2 Pink


 areas arethe
GB-CGBI/2 GB-CABI/2 GB-C-BI/2  GB-C-OI/2    
Environmental/
CAPEX Costs
3 landscaping/ architectural
GB-CNBI/3  GB-CLBI/3  GB-CGBI/3  GB-CABI/3 GB-C-BI/3  GB-C-OI/3    

4 Structures and Bridges GB-CNBI/4  GB-CLBI/4  GB-CGBI/4  GB-CABI/4 GB-C-BI/4  GB-C-OI/4    

5 Trackwork              
Grayed-out areas are
6 Stops GB-CNBI/6  GB-CLBI/6 GB-CGBI/6 GB-CABI/6 GB-C-BI/6  GB-C-OI/6    
the ENVEX Costs OPEX
7 Traction power              
Transit System
8 Communications and GB-CNBI/8  GB-CLBI/8  GB-CGBI/8  GB-CABI/8 GB-C-BI/8  GB-C-OI/8    
Control

9 Road Junction Signalling GB-CNBI/9  GB-CLBI/9  GB-CGBI/9   GB-C-BI/9  GB-C-OI/9    


OPEX ENVEM
10 Ancillary works GB-CNBI/10  GB-CLBI/10  GB-CGBI/10  GB-CABI/10 GB-C-BI/10      

11 Depot GB-CNBI/11  GB-CLBI/11  GB-CGBI/11  GB-CABI/11 GB-C-BI/11  GB-C-OI/11    

12 Vehicle  GB-CNOV/12  GB-CLOV/12  GB-CGOV/12   GB-C-BV/12  GB-C-OV/12 GB-ENOV/12 GB-ELOV/12 GB-EGOV/12

249
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

6.7.1 CAPEX Cost Data Sources

The majority of the data used to generate the capital expenditure data has been sourced

from the author’s (former) employers, Mott MacDonald. This firm has a quantity

surveying business, self-titled ‘construction economists’ called Franklin and Andrews

(F&A). The core work of this business unit is the production of cost estimates for all

manner of construction projects. This includes airport terminals, sports stadia, schools,

hospitals, highway schemes as well as railways and transit modes. Three noteworthy

projects from different ‘markets’ that F&A have been involved include Leeds City Centre

Regeneration, Lansdowne Road Stadium Redevelopment and the East London Line (Rail)

Project (F&A, 2008a).

In the period of the study, F&A have been involved with feasibility studies for transit

schemes in Birmingham, as an extension to Midland Metro; an extension to the NET

system, and development of a high speed tram for Transport for London (F&A, 2008b).

Also, a study was completed for the Leigh Guided-bus project.

The Nottingham (F&A, 2006a) and Birmingham (F&A, 2005), projects were used as the

basis for CAPEX rates for the model where practicable used in this project this included

the cost of the vehicles for both light rail and guided-bus systems, as both systems were

being considered as part of the evaluation of the scheme extension. However, some aspects

of the Birmingham (F&A, 2005) and Leigh bus system (F&A, 2006b) were referred. As

required cost data were normalised using cost indices, see section 6.7.2 (F&A, 2007a).

The rates used are subject to confidentiality restrictions from F&A and can only be

provided as summary values detailed in the results section.

250
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

6.7.2 Cost Levels - Normalisation

In order to provide a like-for-like cost comparison that may include data from a number of

different sources it is necessary to normalise all costs. This will remove the effect of

inflation. To normalise the costs, data provided by F&A (F&A, 2007a) has been used that

provides cost indices for all quarterly periods from 1st quarter 1995 (historic) to 4th quarter

2015 (forecast). Clearly, historic data is more reliable than forecast data and hence all costs

were normalised to 1Q07 (the first quarter of 2007).

6.7.3 Construction Cost Add-ons

Figure 6-26 shows that the single ‘Construction Net Cost’ is then assessed for ‘add-ons’.

These include contractor preliminaries, overheads, profit and insurances, design, site

supervision, Regulatory consents and Local Authority costs, for example. The sum of the

Construction Net Cost and add-ons provides the ‘Total Project Construction Cost’. This

value can be directly compared between light rail and guided-bus systems. The add-on

costs are applied as a factor, literally a percentage allowance on the net construction cost.

The add-ons (also known as ‘preliminaries’, or ‘prelims’) are shown in Table 6-8 and these

have been applied as standard practice adopted by F&A (2005).

Table 6-8 Transit System Preliminary Costs

Cost add-on Value Rationale for Cost Allowance


This is an all-in rate for the contractor including their
overheads and profit, i.e. all costs not associated with
materials or resources directly employed to construct the
Contractors
20.0%
Preliminaries works. The UK Office of the Rail Regulator used a rate of
20% when reviewing Railtrack (as it was then) cost data
(Booz Allen Hamilton, 2003).

251
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Cost add-on Value Rationale for Cost Allowance


This is a further allowance over and above the contractor site
preliminaries. This can be a contentious issue and there are
legal cases cited by Brewer Consulting (Brewer 1996, 1998)
Head Office
where disputes arise over the recovery rate during project
overheads,
6.0%
profit and overruns. Zack (2002) discuss the calculation of HOOH (Head
insurances
Office Overheads) at length using complex formulae including
for daily calculation; however at this stage of the estimating
process 6.0% is given the level of detail at this stage.

Design costs are determined at this stage by percentage


allowance. This is the value provided by Franklin and
Design, site
Andrews (F&A). An allowance is also made within this for
supervision
10.0%
and Quality additional site management and quality management of
Control
construction. This may be a bought-in resource from outside
the main contractor resources.

This includes all works for consents required for example by


the Transport and Works act and other regulations. This could
include regulations associated with the vehicles and
Regulatory
consents and 1.0% infrastructure (The Railways and Other Guided Transport
commissioning Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006). Commissioning costs are
allowed here for inspectorate to undertake walk-outs and to
document ‘no objection notices’.

A Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) is the statutory legal


document necessary to support any enforceable traffic or
Traffic highway measure (Kent CC, 2008). Clearly there will be
Regulation 0.2%
changes to the highway alignments requiring TROs and costs
Orders
should be allowed accordingly for the processing and
management of them.

Typically this will include all approvals required from the


Local
local authority in terms of modifications to buildings and other
Authority
0.3%
Design elements of the built environment including highways,
Approvals
footpaths, social and recreational areas.

252
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Cost add-on Value Rationale for Cost Allowance


Where any system is to interface to, or is in proximity of
Network Rail infrastructure then allowances need to be made
for the demonstration of the adequacy of the proposed system
Network Rail
Design 0.2% not to be detrimental to the Network Rail system. For example
Approvals on Nottingham tram this included track circuit block
signalling that had to be integrated with the Network Rail
railway level crossing devices (NET, 2005a).

This is simply the cost allowance for any plant or equipment


Infrastructure
0.5%
Spares for the system for maintenance of the system post completion.

6.7.4 Additional Promoter Costs

Other cost areas are considered at this stage. These are four cost items that are to be

incurred by the Promoter or Developer but are not subject to the same contract mechanisms

as for the construction works and are therefore costed separately. The four areas are utility

costs, EMC, Operator and concessionaire costs and land acquisition and compensation

costs. These are shown in Figure 6-26 in boxes G, H, I and J.

6.7.5 Utility costs

Utility costs need to include for the provision and connection of new utilities for the

system and for the identification and diversion of services required to be moved from the

path of the transit system. The International Association of Public Transport – UITP,

(2001) summarise the requirements for relocating buried services as:

• Relocating all manhole covers away from trackbed

• Along-track utilities should be relocated

• Cross-track utilities can be left in place provided they can be accessed without

disruption to the operational systems

• Stray current protection should be provided (see 6.7.6)

253
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

New utilities and connections will be required for depot facilities and stops, in particular

electricity supplies but also a gas supply may be required at the depot for heating. The light

rail system will require high voltage intakes from the local electricity supply company at

line-wide locations terminated in substations. These substations will be used to convert the

incoming AC supply to DC power for traction power via the overhead power system.

6.7.6 Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC)

EMC is the term given for the necessary demonstration that all electrical equipment can

work in the operational environment with surrounding electrical systems without

malfunction due to electrical interference from neighbouring systems.

The introduction of the light rail system with the overhead electrification (OLE),

substations, track and lineside equipment will demand a higher level of EMC compliance

demonstration than for a guided-bus system simply due to the large number of new

electrical systems being introduced. There is a likelihood that some mitigation measures

may need to be taken, especially to neighbouring non-transit system properties. The project

will be required to produce a Technical Construction File to demonstrate compliance. This

will include all aspects of the installation including all potential victims and may include

measurements on-site (York EMC Services, 2011).

It is important to note that BS:EN50121 specifically applies to rail-based and trolley-bus

systems, i.e. those with overhead line power supplies. For demonstration of compliance for

the guided-bus example in the model, the requirements are based upon the generic EU

Directive 72/245/EEC (EEC, 1972) which is concerned with the EMI issues associated

with spark-ignition vehicles.

254
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

6.7.7 Operator and Concessionaire

Operator and Concessionaire costs are the costs borne by the Promoter in establishing all

that is needed by the operator and concessionaire for the management and delivery of the

capital works and the introduction of the operational service for the duration of the

concession. A typical contract organisation is shown in Figure 6-29.

Figure 6-29 Transit System Delivery Organisation (Source: Lyon, 2003)

Promoter

Debt funding Equity funding


agreements agreements
Debt Equity
Concessionaire
Funders Funders

O&M Turnkey
Contract Contract

O&M Turnkey
Contractor Contractor

Sub-contracts Sub-contracts

Sub-contractors Sub-contractors

e.g. Civil w orks,


vehicle manufacturers

The example of the NET organisation provides the background to the role of the

concessionaire, operated by a consortium called Arrow. Transdev, in partnership with a

local bus operator (Nottingham City Transport) was to operate and maintain NET under a

contract let by Arrow for 27 years. Transdev is also a partner in Arrow, the concessionaire

company which designed and built the light rail system which has a 30.5 year concession

to build and operate Nottingham Line 1 (Anon., 2004d).

255
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Arrow is made up of Transdev and Nottingham City Transport with Bombardier (who

provided the vehicles, power and signalling), Carillion Private Finance part of Carillion Plc

(the main contractor construction company and financing source), Innisfree (private equity

investor) and Galaxy (20% shareholding in Arrow). So, to fund the implementation and

operation of the system, the promoters (Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire

County Council); have to pay Arrow to manage this work; hence attracting cost to the

capital outlay.

6.7.8 Land acquisition

Land required for the system implementation is a consideration where the route needs to

run over property that is not owned by the Promoter – in this case likely to be Reading

Borough Council. A cost will be due in the case of the proposed depot area as this has

assumed to be privately owned land, albeit from the aerial photography (Source: Microsoft,

2008) this area does not appear to be used (farmed or otherwise). Land acquisition costs

are subject to regional and often local differences and estimation on the land cost were

identified from a web-based organisation, ‘UK Land Directory Ltd’ (UK Land Directory

Ltd, 2008). This firm specialises in selling undeveloped land (such as the area outlined for

use as the depot) and provides historic land price data (to 2003). A further source of

information was identified, the Department for Communities and Local Government retain

data for land prices which was used for the purposes of this project (CLG, 2007)

6.7.9 Total Infrastructure Project Cost

At this stage the summation of the four items above and the total project construction cost

results in the Total Project Cost, excluding the vehicles. This can be an important value as

there will be an opportunity to change the specification of the vehicles and hence their cost

but the cost at this stage can be the fixed (infrastructure) cost. Obviously, if the vehicles are

256
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

re-specified sufficiently this can result in significant changes to the infrastructure and

hence cost. Hass-Klau et al (2003) note that the costs for the infrastructure for bus and

light-rail systems can be similar and the vehicle costs can differentiate the CAPEX and

OPEX costs. This is discussed later in the thesis when reviewing the results of the model.

6.7.10 Vehicle Costs

Finally, in the development of the CAPEX costs the vehicles are specified and priced. The

cost summary line item for this being the C-BV cost identified in tables 5-14 and 5-15.

This includes for the procurement of the vehicles and the costs associated with test running

and bringing into service. These costs are illustrated in Figure 6-26 in boxes L, M and N.

The procurement cost for vehicles can be difficult to obtain and verify for a number of

reasons:

• The costs will vary for a given vehicle at a given time – for example, a new untried

vehicle could have an inflated price as the development costs are incurred rather

than a long-produced, modular item where development costs have long since been

absorbed. This has been the case with the Phileas vehicle where the trial-period has

been conducted since introduction in 2004 to the point where the LPG engine was

replaced with a diesel engine and alternative drive system.

• Another significant issue may be the base currency in which the vehicle cost is

being quoted. It is possible to use historic exchange rates to get the equivalent UK

pound equivalent but this may be an unrealistic assessment, as relative costs and

values may not be the same. Consider the private car market in the U.S. and in the

UK, the 2010 model Ford Focus entry model price was £15,995 (about $25,000 in

December 2010) whereas the US entry model price was $16,995 (motor-trade-

insider.com, 2010)

257
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

• Coupled with the base currency conversion is the inflationary indices applied to

normalise the vehicle costs. The indices are applied on the basis of UK inflationary

measures, irrelevant of whether the original vehicle cost was obtained in US

Dollars or Euros.

• It is difficult to state exactly when the stated cost for a vehicle is being quoted. The

inflationary indices are provided in financial quarter increments; some costs have

been difficult to pin down to a specific year. Based upon outline project data it is

difficult to ascertain whether costs should be at the time of vehicle contract award,

delivery or commissioning etc

• Subsidies for vehicle procurement, depending on the source, may or may not be

identified. This may have the effect of understating the cost if for example; national

government subsidies are aggregated across the entire scheme where in reality this

was used to fund the vehicle. The Phileas system attracted a considerable

government subsidy covering 40% of the project costs (some of which could have

been offset against the vehicle) and European funding was also obtained

specifically for development of the vehicle (van der Spek and Splint, 2005).

The costs can be difficult to verify as a true cost taking into account all of the above that

depending on the source may have accounted for some, all or none of the issues. For

example Hass-Klau et al (2003) schedule vehicle costs without providing references for a

four-year period (1998 – 2002) so these are difficult to verify. F&A provide vehicle costs

in their build-ups but these also do not have references. The benefit to using the F&A data

is that this has been used in the development of commercial cost schedules and as such

should be robust. The failing of the F&A data is that it is a one-line entry in a cost build-up

with no detail on the specifics of the vehicle; this is less of a concern with relatively

258
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

(market or industry) standard light rail vehicles, but more complex for the differing guided-

bus specifications. The vehicles that were to be considered have been discussed below.

6.7.11 Phileas

Hass-Klau et al (2003) state that the cost for a Phileas guided-bus is £1.03m in the period

1998-2002 but do not state whether this includes development and test running costs.

Jansen (2008) confirms that the Phileas system development was subject to national and

local Dutch Government funding but it is not clear whether the vehicle was subsidised, the

infrastructure, or both. Normalised to 1Q07 from 1Q00 (assumed as reasonable as the mid-

point between 1998 and 2002), the cost is £1.37m per vehicle. The vehicle manufacturer

(APTS, 2005a) stated in a presentation provided in conjunction with the Eindhoven

regional Government that the 12 bus Eindhoven Phileas fleet cost €40m, on average €3.33

each. Applying currency conversion and inflation this gives a 1Q07 cost of £2.45m.

More recently, a presentation given by Nohlmans (2008) of the City of Eindhoven,

Department of Urban Planning and Management, indicated that a fleet of 50 Phileas buses

were to be sold to Istanbul for €63m, or €1.26m each. Assuming these to be 2008 values

this translates into a 1Q07 cost of £0.96m. This is the most recent price estimate available

and critically is for the vehicle after the drive-train modification was introduced. It is also a

cost provided by the party (partly) responsible for promoting and delivering the vehicle to

Turkey and hence is considered reliable.

The Hass-Klau and APTS values that price the Phileas buses at over £1m are considered to

be over-inflated due to recovery of development costs. The re-equipping of the bus with

the new drive train has resulted in a more reliable and repeatable production line unit

which should not attract any further development costs. The latest cost obtained is for the

259
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Turkey order that is significantly lower than the normalised Hass-Klau (£1.37m) or APTS

2005 (£.2.45m) values. Note that these costs purport to be for the same vehicle in

Eindhoven so the Hass-Klau value was the known value in 2002, say, and the APTS 2005

value could be the updated higher cost per vehicle including all incurred trial running and

testing costs. For RUN, the vehicle to be specified and therefore priced would be the

production vehicle to be used in Turkey; hence the purposes of the project the a single

Phileas vehicle costs £0.96m.

6.7.12 Civis

It is not clear whether the Civis was subsidised in Rouen (a French bus, operating in a

French city) but the obtained costs vary. A complication with the Civis cost data is that

some of it is in US Dollars (for the Las Vegas scheme) hence is subject to currency and

inflationary factors.

The range on Civis costs at 1Q07 is £0.550m (Weststart-CALSTART, 2006) to £1.01m by

the Federal Transit Administration (FTA, 2005 and Transportation Research Board (TRB),

2003). Notably one of the maximum costs and the minimum cost have both been sourced

from the FTA. The lower value is quoted in a ‘catalogue’ of BRT alternatives in the US

perhaps where there is a motivation to promote the buses whereas the higher value is the

cost identified for the implementation of the Civis in Las Vegas. The Las Vegas cost may

be artificially inflated as this was an early implementation of Civis and may include the

recovery of development costs. The other high cost was for the Rouen system – the first

implementation of Civis and there is a strong possibility that it could include development

costs. The FTA handbook Civis cost (Weststart-CALSTART, 2006) may be artificially

low; possibly for an ‘entry model’ specification.

260
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

The following costs for the Civis have been sourced:

Table 6-9 Civis Guided-bus vehicle costs

Currency Rate Cost Data


Cost/ Source/ Cost at
Conversion/ Year/
Currency Location 1Q07m
Equivalent Cost Inflation Indice
£0.57m Hass-Klau et al (2003) N/A 2000
£0.760m
£UK Not stated £0.570m 33.4%
$1.196m FTA (2005) 0.68 2002
£1.013m
$US MAX Transit, Las Vegas £0.813m 24.6%
$1.1m TRB (2003) 0.72 2001
£1.013m
$US TEAR, Rouen £0.792m 27.9%
$0.98m Weststart-CALSTART 0.54 2006
£0.550m
$US (2006) Not Specified £0.529m 3.9%

Given the wide range of values for the Civis cost it is considered best to use the mean of

the values that are not skewed by development costs, i.e. the BRT Handbook and Hass-

Klau et al. This results in a cost for Civis of £0.655m. It was noted that the Civis guidance

system is quoted at $0.1m in 2003 (TRB, 2003), a consideration given to the DE60LF

below.

6.7.13 DE60LF

The New Flyer DE60LF has been supplied to the US market for a number of years and a

face-lifted version of the vehicle has been developed, the DE60LFA, as illustrated in

Figure 6-30. A potentially significant issue with the guided-bus costs is that these can be

‘generic’ and it is not possible to discern what specification vehicle is being costed. The

F&A estimate for a guided-bus vehicle is £0.774m whilst Hass-Klau et al (2003) have a

version at £0.18m (normalised at £0.856m and £0.24m respectively). Henke (2008) has the

DE60LF cost in the range of $0.48m-0.52m and $0.65m-0.7m for the ‘stylised’ version

(DE60LF-BRT).

m
1Q07 – first quarter 2007 normalised prices

261
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Figure 6-30 Face-lifted DE60LFA (Source: New Flyer, 2010)

When these are converted the cost ranges are: £0.236-0.256m and £0.320-0.344m. Note

that these have been subject to deflation from 1Q08 to 1Q07. The F&A value appears high

and the feeling is that this would be for a superior quality guided-bus, i.e. something more

akin to the Phileas vehicle whereas the more standard, but still hybrid powered DE60LF is

likely to cost more in the region of the Henke and Hass-Klau figures. Assuming that the

stylised version would be used, this would be in the region of £0.33m, but this does not

necessarily account for guidance systems.

The source referred above when looking at the Civis vehicle (TRB, 2003) quote the Civis

guidance system as costing $0.1m per vehicle, or £72,000 at 1Q07. If the guidance is

considered an ‘add-on’ to the DE60LF-BRT, then this brings the cost to circa £0.402m.

This assumes that £72,000 would be adequate for the implementation of the hardware and

that the vehicle and guidance would be compatible at this cost.

The DE60LF will be generally cheaper because the economies of scale that New Flyer can

apply to the production of the vehicle. The bus is manufactured in North America where it

262
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

has a large market to access and hence fabrication will be more akin to a production line

basis. Compare this scenario to that of the Phileas or Civis where these will only be

manufactured on the basis of a system-specific firm order. Specialised production of this

nature will attract mobilisation and set-up costs that will need to be recovered through the

sale price of the vehicle.

6.7.14 Light Rail

Hass-Klau et al state that the cost for a light rail vehicle can vary between £1.1 and £2.2m;

which is considered to be a large range considering the ‘standard’ and mature technology

available to light rail vehicles. The F&A cost for a light rail vehicle is £1.85m and the

Merseytram TWA submission (Merseytravel, 2003a) had a fleet of 21 vehicles costed at

£33.1m, or £1.6m per vehicle. Normalising these values to 1Q07 yields the following:

£1.47m and £2.93m (Hass-Klau et al), £2.11m (F&A) and £1.85m (Merseytravel). The

mean of these values is £2.09m and this will be used as the basis of the light rail cost.

6.7.15 Summary of Guided-bus and Light rail vehicle costs

In summary, the costs to be applied for each of the vehicles are as follows (at 1Q07):

• Phileas: £0.960m
• Civis: £0.774m
• DE60LF: £0.402m
• Light Rail £2.093m

The Phileas vehicle is the most expensive guided-bus option and this may be skewed

slightly as there is no current implementation of a system using this vehicle that does not

attract development cost recovery; especially given the issues experienced with the drive

train. The Civis vehicle is a little further down the product life-cycle with a number of

successful schemes implemented. This means the Civis development cost recovery is more

263
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

advanced and these have used proven technology in the case of the drive train and less

complex guidance systems. The DE60LF is significantly cheaper than the alternatives due

to basic proven-technology, with the exception of the guidance system, and the benefit of

manufacturing economies of scale achievable with this vehicle. Whilst £72,000 has been

allowed for a guidance system to be fitted to the DE60LF this means the vehicle is still

£0.372m less than the Civis. This means that a significant amount of expenditure could

additionally be allowed for the guidance system without making the DE60LF any more

costly than the Civis.

6.7.16 Vehicle Numbers

The number of vehicles required to operate the light rail and guided-bus systems with the

same capacity, i.e. the same number of passengers can be carried over the same time period

will differ because the vehicle capacities are different. The number of vehicles required has

been calculated based upon the following:

• The NET timetable and Merseytravel proposed timetable were examined to

determine the frequency and the start and finish times of the service to gauge a

typical operating timetable

• The RUN service pattern for the light rail service was determined and a timetable

developed that approximated the NET service operating times.

• The passenger capacity for the day was calculated for RUN based on the light rail

service. This was scaled to determine the number of services required to be

provided by the guided-bus service to approximate the same capacity.

• In both the light rail and guided-bus cases the number of vehicles required could be

determined by the maximum number of vehicles in service at one time (i.e. during

the peak timetable period) with an allowance for vehicles in maintenance.

264
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

One key assumption that had to be made in this analysis was that the average speed of the

vehicles was given to be the same for both systems. Hass-Klau et al (2003) compare

average system speeds for light rail and guided-bus for both segregated and non-segregated

operations. The summary of this data is presented in Table 6-10.

Table 6-10 Light Rail and Guided-bus System Speeds

Speed (km/h)

Light Rail Light Rail Bus Busway/


Mixed Dedicated Mixed Bus Lane
Average 20.5 31.4 17.3 29.6
Standard Deviation 5.8 10.1 4.3 16.4
Max 35.6 57 28.3 53
Min 15 23.2 11 6.2
Average (Mixed and Own ROW) 25.95 23.45

The values presented by Hass-Klau et al could not be directly compared as they were for

different systems where headway times could be different based upon differing track

geometry and running speed; acceleration and deceleration characteristics and number of

stops. Given the equivalence of system priority provided in this study, the average speed

was taken to be 25km/h for both systems.

A cost has been allowed for the trial running of the vehicles. It seems that all systems are

subject to teething problems. Phileas has experienced some considerable issues with the

vehicles in Eindhoven but this is the first use of this vehicle and although the guidance

system was the newest concept it has proved to be the drive-train that has proved the

largest issue. Light Rail vehicles are perhaps more complex but are based on known

technology. On this basis, as a function of the total vehicle cost, a percentage allowance

has been made for trial running that varies depending on the vehicle technology

complexity and maturity. Light Rail has complex but mature technology (3% of capital

265
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

cost), the Phileas Guided-bus is novel and complex (7.5%), the DE60LF Guided-bus is a

basic vehicle and well-established but allowance is made for the guidance system (5%) and

the Civis is complex but mature (5%).

6.7.17 Total Project Cost

Referring to Figure 6-26 it can be seen that the addition of the Total Project Costs

(Infrastructure) and Total Vehicle Costs produces the Total Project Cost. This is the final

CAPEX value.

6.8 Operational Expenditure (OPEX)

The operation of the RUN transit system has OPEX costs associated with two distinct

areas:

• Operations – the costs associated with running the service

• Maintenance – the costs associated with maintaining the system

The build-up of the OPEX costs are described below and summarised in appendix VI.

OPEX data were sourced from a study completed for Transport for London and the

proposed Cross River Tram Scheme (F&A, 2007b).

6.8.1 Operations

The costs associated with operating the system are primarily based upon the personnel

needed to run the system providing the key interfaces to the customers – which can be the

travelling public but also other stakeholders, for example, bus operators and critically the

Promoter. The Promoter will require performance data for contracted service levels and

details on the management of the transit system on their behalf.

266
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

The business administration of the system will be delivered by a management team that

will be made up of a Board of Directors and first-line reports. This will cover the roles of

Managing, Finance and Marketing Directors with an Executive Secretary. The accountant

team will be made-up of a Business Performance Accountant, Senior Management

Accountants and Management Accountants with a Procurement and Contracts Manager

also. This team will also include the Human Resources Manager and for communications

will have both internal and external communications staff. There will also be an

Administration support function.

The Operations team are the people on the ‘ground floor’ whose role it is to deliver the

minute-by-minute running service with the key interface being to the travelling public.

Under the direction of the Operations Director a management team will provide the

services to drive the vehicles, collect fares and ensure the infrastructure is configured to

operate the service. This latter element will include, where appropriate, power supplies,

signals, CCTV, Public Address etc. The Operations team will be made up of the

Operations Director with first line reports of the Operations Manager, Scheduling

Manager, Safety Manager and Duty Manager. The staff on the ground will include the

Operational Controllers, Customer Service Advisors, Revenue Recovery Staff, Fare

Inspectors, Drivers and Driver Instructors.

There are two other areas covered under operational expense that are not direct staff issues.

The provision of traction power, either in the form of electricity or fuel for the guided-

buses is covered in this section in terms of the cost of electricity consumption (mega-watt-

hours) or litres of fuel. Other services costs are negligible next to the overall costs of the

system, for example, for water or external telecommunications services and hence have

been disregarded.

267
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Finally, under operational costs there is an allowance for bought-in services that are

necessarily specialist, for example security services and the British Transport Police.

6.8.2 Maintenance

The maintenance of the system is further sub-divided in to the vehicle and infrastructure

items, where the infrastructure is subject to a further breakdown:

• The built-infrastructure – the fabric of the system in the form of the permanent

way, structures, buildings, stops etc

• The mechanical and electrical (M&E) infrastructure – the systems and services that

run the transit system including OLE, substations, CCTV, SCADA, telecoms,

signalling, points heating etc

There will be an engineering management team in place to head-up the maintenance

organisation. This will be led by the Head of Engineering with a Head of Vehicles

Engineering, Head of Infrastructure Engineering and a Head of Electrical Engineering.

Each of these will have a maintenance manager with specialist engineers for each key

discipline area, for example, there will be a signalling engineer and permanent way

engineer.

The built-infrastructure maintenance will include for a maintenance and cleaning team

with highway or permanent way inspection, trackmen, building maintenance and a

cleaning manager and cleaning operatives. The M&E team will be larger given the diverse

systems being managed by this function. This organisation will include team leaders for

overhead power supplies, power supplies, signalling and telecommunications with their

respective support technicians and staff. There are costs for infrastructure and vehicle

maintenance consumable items including items such as cleaning materials for the

infrastructure and vehicle but also allows a provisional sum for repairs due to vandalism.

268
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

There is an allowance for the contracting of specialist services for the vehicles and specific

M&E items. Other consumables include permanent way fixings and light bulbs for

example.

The OPEX costs include codes as indicated in Figures 6-31 and 6-32.

Figure 6-31 Light Rail Level 2 Data Table – OPEX

CGOV
CNOV

EGOV
ENOV
CLOV

ELOV
Conventional Electrified

C-OV
CGBI

CABI

C-BV
CNBI

CLBI

C-OI
C-BI
Light Rail

1 Site Preparation LR-CNBI/1  LR-CLBI/1  LR-CGBI/1   LR-C-BI/1      

2 Highway Works LR-CNBI/2  LR-CLBI/2  OPEX -


LR-CGBI/2 LR-CABI/2 LR-C-BI/2  LR-C-OI/2    

3
Environmental/
landscaping/ architectural
LR-CNBI/3  LR-CLBI/3 Infrastructure

LR-CGBI/3 LR-CABI/3 LR-C-BI/3  LR-C-OI/3    
and M&E
4 Structures and Bridges LR-CNBI/4  LR-CLBI/4  LR-CGBI/4  LR-CABI/4 LR-C-BI/4  LR-C-OI/4    

5 Trackwork LR-CNBI/5  LR-CLBI/5  LR-CGBI/5  LR-CABI/5 LR-C-BI/5  LR-C-OI/5  OPEX


 - 
OPEX -
M&E
6 Stops LR-CNBI/6  LR-CLBI/6  Infrastructure

LR-CGBI/6 LR-CABI/6 LR-C-BI/6  LR-C-OI/6    
and M&E
7 Traction power LR-CNBI/7  LR-CLBI/7  LR-CGBI/7  LR-CABI/7 LR-C-BI/7  LR-C-OI/7    
Transit System
OPEX -
8 Communications and LR-CNBI/8  LR-CLBI/8  LR-CGBI/8  LR-CABI/8 LR-C-BI/8  LR-C-OI/8   
Vehicle 
Control

9 Road Junction Signalling LR-CNBI/9 


OPEX
LR-CLBI/9 
- LR-CGBI/9   LR-C-BI/9  LR-C-OI/9    
Mitigation
10 Ancillary works LR-CNBI/10  LR-CLBI/10  LR-CGBI/10  LR-CABI/10 LR-C-BI/10     ENVEM
 

11 Depot LR-CNBI/11  LR-CLBI/11  LR-CGBI/11  LR-CABI/11 LR-C-BI/11  LR-C-OI/11    

12 Vehicle  LR-CNOV/12  LR-CLOV/12  LR-CGOV/12   LR-C-BV/12  LR-C-OV/12 LR-ENOV/12 LR-ELOV/12 LR-EGOV/12

Figure 6-32 Guided-Bus Level 2 Data Table - OPEX


CGOV
CNOV

ENOV

EGOV
CLOV

ELOV
CGBI

C-OV
CNBI

CABI

C-BV
CLBI

C-BI

C-OI

Guided-Bus

1 Site Preparation GB-CNBI/1  GB-CLBI/1  GB-CGBI/1   GB-C-BI/1      

2 Highway Works GB-CNBI/2  GB-CLBI/2 


OPEX -  GB-CGBI/2 GB-CABI/2 GB-C-BI/2  GB-C-OI/2    

3
Environmental/
landscaping/ architectural
GB-CNBI/3  Infrastructure
GB-CLBI/3   GB-CGBI/3 GB-CABI/3 GB-C-BI/3  GB-C-OI/3    

4 Structures and Bridges GB-CNBI/4  GB-CLBI/4  GB-CGBI/4  GB-CABI/4 GB-C-BI/4  GB-C-OI/4    

           
- 
5 Trackwork
OPEX
6 Stops GB-CNBI/6  GB-CLBI/6  OPEX -
GB-CGBI/6 GB-CABI/6 GB-C-BI/6  GB-C-OI/6  M&E 
 
Infrastructure
7 Traction power     and  M&E         
Transit System
OPEX -
8 Communications and GB-CNBI/8  GB-CLBI/8  GB-CGBI/8  GB-CABI/8 GB-C-BI/8  GB-C-OI/8   
Vehicle 
Control

9 Road Junction Signalling GB-CNBI/9  GB-CLBI/9  GB-CGBI/9   GB-C-BI/9  GB-C-OI/9    


OPEX -
10 Ancillary works GB-CNBI/10  Mitigation
GB-CLBI/10 GB-CGBI/10  GB-CABI/10 GB-C-BI/10     ENVEM
 

11 Depot GB-CNBI/11  GB-CLBI/11  GB-CGBI/11  GB-CABI/11 GB-C-BI/11  GB-C-OI/11    

12 Vehicle  GB-CNOV/12  GB-CLOV/12  GB-CGOV/12   GB-C-BV/12  GB-C-OV/12 GB-ENOV/12 GB-ELOV/12 GB-EGOV/12

269
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

This is also detailed in Appendix VI which contains all the details for the OPEX

breakdown, excluding the rates as these are subject to the same confidentiality agreement

as with the F&A CAPEX costs. This appendix includes which sub-set of the OPEX cost

that the item belongs to, whether built-infrastructure, M&E or vehicle.

The remaining area in OPEX is the costs associated with mitigating the environmental

emissions due to the vehicle operating on the system. These will be difficult to assess and

are more likely appear as a one-time mitigation cost after the service has been running. For

example, if a previously undetected noise issue becomes apparent (i.e. mitigation measures

were not built-in at the time of construction) then additional works may be required, for

example insulation measures, such as double glazing to windows, venetian blinds, new

doors, sound absorbent lining to walls and sound-attenuating permanent vents. At this

stage, it has been assumed that all works necessary for the mitigation of noise, local air

quality and greenhouse gas emissions have been allowed for in the CAPEX element; hence

costs associated with CNOV, CLOV and CGOV are null.

From Figures 6-31 and 6-32, the areas left to describe are the ENVEM and ENVEX costs.

6.9 Environmental Emissions (ENVEM)

The emissions that need to be modelled in the M-AST are those due to operating the

vehicle, i.e. ENOV, ELOV and EGOV - noise, local air quality and greenhouse gas

emissions. To recall the earlier discussion, the measures for these are:

• ENOV The noise emitted by the vehicles measured in dB(A)

The mass in tonnes of PM10 (Particulate Matter) and NOx


• ELOV
(Nitrogen Oxide) emitted by the vehicles

• EGOV The mass of CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) emitted by the vehicles

270
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

6.9.1 Noise Emissions

The model development considered how the noise impact of the vehicle can be measured

in terms of the mitigation cost, an ENVEX cost (6.10) and the probable noise levels in

dB(A) – the ENVEM measure ENOV. There has to be assumptions made about the track

or road surface quality in both the light rail and guided-bus cases that the running surface

will be free from undue noise affects when the vehicle is in operation; hence the focus will

be on the noise emissions of the vehicle.

The guided-bus vehicles will have the following main noise sources; the combustion

engine, air conditioning and electric motors as confirmed by APTS for the Phileas vehicle

(APTS, 2005b). Further, data provided by APTS regarding the Phileas vehicle indicates

that the vehicle generates 77.9dB(A) at a distance of 24.6 feet and 4 feet from the floor at

31mph (APTS, 2006b). Road noise will have a minimal impact as new road surfaces are

being constructed and these are rubber-tyre on pavement surface; much as the existing

scenario. Noise data is also provided by the Bus Testing and Research Center (Hoover,

2005) for the DE60LF vehicle. The tests provided the following worst case scenario data:

That with an exterior ambient noise level of 44.5 dB(A), the average test result obtained

while accelerating from a constant speed was 76.5 dB(A) on the right side and 79.3 dB(A)

on the left side at a height of 4 feet.

Analysis of the Merseytravel TWA application provides a demonstration of the level of

data to be provided in the analysis of noise due to operation of the tram (Mitchell, 2004).

The ‘proof of evidence’ document reviews all locations where the route of the tram is close

to victim properties, called receptors. An assessment of the noise exposure is then

calculated and vetted against the existing ambient noise level. The receptors are plotted on

271
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

a map of the route and a tabulated assessment provided and rated on the sliding scale as

presented in WebTAG.

Noise levels associated with running a light rail or guided-bus vehicle will be based upon

air conditioning and electric motors and any electric traction systems and ventilation

equipment. SILENCE is a European Community funded organisation that is formed from

industry and academia based in the European Union (EU) that are specifically addressing

the issue of transport noise. SILENCE has published data on what it considers estimated

source contributions to wayside noise for light rail vehicles (SILENCE, 2008). This is

provided in Table 6-11.

Table 6-11 Light Rail Noise Estimated source contributions (SILENCE, 2008)

SPLn at 7.5m/1.2m SPL at 7.5m/1.2m


Source
(40 km/h) dB(A) (60 km/h) dB(A)
Wheel-rail 75 80
Traction motor and gear 67 76
HVACs < 55 < 55
Converters < 60 < 60

As can be seen from Table 6-11 the highest light rail based-noise is the wheel-rail

interface. Provided this can be mitigated by using modern track design and construction

techniques this should not be an issue. Light rail on-street sections are embedded in the

road surface and using elastic bearings can reduce wheel-rail noise and vibration

considerably, for example using the Getzner system employed on various tram systems

(Getzner, 2008).

n
Sound Pressure Level

272
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

6.9.2 Vibration

Another facet of the measurement of noise is the effects of vibration. This can only be

discussed in a commentary in the results. However, the Merseytram Environmental

Statement (ES) notes that, “The tram tracks on street running sections will be embedded in

a resilient track mounting.” This will be employed on the RUN system; hence vibration

levels may be perceptible at various sensitive receptors, but insufficient to exceed the

standard stipulated in BS6472 (2008) – the ‘Guide to evaluation of human exposure to

vibration in buildings’. Also, tram operation vibration will not be at levels that could give

rise to structural damage.

6.9.3 Air Quality Emissions

The air quality issues required by WebTAG and presented in the AST are the ‘Local Air

Quality’ values, i.e. the impact of the system on the direct, local population of the system

being implemented. In the case of the light rail vehicle the emissions could also be based

upon those produced by electricity generation at a national level. Whilst emissions data can

be obtained for light rail, for the national case this would be the emissions are measured at

the power station smoke-stacks. With the guided-bus the emissions are produced at the tail-

pipe and are hence local. This issue will be discussed later when considering source data

for the two areas that are to be considered under air quality emissions (particulate matter

(PM10) and nitrogen oxide (NOx)).

The initial method proposed to calculate the emission data for PM10 and NOx was based

upon deriving the fuel consumption and factoring this by the emissions per unit of fuel or

power. For this calculation it is necessary to know the volume of fuel (LPG, diesel or

electricity) that is to be consumed during the operation of the vehicles because the

emissions rate is based upon the characteristics of the power unit (engine) and the fuel

273
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

consumption. Hence, the volume of PM10 and NOx were originally to be based upon a

number of factors for light rail and Phileas for guided-bus:

• The volume of PM10 produced per kWh of electricity generated


• The volume of NOx produced per kWh of electricity generated
Light Rail
• The power consumption of the vehicle per journey in kWh
• The total number of journeys for a given period
• The volume of PM10 produced per litre of LPG consumed
• The volume of NOx produced per litre of LPG consumed
Guided-bus
• The fuel consumption of the vehicle per journey in litres of LPG
• The total number of journeys for a given period

As the research was developed the availability of the data to support the calculation of the

emissions as above became subject to a number of key assumptions that meant the

calculations were not robust. These assumptions are described below as a commentary to

how the emissions values were achieved.

6.9.4 Light Rail PM10 and NOx

The first step was to identify the rate of production of PM10 and NOx per kWh. Bearing in

mind that this was to be the emissions at the power station the emission rates were found

from the UK national data from electricity generation; sourced from the UK Government

Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR), UK Energy Sector

Indicators (BERR, 2008a)o. This confirms the following emissions for Power Stations in

2005 where electricity generation is confirmed in the BERR report, “UK Energy in Brief

2008” (BERR, 2008b):

o
Reference hereafter to BERR data is referring BERR, 2008a.

274
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Table 6-12 PM10 and NOx Emissions

(PM10 Table E12.15 from BERR, NOx Table E12.13 from BERR)

Data Year 2005 Data Year 2006


Electricity Generation 376.7 TWh 374.7 TWh

PM10Total Emissions 9960 tonnes 11380 tonnes

PM10 Per kWh Emissions 0.024g 0.03g

NOx Total Emissions 372,555 tonnes 389,166 tonnes

NOx Per kWh Emissions 0.99g 1.04g

To determine the PM10 and NOx emissions for Reading using the above it is the necessary

to find the power consumption of the vehicle. The only source of this was the technical

data sheet for the Croydon Tram (Kiepe-electrik, 2000) which provided the maximum

value only and this was based upon summing the individual traction motor power ratings.

The first assumption here is that this power rating excludes all periphery systems, such as

air conditioning, lighting etc. To determine the power consumption per journey, this would

then need to assume what factoring should be applied to the full power of the vehicle in

order to find the average power consumed across the whole journey. Whilst a range of

factors (e.g. assume that the vehicle, on average, uses 40% maximum power), no data was

found that could assist this calculation, for example, what was the power demand when

accelerating, coasting or running at constant speed? Whilst a range of average values could

be used, it would be a further assumption that would be necessary to identify and defend

which assumed power consumption rate would be directly comparable to the guided-bus

case.

A subtly different means of determining the PM10 and NOx emissions from light rail using

power consumption was identified from actual emissions data given by TfL in respect of

275
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

the Croydon Tram (TfL, 2008p). This is particularly relevant because the Croydon light rail

vehicle is the vehicle specified for use in the model. The TfL data yielded the following

results:

• The tram system power consumption for 2006/7 was 11GWh

• The tram was operated over 2.5 million kilometres over the same period

• The average power consumption is hence 4.4kWh/km

• In the same year the Tram system produced 0.06t of NOx and 0.001t of PM10

• This equates to 0.005g/kWh of NOx and 9.1 x 10-5g/kWh of PM10

Furthermore it can be calculated that that 0.024g/km of NOx and 0.0004g/km of PM10 are

produced based upon the Croydon system using TfL data.

However, these values are significantly different to the BERR derived data. Using the TfL

value of 4.4kWh/km with the power station emission values (at 0.99g/kWh and at

1.04g/kWh) using the BERR data yields:

Table 6-13 Comparative Sources of PM10 and NOx Emissions Data

NOx PM10

TfL Data 0.024g/km 0.0004g/km

BERR Data 4.6g/km 0.14g/km

A similar calculation was undertaken using data from the US Energy Information

Administration (EIA) for the NOx emissions. This was based upon national electricity

generation and emissions and found that in 2007, 3,949,694 mega kWh was generated that

created 2,395,000 tonnes of NOx (EIA, 2010a). This provides a value of 0.68g/kWh (rising

to 0.93g/kWh if renewable sources are excluded) so is lower than the UK BERR values of

p
Reference hereafter to Transport for London (TfL) data is referring TfL, 2008.

276
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

0.99g (2005) and 1.04g/kWh (2006). However, it is interesting to note that whilst

generation has remained relatively steady, the NOx emissions have been reducing quite

dramatically. The emissions have reduced from 5,194 thousand tonnes in 2002 to 3,961

(2005), 3,330 (2008) and a fall of nearly 1,000 tonnes to 2,395 thousand tonnes in 2009

(EIA, 2010b).

Data for US PM10 emissions due to electricity generation could not be located.

6.9.5 Phileas Guided-Bus PM10 and NOx

The initial data gathering exercise for the guided-bus found that the Phileas guided-bus in

Eindhoven used a Ford WSG 1068 LPG power plant. Emissions data for this engine were

not easily located but the following was ascertained (Cummins Power Generation, 2002):

• PM10 particulate matter was stated as being negligible

• NOx emissions of 12.0 grams per horse-power per hour

The data source (Cummins Power Generation, 2002) that was used was founded on the

basis that the engine characteristics were being quoted as a fixed generator set with the

same Ford engine used (originally) on the Phileas. This is comparable to the Phileas

application as the engine is a prime mover for a generator on the bus that then drives the

electric motors that propels the vehicle.

Whilst the PM10 can apparently be discounted as negligible, the translation of the NOx

measure in to a meaningful value, i.e. one that can be directly compared with the light rail

vehicle is more of an issue as there are more conversions to calculate. The calculations

were to find the common measure of power (kilowatt (kW) from the U.S; horsepower (hp).

277
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

The conversion factor from hp to kW hour is that 1hp is equivalent to 0.7456kw. If follows

that the equivalent value is that the WSG1068 produces 12.6g of NOx per kW per hour.

The method for obtaining the guided-bus data changed more significantly during the

duration of the project. The obvious change was that away from LPG to a diesel-fuelled

engine. Also, as with the light rail calculations the original intention was to obtain an

emission rate per unit of fuel consumed. Again this proved to be unachievable with the

diesel engine data and would require factoring to be applied to the assumed vehicle

maximum power as with the initial light rail calculation method.

Another source of data for Phileas that was produced in 2006 confirmed that the vehicle

was ‘easily’ (expected) to attain Euro 3 Norm requirements (Municipality of Eindhoven,

2006):

• Carbon Monoxide - CO: 0.6 g/kWh


• NOx: < 0.4 g/kWh
• Hydro-Carbons - CH: < 0.02 g/kWh
• Particles: < 0.01 g/kWh

However, whilst this data could be used as worst case scenarios, e.g. assume NOx was 0.4

g/kWh the significant issue remains to determine the power used by the vehicle during a

normal (Reading system) duty cycle, i.e. the factoring issue remains. The problem is how

to determine the number of kWh per day, per vehicle. Some analysis was attempted and

whilst it possible to ascertain vehicle running time, assumptions have to be made on the

power being used on average across the engine running period. This is not a robust means

of evaluating the emissions.

278
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Yet another source was located where real-world emissions testing had been undertaken on

a Phileas bus that had been supplied to Tzabartech Ltd in conjunction with the Israel

Institute of Technology (Tzabari and Kagan, 2006). Testing was undertaken that gave

results of CO, HC and NOx (but not CO2 or PM10) but the graphical data representation

(see Figure 6-33 below) makes it impossible to determine a running average. The Institute

were contacted by e-mail but no response was received for the request for more, or

differently presented, information and data.

Figure 6-33 Phileas Emissions (Source: Tzabartech and the Israel Institute of Technology)

The Phileas data proved too difficult to obtain with confidence on the values without too

much reliance on assumptions regarding the prime-mover, generator, operating efficiency

and average power demand. For this part of the analyses, the Phileas vehicle has been

disregarded.

279
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

6.9.6 Phileas Alternative – DE60LF

Through the development of the research the Phileas vehicle has been re-engined and a

new drive train implemented. This now uses a conventional diesel engine as prime-mover

with an electrical final drive; hence still retaining the hybrid power configuration. This is

very similar to the DE60LF vehicle that uses the same GM Allinson final drive as the

Phileas (Weststart-Calstart, 2006).

When researching the DE60LF the emissions data for was located in a US National

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) report (Chandler and Walkowicz, 2006)q for the

bus. This provided a robust basis for establishing the diesel engine emissions for the

guided-bus based system. This meant the calculations were to take the form as follows:

• The volume of PM10 produced per kilometre travelled


Guided-bus • The volume of NOx produced per kilometre travelled
• The total number of journeys (hence km) for a given period

The actual data from the NREL Laboratory Test Report was:

• 14.44g/mile ≡ 8.97g/km of NOx

• 0.003g/mile ≡ 0.0019g/km of PM10

6.9.7 Civis Data

The Civis bus has also been considered through the data gathering, in particular for

costing, so some investigation was made to find the Civis emissions data. However, it was

not possible to obtain data for the Civis even through direct communication with a

representative of Irisbus – the manufacturer of Civis. The best information that became

available was that the vehicle used in Las Vegas was powered using an 8.9 litre Cummins

ISL 330 horsepower (hp) engine.

q
Where future reference is made to NREL data for emissions, this is taken to mean data from Chandler and
Walkowicz (2006)

280
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

The DE60LF vehicle, as detailed above is powered by an 8.8 litre CAT 330hp engine and

both have electrical final drives, i.e. hybrid operation. For the purposes of the study is

assumed that the Civis would be sufficiently similar to the DE60LF not to require further

investigation.

6.9.8 CO2 Emissions

As with the calculation of the volume of PM10 and NOx, the data to be used for the volume

of CO2 produced when operating the system is based upon the volume of fuel consumed.

This would yield the volume in tonnes of carbon dioxide as the value of EGOV in the M-

AST. The data to be sourced for the calculations was initially defined as:

• The volume of CO2 produced per kWh of electricity generated


Light Rail • The power consumption of the vehicle per journey in kWh
• The total number of journeys (hence kWh) for a given period
• The volume of CO2 produced per litre of LPG consumed
Guided-bus • The fuel consumption of the vehicle per journey in litres of LPG
• The total number of journeys (hence km) for a given period

6.9.9 Light Rail CO2

Using the same convention as the PM10 and NOx to calculate the electricity generation

emissions the CO2 data was sourced from the UK Energy Sector Indicators 2008

(Environmental objectives dataset) which is given in table 6-14 (BERR, 2008).

Table 6-14 CO2 data for Electricity Generation (BERR Data)

2005 2006
Electricity Generation 376.7 TWh 374.7 TWh
CO2 Total Emissions 174.98m tonnes 183.71m tonnes
CO2 Per kWh Emissions 465g/kWh 490g/kWh

281
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

The US data for CO2 provided the following data: 3,949,694 mega kWh (EIA, 2011b)

produced 2,269,508 thousand tonnes of CO2. This is equivalent to 574g/kWh. Over the

period where NOx emissions have been reducing in the US, CO2 emissions have reduced

little. In 2005, CO2 emissions were 2,543,838 thousand tonnes and only 274,000 tonnes

(11%) less in 2009 compared to the 54% reduction in NOx over the same period.

The Carbon Trust (2011) quotes a factor of 545g/kWh for the conversion of power used

(grid electricity) to CO2 produced. It is noteworthy that the US value is higher than the UK

values and the BERR data is lower than the Carbon Trust data.

Transport for London (TfL, 2008) provides another view on the production of CO2 due to

the Croydon Tram operation. The TfL data quotes an electricity usage of 11GWh that

produces 5,391 tonnes of CO2 for 2006/07. This translates into 490g/kWh – this aligns

with the BERR data for the same period but both are lower than the Carbon Trust data.

Again, the TfL data can be used to change the form of the emissions measure by using the

average 4.4kWh/km operated. This enables the CO2 to be expressed as 2.36kg/km operated

using TfL data. This will enable the emissions to be more readily generated as the total

distance travelled for the fleet will be evaluated.

6.9.10 Guided-bus CO2

As previously discussed for the PM10 and NOx emissions data for the guided-bus LPG

engine it proved to be difficult to obtain for the Ford WSG 1068 LPG engine, even

following direct contact with Ford Power Plant (UK). A discussed, the Israeli Technology

Institute Phileas vehicle tests addressed a number of characteristics but not specifically

CO2. The data in the reporting (Tzabari and Kagan, 2006) that was produced as a result of

282
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

the tests provided instantaneous readings for the emissions such that it was not possible to

discern average values. Given the assessment of annual emissions the use of instantaneous

values is of little or no use. As mentioned before, an attempt was made to contact the test-

house to seek clarification on the test results but unfortunately no response was received.

The DE60LF tests however, undertaken by NREL do provide useful average values. These

are based upon the vehicle being powered by an 8.9 litre CAT diesel engine with a GM

Allison drive train. The re-engined Phileas vehicle is using an 8.8 litre Cummins diesel

engine also with a GM Allison final drive and for the purposes of the research will be

assumed to be sufficiently similar to warrant use of the DE60LF data as the emissions data

for the guided-bus solution. The actual data from the NREL Laboratory Test Report was

that the production of CO2 was 2991g/mile ≡ 1859g/km. The fuel consumption was stated

as 3.25mpg (US Gallons).

6.9.11 Summary of Emissions data (PM10, NOx and CO2)

Through the development of the model and data gathering a number of different sources

and means of calculation have been used to derive emission rates of the transit modes. The

process has been iterative in terms of identifying the ‘most useful’ measure, i.e. the

measure that can be applied with the most confidence to the Reading system. The per-unit

data has been identified as illustrated in Table 6-15. Note that both the TfL and BERR data

is to be used when processing and analysing the light rail emissions. This will be

representative of local and national contributions to PM10, NOX and CO2 emissions.

283
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Table 6-15 Emissions data Comparison

Carbon U.S. Ford TfL Bus


Emission TfL BERR DE60LF
Trust Data WSG1068 Datar
NOX Not Not
0.005 1.04 N/A 0.93 12.6 Calculable Calculable
(g/kWh)

NOX
0.024 4.6 N/A 4.09 Negligible 8.97 14
(g/km)

PM10 Not Not


9.1x10-5 0.03 N/A Unknown Unknown
Calculable Calculable
(g/kWh)

PM10 Not
0.0004 0.14 N/A
Calculable
Unknown 0.002 0.03
(g/km)

CO2 Not Not


490 490 537 640 Unknown
Calculable Calculable
(g/kWh)

CO2
2360 2360 N/A 2816 Unknown 1859 1363
(g/km)

The data to be used in the model has been indicated in bold text.

Note that additional data has been added to this for comparison to the DE60LF bus. This is

the data from Transport for London on their bus fleet operations (TfL, 2007). The TfL data

is based upon 2005-2006 data, where:

• NOx emissions were 5,830 tonnes,

• PM10 emissions were 11 tonnes, and

• CO2 emissions were 682,508 tonnes

The NOX and CO2 emissions are similar and the CO2 emissions are a little lower than

expected for the TfL bus fleet. The DE60LF has a much lower PM10 emission rate. This

could be due to the more stringent US tail-pipe emissions regulations that constrain

emissions further than European counterparts. An inspection of the US and EU standards

for new engines introduced in 2004 – 2005 provides a basis for comparison of NOx and

PM10 limits. These are illustrated in Table 6-16.

r
Transport for London, 2007

284
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Table 6-16 Emissions Standards Comparison

NOx PM10
Applicable Standard Notes
Limit Limit
US Environmental Protection Agency Applies to new engines
0.15 0.007
- Public Transit Agency Fleets from 2007. Values
g/kWh g/kWh converted from bhp-hr
(DieselNet, 2007)

EU Emission Standards EURO IV 3.5 0.02 Applies to new engines


(DieselNet, 2009) g/kWh g/kWh from 2005.

EU Emission Standards EURO V 2.0 0.02 Applies to new engines


(DieselNet, 2009) g/kWh g/kWh from 2008.

As can be seen from Table 6-16, the US standards are more stringent for NOx and PM10.

Further review of Table 6-15 enables a decision to be made on the emission data to be

used. The preferred measure is the emission rate per km as the distance travelled by the

vehicles on both systems can be calculated; hence the emissions data per kWh can be

disregarded. Whilst the TfL data for the NOX and PM10 compared to the electricity

generation data for the UK and US appears unfeasibly low this will form the basis of

discussion later. The UK data (BERR) will also be used for the NOX and PM10 emissions.

However, the TfL data for the CO2 emissions is similar to the US and Carbon Trust figures

and is exactly the same as the BERR derived measure.

For the guided-bus there is no reasonable alternative but to use the DE60LF data but, given

this is data has been taken by a test-house running empirical tests, then this is defendable.

Looking at data (again from TfL), but this time on the London diesel bus fleet, this

provides confidence that the DE60LF data are reasonable. NOX and PM10 values are

slightly lower for the DE60LF and the CO2 is marginally higher. As discussed, the lower

NOX and PM10 values could be due to the more stringent US emission standards.

285
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Other data provided on a specific bus application (Kadijk and Verbeek, 2007) is that for a

12m standard single-deck bus (VDLSB200). These data are in a report produced to address

a comparison of the VDLSB200 (as an EEV - Enhanced Environmentally-friendly

Vehicle) against other ‘state of the art’ CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) and diesel buses.

This identified that the VDLSB200 generated results for ‘city operations’ comparable to

that found for the DE60LF. CO2 emissions were 865g/km (a considerable improvement on

the DE60LF), NOX was 4.6g/km (about half the DE60LF rate) and PM10 was 0.004g/km

(actually a little higher than the DE60LF – again US emission standards could be a factor

here). The VDL SB200 is powered by a 6.7 litre engine with conventional mechanical

gearing whereas the DE60LF has the 8.9 litre hybrid configuration.

To summarise, the light rail and guided-bus vehicle emissions to be used in the model are:

Table 6-17 Emissions Data for the Model

TfL BERR DE60LF


Emission
(Light Rail) (Light Rail) (Guided-bus)
NOX (g/km) 0.024 4.62 8.97
PM10 (g/km) 0.004 1.36 0.002
CO2 (g/km) 2360 2360 1859

Note that the apparent values for the PM10 and CO2 are greater on the light rail vehicle

when using the BERR data and greater, but not to the same extent when using TfL data.

This is given to be that there will be particulate traps and more finely-tuned, more emission

friendly measures implemented on the individual bus vehicles than at the smoke stack of a

power station. In terms of how this is represented in the analysis of the scheme provides

further discussion as the issue of ‘Local Air Quality’ being exactly that – not a measure of

the national emissions contribution of the transit scheme. This will be discussed further

when reviewing the results of the model.

286
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Other key data that has resulted from the data gathering exercise in this section is the fuel

or power consumption rates, which are:

• Light Rail: 4.4kWh/km (see 6.9.4)

• Guided-bus: 3.25mpg diesel (US Gallons)


(provided in NREL Report (Chandler and Walkowicz, 2006))

This data will be used in the calculation of the fuel consumed by the vehicles as a

contribution to operating costs (OPEX).

6.9.12 Aesthetics

The model identified the issue of capturing the visual impact created by the transit system

codified as CABIs. As discussed earlier in the Model Development chapter, this appears as

a build impact as all appropriate measures will be taken during the build phase so that the

impacts are to an acceptable standard during the operation phase. The assessment of the

WebTAG criteria reported earlier in the thesis discussed the following elements that are to

be reviewed in regard of the aesthetic impact of the proposed transit system.

• Landscape (WebTAG Unit 3.3.7)


- Effects on the physical and cultural aspects of the land (DfT, 2004d)
• Townscape (WebTAG Unit 3.3.8)
- Effects on the physical and social aspect of the land and buildings (DfT, 2004c)
• Heritage of Historic Resources (WebTAG Unit 3.3.9)
- Effects on the man-made historic environment (DfT, 2003b)

It was concluded that these areas could only be assessed at a high level and the assessment

was to be based upon a qualitative scoring method. Given the limited knowledge of the

area in terms of a detailed survey, then this assessment can only be based upon a review of

aerial photography (Source: Microsoft, 2008). The Cambridgeshire County Council (CC)

s
(C )ost – (A)esthetics – (B)uild – (I)nfrastructure

287
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Guided-bus scheme EIS provides a framework for conducting the analysis that can be

applied here even using the limited aerial photography detail. The EIS (Cambridgeshire

CC, 2004a) provides a classification for the quality of existing landscape and townscape.

This is detailed in the Table 6-18.

Table 6-18 Classification of Landscape and Townscape Quality (Cambridgeshire CC,


2004)

Classification Criteria

• Exceptional scenic quality, harmonious, unified and pleasing


Highest Quality
• Absence of man-made elements
Very Important
• Designated international or national importance
• High scenic quality and/or urban patterns
Very Attractive
• Little intrusion of man-made elements
Important
• Designated regional, county or district importance
Good Landscape/ • Underlying attractive landscape and/or urban environment
Townscape • Some loss of quality due to man-made elements
Moderately Important • May contain some areas or features of local importance
• Not of particular scenic or urban quality
Ordinary Landscape/
• Incorporates intrusive man-made elements
Townscape
• Landscapes dominated and visually downgraded by built form
Minor Importance
• No form of designation of ecological or historic interest
• Landscaped downgraded by intrusive elements or features
Poor Landscape/
• Dominated by poor quality urban features and patterns
Townscape
• Vacant or poorly maintained land
Not Important
• Undesignated areas with no historic or ecological interest

The impacts arising from the development of the transit system will be largely based on the

effect on the existing classification and the nature of the system being implemented. In

some areas the light rail system will have more significant impacts due to the provision of

overhead line structures, for example. Again, using the Cambridge Guided-Bus EIS, the

impacts are to be measured as detailed in Table 6-19.

288
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

Table 6-19 Impact Significance Criteria (Cambridgeshire CC, 2004a)

Impact Criteria

Severe Impact A highly detrimental effect to the landscape/townscape area or


Adverse view
Major Impact A significant detrimental or beneficial effect to the landscape/
Beneficial or Adverse townscape area or view
Moderate Impact A noticeable detrimental or beneficial effect to the landscape/
Beneficial or Adverse townscape area or view
Slight Impact A minor detrimental or beneficial effect to the landscape/
Beneficial or Adverse townscape area or view
No discernable detrimental or beneficial effect to the landscape/
Negligible Impact
townscape area or view

The effects on the built heritage of the route are considered in terms of the impact on

Grade I and II listed buildings, heritage sites or conservation areas. The criteria for

assessing such locations are shown in Table 6-20.

Table 6-20 Built Heritage Significance Criteria (Cambridgeshire CC, 2004)

Impact Criteria

Severe • Damage or demolition of a Grade I or II* Listed building


Adverse • Land take or damage to cultural heritage site of national importance
• Extensive damage or change to the setting of a Grade I or II* Listed
Major building, or demolition of a Grade II listed building
Adverse • Extensive damage to the value of a conservation area or historic
landscape
• Extensive change to the setting of a Grade II Listed building
Moderate
Adverse • Encroachment onto a conservation area or historic landscape where the
quality of the setting is noticeably impaired
• Slight change to the setting of a Grade II Listed building
Minor
Adverse • Encroachment onto a conservation area or historic landscape where the
quality of the setting is not noticeably impaired
Minor • Perceptible improvement in the setting of a Listed building or
Beneficial conservation area or historic landscape

289
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

The Reading Borough Council (BC) website contains details of all listed buildings in the

Reading area (Reading BC, 2008a). These have been reviewed to see whether these appear

on the route and an assessment undertaken to describe potential impact. The conservation

areas have been provided on a map (Figure 6-34) which has been adapted for the thesis to

illustrate where the proposed system will run.

Figure 6-34 Conservation Areas in Reading


(Adapted from Reading BC, 2008b)

Reading Borough Council Boundary

Primary Road
Conservation Area

Proposed Conservation Area


Proposed Transit System Route

From Figure 6-34, the key areas of interest are: (3) Market place/London Street, (4) Russell

Street/Castle Hill and (12) Redlands. The RUN route also passes along the boundary of or

close to (8) Downshire Square, (9) Routh lane, (10) The Mount and (11) Horncastle.

290
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

6.10 Environmental Emissions Mitigation Cost (ENVEX)

Referring back to Figure 6-26 and section 6.7 where CAPEX costs were being discussed, it

is at this stage it is possible to identify and evaluate the costs due to environmental

mitigation of the infrastructure works. These are calculated as a percentage of the

infrastructure cost on the basis that the more it costs to construct a particular element, then

the more it will cost to provide mitigation for the effects of noise, local air quality,

greenhouse gases and aesthetic impacts. This will be primarily borne out of the plant used

to construct the transit system. This provides a mechanism for identifying all level 3 codes

and costs that are based upon CNBI, CLBI, CGBI and CABIt. The cost of mitigation is

considered to be included in the costs identified at level 2.

Since 1997, ‘The Considerate Constructors Scheme’ has been operating in the UK to cover

a broad range of issues associated with operating a construction site that attempts to deal

with the issues of wider public concern (Considerate Constructors, 2010). The scheme is a

national initiative, set up by the construction industry, to improve its image. One of the

monitored aspects for registered companies or sites is the environment and aspects of the

Code of Considerate Practice that are “designed to encourage best practice beyond

statutory requirements” which are likely to incur additional costs.

6.10.1 Construction Noise (CNBI)

The noise due to the construction of the transit system includes for mitigating the effects of

the plant, machinery and construction processes involved. The impact is likely to be

similar for both light rail and guide-bus due to the nature of the ‘breaking-ground’ and

construction work. The EIS for the Edinburgh Tram (The Scottish Parliament, 2003)

includes data on noise emissions of construction plant. These are shown in Table 6-21,

t
(C)ost - (N)oise - (L)ocal Air Quality – (A)esthetics – (G)reenhouse Gases – (B)uild – (I)nfrastructure

291
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

where the value of LAeq is the ‘equivalent continuous sound level’, i.e. varying sound

levels over a period of time expressed as a continuous equivalent value.

The plant in Table 6-21 would be typical of that used to construct the RUN system and

hence the mitigation costs are proposed to reduce the (temporary) impact of the

construction noise.

Table 6-21 Typical Sound Levels from Construction Plant (Source: The Scottish

Parliament, 2003)

Possible Areas of Use

Embank-

Cuttings
Plant Type LAeq at
Stations

Laying

Demo-
Bridge
Works

ments
Track
10m

lition
dB(A)
Tracked Excavator 84
Hydraulic Breaker 82
Compressor 86
Hand Tools 85
Cement Lorry 76
Generator 80
Tracked Crane 83
Tamper/Compactor 84
Dozer 87
Tracked Loader 79
Lorry 70
Dropping Ball Crane 93
Pneumatic Breaker 88

British Standards exist for the management of construction noise, enacted by ‘The Control

of Pollution Act 1974’ and the ‘Environmental Protection Act 1990’; local authorities

retain powers for controlling noise and vibration from construction sites. More specifically,

‘The Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996’,

292
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

require railway authorities to provide insulation or financial grants for insulation where

noise from the construction of a new or altered railway is expected to significantly affect

residential and other buildings for a substantial time. The Merseytravel (Mitchell, 2004)

EIS and Cambridge Guided-Bus EIS (Cambridgeshire CC, 2004b) refer construction noise

mitigation, typically to address restrictions on working hours, appropriate use of acoustic

enclosures, electrical rather than diesel plant, silencers and mufflers on plant and sound

barriers. The cost for these measures is the ENVEX allowance of CNBI.

6.10.2 Construction Local Air Quality (CLBI)

The cost associated with the mitigation of local air quality affecting emissions is, like

noise, borne out of the measures that can be taken to mitigate the effects created by

construction activities. Both the Merseytram and Edinburgh Tram system TWA

submission included a ‘Good Construction Guide’ and this document outlined the

measures to be taken (by the contractors) to minimise the effects of air quality affecting

emissions. The application of good practice by the contractor may be more expensive than

conventional unrestricted construction methods and the contractor would need to ensure

recovery of these costs in their price build-up either through core construction cost or

prelim costs.

The Cambridge Guided-Bus scheme EIS provides a list of construction effects that are

probable sources of air quality emissions (Cambridgeshire CC, 2004b) including

demolition activities, earth moving, construction aggregate usage, movement of heavy site

vehicles on dry untreated areas and movement of vehicles over surfaces contaminated by

muddy materials brought off the site.

293
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

The measures that contractors should take to minimise air quality impacts include wheel

washing facilities, storage and damping down of dusty materials, hoardings, road sweeping

and speed restrictions on site roads (Cambridgeshire CC, 2004b). These mitigation

measures impact on the construction works by changing working practices and methods

and hence attract additional cost which is captured in the model as the ENVEX proportion

of the construction cost (see Figure 6-26). It is noted; however that the Cambridge

assessment concludes that, “As a result, construction effects on air quality are not

considered to be significant.” (Cambridgeshire CC, 2004b)

6.10.3 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CGBI)

This is very similar to the management of the impacts presented by air quality-affecting

emissions; however, it does not appear in the EIS for Cambridge Guided-Bus or

Merseytram as an issue to be considered during construction. The CO2 emissions during

construction will be based upon the plant and machinery used. Hence, the only attributable

cost is the potential for inflated prices by using the latest available plant with lower CO2

emissions than if using older, and hence cheaper, equipment. The allowance for this will be

minor and is, as with air quality, considered as a factor of the construction cost of those

elements of work requiring heavy plant and machinery.

6.10.4 Construction Aesthetics (CABI)

The construction works will be at times disruptive to traffic and pedestrian movements and

will generate dust and noise. It is likely, in some locations, that it will also be necessary to

provide screening to block out temporary visual blight. The screening will also act to

reduce the movement of dust and will in some part act to reduce noise effects of

construction by providing an acoustic barrier. The impact of aesthetic effects during the

construction phase will be minimal and an allowance has been made in the construction

294
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application

cost. It is noted that the Cambridge Guided-Bus and Merseytram do not refer the impact of

visual blight during the construction phase and the need for mitigation. The latter details

very specifically the properties to be acquired for construction but does not make mention

of any specific measures to be taken to mitigate aesthetic impacts.

6.10.5 Environmental Costs Summary (ENVEX)

The ENVEX costs are separately identified in the M-AST but are effectively a subset of

the CAPEX costs as they are factored direct from the level 3 costs (see Figure 6-26).

6.11 Next Steps

This section has identified the data sources for the contributory factors to the M-AST:

• Capital Expenditure, CAPEX


- the cost to procure, build and ready for operation the entire transit system
• Operational Expenditure, OPEX
- the cost to operate and maintain the system from construction handover
• Environmental Emission, ENVEM
- the NOX, PM10, CO2 and noise emissions during the construction and operation
of the transit system
• Environmental Mitigation Cost, ENVEX
- the mitigation costs to overcome the effects of NOX, PM10, CO2 and noise
during the construction and operation of the transit system

The next section concentrates on using these values to produce a schedule of costs and

emissions with a qualitative commentary on the effects of implementing and operating the

system. The development of the costs and emissions in this way allows a direct comparison

to be made on the data between the light rail and guided-bus systems for what is essentially

the same system. The results, i.e. the output of the model, are detailed in Chapter 7.

295
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

7. Modelling Results

Ultimately, the aim of the assessment is to provide the data sets for light rail and high-

quality guided-bus in the Modified-Appraisal Summary Table (M-AST) for direct

comparison on an equivalent basis. This is to be achieved by defining the output in terms

of capital cost (CAPEX), operational cost (OPEX), emissions (ENVEM) and

environmental cost mitigation (ENVEX). There is a significant amount of data assessment

to be undertaken to turn the gathered data into comparable costs and emissions. The

development of the results is described here by first looking at CAPEX.

7.1. Capital Expenditure (CAPEX)

The CAPEX data are primarily derived from the development of the system described in

Chapter 6, the breakdown of which is contained in Appendix I. This has been developed in

line with the cost framework shown in Figure 6-26, which for ease of reference has been

provided again in Figure 7-1. For the infrastructure elements there is a further step to turn

the characteristics of the system identified during the data gathering exercise into a list of

requirements that can be priced. This is to evaluate the total quantities required for a given

element of the system, for example, the amount of segregated running, or how much

ballast track is required.

All costs are adjusted for inflation to prices at the first quarter of 2007 (1Q07). The indices

applied have been sourced from Franklin and Andrews (F&A, 2007a).

297
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

Figure 7-1 Cost Framework

Construction Net Construction


Cost Summary Construction Net Cost Cost Add-ons

Level 2 Cost Data Level 1 Cost Data Factored cost - the


Level 3 Cost Data Indirect Costs of
e.g. i.e. Construction
e.g. Summarised Summarised Factored
LR-C-BI/6 LR-C-BI These are like-for-
LR-C-BI/6c GB-C-BI/11 GB-C-BI like for LR and GB
GB-C-BI/11a etc
etc

B D E
A

Environmental Costs are factors of


Level 3, 2 and 1 values. Total Project
E.g. LR-CLBI/6c, GB-CNBI/11a
LR-CLBI/6, GB-CNBI/11
Construction Cost
LR-CLBI, GB-CNBI
This represents the
ENVEX total Construction
M-AST Entry C Infrastructure Cost of
the works due by the
Construction
Contractor
Utility Costs EMC

Utilities Costs -
Electricty, Telecoms
EMC Compliance F
qw eqerfqerfqerf……………….1231 Demonstration Costs
etc
7654

H I
Operator & Land Acquisition
Concessionare & Compensation

Add-on allowance for Land Acquisition and Total Project Cost


Operator & compensation costs (Excluding Vehicles)
Concessionare Costs

This represents the


G J total Capital Cost of
the Infrastructure

Vehicle
Procurement Trial Running
K
Cost to Procure Cost to Test
Vehicle only Vehicle on built
Infrastructure

L M

Total Vehicle Cost

Total Vehicle Cost


Total Project
Cost
LR-C-BV
GB-C-BV
Total Project
N CAPEX

M-AST Entry

298
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

7.1.1. Infrastructure Elements

As discussed in Chapter 6 the costs for the infrastructure is based upon the development of

the system which is detailed in Appendix I. This Appendix also details the computation

necessary to determine the allowance for the particular infrastructure item based upon the

system details developed in Chapter 6.

Many infrastructure costs are associated with the track length. For example, using

Appendix I the entry for highway drainage (1f) is a function of the track length. Ballast

drainage is calculated separately (as it has a different cost (1h)). Other non-track or

highway related costs are also factored depending on the development of the RUN system.

For example, platforms at stops are considered for single, facing and island configurations

(6a, b and c) and are subject to the system development described in the data gathering

section.

By factoring these data, along with the data detailed in Chapter 6, into the model the output

costs are provided for each of the infrastructure elements accordingly. Each of the costs for

the infrastructure was evaluated with the quantities determined for each element and the

summary costs are provided below. For reasons of source commercial confidentiality, the

individual line-item costs could not be reported. The first stage shown in Figure 7-2 is the

collection of construction costs (A) to (D).

The summary of the items at level 2 presented are detailed in Table 7-1 and 7-2, which

represents (B) in Figure 7-2 (the Construction Net Cost Summary). As detailed in Figure 7-

1, there is an allowance in the above for the mitigation costs (ENVEX) for emissions

control during construction (C).

299
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

Table 7-1 Light Rail Infrastructure Net Cost Summary

LR-C-BI LR-CGBI LR-CABI LR-CNBI LR-CLBI


Level 2 Code
(£’000) (£’000) (£’000) (£’000) (£’000)
LR-Cxxx/1
9,491 90 - 48 90
Site Preparation
LR-Cxxx/2
14,716 152 152 - 152
Highway Works
LR-Cxxx/3
2,638 31 1,691 132 45
Environ/Landscape
LR-Cxxx/4
8,790 92 92 92 92
Structures/Bridges
LR-Cxxx/5
20,118 210 210 210 210
Trackwork
LR-Cxxx/6
15,811 165 165 165 165
Stops
LR-Cxxx/7
16,866 174 59 174 174
Traction Power
LR-Cxxx/8
10,245 105 36 36 36
Comms & Control
LR-Cxxx/9
7,430 77 - 77 77
Road Signalling
LR-Cxxx/10
4,199 44 39 44 44
Ancillary Works
LR-Cxxx/11
Depot
9,501 99 140 99 99

Total 119,805 1,239 2,581 1,075 1,183


(L)ight(R)ail, (C)ost, (G)reenhouse Gases, (A)esthetics, (N)oise, (L)ocal Air Quality, (B)uild,
(I)nfrastructure

The total infrastructure construction cost for the Light Rail Scheme is the sum of the Level

2 totals detailed in Table 7-1, amounting to £125,880,000 (£125.9m)

The total infrastructure construction cost for the Guided-Bus Scheme is the sum of the

Level 2 totals detailed in Table 7-2, amounting to £81,630,000 (£81.6m). These values are

summarised in an extract of Figure 7-1 shown in Figure 7.2.

300
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

Table 7-2 Guided-Bus Infrastructure Net Cost Summary

GB-C-BI GB-CGBI GB-CABI GB-CNBI GB-CLBI


Level 2 Code
(£’000) (£’000) (£’000) (£’000) (£’000)
GB-Cxxx/1
Site Preparation
9,669 92 - 33 92
GB-Cxxx/2
14,991 153 153 - 153
Highway Works
GB-Cxxx/3
2,794 29 1,180 - 38
Environ/Landscape
GB-Cxxx/4
8,790 92 92 92 92
Structures/Bridges
GB-Cxxx/5
- - - - -
Trackwork
GB-Cxxx/6
16,242 169 169 169 169
Stops
GB-Cxxx/7
- - - - -
Traction Power
GB-Cxxx/8
8,321 22 22 22 22
Comms & Control
GB-Cxxx/9
Road Signalling
6,480 67 - 67 67
GB-Cxxx/10
Ancillary Works
3,716 39 39 39 39
GB-Cxxx/11
Depot
7,045 73 73 73 73

Total 77,928 736 1,728 495 745


(G)uided(B)us, (C)ost, (G)reenhouse Gases, (A)esthetics, (N)oise, (L)ocal Air Quality, (B)uild,
(I)nfrastructure

Figure 7-2 Construction Net Cost

Construction
Construction Net Cost
Cost Build-up Construction Net Cost
Summary

Level 2 Cost Data Level 1 Cost Data


Level 3 Cost Data
Detailed in Light Rail
Data Provided in Summarised Tables 7.1 and Summarised £125,880,000
Appendix I but 7.2
costs subject to Guided-Bus
confidentiality £81,630,000

B D
A

GB-CLBI - £736k LR-CGBI - £1,239k Next Section


GB-CABI - £1,728k LR-CABI - £2,581k
GB-CNBI - £495k LR-CNBI - £1,075k
Construction
GB-CLBI - £745k LR-CLBI - £1,183k
Cost Add-ons
ENVEX
M-AST Entry C

301
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

So, the data provides the Construction Net cost for both schemes at £125.9m for light rail

and £81.6m for the guided-bus schemes.

7.1.2. Construction Cost Add-ons

As detailed previously (in Table 6-8), the construction cost add-ons are those costs borne

by the construction contractor or other costs incurred by the promoter or sponsor. This

covers such items as contractor preliminaries (and additionally overheads and profit),

design costs, third party regulation costs etc.

The value of these add-ons was specified in Table 6-8 and is summarised here with the

corresponding contribution to the cost by factoring on to the Construction Net Cost. This

provides the results detailed in Table 7-3.

Table 7-3 Construction Cost Add-ons Net Construction Cost


(Costs are given in £’000) Light Rail Guided-Bus
Cost Add-on Rate £125,880 £81,632
Contractors Preliminaries 20.0% £25,176 £16,326
Design, site supervision, Quality Control 10.0% £12,588 £8,163
Traffic Regulation Orders 0.2% £252 £163
Network Rail Design Approvals 0.2% £252 £163
Head Office overheads, profit and insurances 6.0% £7,553 £4,898
Regulatory consents and commissioning 1.0% £1,259 £816
Local Authority Design Approvals 0.3% £378 £245
Infrastructure Spares 0.5% £629 £408
Cost Add-on Value £48,086 £31,183
Total Project Construction Cost £173,966 £112,815

302
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

This step in the results gathering can be illustrated as shown in Figure 7-3 as an extract of

Figure 7-1.

Construction Net Cost Construction Cost Add-ons

Total Cost Add-on


Level 1 Cost Data
Light Rail
Light Rail

Previously
£48,086,000

Evaluated
£125,880,000
Factored Guided-Bus
Guided-Bus £31,183,000
£81,630,000

D E

Total Project
Construction Cost

Light Rail
£173,966,000
Figure 7-3
Construction Cost Add-ons Guided-Bus
£112,813,000

Next Section

7.1.3. Non-Contractor Construction Costs

As detailed in the Data Gathering section and represented by the four boxes (G) – (J) in

Figure 7-1, these costs are:

• (G) Utility Costs

• (H) Operator and Concessionaire Costs

• (I) Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) Costs, and

• (J) Land Acquisition and Compensation Costs

The basis for the valuation of these costs is either pro-rata based upon the costs of an

alternative scheme or by a factored percentage of the ‘Total Project Construction Cost’. In

either case the methods are both used on the basis of application by F&A in undertaking

similar costing exercises as described previously.

303
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

The Utility Costs are based upon the costs associated with a scheme estimate and report

produced by WS Atkins for a 14.4km extension to the Birmingham Midland Metro scheme

(referred in F&A, 2005). This identified that the Utility Costs, including for diversion of all

services and for the provision of statutory undertakers services was £29.8m. This is a unit

rate of £2.1m per kilometre. This figure is for a light rail system that requires all services in

the line of route to be diverted. This would apply to the RUN case and hence the value

assigned in the model is based upon this cost per kilometre. This is applied to the route

length minus that section on the structure above ground level and will not require the

services diverted.

The cost is £2.1m/km x (22.4km – 0.5km) = £45,990,000

The guided-bus evaluation assumes that the services will be diverted only for those areas

where the bus could not be diverted onto normal-shared rights of way as a temporary

measure. This also means that a smaller allowance is made for utility supplies because the

guided-bus does not require power supplies for an overhead line traction supply.

The guided-bus route length allowance is for the central section from the Bath Road Park

and Ride site to the A329 stop in the West of Reading and south to the Madejski Stadium

stop. The route length is 14.06km; hence the utility costs at £2.1m/km are £29,400,000.

The Operator and Concessionaire Costs are based upon a percentage factor of the Project

Construction cost. The value used by F&A is 4.0% of the Net Construction Cost for the

Birmingham Midland Metro extension scheme and has been applied here (F&A, 2005).

The evaluation is hence:

• Light Rail: 4% of £125,880,000 = £5,040,000

• Guided Bus: 4% of £81,630,000 = £3,265,000

304
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

The costs for the demonstration of Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) and the costs

arising from the implementation of any work to mitigate non-compatibility is based upon a

notional value for each system. As discussed in the data gathering section (6.7.6) the work

required to demonstrate compliance on the light rail scheme will be more onerous than the

guided-bus scheme. The costs allowed are hence proportionate to the systems:

• Light Rail: £750,000

• Guided Bus: £250,000

Whilst these figures are arbitrary, when compared with the Net Construction Cost they are

virtually negligible. The light rail EMC cost represents 0.6% of the Net Construction Cost

and guided-bus 0.3%.

Finally in this section, allowance has to be made for the acquisition of land and any costs

arising from compensation. As with the costs for the services diversions, a pro-rata scale

has been applied to the F&A cost estimate for the Birmingham Midland Metro extension

scheme. This estimated that for the 14.4km scheme the total land acquisition and

compensation costs would total £28.0m (F&A, 2005). This equates to £1.9m per route

kilometre. The costs associated with the Reading system need to account for the cost of the

land to build the Park and Ride sites and the depot. This will also require a level of

compensation and costs associated with re-provision of existing facilities that are lost. The

procurement of the land for the Park and Ride sites for the light rail and guided-bus

schemes amount to (for the locations identified in Table 6-3.):

• Bath Road Park and Ride site: 25,500m2

• A4 Park and Ride Site: 12,200m2

• M4 Park and Ride Site: 21,600m2

• Total: 59,300m2

305
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

The land use for the depot is different in each case of the light rail scheme and the guided-

bus because the area required to stable and move the vehicles is larger for the light rail

vehicles. As identified in the section 6.4.12 this amounts to 21,000m2 for light rail and

10,300m2 for guided-bus.

Using ‘Communities and Local Government’ 1Q07 prices (CLG, 2011) at £4m per hectare

this means that the total area and cost required for the depot and Park and Ride sites is:

• Light Rail: 80,300m2 (c8 hectares), cost £32,100,000

• Guided-bus: 69,600m2 (c7 hectares), cost £27,900,000

The above costs are for the procurement of land with planning permission but do include

compensation costs. A pro-rate route-length cost from F&A (2005) based upon the

Midland Metro extension included land procurement and compensation, for which the pro-

rata cost is evaluated at £43.5m for light rail and guided-bus. However, the issue with the

pro-rata all-in cost is based upon route length and therefore makes no allowance for the

different depot footprints which should be made (circa £4.2m from above, £32.1m -

£27.9m). The F&A Midland Metro cost was based upon the extension to the current light

rail system, then the value of £43.5m will be used for the all-in cost for the land

procurement and compensation cost for the light rail scheme only. This means that there is

notionally around £11.4m (£43.5m - £32.1m) for the additional purchase of land not

associated with the Park and Ride sites and depots and to pay any compensation costs. In

the case of the guided-bus scheme, the all-in cost will be the pro-rata cost minus the

difference in depot footprint cost evaluated from the CLG data (i.e. £4.25m). In summary:

• Light Rail Land Acquisition and Compensation cost: £43,500,000

• Guided-bus Land Acquisition and Compensation cost: £39,250,000

306
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

In summary, the non-contractor construction costs can be illustrated as an extract from

Figure 7.1 as below:

Total Project
Construction Cost
Light Rail
£173,974,000
Utility Costs EMC
Guided-Bus
Light Rail Light Rail £112,815,000
£45,990,000 £750,000

Guided-Bus
qweqerfqerfqerf……………….1231 Guided-Bus
£29,400,000
7654 £250,000

H I F
Operator & Land Acquisition
Concessionare & Compensation
Light Rail Light Rail
£5,040,000 £43,500,000 Total Project Cost
(Excluding Vehicles)
Guided-Bus Guided-Bus
£3,265,000 £39,250,000
Light Rail
£269,246,000
G J
Guided-Bus
£184,978,000

Next Section

Vehicle
Costs
Figure 7-4 Total Project (Infrastructure) Costs

The means that the Total Cost of the Project, excluding vehicle costs are:

• Light Rail: £269,246,000 (£269m)

• Guided-Bus: £184,978,000 (£185m)

7.1.4. Specifying the Number of Vehicles

The vehicle capital cost can only be determined once the number of vehicles required has

been evaluated. The maximum number of vehicles that will be needed to operate the

service will be during the morning and evening peak hours. The simplest way to determine

the peak period operation is to develop a basic timetable.

307
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

There are two assumptions that need to be made that emanate from the system equivalence

approach of this research:

(1) The light rail and guided-bus vehicles need to have the same headway

characteristic, i.e. all aspects of the operation of the vehicle are the same, including

acceleration, deceleration, dwell time at stops, and leading from this

(2) The average speed for both systems is 25 km per hour

In order to satisfy the equivalent service provision in terms of passenger capacity, because

the guided-bus has a lower capacity then more services need to be operated. This

consequently will require the guided-buses to be at shorter intervals; consequently more

vehicles will be required. The passenger capacity ratio dictates that approximately 1.6

guided-buses per light rail service (208 spaces on light rail, 129 on a guided-bus) for

Phileas, 1.7 (208:120) for the Civis and 1.8 (208:115) for the DE60LF are required.

The development of the timetable to evaluate the number of vehicles was based upon

setting the ‘diagram’ for one vehicle followed by an evaluation of how long it takes for the

vehicle to complete a ‘full-circuit’. The ‘diagram operation’ was defined as setting out

from the M4 Park and Ride stop to the Bath Road Park and Ride site where the service

terminated. It then sets back to the A4 Park and Ride site and again terminates. The service

then heads back toward Hogarth Avenue stop before taking the single line loop and back to

the Bath Road Park and Ride site. The diagram is completed as the service returns to the

M4 Park and Ride stop. This is detailed in Figure 7-5, noting that the names of all of the

stops have not been shown for clarity. The round-trip journey is 49.2km as illustrated on

the diagram.

308
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

Figure 7-5 RUN Service Diagrams

A4 Park & Ride


Service 3

Watlington Street

Bath Road Park &

Service 1
Service 2

Service 1 - M4 Park and Ride to Bath Road Park and Ride


Service 1 Route Length is 13.0km

Service 2 - Bath Road Park and Ride to A4 Park and Ride


Service 2 Route Length is 9.5km

Service 3 - A4 Park and Ride to M4 Park and Ride


Service 3 Route Length is 26.7km

Total Route (Round Trip) Length is 49.2km

M4 Park & Ride

The timings for each of the runs in the diagram were established given that the route length

is known and the average speed is given to be 25kph for all modes. The peak service

interval for the light rail system was decided to be 6 per hour, i.e. one service every 10

minutes. By comparison, the peak service on the Nottingham Tram is 10 services per hour.

The number of services to be provided has been summarised in Table 7-4 below for light

rail. This was used as the basis for determining the guided-bus vehicle provision. The bus

data includes reference to the VDL SB200 to illustrate the requirement for a high-capacity

vehicle for equivalence.

309
Table 7-4 Total Light Rail Services to be provided on the Reading System

Hour
6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
Commencing
Mon-Fri 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 4
Light
Sat 4 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 4 4
Rail
Sun 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2

The total weekly number of Light Rail services is 260 (i.e. the sum of all hourly-based services in Table 7-4 above). Using the Light Rail service as the

baseline and the capacities of the alternative guided-bus vehicles, this would require the following number of services for equivalent weekly capacity:

Table 7-5 Guided-bus service provision based upon Equivalent Weekly Capacity

System/Vehicle Vehicle Capacity Weekly Services Weekly Capacity % Light Rail Capacity
Light Rail 208 260 54080 100 (Baseline)
Phileas 129 416 53664 99
DE60LF 115 468 53820 100
Civis 120 450 54000 100
VDL SB200 81 676 54746 101

310
Translating the data provided in Table 7-5 into a working service pattern to determine the number of services required per hour results in the following

service patterns for the guided-buses:

Table 7-6 Guided-bus Service Pattern based upon Equivalent Weekly Capacity
Hour
6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00
Commencing
M-F 6 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 6 6 6
Phileas
Guided Sat 6 6 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 6 6
Bus
Sun 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 3
M-F 6 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 6 6 6 6
DE60LF
Guided Sat 4 6 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 6 6 6
Bus
Sun 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 4 4
M-F 6 10 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 10 6 6 6 6
Civis
Guided Sat 6 6 10 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 10 10 6 6 6
Bus
Sun 3 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 3
VDL M-F 10 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 10 10 10 10
SB200
Sat 10 10 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 10 10 10
Guided
Bus Sun 5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 5 5
Note that the service peaks at 16 buses per hour using the VDL SB200 – this would be unachievable with an average headway of less than 4 minutes.

311
Alternatively, by using the Phileas-based service pattern this can be applied to the other guided-bus vehicles. The Phileas service pattern is used because

this appears to have a good framework for a transit system timetable – the peak headway is a service every 6 minutes with an off-peak headway of 10

minutes. The Phileas capacity-based schedule is still a relatively ambitious service level and a more frequency intensive timetable would not be

advocated.

Table 7-7 Guided-bus Service Density based upon Equivalent Weekly Capacity
System/Vehicle Vehicle Capacity Weekly Services Weekly Capacity % Light Rail Capacity
Phileas 129 416 53664 99
DE60LF 115 416 47480 88
Civis 120 416 49920 92
VDL SB200 81 416 33696 62

At this stage it can be seen that the VDL SB200 capacity does not realistically allow for an equivalent service; this confirming the rules defined for

equivalence in Chapter 1. The service level is either too intensive, or does not offer sufficient capacity for an equivalent service level; however, the Civis

and DE60LF appear adequate if not strictly equivalent (i.e. not 100% capacity). The next step is to develop a timetable for the most intensive period of

operation to determine how many vehicles are required to operate the service indicated. This has been undertaken and presented for the light rail (260

services) and also the bus services operating 416 services per week. Figure 7-6 (light rail timetable) and Figure 7-7 (guided-bus timetable) are shown

below having been developed for the peak operation service.

312
Figure 7-6 Light Rail peak period timetable

Time The diagrams shown ‘A’ through ‘O’ are the service operated by one vehicle; hence for the peak light rail service there are
between 15 vehicles required (A-O). Diagram ‘A’ arrives back at the M4 Park and Ride site at 9:20. After a turn-around time
stops allowance this vehicle can set-out at 9.30. The round-trip-time is 2 hours 20 minutes.

Stop
Name

Mins Diagram A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O A
M4 P&R 0.00 Depart North 7.00 7.10 7.20 7.30 7.40 7.50 8.00 8.10 8.20 8.30 8.40 8.50 9.00 9.10 9.20 9.30
Watlington 0.17 Westbound 7.17 7.27 7.37 7.47 7.57 8.07 8.17 8.27 8.37 8.47 8.57 9.07 9.17 9.27 9.37 9.47
Hogarth 0.13 Westbound 7.30 7.40 7.50 8.00 8.10 8.20 8.30 8.40 8.50 9.00 9.10 9.20 9.30 9.40 9.50 10.00
Bath Rd P&R 0.02 Terminate 7.32 7.42 7.52 8.02 8.12 8.22 8.32 8.42 8.52 9.02 9.12 9.22 9.32 9.42 9.52 10.02
Bath Rd P&R - Depart East 7.40 7.50 8.00 8.10 8.20 8.30 8.40 8.50 9.00 9.10 9.20 9.30 9.40 9.50 10.00 10.10
Hogarth 0.02 Eastbound 7.42 7.52 8.02 8.12 8.22 8.32 8.42 8.52 9.02 9.12 9.22 9.32 9.42 9.52 10.02 10.12
Watlington 0.13 Eastbound 7.55 8.05 8.15 8.25 8.35 8.45 8.55 9.05 9.15 9.25 9.35 9.45 9.55 10.05 10.15 10.25
A4 P&R East 0.07 Terminate 8.02 8.12 8.22 8.32 8.42 8.52 9.02 9.12 9.22 9.32 9.42 9.52 10.02 10.12 10.22 10.32
A4 P&R East - Depart West 8.15 8.25 8.35 8.45 8.55 9.05 9.15 9.25 9.35 9.45 9.55 10.05 10.15 10.25 10.35 10.45
Watlington 0.07 Westbound 8.22 8.32 8.42 8.52 9.02 9.12 9.22 9.32 9.42 9.52 10.02 10.12 10.22 10.32 10.42 10.52
Hogarth 0.13 Westbound 8.35 8.45 8.55 9.05 9.15 9.25 9.35 9.45 9.55 10.05 10.15 10.25 10.35 10.45 10.55 11.05
Bath Rd P&R 0.13 Eastbound 8.48 8.58 9.08 9.18 9.28 9.38 9.48 9.58 10.08 10.18 10.28 10.38 10.48 10.58 11.08 11.18
Hogarth 0.02 Eastbound 8.50 9.00 9.10 9.20 9.30 9.40 9.50 10.00 10.10 10.20 10.30 10.40 10.50 11.00 11.10 11.20
Watlington 0.13 Eastbound 9.03 9.13 9.23 9.33 9.43 9.53 10.03 10.13 10.23 10.33 10.43 10.53 11.03 11.13 11.23 11.33
M4 P&R 0.17 Terminate 9.20 9.30 9.40 9.50 10.00 10.10 10.20 10.30 10.40 10.50 11.00 11.10 11.20 11.30 11.40 11.50

313
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

Figure 7-7 Guided-bus peak period timetable

Mins Diagram A B C D E F G H I
M4 P&R 0.00 Depart North 7.00 7.06 7.12 7.18 7.24 7.30 7.36 7.42 7.48
Watlington 0.17 Westbound 7.17 7.23 7.29 7.35 7.41 7.47 7.53 7.59 8.05
Hogarth 0.13 Westbound 7.30 7.36 7.42 7.48 7.54 8.00 8.06 8.12 8.18
Bath Rd P&R 0.02 Terminate 7.32 7.38 7.44 7.50 7.56 8.02 8.08 8.14 8.20
Bath Rd P&R - Depart East 7.40 7.46 7.52 7.58 8.04 8.10 8.16 8.22 8.28
Hogarth 0.02 Eastbound 7.42 7.48 7.54 8.00 8.06 8.12 8.18 8.24 8.30
Watlington 0.13 Eastbound 7.55 8.01 8.07 8.13 8.19 8.25 8.31 8.37 8.43
A4 P&R East 0.07 Terminate 8.02 8.08 8.14 8.20 8.26 8.32 8.38 8.44 8.50
A4 P&R East - Depart West 8.15 8.21 8.27 8.33 8.39 8.45 8.51 8.57 9.03
Watlington 0.07 Westbound 8.22 8.28 8.34 8.40 8.46 8.52 8.58 9.04 9.10
Hogarth 0.13 Westbound 8.35 8.41 8.47 8.53 8.59 9.05 9.11 9.17 9.23
Bath Rd P&R 0.13 Eastbound 8.48 8.54 9.00 9.06 9.12 9.18 9.24 9.30 9.36
Hogarth 0.02 Eastbound 8.50 8.56 9.02 9.08 9.14 9.20 9.26 9.32 9.38
Watlington 0.13 Eastbound 9.03 9.09 9.15 9.21 9.27 9.33 9.39 9.45 9.51
M4 P&R 0.17 Terminate 9.20 9.26 9.32 9.38 9.44 9.50 9.56 10.02 10.08

Mins Diagram J K L M N O P Q
M4 P&R 0.00 Depart North 7.54 8.00 8.06 8.12 8.18 8.24 8.30 8.36
Watlington 0.17 Westbound 8.11 8.17 8.23 8.29 8.35 8.41 8.47 8.53
Hogarth 0.13 Westbound 8.24 8.30 8.36 8.42 8.48 8.54 9.00 9.06
Bath Rd P&R 0.02 Terminate 8.26 8.32 8.38 8.44 8.50 8.56 9.02 9.08
Bath Rd P&R - Depart East 8.34 8.40 8.46 8.52 8.58 9.04 9.10 9.16
Hogarth 0.02 Eastbound 8.36 8.42 8.48 8.54 9.00 9.06 9.12 9.18
Watlington 0.13 Eastbound 8.49 8.55 9.01 9.07 9.13 9.19 9.25 9.31
A4 P&R East 0.07 Terminate 8.56 9.02 9.08 9.14 9.20 9.26 9.32 9.38
A4 P&R East - Depart West 9.09 9.15 9.21 9.27 9.33 9.39 9.45 9.51
Watlington 0.07 Westbound 9.16 9.22 9.28 9.34 9.40 9.46 9.52 9.58
Hogarth 0.13 Westbound 9.29 9.35 9.41 9.47 9.53 9.59 10.05 10.11
Bath Rd P&R 0.13 Eastbound 9.42 9.48 9.54 10.00 10.06 10.12 10.18 10.24
Hogarth 0.02 Eastbound 9.44 9.50 9.56 10.02 10.08 10.14 10.20 10.26
Watlington 0.13 Eastbound 9.57 10.03 10.09 10.15 10.21 10.27 10.33 10.39
M4 P&R 0.17 Terminate 10.14 10.20 10.26 10.32 10.38 10.44 10.50 10.56

Mins Diagram R S T U V W X Y A
M4 P&R 0.00 Depart North 8.42 8.48 8.54 9.00 9.06 9.12 9.18 9.24 9.30
Watlington 0.17 Westbound 8.59 9.05 9.11 9.17 9.23 9.29 9.35 9.41 9.47
Hogarth 0.13 Westbound 9.12 9.18 9.24 9.30 9.36 9.42 9.48 9.54 10.00
Bath Rd P&R 0.02 Terminate 9.14 9.20 9.26 9.32 9.38 9.44 9.50 9.56 10.02
Bath Rd P&R - Depart East 9.22 9.28 9.34 9.40 9.46 9.52 9.58 10.04 10.10
Hogarth 0.02 Eastbound 9.24 9.30 9.36 9.42 9.48 9.54 10.00 10.06 10.12
Watlington 0.13 Eastbound 9.37 9.43 9.49 9.55 10.01 10.07 10.13 10.19 10.25
A4 P&R East 0.07 Terminate 9.44 9.50 9.56 10.02 10.08 10.14 10.20 10.26 10.32
A4 P&R East - Depart West 9.57 10.03 10.09 10.15 10.21 10.27 10.33 10.39 10.45
Watlington 0.07 Westbound 10.04 10.10 10.16 10.22 10.28 10.34 10.40 10.46 10.52
Hogarth 0.13 Westbound 10.17 10.23 10.29 10.35 10.41 10.47 10.53 10.59 11.05
Bath Rd P&R 0.13 Eastbound 10.30 10.36 10.42 10.48 10.54 11.00 11.06 11.12 11.18
Hogarth 0.02 Eastbound 10.32 10.38 10.44 10.50 10.56 11.02 11.08 11.14 11.20
Watlington 0.13 Eastbound 10.45 10.51 10.57 11.03 11.09 11.15 11.21 11.27 11.33
M4 P&R 0.17 Terminate 11.02 11.08 11.14 11.20 11.26 11.32 11.38 11.44 11.50

The timetable shown in Figure 7-7 identifies that there are 25 vehicles required (A-Y) for

the peak guided-bus service. Diagram ‘A’ arrives back at the M4 Park and Ride site at

9:20. After a turn-around time allowance, this vehicle can set-out at 9.30. The round-trip-

314
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

time is also 2 hours 20 minutes due to the same average speed being assumed for

equivalence.

So, for the operation of the peak timetable there are 15 and 25 vehicles required for the

light rail and guided-bus systems respectively (using the 416/week bus service pattern).

There is also a need to allow for some vehicles to be out of service being maintained in

addition to the operation fleet at any given time. If an allowance of 20% of the fleet is

made for non-service vehicles, this means that an additional 3 light rail vehicles and 5

guided-buses will be required. This totals 18 light rail vehicles or 30 guided-buses.

Although not strictly equivalent to the light rail capacity (Table 7-7), the overall service-

capacity for the DE60LF (88%) Phileas (92%), the 416 (30 vehicle) timetable is to be used.

To achieve full capacity equivalence would require 2 more vehicles for the DE60LF and

the resulting in a fleet requirement of 32. The issue of capacity equivalence is addressed

later in the results analysis chapter.

7.1.5. Vehicles Costs

The costs associated with providing the vehicles are divided into two parts – the capital

costs (L) and the trial, or running-in costs (M) from Figure 7-1. The latter is the allowance

made for running the vehicles prior to revenue-earning service. The vehicle capital costs

were identified in the data gathering chapter and quoted at 1Q07 rates:

• Light Rail: £2.09m/vehicle, 18 vehicles, cost: £37.6m

• Phileas Guided-bus: £0.96m/vehicle, 30 vehicles, cost: £28.8m

• DE60LF Guided-bus: £0.40m/vehicle, 30 vehicles, cost: £12.1m

• Civis Guided-bus: £0.77m/vehicle, 30 vehicles, cost: £23.2m

315
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

Also identified in the data gathering section was the cost allowance to be made for the

trial-running. Given the experiences of the Phileas system in Eindhoven it has been argued

that the proven systems used in a light rail vehicle and the DE60LF will attract a smaller

proportionate cost for trial-running. In the case of the DE60LF it has been assumed to be

guided using a Civis type system. Whilst the capital cost per vehicle has been previously

ascertained, and is included in the £0.40m/vehicle cost, the test running has assumed a 5%

increment as per the Civis bus.

The costs or trial running are based upon a factor of the capital cost of the vehicles and the

‘novelty’ of the vehicle technology:

• Light Rail, 3% factor, cost: £1.1m

• Phileas Guided-bus, 7.5% factor, cost: £2.2m

• DE60LF Guided-bus, 5% factor, cost: £0.6m

• Civis Guided-bus, 5% factor, cost: £1.1m

It is noteworthy that even an increased trial-running cost for the DE60LF, for example at

7.5% as per the Phileas, introduces an additional £0.3m taking the cost up to £0.9m. When

this is set against the overall cost of the vehicles and system this is negligible. This means

the total vehicle costs, for the fleet and trial running at 1Q07 are as follows:

Table 7-8 Total Vehicle Costs

Vehicle Procurement Trial Running Total Cost

Light Rail £37.6m £1.1m £38.7m

Phileas £28.8m £2.2m £31.0m

DE60LF £12.1m £0.6m £12.7m

Civis £23.2m £1.1m £24.3m

316
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

These cost figures appear to reflect the nature of the three systems. The light rail is a

proven, but expensive vehicle; Phileas is an innovative vehicle seeking to achieve a near

Light Rail performance, but is not yet fully proven; Civis is a more proven design, whereas

the DE60LF is a volume-produced hybrid bus.

7.1.6. Total Project Cost

The vehicle costs are shown in Figure 7-8 as part of the contribution to the ‘Total Project

Cost’.

Figure 7-8 Vehicle Costs and Total Project Capital Cost


Vehicle
Procurement Trial Running

Light Rail Light Rail


£37,600,000 £1,100,000

Phileas Guided-Bus Phileas Guided-Bus


Total Project Cost
£28,800,000 £2,200,000 (Excluding Vehicles)

DE60LF Guided-Bus DE60LF Guided-Bus Light Rail


£12,100,000 £600,000 £269,246,000

Civis Guided-Bus Civis Guided-Bus Guided-Bus


£23,200,000 £1,100,000 £184,978,000

L M K

Total Vehicle Cost

Light Rail
£38,700,000

Phileas Guided-Bus
£31,000,000

DE60LF Guided-Bus
£12,700,000 Total Project Cost
Civis Guided-Bus [CAPEX + ENVEX]
Light Rail
£307,946,000
N
Phileas Guided-Bus
£215,978,000

DE60LF Guided-Bus
£197,678,000

Civis Guided-Bus
£209,278,000
All costs normalised
at 1Q07 Prices O

This now confirms the total capital cost for the system. The total infrastructure cost

includes the ENVEX allowance of £5.8m for light rail and £3.6m for guided-bus.

317
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

7.2. System Operational Parameters

By determining the system operational parameters it will then be possible to determine the

operational cost (OPEX) and emissions (ENVEM) of the system. The OPEX costs of the

system, as detailed earlier, are divided into two parts, the operations costs and the

maintenance costs. One key factor to be derived for the operation and maintenance of the

system is the distance that each vehicle will travel per day/week/year in order to determine

fuel consumption and costs. Initially, it is relevant to refer the key emission and fuel

consumption data per vehicle.

As reported in Table 6-15, the following data are used to calculate the emissions from the

two transit solutions. Data for the DE60LF vehicle has been obtained for the bus solution,

and two sources of data for light rail.

Table 7-9 Vehicle Emission Rates

Light Rail Light Rail Guided-bus


Emission
(BERRu) (TfLv) (DE60LF)
Nitrogen Oxide (NOX) (g/km) 4.6 0.024 8.97
Particulate Matter (PM10) (g/km) 0.14 0.0004 0.002
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) (g/km) 2360 2360 1859

The fuel consumption has also been identified as 4.4kWh/km for light rail and 3.25mpg

(US gallons) of diesel for the hybrid DE60LF.

This data will provide the emissions values for the light rail and guided-bus schemes based

upon an evaluation of the distance operated by the vehicle fleet. The derivation to

determine the distance operated commences overleaf.

u
Adapted from BERR (2008), where referred in this chapter, ‘BERR’ (Department for Business Enterprise
and Regulatory Reform) relates to the adaptation of the data as described in section 6.9.11. Reference
hereafter to BERR data is referring BERR, 2008.
v
Adapted from TfL (2008), where referred in this chapter, ‘TfL’ (Transport for London) relates to the
adaptation of the data as described in section 6.9.11. Reference hereafter to TfL data is referring TfL, 2008.

318
7.2.1. System Operating Characteristics and Parameters Calculation

There is a need to be able to determine the overall power demand for the light rail system or diesel fuel consumption for the guided-bus fleet. This is

necessary to be able to calculate the cost of primary power (electricity or diesel) and also the emission values for CO2, NOx and PM10. Power or fuel

consumption is a function of vehicle operating time and duty. This in turn can be derived from the distance travelled by the fleet given that an

assumed average speed (25kph) has been used in the derivation of the timetable for both light rail and guided bus. Tables 7-10 to7-15 illustrates the

calculations to determine the emissions for each vehicle.

Calculation of Vehicle and System Operational Characteristics

Table 7-10 The distance travelled per vehicle per week.

Light Guided-
Parameter Source/Calculation Unit
Rail Bus
a Number of services operated per week Service Pattern - Table 7-6 260 416 Services/week
b Service round-trip distance System Data – Figure 7-5 49.2 49.2 km
c Service distance per week [a x b] 12792 20467 km/week
d Number of vehicles in service System Data – Figures 7-6 and 7-7 15 25 Number
e Service Distance per vehicle/week [c / d] 853 819 km/week
f Non-service distance per vehicle/week Assumption 140 140 km/week
g Total distance per vehicle/week [e + f] 993 959 km/week

319
The scheduling exercise determines the service patterns; hence the total operated distance per week (Table 7-10) can be calculated. At any given

time the number of vehicles in service is known and allowance for non-service distance travelled (to/from the depot) gives the total weekly

vehicle distance.

Table 7-11 Determination of the total operating distance per vehicle per annum.

Light Guided-
Parameter Source/Calculation Unit
Rail Bus
h Round-trips operated per vehicle/week Table 7-10: [e / b] 17.3 16.6 Number/week
i Round-trips operated per vehicle/day Table 7-10: [h / 7] 2.5 2.4 Number/week
j Number of vehicles in the fleet System Data – Section 7.1.4 18 30 Number
k Vehicle operating weeks/annum Table 7-10, 7-11: [52 x (d / j)] 43 43 Weeks/annum
l Vehicle non-operating weeks/annum [52-k] 9 9 Weeks/annum
m Round-trips operated per vehicle/annum Table 7-11: [h x l] 744 714 Round-trips/annum
n Service distance operated per vehicle/annum Table 7-10, 7-11: [b x m] 36600 35119 km/annum
o Non-service distance operated per vehicle/annum Table 7-10, 7-11: [f x l] 6067 6067 km/annum
p Total distance per vehicle/annum Table 7-11: [n + o] 42667 41186 km/annum

The 9 weeks per year are set aside for the maintenance per vehicle or simply where the vehicle is not required outside of peak hours. All of these

calculations assume a 7 day/week, 365 day/year operation.

320
At this point some key system characteristics have been evaluated and it is now possible to consider the power or fuel demand. The method of

calculation necessarily differs at this point given the different fuel sources for light rail and guided-bus:

Table 7-12 The vehicle power demand – Light Rail


Parameter Source/Calculation Light Rail Unit
q Fuel Consumption Rate TfL Data – (Section 6.9.10) 4.4 kWh/km
r Fuel Consumption Rate/vehicle/annum Table 7-11/7-12: [p x q] 187735 kWh
s Fuel Consumption Rate/vehicle/annum Table 7-12: [r / 1000] 187.73 MWh
t Fuel Consumption Rate/fleet/annum Table 7-11/7-12: [s x j] 3379 MWh
u Fuel Consumption Rate/fleet/annum Table 7-12: [t / 1000] 3.379 GWh

The bus fuel consumption calculation is similar to the light rail calculation as both are based upon the fuel or energy consumed per distance

travelled.

Table 7-13 The vehicle power demand – Guided-bus (DE60LF)

Guided-
Parameter Source/Calculation Unit
Bus
v Fuel Consumption NRELw Report (Section 6.9.10) 3.25 mpg (U.S. Gallon)
w Fuel Consumption Conversion 1.38 km/l
x Fuel Consumption/vehicle/annum Table 7-11, 7-13: [p / w] 29845 litres
y Fuel Consumption/fleet/annum Table 7-11, 7-13: [j x x] 895348 litres

w
Adapted from Chandler, K., and Walkowicz, K. (2006) reporting on behalf of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Where referred in this chapter, ‘NREL’
relates to the adaptation of the data as described in section 6.9.11.
321
The calculation of the value of the CO2, PM10, and NOx emissions is relatively straightforward. For the calculation of the light rail values this has

been considered for both BERR and TfL data. As discussed earlier the values for BERR and TfL data differ as the basis of the measure is

different – TfL considers the local PM10, and NOx emission effects whereas BERR considers the national emission effects for PM10, and NOx but

TfL does not address CO2 emissions as a local emission.

Table 7-14 Vehicle emissions – Light Rail

Light Rail Light Rail


Parameter Source/Calculation Unit
(BERR) (TfL)
z CO2 Production BERR/TfL – Table 6-15 2360 2360 g/km
aa NOX Production BERR/TfL – Table 6-15 4.6 0.024 g/km
ab PM10 Production BERR/TfL – Table 6-15 0.14 0.004 g/km
ac CO2 Emission/vehicle/annum Table 7-11, 7-14: [p x z] 100.7 100.7 t
ad CO2 Emission/fleet/annum Table 7-11, 7-14: [ac x j] 1812.5 1812.5 t
ae NOX Emission/vehicle/annum Table 7-11, 7-14: [p x aa] 196.3 1.0 kg
af NOX Emission/fleet/annum Table 7-11, 7-14: [ae x j] 3.5 0.02 t
ag PM10 Emission/vehicle/annum Table 7-11, 7-14: [p x ab] 6.0 0.17 kg
ah PM10 Emission/fleet/annum Table 7-11, 7-14: [ag x j] 0.11 0.003 t

322
Table 7-15 Vehicle emissions – Guided-Bus

Parameter Source/Calculation Guided-Bus Unit

ai CO2 Production NREL – Table 6-15 1859 g/km


aj NOX Production NREL – Table 6-15 8.97 g/km
ak PM10 Production NREL – Table 6-15 0.002 g/km
al CO2 Emission/vehicle/annum Table 7-11, 7-15: [ai x p] 76.6 t
am CO2 Emission/fleet/annum Table 7-11, 7-15: [al x j] 2297.0 t
an NOX Emission/vehicle/annum Table 7-11, 7-15: [aj x p] 369.4 kg
ao NOX Emission/fleet/annum Table 7-11, 7-15: [an x j] 11.1 t
ap PM10 Emission/vehicle/annum Table 7-11, 7-15: [ak x p] 82.4 g
aq PM10 Emission/fleet/annum Table 7-11, 7-15: [ap x j] 2.5 kg

This data can now be used to provide an overview of the emissions to be used in the Modified-AST (see Table 7-24).

323
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

7.3. Environmental Emissions (ENVEM) - CO2, PM10, and NOx

Putting the emissions data developed in the previous section side-by-side allows a simple

comparison of the relative data:

Table 7-16 Emissions Data for Light Rail and Guided-Bus on the Reading System

Light Rail Light Rail


Emission Guided-Bus
(BERR) (TfL)
CO2 Emission/vehicle/annum 100.7t 100.7t 76.6t
CO2 Emission/fleet/annum 1812.5t 1812.5t 2297.0t
NOX Emission/vehicle/annum 196.3kg 1.0kg 369.4kg
NOX Emission/fleet/annum 3.5t 0.02t 11.1t
PM10 Emission/vehicle/annum 5.6kg 0.17kg 0.08kg
PM10 Emission/fleet/annum 107.5kg 3.06kg 2.5kg

The key issues for the emissions are:

• CO2 emissions are less for an individual bus, but for equivalence the fleet size means

that the overall annual emissions are greater than light rail. The TfL and BERR data

are the same for the light rail CO2 emissions.

• Fleet NOX emissions for BERR light rail data are a third of guided-bus. The light rail

TfL data only covers point of use emissions.

• PM10 emissions are significantly higher with light rail BERR data over the guided-bus

emissions potentially reflecting the stringent US emission control standards discussed

earlier.

• TfL emissions data for PM10 more closely approximate the guided-bus values than the

BERR-based values. It appears that the BERR figures allow for large PM10 emissions

from power stations.

The emissions data has been further assessed to provide additional options for analysis.

324
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

7.3.1. CO2 Emissions

The data can be used to assess comparative emissions for each system for equivalence. The

CO2 emissions can be represented graphically to consider that whilst the overall bus fleet

emissions are greater, the individual vehicle compared to light rail results in less CO2. This

implies that there must be a ‘break-even’ point (between 260 and 416 services) where an

equal amount of CO2 is generated for a certain number of services.

The graph in Figure 7-9 illustrates the break-even characteristic. The x-axis is the number

of services operated and the y-axis represents the volume of CO2 in tonnes generated for

the corresponding number of services.

Figure 7-9 Light Rail and Guided-bus CO2 emissions

60.0
Light
LR Rail CO2/Service
CO2/service
Guided-bus
GB CO2/serviceCO2/Service

50.0

40.0
CO2 Emissions (tonnes)

Weekly Guided-bus CO2 emissions

30.0
Weekly Light Rail CO2 emissions

20.0
Weekly Light Rail
Equivalent
Emission Service
Level

10.0
Weekly Guided-
Bus Equivalent
Emission Service
Level

0.0
0

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

360

380

400

420

440

460

480

500
20

40

60

80

Number of Services

As can be seen the light rail curve (blue) sits above the guided-bus (green) curve as the

per-vehicle emissions are greater. However, the light rail weekly value is less than the

guided-bus weekly value due to the greater number of services operated.

325
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

The graph presented in Figure 7-9 is reviewed in greater detail in the data analysis chapter

but a quick inspection shows that by reducing guided-bus services (to around 325) it is

possible to achieve the same CO2 emissions as light rail. The equivalent number of

services is shown by the dashed line extending from the guided-bus (green) curve to the x-

axis. Conversely, if the guided-bus emissions were taken to be the norm, it would be

possible to run additional light rail services, approximately 330 services as illustrated by

the dashed line extending from the light rail (blue) curve to the x-axis.

Whilst the individual vehicle emissions for CO2 are greater for light rail than for guided-

bus, by normalising the emissions by the passenger capacity of the vehicles this confirms

that the overall CO2 emissions for guided-bus are greater:

• Light rail emissions = 2360g/km for 208 passengers ≡ 11.3g/km/passenger

• Guided-bus emissions = 1859g/km for 115 passengers ≡ 16.2g/km/passenger

Further analysis of the CO2 emissions is provided in the results analysis section.

7.3.2. NOX Emissions

It is possible to conduct a similar assessment for NOX emissions for both BERR and TfL

data. Again the emissions can be illustrated graphically as shown in Figure 7-10. As with

the CO2 graph the number of services are x-axis values and the volume of NOX generated

(kg) are used as the y-axis values. The guided-bus values are shown by the green curve.

The light rail values are represented by two curves:

• The blue line represents the BERR-based light rail NOX emissions. As can be seen

from the graph this grows to just over 100kg for 500 services.

326
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

• The purple line represents the TfL-based light rail NOX emissions shown against

the second y axis and for 500 services this is at 0.55kg (calculated).

By plotting both light rail curves on a single y-axis scale this emphasises the difference

between the emissions based upon the two data sources.

Figure 7-10 Light Rail and Guided-bus NOx emissions

250.0

LR
LRNOx/ service (DECC)
NO /service (BERR)
x
LRNOx/
LR NOx/service (TfL)
service (TfL)
GBNOx/
GB NOxservice
/service
200.0
NOx Emissions (Guided-bus / Light Rail Data) (kg)

Weekly Guided-bus NOx emissions

150.0

100.0

Weekly Light Rail


NOx emissions
50.0
BERR Data

Weekly Guided-bus
Equivalent Emission
service level
0.0

Number of Services

The NOx data illustrated in Figure 7-10 shows that the emissions for the equivalent service

provision by guided-bus compared to light rail, unlike the CO2 case, has no practicable

trade-off point where emissions can be off-set against capacity. To achieve the light rail

NOX emissions then around 130 guided-bus services could operate which in capacity terms

is insufficient. The TfL data are so comparatively low that it does not provide the basis for

useful analysis.

327
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

7.3.3. PM10 Emissions

The PM10 emissions calculation indicates that when the BERR data are used for light rail

emissions then these are greater than the guided-bus emissions. By using the emissions per

vehicle per day the light rail emissions at source are approximately 80 times greater than

the DE60LF PM10 emissions (16.4g to 0.2g respectively). It is appropriate to review this

data as the difference is significant and perhaps surprising as the difference in the BERR

data and the guided-bus tailpipe emissions differ by such a magnitude. Basically, a sense

check of the evaluation is warranted. The BERR tables quote 9,960 tonnes of PM10

emissions were produced in electricity generation of 374,000GWh in 2006. The derivation

of a rate per kWh and hence emission mass per vehicle is stepped through methodically as

follows:

• Divide both by 1,000,000 gives 9,960g for 374,000kWh

• Divide 9,960 by 374,000 gives 0.026g/kWh ≡ 0.03g/kWh

• A tram consumes 4.4kWh/km; hence 0.13g/km (as 0.03 x 4.4 = 0.132)

• A tram travels 42,667km/year; hence total emission is 0.13g x 42,667 = 5.6kg

The guided-bus value is provided as a result of the US National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) reports (Chandler and Walkowicz, 2006). This provided a value of

0.003g/mile which is equivalent to 0.0019g/km of PM10. Each guided-bus is to travel

41,186km per year; hence 78g per vehicle per annum; equivalent to 0.08kg. This compares

to the 5.6kg power station emission value from above which is consistent with the previous

calculation.

The BERR-based data does not warrant further analysis; the case for guided-bus is clear.

However, using the TfL data provides a more comparable case because if the TfL data are

used then the guided-bus PM10 emissions are greater but, not by the same order of

328
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

magnitude as if using the BERR data. The graph provided in Figure 7-11 uses the number

of services as the x-axis values and the PM10 emissions (grams) is used as the y-axis

values.

Figure 7-11 Light Rail and Guided-bus PM10 emissions

100

LR PM10/ service
Light Rail PM10(TfL)
/service (TfL)
90
GB Guided-bus
PM10/ servicePM10/service
LR Light
PM10/Rail PM10(DECC)
service /service (BERR)
80

70

60
PM10 Emissions (g)

Reading Weekly Light Rail


PM10 emissions (Tf L Data)
50

40
Reading Weekly Guided-bus
PM10 emissions
30

20

10
Reading Weekly
Equivalent Light Rail Service
0
20

40

60

80
0

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

320

340

360

380

400

420

440

460

480

500
Number of Services

The guided-bus values are shown by the green curve. The light rail TfL-based values are

represented by the blue curve and the BERR values are illustrated by the purple line. As

can be seen from the graph the light rail TfL emissions exceeds that of the guided-bus per

service but the effect of this is reduced with the additional services run by the guided-bus.

From Figure 7-11 it can be seen that by reducing the light rail service level this can

approximate the guided-bus PM10 emissions. The number of services needs to be reduced

to around 205 based upon the TfL data. This would mean a reduction by around 55

services per week (8 per day) for light rail to be equivalent to guided-bus emissions.

329
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

7.4. Environmental Emissions (ENVEM) – Noise and Aesthetics

This section is focused on the remaining non-cost environmental factors. In accordance

with the proposed M-AST the consideration now turns to noise and aesthetic impacts.

7.4.1. Noise

The intention was to detail the effects of noise, measured in dB(A) of the system during

construction and operation. However, as noted in the model development section without

detailed assessments of the existing background noise it would be impossible to provide

any definitive quantitative results. This section concentrates on a qualitative commentary

on the selected route for the system and any potential impacts. This also includes a brief

comparative qualitative assessment of vibration effects as noted in the model development

section earlier. The costs arising from mitigating noise impacts has been identified

previously will be confirmed in the next section when reviewing ENVEX.

The values quoted by the Phileas manufacturers (APTS, 2006b) did provide some data, but

this was predominately for the interior of the vehicle. The only real measure of use in this

study was quoted for exterior noise at 31mph at 77.9dB(A) at a distance of 24.6 feet from

the vehicle at a height of 4 feet. A qualitative assessment of the noise (and vibration)

impacts can be undertaken and are considered of significant concern where two conditions

exist along the proposed route:

• Where the existing noise levels are quiet, i.e. ambient noise level is low, and/or
• Where the route is run particularly close to existing properties

By reviewing the proposed route of the system there are some potential noise and vibration

‘victims’. These are the businesses and private dwellings where there are likely objections

to the system. The Merseytram Environmental Statement (EIS) (Mitchell, 2004) details

numerous objections that include those based upon the use of the stops generating noise –

330
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

i.e. by passengers. In each case the objection is reviewed and discounted in the EIA by the

expert witness.

The RUN system proposal will most likely affect, and therefore be most likely to raise

objections in the areas of the route detailed in Table 7-18. The assessment given in this

table is based upon the two conditions stated above. Noise in the AST is as an estimate of

the population affected by noise ‘annoyance’ and ‘nuisance’. The qualitative view

provided in Table 7-18 uses the scale used in the Cambridge Guided-Bus EIS

(Cambridgeshire CC, 2004a) shown in Table 7-17 and have been approximated for RUN.

Table 7-17 Noise increase impacts (Cambridgeshire CC, 2004a)


Increase in Noise Level Significance Criteria
+/- 3dB Negligible
3-5 dB Slight Effect
5-10 dB Moderate Effect
10-15 dB Major Effectx
15+ dB Major Effect

Table 7-18 RUN Areas potentially susceptible to Noise and Vibration Impacts
Score
Condition / Location
Light Rail Guided-bus
Low Ambient noise levels, especially at night
New lane Hill – St. Michaels – Mayfair – Park
Slight Effect Negligible
Lane – Langley Hill
Close-running to properties
Kings Road – Kingsgate – St. Barts Slight Effect Slight Effect
Low ambient noise levels and close-running to properties
Basingstoke Road – Cressingham Road Moderate Effect Negligible
Busy area and commotion due to location of Transit System Stop
Bath Road Park & Ride Slight Effect Slight Effect
A4 East Park & Ride Slight Effect Slight Effect
M4 Park & Ride Negligible Negligible
Castle Hill Slight Effect Slight Effect

x
It is not clear why there are two boundaries to ‘major effects’.

331
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

7.4.2. Aesthetics

Whilst there is no quantitative data available to assess the aesthetic impact of the system a

qualitative commentary is possible. The ‘assessment’ can be scaled in some generalized

areas using the WebTAG (Web-based Transport Analysis Guidance) standard 7-point

scale. To provide any further definition would require a detailed site survey which is not

practicable at this stage for the application of this model. The results of the assessment

based upon the impact of the proposed system on the landscape, townscape and built

heritage is detailed below, based upon the frameworks provided in section 6.9.12.

Table 7-19 Route Aesthetic Assessment

Landscape/Townscape Light Rail Guided-Bus


Route Section
Classification Impact Impact
Park Lane- Mayfair - Good –
St.Michaels - New Lane Hill Moderately Important
New Lane Hill - Hogarth Good –
Avenue Moderately Important Moderate Slight
Good – Adverse Adverse
Park Lane - Langley Hill
Moderately Important
A4 Park and Ride - Hogarth Good –
Avenue Moderately Important
Langley Hill - A4 Park and Ordinary –
Ride Minor Impact Slight
Negligible
Ordinary – Adverse
Hogarth Avenue - Castle Hill
Minor Impact
Poor – Slight
Castle Hill - Chatham Street Negligible
No Impact Beneficial
Chatham Street - Watlington Ordinary – Slight
Negligible
Street Minor Impact Adverse
Watlington Street - Good – Moderate Slight
Chancellors Moderately Important Adverse Adverse
Chancellors - Cressingham Ordinary –
Road Minor Impact Slight
Negligible
Cressingham Road - Ordinary – Adverse
Basingstoke Road Minor Impact
Basingstoke Road - Madejski Poor – Slight
Negligible
Stadium No Impact Beneficial

332
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

Landscape/Townscape Light Rail Guided-Bus


Route Section
Classification Impact Impact
Madejski Stadium Stop - M4 Ordinary – Slight
Negligible
Park and Ride Minor Impact Adverse
Watlington Street - London Poor –
Road/A329M No Impact Slight Slight
London Road - A4 Park and Poor – Beneficial Beneficial
Ride No Impact
Ordinary – Minor Moderate Moderate
Depot Feeder (Bath Road)
Impact Adverse Adverse

The most significant detriment is considered to be of ‘moderate adverse impact’ in a

number of areas. The light rail scheme is produces a greater impact than for guided-bus

because of the aesthetic intrusion caused by the overhead line electrification poles, fixings

and wires.

This is particularly the case in mainly residential areas, for example on the single line loop,

where there is likely to be little ‘visual-clutter’ presently, which is not affected by the

guided-bus system, but is affected by permanent light rail overhead line electrification

infrastructure. It has been considered that the RUN system will actually slightly improve

some areas as the area around stops are likely to be improved (for example, along the

eastern extension up London Road or the industrialized area between Basingstoke Road

and the Madejski Stadium). The area to be used for the depot is uncultivated and not

maintained and has been assumed not to retain any historic or ecological interest and hence

does not provide a particularly large impact.

A particular aesthetic concern regards listed buildings. The listed structures along the route

of the proposed transit system have been taken from Reading Borough Council (BC) data

(Reading BC, 2008a). This list is provided in Appendix VII. There is a mixture of

333
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

structures at Grade II and II* listing status, including walls, churches, halls, schools, a

water tower as well as houses, lodges and cottages.

Without a detailed assessment of each structure and the proximity of the route it is not

possible to determine the impact. Suffice to say that wherever overhead line electrification

fixings were necessary then these would not be as far as practicably possibly proposed for

fixing to a listed structure. Even affixing overhead line electrification equipment would be

considered a minor adverse impact although the visual effects may be lessened without

having to construct large supporting masts.

7.5. Operational Expenditure (OPEX)

The Operations costs are focussed on the provision of the personnel to run the transit

system business in terms of revenues and expenditure and for materials and consumables

to keep the system maintained. In accordance with the development in this area that is

detailed in Appendix VI the OPEX costs are apportioned to and summarised in four areas:

• General Overheads

• Infrastructure operations and maintenance – the built environment

• M&E operations and maintenance– electrical and mechanical systems and controls

• Vehicle operations and maintenance

The staff employed to administer, operate and maintain the system are costed based upon

the employment payroll and the costs are then reconciled as appropriate to the appropriate

functional area. There are some differences between the light rail and guided-bus

provisions here based upon the number of vehicles, e.g. more vehicles in service need

more drivers, for example.

334
Table 7-20 OPEX

Light Rail Guided-bus Light Rail Guided-bus Cost


Operations Maintenance
Cost (£'000) Cost (£) Cost (£) (£)
Business Administration Staff 1,104 1,104 Senior Maintenance Management 93 93
General
Business Overheads 2,302 2,367
Overheads
Operations Staff 1,068 875
Section Cost 4,474 4,346 Section Cost 93 93
Drivers 1,100 1,759 Vehicle Materials 157 245
Fare Inspections 451 752 Vehicle Rapid Response Team 73 73
Traction Power 223 252 Vehicle Maintenance & Cleaning 438 610
Vehicle
Vehicle Maintenance & Cleaning 159 198 Vehicle Management/Support Staff 345 448
Vehicle Management/Support Staff 58 87 Senior Mntce Management 78 78
Vehicle Materials 30 45
Section Cost 2,021 3,093 Section Cost 1,091 1,454
Infrastructure Maintenance & Cleaning 372 508 Infrastructure Maintenance & Cleaning 338 226
Infrastructure Materials 230 230 Infrastructure Materials 418 118
Infrastructure
Infrastructure Rapid Response Team 48 48
Senior Mntce Management 70 70
Section Cost 602 738 Section Cost 874 462
M&E Engineering Management 44 44 M&E Engineering Management 248 155
M&E Engineering Production 575 239
M&E M&E Rapid Response Team 109 109
M&E Subcontracts 486 186
Senior Mntce Management 78 78
Section Cost 44 44 Section Cost 1,496 767
Total Operations Cost 7,141 8,221 Total Maintenance Cost 3,554 2,776

Total Operation and Maintenance Cost 10,695 10,997

335
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

Utilities costs are concentrated on the cost to provide the vehicles with traction power,

either diesel (by the litre) or electric power (by the kWh) and hence appear as part of the

vehicle operations and maintenance costs. Table 7-20 indicates that the total operational

expenditure (OPEX) annual costs are £10.7m for light rail and £11.0m for guided-bus per

annum. The immediate indication from the cost analysis is how similar the costs appear to

be to operate the light rail and guided-bus systems.

7.6. Environmental Emissions Mitigation Cost (ENVEX)

The final results to be assessed are those for the cost allowances made for the mitigation of

environmental impacts due to the construction and operation of the transit scheme. The

mitigation costs were discussed in section 6.10 which identified that the ENVEX costs

were an issue during construction but not during operation. Any operational mitigation was

to be captured as a construction cost, i.e. at the time of implementation of the mitigation.

ENVEX allowances include sound proof hoardings, additional costs for silencers and

enclosures for noise mitigation, damping down and dust control measures for local air

quality issues and provision of screening and planting, for example, to overcome visual

blight issues.

The ENVEX costs are based on the construction phase and are based on a factoring the

construction cost. The ENVEX costs identified are detailed in Tables 7-21 and 7-22 which

show the ENVEX cost for mitigating environmental impacts due to the construction of the

light rail system is £6.8m and £3.7m for the guided-bus.

336
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

Table 7-21 Light Rail – LR- LR- LR- LR-


Operations and Maintenance Costs CGBI CABI CNBI CLBI
(£’000) (£’000) (£’000) (£’000)
Site Preparation 90 0 48 90
Highway Works 152 152 0 152
Environmental/landscaping/architectural 31 1,690 132 45
Structures and Bridges 92 92 92 92
Trackwork 210 210 210 210
Stops 165 165 165 165
Traction power 174 59 174 174
System equipment 105 36 36 36
Road Junction Signalling 77 0 77 77
Ancillary works 44 39 44 44
Depot 99 140 99 99
Total 1,237 2,581 1,075 1,183
(L)ight(R)ail, (C)ost, (G)reenhouse Gases, (A)esthetics, (N)oise, (L)ocal Air Quality, (B)uild,
(I)nfrastructure

Table 7-22 Guided-bus - GB- GB- GB- GB-


Operations and Maintenance Costs CGBI CABI CNBI CLBI
(£‘000) (£‘000) (£‘000) (£‘000)
Site Preparation 92 0 33 92
Highway Works 153 153 0 153
Environmental/landscaping/architectural 29 1,180 0 38
Structures and Bridges 92 92 92 92
Trackwork 0 0 0 0
Stops 169 169 169 169
Traction power 0 0 0 0
System equipment 22 22 22 22
Road Junction Signalling 67 0 67 67
Ancillary works 39 39 39 39
Depot 73 73 73 73
Total 735 1,728 495 745
(G)uided(B)us, (C)ost, (G)reenhouse Gases, (A)esthetics, (N)oise, (L)ocal Air Quality, (B)uild,
(I)nfrastructure

The light rail cost is expectedly higher as the cost to construct the scheme is greater than

for the guided-bus and the ENVEX costs are factored from the construction cost. The light

rail ENVEX cost represents 2.3% and the guided-bus cost represents 2.0% of the overall

scheme construction.

337
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

7.7. Initial Testing of Results

As an initial test of the CAPEX values developed for the Reading scheme, the costs for

Merseytram have been used for comparison to the Reading light rail data and Cambridge to

compare to the Reading guided-bus scheme. The data has been normalised to 1Q07 (first-

quarter 2007) to align with the RUN estimates. This means that an 18% increment is

applied to the Merseytram cost from 2Q03 and a 14.3% increment to the Cambridge

Guide-Bus scheme to uplift from 1Q04.

The costs have been shown in Table 7-23. In providing the data from Merseytravel (2003b)

and Cambridge (2004c) an attempt has been made to align similar infrastructure elements,

however, in places this was not practicable and a judgment has been made on the allocation

of cost to a particular element. For example, a single line item has been provided for

Cambridge, ‘Workshops, depots, stations and other buildings’ that is particularly wide-

ranging. Also, there are some costs that have to be assumed included in the build-up to

provide the total project cost.

The Transport Initiatives Edinburgh (TIE) estimate is from business case documentation

(TIE, 2007) and whilst providing a total cost of £498m it does not include any breakdown

of this cost. This would be assumed to include all aspects of delivery including the vehicles

and utility diversions etc, as the document goes into considerable detail describing how the

scope of works has been developed for the respective provisions. However, given that this

is a single value then no analysis of the Edinburgh cost has been undertaken.

When comparing the costs on a per kilometre basis this provides some degree of

confidence associated with the RUN estimates. The normalized Merseytram cost is just

over £13m/km and RUN comes in at just under £12m/km.

338
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

Table 7-23 Comparison of Transit System CAPEX Costs

Light Rail Guided-Bus


Cost Comparison
Merseytravel Cambridge
(All costs £’000) Reading Reading
(2003) (2004c)

Survey, Drill and Sample N/R 1,432


9,719 9,919
Earthworks & Preparation N/R
12,965
Landscaping/Environment N/R 4,537 4,041
Trackwork 20,956 N/A N/A
44,296
Pavement/Highway Work 15,171 30,568 15,297
OLE 10,295 17,448 N/A N/A
Signalling 2,526
6,888 810 6,198
Communications 5,700
TVMs 210
9,389 9,837
Stops 6,238 4,337
Workshops/Depot 9,938 7,339
12,494
Operation and Control Centre 3,569 - 2,212
Structures/Civils 8,481 9,156 11,619 9,156
Highway & Accommodation 24,946 8,158 781 6,680
Utility Diversions 36,534 12,768
45,990 29,400
Power Supply 5,666 Excluded
Vehicles 33,075 37,600 Excluded 12,700
Design and Co-ordination 8,795 9,441 2,352 6,122
Project Costs Construction 38,645 - 25,060
12,605
Project Costs Non-Construction 5,790 - 3,515
Land and Property 43,500 5,000 39,250
14,647
Demolition of Buildings 3,871 - 3,871
Park and Ride Facility 2,155 7,080 3,854 7,080
Total 228,663 307,946 86,486 197,678

Normalised Value 269,822 307,946 98,853 197,678


Length of Route (km) 18 22.4 25.1 22.4
Cost/km (exc vehicles) 13,153 12,020 3,938 8,258
N/R = Not Reported, N/A = Not Applicable

The guided-bus estimate for Cambridge is around half that for the RUN proposal but it

excludes power supplies, electrical plant and equipment and vehicles and possibly other

elements. The vehicle cost exclusion has been accounted for by basing the cost/km on

339
Chapter 7 Modelling Results

infrastructure only. The RUN guided-bus system is also highly-specified with as near to

light rail provision as possible for the purposes of equivalence. This also may explain some

of the cost differential.

The Edinburgh cost when normalized remains at £498m and the cost per kilometre (for the

18km scheme) is hence £27.7m. These costs are more than double Reading or Merseytram,

but without the breakdown of costs, it is impossible to identify why this is. The Edinburgh

project, as reviewed in chapter 2, has faltered and the latest completion estimate for part of

the system is £750m.

The significant, identifiable areas where the Reading guided-bus is significantly higher is

in the land and property costs, where Cambridge is using a former rail alignment as the

basis of the route which is not presumably costly to obtain. This may also be a factor in the

low cost utility diversions, some £11.7m less for Cambridge. The Cambridge stops and

maintenance facility costs appear low, but then this probably excludes all items of

electrical plant and machinery which will provide a sizeable cost. By excluding the land

and utilities costs from the Cambridge and Reading systems, the cost analysis shows that

the Reading guided-bus based system is twice the cost/km as Cambridge (£2.5m to £4.9m).

7.8. Results Summary

This chapter has detailed all of the results provided by the model for the proposed

development of either a light rail or a guided-bus based transit scheme in Reading. These

results have been summarised and presented in the M-AST. This is given in Table 7-24 and

is broken down in to the constituent parts of ENVEM, ENVEX, CAPEX and OPEX. An

analysis and discussion of the results is undertaken in Chapter 8.

340
Table 7-24 Reading Urban Network, Modified Appraisal Summary Table (M-AST)

Objective Sub-Objective Quantitative Light Rail Guided-bus Measure


ENVEM
Noise ENOV Neutral Impact dB(A)
107.5 2.5 PM10 (kilograms) per annum
Environment Local Air Quality ELOV
3.5 11.1 NOx (tonnes) per annum
Greenhouse Gases EGOV 1812.5 2297.0 CO2 (tonnes) per annum
Aesthetics None Qualitative Assessment Only N/A
ENVEX
Noise CNBI 1,100 500
Local Air Quality CLBI 1,100 700
£’000 to mitigate
Greenhouse Gases CGBI 1,200 700
Economic Aesthetics CABI 2,300 1,600
CAPEX
Public Accounts B-OI + B-OV 302,200 211,700 £’000 to Construct
OPEX
Public Accounts C-OI + C-OV 11,300 11,900 £ to Operate per annum
(G)uided(B)us, (C)ost, (G)reenhouse Gases, (A)esthetics, (N)oise, (L)ocal Air Quality, (B)uild, (I)nfrastructure

341
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

8 Results Analysis and Discussion

This chapter uses the results to assess the differences in the cost and environmental data

when seeking equivalence between the modes. It also discusses situations where equal

characteristics cannot be met or are constrained by exogenous factors. The starting point

for the analysis is the headlines from the Modified-Appraisal Summary Table (M-AST) as

shown in Table 7-24:

• CAPEX: The light rail capital expenditure is greater than the guided-bus in a

straight cost comparison. The light rail system total capital cost is £308m where the

cost is £216m for Phileas and £198m for the DE60LF operated guided-bus systems.

• OPEX: The operational and maintenance expenditure per year for each system is

similar, light rail costs £11.3m and guided-bus £11.9m.

• ENVEX: The cost associated with the mitigation of environmental emissions is

based upon the capital costs of the scheme; hence the light rail system is more

costly than the guided-bus systems. The cost for the bus-based system is £3.5m and

£5.7m for light rail.

• ENVEM: The environmental emissions are evaluated as follows:

o Noise has a neutral impact from both systems


o Particulate Matter (PM10) emissions favour guided-bus by a significant margin
o Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions are similar but
favour light rail
o There is little difference in the aesthetic impacts of the systems

8.1 CAPEX

The CAPEX data is based on the development of the system described in chapter 6, the

breakdown of which is contained in Appendix I and summarised in Figure 8-1.

343
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

Figure 8-1 Populated Cost Framework

Construction Cost Build- Construction Construction


Nett Cost Construction Nett Cost Cost Add-ons

Total Cost Add-


Level 2 Cost Data Level 1 Cost Data
on
Level 3 Cost Data
See Tables 7-1 Light Rail
and 7-2 £125,880,000 Factored Light Rail
Summarised Summarised £48,086,000
Detailed data
subject to Guided-Bus
£81,630,000 Guided-Bus
confidentiality,
£31,183,000
build-up in
Appendix I.
B D E
A

GB-CLBI - £736k LR-CGBI - £1,239k


GB-CABI - £1,728k LR-CABI - £2,581k Total Project
GB-CNBI - £495k LR-CNBI - £1,075k
LR-CLBI - £1,183k
Construction Cost
GB-CLBI - £745k
Light Rail
£173,966,000
ENVEX
M-AST Entry C Guided-Bus
£112,813,000

Utility Costs EMC

Light Rail Light Rail


£45,990,000 £750,000 F
Guided-Bus Guided-Bus
£29,400,000 £250,000
H I
Operator & Land Acquisition
Concessionare & Compensation

Light Rail Light Rail Total Project Cost


£5,040,000 £43,500,000 (Excluding Vehicles)
Guided-Bus Guided-Bus
£3,265,000 £39,250,000 Light Rail
G J £269,246,000

Guided-Bus
£184,978,000

Vehicle
Trial Running
Procurement
Light Rail Light Rail
£37,600,000 £1,100,000 K
Phileas Guided-Bus Phileas Guided-Bus
£28,800,000 £2,200,000
DE60LF Guided-Bus DE60LF Guided-Bus
£12,100,000 £600,000
Civis Guided-Bus Civis Guided-Bus
£23,200,000 £1,100,000

L M
Total Project
Total Vehicle Cost
Cost
Light Rail
£38,700,000 Light Rail
Phileas Guided-Bus £307,946,000
£31,000,000 Phileas Guided-Bus
DE60LF Guided-Bus £215,978,000
£12,700,000 DE60LF Guided-Bus
Civis Guided-Bus £197,678,000
£24,300,000 Civis Guided-Bus
£209,278,000
N
CAPEX O

344
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

8.2 Infrastructure CAPEX

The headline costs for the construction of the system can be broken down into the data

levels provided in the model (level 1, 2 or 3). Part of the rationale for developing the model

with the data levels was that it would provide a framework that would help identify where

the cost differences were at the different levels of system, component and element. From

level 1 (before any add-on costs, such as prelims – see Figure 8-1) it can be seen that there

is a £44m difference in infrastructure cost: light rail at £126m and guided-bus at £82m.

Looking at the level 2 data allows an inspection of the £44m, shown in Table 8-1.

Table 8-1 CAPEX and ENVEX Costs

xx-C-BI xx-CGBI xx-CABI xx-CNBI xx-CLBI Total


Level 2 Code
(£’000) (£’000) (£’000) (£’000) (£’000) (£’000)

Guided-bus 77,928 736 1,728 495 745 81,632

Light Rail 119,805 1,239 2,581 1,075 1,183 125,883


(L)ight(R)ail, (G)uided-(B)us, (C)ost, (G)reenhouse Gases, (A)esthetics, (N)oise, (L)ocal Air Quality,
(B)uild, (O)perate, (I)nfrastructure

From Table 8-1 it can be seen that the CAPEX costs (xx-C-BI) excluding the ENVEX

costs are £78m for guided-bus and £120m for light rail; meaning a difference of £42m

between light rail and bus. The ENVEX costs will be reviewed later. A further breakdown

of the Level 2 C-BI costs is shown in Table 8-2.

The areas where significant differences exist, are the trackwork and traction power, and to

a lesser extent comms and control, road signalling and the depot. It is noteworthy that there

are number of areas where there is a marginal cost increase in the provision of the guided-

bus infrastructure over light rail.

345
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

Table 8-2 Comparative costs of Construction

LR-C-BI GB-C-BI ∆ LR - GB % of
Level 2 Code
(£’000) (£’000) (£’000) £41.8m ∆
GB-Cxxx/1
9,491 9,669 -178 -0.4%
Site Preparation
GB-Cxxx/2
14,716 14,991 -275 -0.7%
Highway Works
GB-Cxxx/3
2,638 2,794 -156 -0.4%
Environ/Landscape
GB-Cxxx/4
8,790 8,790 - 0%
Structures/Bridges
GB-Cxxx/5
20,118 - 20,118 47.9%
Trackwork
GB-Cxxx/6
15,811 16,242 -431 -1.0%
Stops
GB-Cxxx/7
16,866 - 16,866 40.2%
Traction Power
GB-Cxxx/8
10,245 8,321 1,924 4.6%
Comms & Control
GB-Cxxx/9
7,430 6,480 950 2.3%
Road Signalling
GB-Cxxx/10
4,199 3,716 483 1.2%
Ancillary Works
GB-Cxxx/11
9,501 7,045 2,456 5.8%
Depot

Total Costs 119,805 78,048 41,757 100%


(L)ight(R)ail, (G)uided-(B)us, (C)ost, (G)reenhouse Gases, (A)esthetics, (N)oise,
(L)ocal Air Quality, (B)uild, (O)perate, (I)nfrastructure

8.2.1 Light Rail Specific Infrastructure – Track and Power

The two key areas where there is a requirement for light rail system infrastructure and not

for guided-bus is the trackwork and traction power systems. These are core pieces of

infrastructure that can differentiate between the light rapid transit systems as discussed in

Chapter 3 when developing the light rapid transit typology.

The cost for the rails and overhead power supplies is significant; the trackwork cost is

£21.1m, 47.9% of the cost difference between light rail and guided-bus and traction power

is £16.9m (40.2%). This means that track and power constitutes nearly 90% of the cost

difference between the two systems. Additionally, the track and traction power systems are

required to control the direction of the vehicles and power to the overhead lines. This

346
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

results in an additional cost to the ‘Comms and Control’ element of the infrastructure. The

additional light rail specific cost is £1.9m which is 19% of the total ‘comms and control’

cost. The £1.9m is based upon the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)

traction power control cost of circa £0.7m and the track/signalling control interface cost of

c£1.2m This further increases the percentage difference between the systems due to the

track and power infrastructure to 95%.

8.2.2 Non-Track or Power System Specific Cost Differences

Although track and power supplies represent the main costs differences there are some

further items that provide a cost differential between the systems.

The site preparation and highway costs do slightly favour light rail (by 0.5% or £0.199m

for site preparation and 0.3% or £0.126m or the highway) due to the entire guided-bus

route consisting of made-highway; hence increased costs over light rail for drainage and

preparation of the running way. The costs for the light rail running way etc appears in the

breakdown for the track-work where this is not run on a highway alignment, e.g. the

ballasted track section.

The cost allowance for the works associated with landscaping, architectural and

environmental items on the light rail system is higher by £0.496m (1.1% of the overall

difference between the systems) but this is due to the additional work required to mitigate

the visual aspects of the light rail system, e.g. overhead line power equipment and fixings,

substations etc . These works however appear as ENVEX costs (covered later). The

CAPEX cost element is greater for the guided-bus system for landscaping, architectural

and environmental items. This is for lighting along the highway route of the guided-bus but

not the ballasted or fenced sections of the light rail system.

347
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

The cost for the stops is slightly in favour of the light rail system, by £0.449m or 1% of the

overall cost differential. This is due to the guided-bus vehicle being single-sided for

entry/egress and hence cannot use island ‘platforms’ (see Figure 6-12). There is a slight

cost increase to provide two separate single-sided platforms over an island; hence the cost

difference where island platforms can be specified for light rail.

Some control systems required for the light rail system including track and signalling

control not required by the guided-bus vehicle and the interaction between the vehicle and

the signal controls will be handled locally with buried loops in the highway. However,

there will be some vehicle position monitoring and control for the guided-bus system but

this is included in the overall operations and control centre cost. The light rail track will

need to be monitored and temperature controlled to ensure track switches do not freeze and

fail to operate; hence points heating systems are included in this breakdown.

Road junction signalling is more extensive for the light rail system and hence more

interfaces are required; hence a higher cost. There are some locations for the guided-bus

that have been determined as not requiring any new signalling control, for example, in

some locations on the Bath Road section there are T-junctions that are currently not signal

controlled as the main route (the A4) has precedence. Vehicles approaching these junctions

to the A4 will use these as normal T-junctions. This situation will remain for the guided-

bus operation; for the light rail system, signalling will be provided to the ‘feeder’ roads to

indicate the approach of a tram. This is effectively an additional level of assurance of

separation between the light rail vehicles and the other highway users. The additional

provision results in an additional £0.95m or 2.3% of the overall difference between the

systems.

348
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

The operations and control centre cost for the light rail system has been estimated at £3.4m

and £2.2m for the guided-bus, the difference is due to the size and additional complexity

required in the light rail system. Where additional systems are required this means more

workstations for operators, more control cubicles which needs more space. The land costs

are covered in the depot costs where the control centre is to be accommodated.

The difference in ancillary costs represents a marginal difference between the system costs

at 1.2% of the overall difference (£0.483m). This is due to the need for construction and

operations access roads for the light rail system. The use of a highway-based system means

that access to all parts of the system by road vehicles is no issue as they use the same route

as the guided-buses. The roads can be used as temporary ‘haul-roads’ for construction

traffic and then re-topped to be used as the permanent highway.

8.2.3 Areas with no Cost Difference

The single cost item that is considered identical for both systems is for the structures

including footbridges and the elevated route section from Castle Hill to Chatham Street

(see Figure 6-4). The rationale for the identical specification and hence cost is that the

route has been designed for equivalence. The elevated section enables grade-separation

between the transit systems and the regular highway. This allows the guided-bus or light

rail vehicle to travel unimpeded over a busy road. The elevated section will also provide

identity for the system and create the perception that it represents a significant investment

in the transport infrastructure in Reading and give credence to the transit system

importance and image.

349
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

8.2.4 The Effects of Cost Add-ons

Cost add-ons are significant. A study conducted by the author in conjunction with F&A

(Franklin and Andrews) found that for the construction of a rail scheme for a third party

operator resulted in more than a 200% increase on base construction cost from £463m to

£942m. (The cost source cannot be provided here as this is subject to a confidentiality

agreement.) The base cost uplift in this case also included a risk contingency of 25% as it

was 10 years until the scheme was to be constructed. It could be argued that a similar value

should be allowed for this proposal given the normally protracted planning timescales. The

cost add-ons identified for the Reading scheme were based upon a schedule of costs

developed for the extension of the existing light rail scheme in Birmingham using light rail

or bus-based system. There is potential for the bus-based system to be constructed in

shorter timescales than light rail and this could mean reduced preliminary costs.

The overall impact of the cost add-ons is to take the base construction cost of £126m to

£174m for light rail and from £82m to £113m for guided-bus. These are all percentage

based costs so will always be greater for the light rail scheme compared to guided-bus.

This is appropriate at this level of scheme development where this project is at the concept

and feasibility stage.

The largest cost add-ons are the contractor preliminaries. This is set at 20% (£25m for light

rail and £16m for guided-bus) of the construction cost and concerns all aspects of the costs

incurred by the main contractor to implement the scheme that are not directly related to the

actual construction (e.g. preliminaries do not include materials and labour). This includes

site accommodation, safety measures and security and the site management staff.

350
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

Specifically this cost excludes contributions to overheads and profits of the parent

operation to the contractor, which attracts an additional 6% to the cost (£7.5m for light rail

and £5m for guided-bus systems).

Further costs incurred at this stage are also significant for design, site supervision and

quality control (10%) representing £12.5m and £8m for light rail and guided-bus

respectively. These costs are those borne by the project for design of the system which can

be the same contract as the main construction contractor (as a design and build contract) or

a separate organisation. The design costs will include all elements of the design for the

track, highway, structures, power, telecoms, signalling etc. This will also include for the

management of the design house and the supervision on-site of construction assurance.

There are a number of smaller-order costs to be considered; which are shown in Table 8-3.

Table 8-3 Construction Cost Add-ons

Light Rail Guided-bus


Detail Rate
Cost (£’000) Cost (£’000)
Traffic Regulation Orders 0.2% £252 £163
Network Rail Design Approvals 0.2% £252 £163
Regulatory consents and commissioning 1.0% £1,259 £816
Local Authority Design Approvals 0.3% £378 £245
Infrastructure Spares 0.5% £629 £408

The cost add-ons raise the cost from the basic construction cost from £126m and £82m to

£174m to £113m respectively for light rail and guided-bus (including ENVEX at this

stage). The nature of the factoring of the construction cost is confirmed as the guided-bus

at both stages is 65% of the light rail cost, but the difference between the systems has

increased from £44m to £61m.

351
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

8.2.5 Non-Construction Project Costs

There are four non-construction items covered in this section that contribute a significant

proportion to the system implementation cost. However, these costs are provisional sum

estimates, unlike the construction costs elements which are based upon ‘pricing schedules’.

The pricing schedules costs are reliable and essentially industry-standard whereas costs in

this section will be specific to the location. Whilst there maybe inaccuracies in these cost

estimates, they have been provided on the same basis for light rail and guided-bus, so if the

estimate is high for light rail then it will be relatively the same for guided-bus and should

not undermine confidence in the comparison between the systems.

8.2.6 Operator and Concessionaire Costs

Operator and Concessionaire costs are those costs that are incurred by the parties who will

be taking-on the operational aspects of the system post-commissioning. The cost is based

upon percentage factoring (4%) to the construction cost, which results in a light rail cost of

£5m and guided-bus £3m. The difference includes the additional staff and facilities

requiring set-up for the light rail system, for example, preparedness for the traction power

supply and track systems operation. The differences between light rail and guided-bus for

these particular pieces of infrastructure appear in construction cost, here in concessionaire

and operator (establishment) costs and hence also appear in the build-up of operational

cost.

8.2.7 Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC )

The costs for EMC conformance is higher for light rail based upon the level of

demonstration required for the power supply and overhead line system. In both cases for

light rail and guided-bus, the figures are arbitrary but realistic for the nature of the

352
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

schemes. However, the costs are incidental. The light rail cost represents 0.4% of the

project construction cost and the guided-bus 0.2%.

8.2.8 Utility Diversions and Provision

The Reading system utilities costs include provision of diversion of utilities and also utility

supplies to the transit system, including high voltage traction power for light rail. The costs

are £46m for light rail and £29m for guided-bus. The difference in cost is not negligible; at

£17m this represents nearly 10% of the total construction cost for the light rail system and

15% of the guided-bus system. By not relocating so many or all utilities this could reduce

the cost for the guided-bus scheme. It would also address the susceptibility to cost

escalation due to unexpected additional diversion works being needed.

A further reduction in cost for the guided-bus system would be financially beneficial;

however, this could potentially be at a cost to operational performance, and therefore

equivalence, if there was a need to divert the bus service around future (utility) road-works.

The light rail would not suffer this problem as the services would have already been

diverted. There is also a reduction in cost as the guided-bus does not need as many supply

points, only the depot would require a new high voltage intake.

Utility Costs have been a significant issue in the development of the Edinburgh Tram

scheme as was discussed in section 2.4.3. The delivery of the tram system has been

significantly delayed, subject to cost overruns and now has even been de-scoped meaning

that the new trams have effectively been over-ordered and could be leased to Croydon

(Audit Scotland, 2011). The assertion is that the failures have been based upon inadequate

assessment of the utilities diversion works and the consequential effects. Unlike

353
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

Nottingham, for example, the cost/funding model did not facilitate cost risk mitigation and

this has resulted in delay and cost escalation.

8.2.9 Land Acquisition and Compensation

Land acquisition and compensation attracts a relatively large cost. The cost data was based

upon a ‘Communities and Local Government’ on-line resource (CLG, 2007) to provide

land-price data with additional data from F&A for compensation costs. It was assumed that

the running-way land could be acquired at no cost, as public highway; hence this section

addresses land purchased for park and ride facilities and the depot.

The difference in the cost is due to the larger footprint required for the light rail

maintenance facility than the guided-bus. This is because the space required for fixed rail

alignments and berthing of light rail vehicles is greater, compared to the free movement of

the bus vehicles with the ability to park vehicles closer together. The cost for land

acquisition and compensation was £43.5m for light rail and £39m for guided-bus.

8.2.10 The Effect of Non-construction Costs

The two costs in this section that are not considered construction costs that add a

significant contribution to overall cost are the utilities, land acquisition and compensation.

As can be seen in Table 8-4, the guided-bus utility, land and compensation costs represents

over 60% of the value of the construction cost – including cost add-ons.

Table 8-4 Utilities, Land Acquisition and Compensation Costs

Land & % of Utility, Land &


Utility Construction
System Compensation Compensation Cost to
Costs Cost
Costs Construction Cost
Light Rail £46.0m £43.5m £174.0m 51.4%
Guided-Bus £29.4m £39.3m £112.8m 60.9%

354
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

8.2.11 Total Infrastructure Cost

By bringing together the enabling costs and the total construction costs, this provides a

figure for the overall cost to implement the infrastructure and make it ready for operation.

The costs at this stage, i.e. excluding only the procurement and commissioning into service

of the vehicles amount to £269m for light rail and £185m for guided bus. From the base

construction cost for materials and labour these have increased by more than double, from

a base cost of £126m and £82m respectively. This highlights the impact of the additional

costs borne by the schemes over and above the cost simply of the fabric of the system - the

concrete and steelwork.

8.2.12 Incremental Development

The infrastructure costs can be assessed at a high level for alternative light rapid transit

systems not modelled here, for example trolley-bus and self-powered light rail. This is

shown in Figure 8-2. This does not, of course, account for the vehicle costs that will also

differ between the modes.

Figure 8-2 Incremental System Implementation Cost

£55m

+ Traction Power, land + Track, land acquisition,


acquisition, utilities works utilities works

£49m

Guided-bus Trolley-bus Non-electrified Light Rail


Light Rail
£185m £234m £240m £269m

£29m

+ Track + Traction Power

£35m

355
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

The incremental costs in Figure 8-2 are for the infrastructure capital cost including track,

power and depot costs with prelims, land acquisition and utilities costs. Note that the land

acquisition and utilities works are triggered at any stage beyond guided-bus.

This analysis could be used to support the incremental development of light rapid transit

systems from guided-bus to light rail. The disruption caused by construction of the

permanent way as part of the incremental system development would need careful

consideration. The initial scheme construction, without permanent way would be disruptive

so to revisit the system a second time to implement the rails would also be at least as

invasive again requiring road sections to be closed to be made ready for the track. This

would also incur additional cost.

8.2.13 Infrastructure Costs related to Capacity

Whilst the absolute costs have been determined and discussed above, it is relevant to

consider these costs in terms of the volume of passengers proposed to be carried. Consider

the data in Table 8-5.

Table 8-5 Capacity Normalised Infrastructure Costs

Phileas DE60LF
Metric Light Rail Guided- Guided-
Bus Bus
Passenger Capacity/week 54,080 53,664 47,840
% of Baseline Capacity (Light Rail) 100 99.2 88.5
Passenger Capacity/annum 2,812,160 2,790,528 2,487,680
Infrastructure Cost/Passenger Space/annum £95.70 £66.30 £74.40

The first point to note is that the bus-based service (especially the DE60LF) is not strictly

equivalent. The Phileas is sufficiently close to approximate light rail (99.2%) but the

DE60LF capacity is comparatively low (88.5%) as this relies on the same timetable as the

356
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

Phileas but with a lower vehicle capacity (any further service intensity was considered

unreasonable – see results section 7.1.4). Over an operational year this amounts to 302,848

and 324,480 fewer passenger spaces compared to the Phileas and light rail system

respectively. Whilst the infrastructure costs are the same for the guided-bus systems, the

value leveraged through the higher capacity Phileas means that the cost per space for the

Phileas is more cost-effective than the DE60LF. The light rail system is the most costly per

passenger space.

8.3 Vehicle CAPEX

The CAPEX costs associated with the vehicle are affected in three ways: the outright cost

of one vehicle, the number of vehicles required and test-running costs prior to full service.

The costs associated with the vehicles for the light rail vehicle and the Phileas and

DE60LF buses (costs at 1Q07) as shown in Table 8-6.

Table 8-6 Vehicle Costs

Light Rail Phileas DE60LF


Vehicle Cost (£) 2,088,889 960,000 403,333

Vehicles (Number) 18 30 30

Fleet Cost (£) 37,600,000 28,800,000 12,100,000


Trial Running (£) 1,100,000 2,200,000 600,000

Total Cost (£) 38,700,000 31,000,000 12,700,000

The values in Table 8-6 represent the initial capital outlay to procure the vehicles and put

them into revenue-earning service after a period of trial running. The number of vehicles

was determined in section 7.1.4. The trial running costs are based upon ‘fleet’ test and

commissioning activities operating on the system without passengers (see section 8.3.1). It

is recognised that the serviceable life of the guided-bus vehicles will be less than for light

rail vehicles allowing for a mid-life refurbishment. This means through the lifecycle of the

357
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

system further costs will be incurred for the guided-bus option that is not required for light

rail to replace the vehicle fleet. An analysis of this additional cost is not reviewed in this

project, but lifecycle costs represent a potential area of further work.

The £37.6m expenditure on light rail vehicles is equivalent to 39 Phileas or 93 DE60LFs.

Conversely with the £28.8m (Phileas) or a £12.1m (DE60LF) budget this would procure 14

or only 6 light rail vehicles respectively.

For the initial procurement, the data in Table 8-6 shows that a single light rail vehicle is

double the cost of a Phileas bus and 4 times that of the DE60LF. However, as more of the

buses are required to provide a near-capacity equivalent service then the overall cost gap is

smaller. The DE60LF is still significantly cheaper but the aesthetics of the vehicle are

more characteristic of a bus and with the extra styling i.e. the DE60LF-BRT (Weststart-

CALSTART (2006)) then this would attract a cost premium. However, figures are not

available for the cost of the re-styling.

Because the DE60LF is a ‘production-line vehicle’, for example, King County alone

operates 236 (King County, 2007), it benefits from economies of scale that cannot be

achieved by the batch production associated with the Phileas. The Phileas vehicles are

manufactured for a specific project, for example, 12 single articulated vehicles have been

manufactured for system in Douai (Nohlmans, 2008). This could change however as there

is a, “Potential market for 600 vehicles” in Korea which would then begin to assume

production line economies and drive costs down).

358
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

8.3.1 Trial Running Costs

The proposed costs for trial running are based upon a percentage of the fleet cost and are

related to the complexity and maturity of the vehicle. Figure 8-3, illustrates the

development over time of the three vehicles and how this relates to potential trial-running

and commissioning costs. The two axes represent the maturity of the vehicle technology

(x) and the level of vehicle design complexity (y).

Figure 8-3 Trial Running Costs

High
Light
Rail
Higher

Trial
Running
Vehicle Complexity

Phileas Costs

Lower

DE60LFBRT
System
Development
over time

Low DE60LF

Low High
Vehicle Maturity

The larger the circle, the greater the relative proportion of fleet cost is proposed would be

required to commission the vehicles into service. The arrow lines indicate the development

over time of the particular vehicle. Light rail is a relatively mature design so the trial

running costs will be relatively steady-state with some minor improvements over time. The

use of the overhead power system, wheel-rail interface, signals and track switches will

bring inherent trial running costs over and above the guided-bus costs.

359
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

The Phileas system started out as a complex guided-bus with a Liquefied Petroleum Gas

(LPG) hybrid engine and final drive. The trial running costs in Eindhoven were high and

ultimately did not result in a fully operable system until reverting to a more conventional

diesel engine drive. The response has been to reduce the complexity to a known prime

mover, transmission and final drive configuration that should see the trial running costs

reduce for future systems; hence a slightly small diameter circle and further reductions as

the fleet matures.

The DE60LF started as a low complexity vehicle for use on regular highways and would

have seen some issues of trial running. With high production rates the trial running would

be reduced further until approaching the minimal realistic cost. However, with the

migration to a BRT-styled (Bus Rapid Transit) vehicle with more systems and complexity,

such as guidance, ticketing, passenger information displays etc this will potentially have a

corresponding increase in trial running cost. Note that the Phileas and DE60LFBRT are, it

is implied, approaching similar levels of complexity but the latter will attract the lower trial

running cost given the large number of vehicles produced and commissioned into service.

Overall, this suggests that it could be best to start with lower complexity in the design, but

be able to be upgrade. This should not mean a lower quality design initially where

reliability and passenger experience and comfort is crucial for equivalence and success.

8.3.2 Vehicle Costs related to Capacity

As with the infrastructure cost data, it is possible to assess the guided-bus and light rail

vehicle costs relative to the vehicle and system capacity.

360
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

It is possible to calculate the cost per space on an individual vehicle based upon the capital

cost of the vehicle (i.e. excluding trial running):

• Light rail: £2.088m for a capacity of 208 ≡ £10,043/space

• Phileas: £0.960m for a capacity of 129 ≡ £7,742/space

• DE60LF: £0.403m for a capacity of 115 ≡ £3,507/space

This indicates that whilst the light rail vehicle is the most expensive, the relative costs of

the Phileas and DE60LF have increased, reflecting the relative capacity of the vehicles. As

the Phileas vehicle reaches maturity then the capital cost for the vehicle may be reduced

after the development costs are recovered. This then reduces the cost per space provided.

Conversely, as the DE60LF has been face-lifted and modified to provide styling and

facilities to make the vehicle look and feel like a tram these enhancements will drive the

cost of the vehicle up and hence increase the cost per space.

So, as the Phileas is brought into steady-state production, then the cost will reduce toward

the DE60LF cost and conversely if the DE60LF is enhanced this will add cost (increasing

toward the Phileas cost). The difference between the two will narrow. In either case,

however, the cost of the ‘mature’ DE60LF or Phileas will still be significantly lower than

the light rail vehicle cost. The light rail vehicle cost is effectively stable with a number of

suppliers having mature products and a consistent production turnover.

8.3.3 Vehicle costs related to Operating Capacity

If this analysis is now factored with the capacity-kilometres per annum, this provides

evidence of the relative value provided by the light rail vehicle. Using the developed

timetable for the Reading system the light rail capacity-kilometres can be evaluated.

361
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

Table 8-7 Vehicle-Capacity-Kilometres

Characteristic Light Rail Phileas DE60LF


Vehicle Capacity 208 129 115
Round-trips/week 260 416 416
Vehicle km/annum (fleet) 768,000 1,235,580 1,235,580
Capacity-kilometres/week 1,213,717 1,204,381 1,073,673
Capacity-kilometres/annum 63,113,307 62,627,820 55,831,002

Using the values from Table 8-7 the relative cost levels of each vehicle are consistent with

the capital cost per vehicle space.

• Light rail: 63.1 million capacity km, fleet cost of £37.6m

≡ £695/capacity-km/annum

• Phileas: 62.6 million capacity km, fleet cost of £28.8m

≡ £537/capacity-km/annum (77% of light rail)

• DE60LF: 55.8 million, fleet cost of £12.1m

≡ £253/capacity-km/annum (36% of light rail)

The light rail vehicle is more costly, the service provided by the fleet is more extensive by

at least half a million passenger space-kilometres per annum and the relative cost of the

light rail vehicle is effectively reduced. The light rail cost is comparable to the Phileas

guided-bus but the DE60LF is significantly more cost efficient.

8.3.4 System (Infrastructure and Vehicle) Costs related to Capacity

The proposed transit system development is based upon requirements for the infrastructure

being determined by the vehicle type. The overall system costs for capacity are as shown in

Table 8-8.

362
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

Table 8-8 Capacity Normalised System Costs

Phileas DE60LF
Light Rail
Metric Guided-Bus Guided-Bus
Total Infrastructure and Vehicle
£307.8m £216.0m £198.0m
CAPEX
Passenger Capacity/week 54,080 53,664 47,840
Passenger Capacity/annum 2,812,160 2,790,528 2,487,680
System Cost/Passenger Space/annum £109.50 £77.40 £79.50

Table 8-8 confirms that the DE60LF offers a lower overall investment by over £18m

compared to the Phileas–based system, the infrastructure needed is the same, but the

DE60LF vehicles are cheaper. Despite this however, the effect of the lower capacity of the

DE60LF is to make this vehicle marginally more expensive per space relative to total

investment compared to the Phileas. If a Phileas equivalent service was delivered for the

DE60LF with more vehicles and a corresponding increase in services, then this would

require a further 4 vehicles (based upon 12% uplift required on a fleet of 30 buses to 34).

This would add an additional £1.7m to the DE60LF system cost, meaning that the

cost/space/annum of the DE60LF would fall below the Phileas cost to £71.55.

8.3.5 Passenger Demand

A key point is that there is more flexibility to match demand to supply with the smaller

guided-bus vehicles than the larger light rail vehicles. Whilst this analysis thus far has

considered maximum capacity only (i.e. ‘supply’) no analysis has been considered of the

‘demand’ side. It is the demand values that will make most sense of the relative costs to

provide and operate the system. With the guided-bus, if the passenger demand is below

capacity then it is relatively straightforward to reduce capacity (seats) while still operating

an acceptable frequency of services. This is not so easily achieved by light rail. The lower

363
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

capacity buses mean that if a service reduction is required, fewer bus services can be

operated at given periods. The idle vehicles in the bus fleet can be stabled without running

up operational costs, for example, fuel, operations staff, and will not incur mileage toward

maintenance intervals etc. The light rail vehicles do not have this flexibility because

reducing the number of services, through the main part of the day, from 4 to 3 services

(Table 7-4) constitutes a reduction of 25% of the capacity. Correspondingly, reducing the

guided-bus service by one in the off-peak period from 10 to 9 is only a reduction of 10%

by comparison (Table 7-6). If fewer light rail services cannot be operated this means that

the lower demand will result in the same number of light rail services but with more empty

seats. It is easier to tailor or customise the guided-bus provision than it is for light rail.

8.4 OPEX

The headlines from the OPEX data is that the two systems, light rail and guided-bus,

ultimately have similar costs for operating the system over a single year. A further

summary of the OPEX costs provided in Table 7-20 is provided in Table 8-9.

Table 8-9 OPEX Summary Costs

Operations Maintenance
Light Rail Guided-bus Light Rail Guided-bus
Cost Item
Cost (£'000) Cost (£'000) Cost (£'000) Cost (£'000)
General Overheads 4,474 4,346 93 93
Vehicle 2,021 3,093 1,091 1,454
Infrastructure 602 738 874 462
Mechanical & Electrical 44 44 1,496 767
Total Cost 7,141 8,221 3,554 2,776

Total Operation and Maintenance Cost 10,695 10,997

Table 8-9 indicates the difference between light rail and guided-bus in the total OPEX cost

is marginal at £0.3m. The contribution to the total cost varies in terms of whether the

364
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

guided-bus or light rail systems or vehicles are more expensive to maintain and operate. A

review of the key differences is provided below.

8.4.1 Operations

The number of vehicles being operated is a key issue for the operations costs for the two

systems but more significantly for the guided-bus system. The increased number of

guided-bus vehicles (fleet of 30 compared to 18 light rail) will require a greater number of

drivers, fare-collection staff and trainers and managers or supervisory staff. The additional

staff requirements account for an increase of £0.659m for drivers and trainers and £0.3m

for revenue staff over the light rail cost per annum. As discussed previously, the DE60LF

provision falls 12% short of equivalent capacity meaning a further 4 vehicles would be

required to achieve equivalence. If the additional vehicles were used (to a fleet size of 34)

then the operational costs would need to be increased accordingly and assuming a further

12% cost (30 to 34 vehicles) this would mean a total vehicle operating cost of £3.5m (up

from the current cost of £3.1m) compared to the light rail total of £2.0m.

One area where the light rail staff numbers exceed the guided-bus is the control and

operations staff that need to operate the traction power and track systems. These account

for £0.193m. The additional personnel required for the light rail system is for the track and

power control operations staff needed to monitor and operate the system.

The difference in vehicle cleaning and running maintenance as part of the daily operations

is noticeable but not significant relative to the overall system costs. The total light rail cost

(including supervision, management and materials or consumables) is £0.247m and the

guided-bus cost is £0.33m.

365
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

The maintenance costs for the infrastructure is divided into two areas as described in

section 6.8.2; ‘infrastructure’ refers the built environment of the transit system and will

include all structures, for example, the stops, the elevated section, the landscaped areas and

boundary fences etc. The mechanical and electrical (M&E) part of the OPEX breakdown is

for the systems that are used to operate and control the vehicles and interfacing systems to

the network. M&E systems will include the track and track devices (switches, switch

heating etc) power supplies, traffic control systems and equipment, ticket machines, help

points, lighting, closed circuit television (CCTV) etc. The cost for the infrastructure

operation, i.e. the day-to-day running costs, cleaning etc, is similar for the light rail and

guided-bus. The guided-bus cost is slightly higher than light rail in this area (£0.58m vs.

£0.372m) as this cost is associated with the running and upkeep of the highway sections.

Where the light rail cost is lower for highway aspects this is offset by the permanent way

maintenance cost which means the light rail infrastructure maintenance cost (£0.874m) is

significantly higher than the guided-bus cost (£0.462m).

The M&E costs for the two systems are identical in operational terms because this is

simply for the daily running costs associated with ticket machines, lighting, CCTV etc – all

systems that are common to light rail and guided-bus. The light rail specific M&E systems

(in particular traction power supplies and track operation devices and systems) are covered

under M&E maintenance.

The fuel costs for the respective systems are quite similar even though the number of

guided-buses operating per day and hence overall exceeds the light rail. Using the cost of

28.1p per litre of diesel, for 895,000 litres gives a cost of £0.252m compared to the light

rail electricity cost of 6.61p per kWh for 3.379GWh which yields a cost of £0.223m. This

can be analysed in terms of the cost per kilometre operated which for light rail equates to

366
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

£0.29/km and £0.20/km the guided-bus. Again, whilst the absolute cost is greater for the

guided-bus, because of the greater number of vehicles and distance operated by the fleet

the per-unit cost is lower for guided-bus.

8.4.2 Maintenance

Generally, the additional infrastructure provided for the light rail system (traction power,

track and control systems) means that the maintenance cost is higher for light rail. An

allowance of £0.3m has been made for Permanent Way maintenance and together with the

M&E systems maintenance this makes the light rail system costs nearly double the guided-

bus system cost (£1.5m compared to £0.767m). One aspect of this cost will be for

specialist sub-contracts where it would not be practicable to retain a specialist workforce

for what is conceptually a relatively small piece of infrastructure. For example, front-line

response personnel may be full-time employees for overhead wire emergency maintenance

but larger teams with specialist plant would be contracted for large scale maintenance

activities.

There are more guided-buses to maintain and these will be generally more maintenance-

intensive and the maintenance cost is higher. The additional number of guided-buses

means that more support staff and operatives are also required. The overall guided-bus

vehicle maintenance cost is £1.45m and light rail is £1.1m per annum. The differences are

in the cost of materials, running maintenance and cleaning and the associated management

and support staff. In both the light rail and guided-bus vehicles the senior maintenance

management team are assumed to be required in equal number and status and hence cost

the same for each system.

367
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

The net effect of the higher infrastructure cost, including M&E, but lower vehicle

maintenance cost for light rail means that it has estimated that the light rail system will cost

£3.56m and the guided-bus £2.78m per annum to maintain.

If these costs are compared with number of vehicles there is a benefit of the ‘economies of

scale’ effect with the guided-buses. Whilst the total maintenance cost for light rail is

greater than guided-bus, the per vehicle cost is significantly lower for guided-bus. The

light rail cost is £0.197m per vehicle for 18 vehicles and the guided-bus is £92,000 per

vehicle for 30 vehicles. The maintenance cost is £60,000 for light rail and £48,000 for the

guided-bus per vehicle per annum.

8.4.3 Cost to Maintain and Operate the system per vehicle-capacity/km

The cost to maintain the vehicle in terms of the passenger space – kilometres per year is

£0.02 for light rail and £0.03 for guided-bus, i.e. for every space provided by the vehicles it

costs 2p or 3p per kilometre travelled each year to maintain. This illustrates the ‘benefit’ of

the higher-capacity light rail as the per-unit cost is lower. However, this measure is a

‘supply’ side value where the utilisation of the spaces may not be as great and hence the

‘demand’ side cost per passenger (and not passenger space) could be higher. As discussed

above it will be simpler to fine-tune the guided-bus provision and optimise the number of

spaces provided.

8.4.4 Cost to Maintain and Operate the system per infrastructure/km

The overall cost to operate and maintain the system per kilometre of system infrastructure

is £0.477m for light rail and £0.49m for guided-bus. Where the light rail costs more than

the guided-bus to maintain, the higher guided-bus operations cost off-sets this leading to

the similar values calculated.

368
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

8.5 ENVEX

The environmental emission costs are a proportion of the relevant elements of the

infrastructure build cost that attract environmental mitigation actions. As a result of the

method of calculating the ENVEX values the light rail value is significantly higher than the

guided-bus value but in terms of overall cost, they are very similar as a proportion of the

system construction cost. The light rail value is 2.3% and the guided-bus is 2.0% of the

overall construction cost. The mitigation costs will be incurred during the construction

phase including mitigation of operational impacts, for example, noise and vibration from

the vehicles, visual blight caused by the structures on the system.

The light rail costs are obviously higher than guided-bus where there is more

infrastructure, for example for environmental landscaping, architectural works and

screening. The cost for this is £1.9m for the light rail system and £1.3m for guided-bus.

There is an allowance for noise and vibration mitigation for the light rail that is not needed

for guided-bus. The route operated by the RUN system will not be subject to additional

noise from the rubber-tyre guided-buses but will suffer from some effects of noise and

vibration from the trams.

The construction of the trackwork and overhead line system for the light rail will incur

costs not required by the guided-bus system. The construction of the track sections will

require additional heavy plant and road closures for longer periods than the guided-bus

incurring mitigation, e.g. hoardings and local air quality management. The overhead wire

system has two impacts to mitigate. Initially the construction cost will require protective

measures for the erection of steel masts and also where fixings are made to existing

buildings. As a longer term measure there will be costs associated with mitigating the

369
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

visual blight associated with the overhead line system that will include screening the

substations.

The light rail operations system is also more costly for environmental mitigation. The

guided-bus costs are £88,000 compared to £0.211m for the light rail system. The light rail

Operations Control Centre will be larger and whilst possibly on the same footprint as the

guided-bus control centre it will be a two-to-three storey building. The additional

construction work here and also with the track and power control systems distributed

around the network also adds to the cost.

The largest construction area will be the depot and the light rail depot is larger than the

guided-bus depot. The proposed location for the depot in a green-field site, albeit not

farmed land, is in sight of local residences and to avoid planning application issues it is

likely that concessions would be made on the construction and final design of the depot

area, in terms of mitigating the environmental impact of the installation.

There is no further analysis necessary on the ENVEX environmental emission mitigation

costs. The key issue is that as the mitigation is a cost allowance on-top of the construction

cost then it is clear that light rail is going to be more costly.

8.6 ENVEM

The emissions measures require analysis of a number of model outputs:

• CO2 emissions Quantitative


• NOX emissions Quantitative
• PM10 emissions Quantitative
• Noise (and vibration) Qualitative
• Aesthetics Qualitative

370
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

8.6.1 CO2 Emissions

It is noted that the BERRy (2008) and TfLz (2008) data were considered to be the same for

the analysis of the CO2 emissions. This is because the TfL data assumes that the CO2

emissions are to be measured on a ‘national’ scale (and not local air quality only); this is

consistent with the means by which WebTAG approaches CO2.

The graph presented in Figure 7-9 illustrated that although the individual vehicle CO2

emissions for the guided-buses were less than the light rail vehicle CO2 emissions, by

running more services then the overall fleet CO2 emissions for the guided-bus are higher.

The CO2 emissions for the guided-bus were 2297 tonnes and light rail 1812.5 tonnes for

the fleet per annum. The additional guided-buses are operated as a consequence of seeking

capacity equivalence to light rail. From the graph in Figure 7-9 it was seen that to match

the light rail CO2 emissions it was possible to run 328 weekly guided-bus services (instead

of 416). This would mean a reduction of 88 services per week (equivalent to a capacity of

10120 spaces on the DE60LF and 11352 spaces on Phileas).

Table 8-10 confirms the calculations for the equivalent service provision for the guided-

bus to achieve the light rail CO2 emissions and shows that 328 services will achieve 70%

of the light rail capacity. The first two rows in the table provide a capacity equivalence

comparison between light rail and guided-bus noting the impact on emissions. Conversely,

the first and third rows of data provide the comparison of emissions equivalence between

light rail and guided-bus noting the impact on capacity.

y
Reference hereafter to BERR (Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform) data is referring
to data adapted from BERR, 2008.
z
Reference hereafter to TfL (Transport for London) data is referring to data adapted from TfL, 2008.

371
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

Table 8-10 Equivalent Guided-Bus services for CO2 equality

CO2/ %Capacity
Services Emissions/ Capacity/
CO2 / Week
Service
Week (t) service
Capacity to Light
(kg) Rail
Light Rail
Weekly 260 110.4 28.70 208 54080 -
(BERR or TfL Data)
Guided-Bus
Weekly 416 87.4 36.36 115 47840 88%
(DE60LF)
Guided-Bus
Equiv. Emissions 328 87.4 28.7 115 37720 70%
(DE60LF)

A service level that constitutes 70% of the light rail capacity can be provided by the

guided-bus system with equivalent CO2 emissions to light rail. The required number of

services, at 328, can be achieved by reducing the number of off-peak mid-week services

from 10 to 6 and an overall reduction across all Saturday services from 6 to 4 or 10 to 6.

Alternatively, if the guided-bus service is maintained in the peak periods (07:00 – 09:00

and 16:00 to 18:00 on all days, including weekends) at the same intervals as the original

guided-bus timetable but then reduced to the same frequency as the light rail service off-

peak, the data provided in Table 8-11 is calculated. This reduces the number of guided-

buses services to 318 weekly services. This means that providing an equivalent peak hour

service only with a reduced off-peak service can reduce guided-bus CO2 emissions to less

than light rail. The reduced off-peak services at 318 are shown in Table 8-11.

Table 8-11 Reduced Guided-Bus services for CO2 saving

CO2/ %Cap
Services/ Emissions/ Capacity/
CO2 Week
Service
Week (kg) service
Capacity of Light
(kg) Rail
Light Rail -
260 110.4 28.7 208 54080 -
Weekly
Guided-Bus,
Peak Equivalent 318 87.4 27.8 115 36570 68%
only service

372
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

Note from Table 8-11 above that with 318 services, the weekly overall guided-bus capacity

is 68% of light rail. However, if the timetable is assessed a little further the peak capacity

can be established, this is illustrated in Table 8-12. Here it can be seen that looking

specifically at the guided-bus capacity provided during the morning and evening peak

periods that capacity at these times is increased above the weekly average (68%) to achieve

a closer peak-hour value to light rail (90-92%). Hence during peak hours, the guided-bus is

near equivalent to the light rail service but off-peak the lower capacity guided-bus service

can be configured to be more efficient.

Table 8-12 Guided-Bus service capacity for CO2 saving

Peak Hour Services


07:00 - 09:00 16:00 - 18:00
Mon-Fri Sat Sun Mon-Fri Mon Tue
Light Rail Services 18 16 12 18 18 12
Light Rail Capacity 3744 3328 2496 3744 3744 2496
Guided-Bus Services 30 26 18 30 30 18
Guided-Bus Capacity 3450 2990 2070 3450 3450 2070
Guided-Bus to Light
92% 90% 83% 92% 92% 83%
Rail Capacity

If the guided-bus off-peak services are trimmed to provide a reduced service and emissions

the peak hour service and capacity provision is maintained above 90% Monday to Saturday

with a reduction to 83% on Sundays.

8.6.2 NOx Emissions

As with the CO2 emissions the weekly guided-bus NOx emissions exceed that of the light

rail service. The emissions are shown in Table 8-13.

373
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

Table 8-13 NOX Emissions

Light Rail Light Rail


Emission Guided-Bus
(BERR) (TfL)
Emission/vehicle/annum 196.3 kilograms 1.0 kilograms 369.4 kilograms
Emission/fleet/annum 3.5 tonnes 0.02 tonnes 11.1 tonnes

Using the above data and the graph shown in Figure 7-10 the same analysis can be

conducted for NOx emissions as undertaken for CO2, i.e. to find at what service level the

guided-bus becomes equivalent to light rail in emissions terms. However, comparing the

guided-bus emissions to the light rail (BERR and TfL data) reveals two different scenarios.

Using the BERR data, the equivalent guided-bus service for the NOx emissions would

require the guided-bus service level to be reduced to 132 services per week, or about 19

services per day on average. This would represent only 28% of the light rail capacity and is

hence invalid as it is not equivalent. This is confirmed in Table 8-14 below.

Table 8-14 Equivalent Guided-Bus services for NOx equality (Light Rail BERR data)

NOX/ %Capacity
Services Emissions/ Capacity/
NOX / Week
Service
Week (kg) service
Capacity to Light
(g) Rail
Light Rail
Weekly 260 215 55.9 208 54080 -
(BERR Data)
Guided-Bus
416 422 175.6 115 47840 88%
Weekly
Guided-Bus
132 422 55.9 115 15180 28%
Equiv. Emissions

The comparison to the TfL data is less viable. To attain the TfL-based NOx emissions

would require 0.75 guided-bus services per week to operate! Clearly this does not provide

a case for valid comparison.

374
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

Overall, the case for guided-bus NOX emissions does not compare to ‘national’ light rail

emissions. An equivalence trade-off of services or emissions is not viable. It should be

noted that the TfL data in theory should result in zero NOX emissions; however, TfL does

includes emissions from boilers in the tram depot which must account for the NOX

emissions.

8.6.3 PM10 Emissions

The PM10 case is different again because the light rail emissions (using TfL data) are

marginally worse than the guided-bus. The BERR-based emissions, as discussed

previously, present surprisingly significantly higher emissions for light rail. The emissions

are shown in Table 8-15.

Table 8-15 PM10 Emissions

Light Rail Light Rail


Emission Guided-Bus
(BERR) (TfL)
Emission/vehicle/annum 5.6 kilograms 0.17 kilograms 0.08 kilograms
Emission/fleet/annum 107.5 kilograms 3.06 kilograms 2.5 kilograms

To achieve equivalence using the TfL data it is necessary to reduce the light rail services to

attain the guided-bus level. This is shown in Table 8-16. (As with NOX it is assumed that

the TfL PM10 emissions are actually due to the tram depot boilers and not the vehicles.)

Table 8-16 Equivalent Light Rail services for PM10 equality

%Cap
PM10/
Services/ Emissions/ Capacity/ to
PM10 Service Capacity
Week Week (g) service Guided-
(g)
Bus
Light Rail
Weekly 260 0.19 49.40 208 54080 113%
(TfL Data)
Guided-Bus
416 0.09 37.44 115 47840 -
Weekly
Light Rail
197 0.19 37.44 208 40976 86%
Equiv. Emissions

375
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

By reducing the number of light rail services and hence capacity, it is possible to obtain

PM10 equality. However, whilst the light rail capacity is still 86% of guided-bus the service

frequency would suffer with only 197 services per week – or 75% of the planned timetable.

This reduces peak services to 4 per hour and 2 or 3 services outside of the peak. The ability

to reduce the number of guided-bus services yet maintaining an apparently workable

timetable has been demonstrated with the CO2 emissions, yet in the case of the PM10

emissions and light rail this is not considered feasible. Reducing the light rail service

means that whilst capacity is potentially satisfactory, frequency is not; hence light rail does

not have the flexibility of the guided-bus system.

Previously, the BERR data for light rail PM10 emissions was questioned as the values

appeared high compared to the guided-bus emissions. However, as reviewed in section

7.3.3, the calculation for power station electricity generated PM10 emissions appears

correct as does the guided-bus tail-pipe emissions. As discussed briefly in the data

gathering section 6.9.11 the US emissions standards are more stringent and this affects the

DE60LF emissions as it is a US. produced vehicle. The 2007 U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) PM10 emission standard is 0.01g/bhp-hr (DieselNet, 2007) which

equates to 0.007g/kWh (see Table 6-16). The light rail model value was calculated as

0.02g/kWh which can be seen is approximately three times the US EPA. emissions

standard. Whilst a direct comparison cannot be made, the tram vehicle may use a greater

amount of energy per vehicle than the guided-bus as the emissions per vehicle are

significantly higher (fleet emissions per year are 107.5kg for light rail and 2.5kg for

guided-bus).

The case for PM10 emissions is in favour of the guided-bus whether considering TfL ‘local

emissions’ or the ‘national’ power station smoke stack emissions (BERR).

376
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

8.6.4 Noise and Vibration

The noise and vibration issues are centred around the operation of the vehicles on the ‘live’

system. After consulting the Environmental Impact Assessments from Merseytram,

Cambridge Guided-bus and Edinburgh Tram systems it was determined that temporary

mitigation could be used to overcome the construction issues. This resulted in a cost

allowance under environmental cost mitigation (ENVEX). Similarly, the impact due to the

operation of the vehicles is addressed in the construction phase where long-term mitigating

measures should prevent issues of noise and vibration. Again these are captured in ENVEX

costs. The light rail environmental emission costs to prevent the effects of noise and

vibration are greater than for the guided-bus; however, both costs are consistent relative to

the cost to construct the system.

8.6.5 Aesthetics

It is acknowledged that this study cannot provide detailed information on the nature of the

transit system route and how specifically this would be affected by the system in aesthetic

terms. The light rail system would have additional issues compared to guided-bus for the

accommodation of the overhead power system and substations. However, as with the noise

and vibration costs, this has been recognised in the ENVEX cost. The light rail ENVEX

cost is higher than guided-bus but this is consistent with the level of infrastructure

provision, as is the guided-bus case and hence is perceived to be equivalent.

8.7 Summary of Analysis

In CAPEX terms the bus-based system costs two-thirds of the light rail system for

equivalent provision. The significant cost difference is concerned with the light rail system

requiring running rails, traction power and utilities work. These aspects of the

infrastructure can, however be developed incrementally via the routes illustrated in Figure

377
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

8-2. The incremental costs in Figure 8-2 are for the infrastructure capital cost including

track, power and depot costs with prelims, land acquisition and utilities costs. Note that the

land acquisition and utilities works are triggered at any stage beyond guided-bus. There

was no cost difference in the aspects of the route specification used to ensure equivalence;

for example in the construction of the major civils works to ensure route prioritisation for

light rail and bus system alike.

The diversion of utilities has assumed disproportionate significance in the development of

the Edinburgh Tram system; which coupled with an inappropriate financing model has left

the project in dire straits. The bus system in Reading requires fewer utilities diversions

than the light rail system, so as well as attracting a lesser cost, also potentially means less

risk exposure.

The cost per space for infrastructure cost is most favourable for the Phileas bus (lowest

infrastructure cost and higher capacity than the DE60LF). The DE60LF vehicle is the most

cost effective in capital investment as it is a production line model (with development costs

long-since recovered) but issues remain over styling and guidance systems; hence vehicle

cost per space is less than half the Phileas. When accounting for the combined cost of

vehicle and infrastructure, the Phileas cost per space is less than the DE60LF as the

additional capacity outweighs the extra cost. In all cases the light rail cost per passenger

space is the most expensive despite the relatively large vehicle capacity.

Operational and maintenance costs effectively balance when considering infrastructure and

vehicles together. The light rail infrastructure is more costly to maintain – but there are

more buses to maintain and operate.

378
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion

The bus vehicle CO2 emissions are lower per vehicle than the light rail vehicle but for

capacity equivalence the total service emissions are greater. However the bus emissions

can effectively be adjusted by reducing the off-peak services (to maintain the same service

density as light rail but not overall capacity) and this brings the bus service CO2 emissions

in line with the light rail. The bus NOx emissions are greater than light rail and cannot be

adapted to achieve equivalence to light rail. The PM10 light rail emissions are surprisingly

greater than for the bus system and there is no practicable case to adjust the light rail

service to achieve the bus emission levels.

379
380
Chapter 9 Conclusion

9. Conclusion

This research project started after an analysis of the UK Transport Policy response to the

traffic problem of congestion with the following questions:

• Can a bus-based, in particular a guided-bus system, offer a credible alternative to

the private car, change behaviours and generate modal transfer?

• How plausible is the guided-bus alternative compared to light rail?

• What are the comparative cost and environmental performance characteristics of

guided-bus and light rail?

Over the development of the research, the issues evolved and were refined and ultimately

the questions were attempting to address the following:

• Can a bus-based alternative provide similar costs and environmental performance

to light rail?

• In what way does a bus-based system provide a more flexible and phased transport

system?

These questions for a UK application have been developed through an analysis of UK

transport policy and a high-level assessment of the impacts of transport on the economic

and environmental well-being of the UK. Social impacts were also briefly considered.

Following on from the discussions aimed at understanding the extent of the (transport)

problem, a review has been conducted on potential public transit solutions as a means to

reducing the volume of traffic on UK roads. Light rail systems are no longer being

developed in UK after a brief renaissance in the 1990s and early 2000s. The only new-

build scheme is in Edinburgh, which is now very late and in danger of being cancelled

381
Chapter 9 Conclusion

while still in construction. There have been some bus-based schemes developed of varying

complexity but in the case of Cambridge, as with Edinburgh, this is fraught with

construction issues and, at the time of writing in June 2011, although handover from the

construction contractor had just taken place, defects were still being addressed (Grove,

2011) but a launch date of the 7th August had been set (Miller, 2011).

The research explored the use of guided-bus as an alternative to light rail prior to creating a

model to assess the various cost aspects and environmental performance in line with the

UK governmental Web-based Transport Analysis Guidance (WebTAG). The results of this

analysis appear to support the development of a highly-specified bus-system approaching

equivalence to light rail. The development of the discussions in support of this and

addressing the research questions are concluded in this chapter.

9.1 The Case for Public Transport Systems

In the first instance it was necessary to confirm that there was an issue that required

resolution in the first instance. In chapter 1, UK transport policy was reviewed in context

of current issues and how the central government has addressed the ‘transport problem’ of

congestion. Chapter 2 initially considered the potential solutions to the transport

congestion problem by reviewing current light rail and bus-based systems in the UK and

worldwide.

9.1.1 The impact of transport

The volume of personal travel has been rising significantly since the 1950s, from

4,300km/year in 1951 to 13,000km/year per capita in 2001. The use of private cars has

been the predominant growth area (see Figure 1-1) and the high volume of vehicles on UK

roads in towns and cities has resulted in issues of high levels of traffic and congestion.

382
Chapter 9 Conclusion

The emissions from transport are a significant contributor to UK greenhouse gas levels. In

2007, nearly a quarter of UK CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) emissions were from transport, of

which nearly 60% of the transport emissions were due to passenger cars (Figure 1-2 and 1-

3). The transport contribution to CO2 emissions has grown by half in the period from 1990

to 2002 whilst overall UK emissions have dropped by 10%. NOx (Nitrogen Oxide) and

PM10 (Particulate Matter) emissions from transport are significant and addressing the

current levels is aligned with increasingly stringent European Union (EU) emissions

standards. Congestion on UK roads has the effect of exacerbating emission levels. The

UITP (International Association of Public Transport) reported an increase of 60% of traffic

on urban roads from 2005 to 2025 at their congress in April 2011, unless measures are

taken to stabilise car use and increase public transport use (Anon., 2011).

In order to sustain economic growth, it is necessary to have resilient transport links

(Eddington, 2006) and whilst good links can improve economic prosperity, the converse is

true. Where there are issues of congestion, this can negatively impact the economic well-

being of the UK. The cost of congestion to the UK was forecast to be £30bn in 2010

(Goodwin, 2004).

The social impacts of increased traffic levels have been considered briefly and with greater

numbers of vehicles there are greater opportunities to suffer injury and potentially death

with just under 231,000 road casualties in 2008 (DfT, 2008a) – equivalent to 633 per day.

Behaviours and lifestyles can be subtly but adversely affected with reduced mobility

independence leading to a lessening in social interaction and associated support networks

and health links. Hawken et al (1999) bemoaned congestion smothering mobility which in

turn “corrodes communities”.

383
Chapter 9 Conclusion

As part of addressing the above issues, UK transport policy in the late 1990s had a focus

on the provision of public transit systems, in particular light rail, and in Transport 2010:

The Ten Year Plan published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the

Regions, it was envisaged that twenty-five new rapid transit lines were to be built (DETR,

2000b). By 2004 The Department for Transport in ‘The Future of Transport: A Network

for 2030’ proposed light rail schemes had reduced to five (DfT, 2004a) and by 2005, light

rail was off the agenda completely. Eddington (2006) refuted the need for ‘grand projets’

arguing that the investment associated with large-scale schemes would be better employed

in smaller, targeted infrastructure projects.

The use of light rail has been taken out of UK transport policy as a viable means to

alleviate congestion and an alternative needs to be identified. In “A New Deal for

Transport: Better for Everyone” (DETR, 1998), buses were specifically not seen as a

solution, “people will not switch from the comfort of their cars to buses that are old, dirty,

unreliable and slow”. In other words a public transit system needs to be modern, clean,

reliable and fast to generate modal transfer.

The research project sought to identify a credible alternative to light rail that could possibly

facilitate modal shift.

9.1.2 Current light rail and bus-based transit systems

The development of light rail in the UK has all but ceased. Once, or possibly if, the

Edinburgh scheme is completed, there will be no further new-build schemes forthcoming.

However, with a proven performance, there are proposed extensions to existing light rail

systems in Manchester, Nottingham and Birmingham. The Nottingham tram system was

the most recently completed, after some minor delays but little evidence of a significant

384
Chapter 9 Conclusion

cost overrun, in early 2004. The financing model applied to the Nottingham system

appears to have worked remarkably well. The combination of good construction risk

management, limits on the exposure to revenue risk and operational performance risk

management ensured that both costs and revenues were closely controlled.

The extensions are being part-funded with the use of a novel UK taxation scheme.

Nottingham City Council is to introduce a Workplace Parking Levy (WPL) from 2012 to

assist finance the development of further tram lines (Fowler, 2010).

The barriers to developing light rail systems do not appear to be based upon a single issue.

There are issues of high capital investment and a lack in funding mechanisms to support

the financing and also the long planning timescales do little to encourage implementation.

There were a number of UK schemes proposed in the early 2000s in Liverpool, South

Hampshire and Leeds that in particular suffered from cost escalation and an apparent lack

of funding - and more importantly the means by which to secure more funding. These three

systems were subject to planning submission but were all cancelled prior to breaking

ground. Mourant (2011) discusses the successes of the Sheffield Supertram, seemingly

making the case for expansion, yet only refers to the DfT as a source of finance, and

without this the relatively meagre sum of £14m will not be obtained for four new trams.

There is no mention of an alternative source of funding other than central government. A

congestion charge was proposed in Manchester to fund the Local Transport Plan, including

light rail extensions, but this was firmly rejected under public referendum (see section 2.2).

So even with local and national governmental drive, the funding alternatives can still be

vetoed when put to the public approval. In consequence, Nottingham is very much the UK

exception in seeking an alternative funding source with WPL.

385
Chapter 9 Conclusion

Bus-based systems in the UK have fared a little better, but have had some notable

successes in Crawley and the Thames gateway, although the latter uses conventional

diesel-engine buses without any form of guidance. The use of a kerb-guided-bus in what is

the largest guided-bus system after significant and costly delays is complete in Cambridge.

It appears that even using conventional technologies does not prohibit issues of

implementation delays and cost escalation.

Away from guided-systems or busways, Transport for London (TfL) has recently

introduced a fuel-cell bus on one route in London (Blunden, 2010) having first experienced

their use in the CUTE (Cleaner Urban Transport for Europe) initiative in 2003 (European

Commission, 2004).

Figure 9-1 TfL Fuel Cell bus in service in London (Source: Hodgson, 2011)

Hall (2011) considers the French ‘triumvirate’ of political opportunity, the evaluation

criteria and a key alternative funding mechanism as the reasons behind the continued

development of light rail systems in France. The UK is lacking in all of these areas

compared to the French model. The issue of evaluation has begun to be questioned

however, Atter (2010) queries whether the ‘right questions’ are being asked in transport

386
Chapter 9 Conclusion

appraisals. This view is based upon a Network Rail paper, ‘Prioritising investment to

support our economy – a new approach to appraisal methodology’ and this considers wider

issues of regeneration and housing to assess the impact in fiscal terms and those with a

social dimension (Network Rail, 2010). However, although a change to a better financing

and evaluation system in the UK is an issue that has emerged in the course of this project,

for the purposes of the design of this study, the institutional context was taken as given.

The development of the test case in this project has not sought to alter the institutional

regime, and the use of WebTAG as the appraisal process for the project, in-part,

underwrites the evaluation methodology. However, as argued in chapter 4, the use of

WebTAG is necessary because the output of the model needs to be presented in form as

near as possible to that in use in the UK to provide a common basis for comparison

between the bus-based and light rail systems that is accepted in the public-domain.

To reinforce the message from the transport policy review, as evidenced by the problems

in Liverpool, Leeds and others, light rail proposals were dropped from Local Transport

Plans for the following reasons cited by the National Audit Office (NAO, 2004):

• Too costly when compared to buses

• Existing schemes financial performance is poor

• Local funding is necessary in addition to central government funding but is difficult

to obtain

• The planning timescales are excessive

This discussion confirms the need to find a public transit solution alternative to light rail;

there are development and institutional constraints that can potentially affect bus-based

schemes as well as the more-costly light rail systems.

387
Chapter 9 Conclusion

9.1.3 Bus-based transit as an alternative to light rail

Whilst the UK struggles to implement conventional technology systems in Edinburgh and

Cambridge, innovations have been developing overseas for both light rail and bus-based

systems. The developments have often focussed on power supply systems and are in many

cases taking an existing concept to a new technological level.

In the case of bus vehicle fuel and energy storage alternatives, this includes application of

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG), Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), battery power

capability, fuel cells and biodiesel technologies. Combinations of fuel sources are also

being used in hybrid vehicles. An important area that buses can be developed outside of

power supplies is concerned with the guidance technology. In place of the well-established

kerb-guidance technology, the Civis series of vehicles uses white-line guidance, for

example, with the system in Bologna using electric overhead power also. The rubber-tyre

equipped Translohr vehicle uses a central guiding-rail located in the road surface can

operate on the overhead power supply or battery-packs where overhead wires are not

permitted, see Figure 3-12. The Phileas vehicle in Eindhoven used GPS positioning and

magnetic guidance.

Light rail vehicles have been developed to use power sources that are not based on

overhead lines. A number of systems have been developed to use switched road-based

power via a collector shoe and also a contactless systems involving magnetic power

transference. The collector shoe system has been used where overhead power lines would

not be permitted for reasons of blight, for example, in certain architecturally-sensitive areas

of Bordeaux.

388
Chapter 9 Conclusion

In conjunction with power and guidance improvements, buses have also been improving

their internal and external styling. The changes have been made in an attempt to make the

buses appear more tram-like, with different ‘communal’ seating arrangements, bright and

airy passenger space with large windows, covered wheels, articulation, high profile

branding and decals. It is also critical that the infrastructure is developed to complement

the vehicle improvements, to ensure that the vehicle interacts with the infrastructure to

provide a reliable and fast service.

The issue that emanates from this discussion is that, as buses move toward light rail

characteristics, the boundaries between the systems become blurred and it becomes

difficult to determine what ‘is a bus’ and what ‘is a tram’. Chapter 3 considered this

definitional argument as the research question was seeking to model alternatives to light

rail and hence it was necessary to determine what constituted an equivalent alternative. The

current definitions appeared to be inconsistent with BRT (bus rapid transit), LRT (light

rapid or light rail transit) seemingly interchangeable terms and ‘light rail’ being used on all

rail systems that were not ‘heavy rail’, but could otherwise be considered ‘metro’ systems.

A decision tree was developed for the purposes of the research that proposed equivalent

modes to light rail. This was used to provide the typology illustrated in Figure 9-2. This

decomposed the generic LRT (light rapid transit) mode into 4 key groups where trolley-bus

and guided-bus could be considered as BRT. A more detailed review of the proposed

typology is provided in section 3.11.3.

389
Chapter 9 Conclusion

Figure 9-2 Light Rapid Transit Typology with System Examples

Tram Train (OLE) Karlsruhe (Vuchic, 1999)


Tram Train (Hybrid) Kassel (Heuer, 2005)
Tram Train Tram Train (non-OLE) River Line, Camdon-Trenton (Taplin, 2004)

Light Rail (OLE) Metrolink, Manchester (Taplin, 1995)


Light Rail Light Rail (Hybrid) Bordeaux (Veolia, 2006)
LRT Light Rail (non-OLE) Sapporo (Phraner, Roberts, 1999)

Light Rapid
Tram Tyre TVR, Nancy (Hass-Klau, 2003)
Transit Trolley-bus Szeged, Hungary (NDA, 2007)
BRT Trolley-bus Hybrid Guided Trolley-bus Parma (Eurotransport, 2011)
Hybrid Trolley-bus King County, Seattle (King County, 2007)

Guided-bus Guideway Guided-bus O-Bahn, Adelaide (Hass-Klau, 2003)


Non-mechanical Guided-bus Phileas, Eindhoven (Hodgson, 2007)
Kerb Guided-bus Leeds (Leeds City Council, 2006)

Sub-Mode
Mode Sub-Mode
Example System

The LRT systems were considered to be equivalent to light rail, so included a ‘step-up’

from tram to tram-train as well as the ‘step-down’ to the various forms of bus-based

system.

The key to determining vehicle equivalence was the satisfaction of three criteria or tests,

where the vehicle type can define the need for the infrastructure to be provided:

• The vehicle capacity must be sufficient to provide similar capacities to light rail (in

conjunction with the infrastructure provision). Vehicle capacity is notionally

between 100 and 300.

• The vehicle must have the capability to run on-street to penetrate urban centres but

also operate with segregated sections to ensure congestion-free running to improve

reliability and speed.

• The vehicle needs to have some capability for non-discretionary guidance as this

enforces traffic management measures which will enable prioritised running and a

sufficiently enforceable segregation of routes where needed.

390
Chapter 9 Conclusion

Outside of research-project needs, the lack of definitional clarity also has wider

implications in the UK for safety and competition regulation where systems can be

inappropriately subjected to safety requirements for higher-specification systems or subject

to competition constraints to accord with open-access (bus service) arrangements in the

UK. When comparing a bus alternative to light rail in Leeds, Atkins (2005) concluded that

unlike the light rail proposal, a bus service would necessarily share any bus-lane priority

with other services and operators under open-access arrangements.

The conclusion at this stage was that it would be possible to provide a bus-type vehicle, for

example the New Flyer DE60LF and Phileas, that in conjunction with appropriate

infrastructure could deliver equivalent performance to light rail. The research sought to

assess the cost and environmental performance of the two systems.

9.1.4 Research method

In order to inform the debate on the relative benefits of bus or light rail systems it is

necessary to assess and compare the relative benefits and aspects of each system. This can

be done at a generic system level or in application of the various systems. Where system

applications have been compared these can consider numerous aspects of the system

characteristics including cost, operating speed, energy use, ridership and trip-lengths.

Transit mode comparison is undertaken for two general reasons – for planned systems

using forecast data or implemented systems (Stanger, 2006). However, by definition,

where these comparisons are between built systems the assessment cannot be like-for-like

and normalisation, where it would be potentially possible, is not evident. In the case of

planned systems, the comparison can be skewed if the specification for each transit mode

does not seek equivalence, i.e. if the bus-based solution is seen as the economically more-

391
Chapter 9 Conclusion

efficient option then potentially the infrastructure and vehicle specification will be reduced.

This does not provide an appropriate basis for comparison in terms of this research project.

The means to achieve a meaningful comparison required the development of a ‘planned’

system but maintain the specification for the transit modes to be as similar as necessary to

deliver equivalent performance. The areas of interest were the cost and environmental

performance which would be best supported by quantitative analysis.

The framework identified for use in the model was the UK government transport appraisal

scheme called WebTAG. This befitted the study as quantitative means were used and this

is the standard assessment tool used in the UK so it should present output data in a form

known to the various transit system promoters and others.

A top-down model was developed that provided a structure for developing the costs and

emissions associated with the construction and operation of the proposed system. The ‘nuts

and bolts’ of the system were specified which supported the development of vehicles and

infrastructure to meet equivalent performance for the transit modes.

9.2 Conclusions to be drawn from the Assessment

9.2.1 Capital expenditure - CAPEX

The key point is that the cost for a guided-bus system that is equivalent to light rail incurs

approximately two-thirds of the light rail implementation cost. The specification for the

guided-bus system cannot be considered the ‘do-minimum’ case as the infrastructure

requirements are necessarily extensive and complex to meet the equivalence targets.

392
Chapter 9 Conclusion

The significant cost difference between light rail and bus-based system is in the

infrastructure needed for power and guidance; the overhead power system, power supplies

and track.

The light rail vehicle CAPEX is also significantly higher per vehicle, but this is reduced as

fewer trams are required to provide the equivalent system capacity. The vehicle fleet cost

difference between light rail and the relatively expensive Phileas is reduced to £7.7m

whereas the DE60LF fleet cost is £26m less than light rail.

Overall it is concluded that the delivery of a light rapid transit scheme that has equivalent

performance of a light rail scheme, is possible with guided-bus at about two-thirds the cost.

9.2.2 Operational expenditure - OPEX

There is little difference between the overall cost for maintaining and operating the two

systems. The analysis undertaken for the Reading Urban Network (RUN) system has

indicated that overall there is a difference in the cost per annum but this is about £0.3m in a

range between the two systems of £10.7m for light rail and £11.0m for guided-bus. The

light rail vehicles should be more cost-effective to maintain with fewer vehicles and these

should be simpler to maintain, but the more complex infrastructure with track and power

supply systems offsets this cost. So even though more guided-buses are required, the

overall costs are comparable and the guided-bus can be considered equivalent.

9.2.3 Environmental expenditure - ENVEX

The issue of mitigating the construction and operation environmental effects of the system

are wholly based upon the construction (cost) of the system. Hence, it can be argued that

the guided-bus is at least equivalent to the light rail system.

393
Chapter 9 Conclusion

9.2.4 Environmental emissions - ENVEM

The transit system emissions provide an interesting case where guided-bus can be

demonstrated to be equitable to light rail (for CO2), greater than light rail (for NOx) or

demonstrably less than light rail (for PM10).

Overall, a modern technology bus can achieve equivalence to light rail emissions when

comparing centrally generated electricity power station smoke-stack emissions for light

rail. In the case of CO2 this is supported where bus services can be tailored to meet

presumed capacity demand. PM10 emissions are less for bus than light rail, but NOX is

greater for the bus compared to light rail.

9.2.5 Vehicle costs and CO2 emissions

There has been a discussion about vehicle CO2 emissions and how there is an effective

break-even point as vehicle emissions are less for an individual bus, but there is a need for

a greater number of bus services to achieve light rail capacity levels. Overall fleet

emissions are greater for the bus application in Reading. There is the opportunity to

consider what measures could improve the cost and environmental performance of the bus

and light rail vehicles.

The matrix illustrated in Figure 9-3 shows the relative positions of the vehicle costs per

passenger space and vehicle emissions per passenger space.

394
Chapter 9 Conclusion

Figure 9-3 Improving cost and environmental performance of bus and light rail

Cost/Vehicle Space
Emissions/Vehicle Space

£ DE60LF Cost

DE60LF CO2
CO2
High Increase vehicle capacity for given emissions Emissions
CO2 CO2 £

£ Phileas Cost
Reduce bus vehicle
emissions for given
Reduce light rail
capacity
vehicle cost Phileas CO2
CO2
Emissions

£ Light Rail
£ Cost

Reduce Phileas vehicle cost


for given capacity Light Rail CO2
CO2
Emissions
CO 2
Low

Direction of cost/
Increase DE60LF capacity for given cost Reduce light rail
£ emission performance
emissions further improvement

Low High Vehicle


Capacity

In Figure 9-3 the shaded circles show the costs and the outline circles illustrate emissions.

So the blue outline circle in the top left quadrant shows that the DE60LF bus has the

lowest capacity (x axis) and relatively the highest CO2 emissions per passenger space. The

shaded blue circle is in the same position on the x axis as the blue-outline circle (same

vehicle capacity) but has the lowest cost per passenger space, and so is mapped in the

lower left quadrant. The ‘target’ should be to get the costs and emission circles in the

bottom right-hand quadrant, i.e. high capacity, low cost and low emissions per passenger

space.

Taking each in turn, the opportunities that exist to move to a more optimal position are:

• Light rail (red) – reduce in cost/space and reduce emissions e.g. by cleaner

electricity generation or on-board power efficiency improvements.

395
Chapter 9 Conclusion

• DE60LF (blue) – improve emissions performance by increasing the capacity for the

same emissions, or maintain capacity and reduce emissions. As the cheapest

vehicle, the improvement will increase capacity for the same (entry-level) cost.

• Phileas (green) – unlike the DE60LF cost reductions could be sought along with

improvements to capacity. The emissions reduction may need an incremental

approach by improving emissions/space or increasing the space/emissions seems

most feasible.

The bus-based system and light rail cost and emissions are comparable when considering

the performance per passenger space.

9.3 The Need for Equivalence

Chapter 1 considered that “old, dirty, unreliable and slow” buses would not achieve modal

transfer from private cars (DETR, 1998); the implication being that modern, clean, reliable

and fast vehicles (trams) could.

Much of the concept of the tram of being modern and clean is due partly to appearance,

branding and maintenance. Buses are now looking more like trams, are quieter and have

lower emissions. Route specific vehicles with recognisable service decals and modern

features at prominent stops and park and ride locations bring a greater identity to the

system. These aspects are a default provision for light rail and can be adopted for an

equivalent bus-based system.

The concept of reliability is that a service will arrive on-time, depart on time and maintain

a quick and direct link to the heart of the urban centre. To achieve this, the infrastructure

must be aligned to allow prioritised, and where necessary, segregated running. Routing

must be balanced with on-street capability to penetrate into the social and commercial

396
Chapter 9 Conclusion

centres of the conurbation. Again, this is specified for light rail and the provision must

extend to the same for bus-based systems. These requirements when met will enable a

regular, frequent, fast and reliable service.

The markets served by the system must reach out to accessible origins, either by a network

of lines, feeder bus-routes or park and ride schemes. The destinations must be accessible

for ‘social’ and ‘professional’ commuters.

9.3.1 Equivalence tests in application

The three tests devised for ascertaining equivalence to light rail were that an individual

vehicle should have a capacity of between 100 and 300; that the system has a capability for

non-discretionary guidance and the vehicles need to be able to operate ‘on-street’. These

tests were used to define light rail equivalent vehicles and systems. Table 9-1 summarises

how these tests, or characteristics, were applied to the case study in Reading.

Table 9-1 Equivalence characteristics applied on the RUN scheme for the bus-based
system

Pre-requisite Conventional bus


RUN Bus System
Test/ minimum scheme non-
Provision for
Characteristic requirement for equivalent
Equivalence
equivalence provision
Capacity of >100/
Vehicles have to have Similar frequency
vehicle to ensure
Vehicle sufficient capacity to services, with
headway is workable
Capacity provide realistic potentially lower
for equivalent service
headway capacity
capacity
To create permanence
Bus vehicle will have and identity kerb- Conventional bus-
Non-
guidance fitted, guidance is minimum based systems
discretionary
preferred to be non- but system needs have no guidance
guidance
mechanical other complementary systems
measures

On-street running A mix of on-street Exclusive on-


On-street
specified with some and segregated street running is
capability
segregated running running the norm

397
Chapter 9 Conclusion

Table 9-1 confirms that the tests have been applied to RUN and at this level of analysis

consider the proposed bus-based system equivalent to the light rail system.

9.3.2 Equivalence complementary measures

In addition to the three core tests, there are a number of aspects of the system that will

enable a clean, modern, reliable and fast service that can achieve modal transfer. These can

be considered as ‘complementary measures’, these are concluded here.

The issue of permanence and identity is addressed by the built fabric of the RUN system.

Segregated running is specified for the bus-based system, as with light rail where

appropriate to provide congestion free running on the arterial routes in to the town centre,

i.e. along the A4 east and west and south to the M4 Park and Ride. The town-centre would

also have segregated running which would be reinforced on all routes with prioritised

signalling at road junctions. The signals would be specific to the RUN system routes where

appropriate to guarantee service levels on what is quite an intensive timetable. It is

proposed that the entire route be repaved and provision made for guided sections to

increase the level of identity and reaffirm the permanence of the system. There would be

no reliance on simple painted bus-lane. The objective would be to obtain a conscious level

of recognition of the bus-system to all road users similar to tram lines embedded in the

street. The RUN system was deliberately specified with an elevated, segregated section,

much as Eindhoven, to make the example of the guided-bus having the same specification

as light rail, even on the most significant structural civil engineering elements of the

construction.

The RUN system stops would also be distinctive and would not appear as a low grade bus

shelter on the side of the road. Allowance has been made, again in the specification, for

398
Chapter 9 Conclusion

tram-like features, including ticket machines, help points, real-time running information,

safety and security measures, lighting, signage and complementary environmental

provisions. Figure 9-4 illustrates a stop on the Phileas bus-system in Eindhoven alongside a

stop on the Nottingham Tram system. Note the key features that make these distinctive

compared to a typical bus shelter.

Figure 9-4 Left: Phileas Stop in Eindhoven (Source: Hodgson, 2006)

Right: Nottingham Tram Stop (Source: Courtenay, 2006)

An associated benefit to the implementation of the guided-bus scheme as specified for

RUN is that there can be passive provision or safe-guarding for future development of the

system to the next stage in the light rapid transit technology-complexity curve. As

described in section 8.3 (Figure 8-2) the opportunity exists to develop the guided-bus

infrastructure into trolley-bus, non-electrified light rail or conventional light rail pending

the development of a robust business case.

The vehicles display further obvious key elements of the system that have been made to

feel like a tram. Figure 9-5 illustrates the internal view of the Phileas bus as used in

Eindhoven. The Phileas-bus is open, airy and being articulated appears long and sleek.

First-hand experience of travelling on the Phileas vehicle in Eindhoven gave a tram-like

feel with quick and quiet acceleration and close running to the stops with step free access.

399
Chapter 9 Conclusion

As has been noted there is a premium to pay for a high-specification, high-technology bus,

but this can be very cost-effective compared to a conventional light rail vehicle.

Figure 9-5 Left: Phileas bus internal view (Source: APTS, 2006)

Right: Nottingham Tram Internal view (Source: Hodgson, 2004)

So, there is a requirement for key aspects of system design and specification to assure

equivalence between bus and light rail and there are also complementary measures that

should be delivered to reinforce the image of a bus-based system.

9.4 Concluding Summary

From the above discussion it appears that a bus-based alternative to light rail could

potentially be pursued to provide a public transport solution in the UK. Any bus-based

solution will need to have equivalent performance to light rail if it is to match the modal

transfer achieved by light rail. There are examples in both light rail and bus-based systems

outside of the UK of improving technologies. Where buses are attempting to imitate trams

there has been a blurring of mode definitions but clarification has been provided to this

issue through this work that has assisted the determination of equivalent modes to light

rail.

400
Chapter 9 Conclusion

Whilst the evaluation methods have begun to be questioned, for the purposes of this study

the existing UK appraisal method (WebTAG) has been used as a means to assess a

proposed transit system in Reading. The resultant analysis of the bus-based and light rail

systems has identified that an equivalent specification bus-based system can be achieved

for two-thirds of the cost of light rail. The environmental performance is similar for CO2

with some potential to fine-tune the bus service pattern to still meet demand but be able to

reduce overall emissions. The per vehicle costs and emissions are not the same for buses

and trams and some basic analysis has identified what needs to be done to close the gap

and reduce light rail costs and reduce bus emissions per passenger space.

The need for equivalence has been discussed and what can be done to achieve light rail

performance from a bus-based system in terms of the system appearance, service reliability

and speed and also to drive modal transfer by accessing the right ‘markets’.

9.5 Contribution to Knowledge

In completing this study there have been a number of opportunities to contribute to

knowledge in the general field of public transport system development.

The use of a decision tree provided a means to clarify the definitions associated with light

rapid transit which made the identification of light rail equivalent modes possible. The

output of the definitional analysis was a typology for modes and sub-modes in the general

classification of light rapid transit. The use of the equivalence model as the output of the

definitional analysis provided the basis of the development of the case study application.

The application of the decision tree was the subject of a paper published in an international

journal (Hodgson and Potter, 2010)aa.

aa
The development of the decision tree and typology presented in the Transport Planning and Technology
(Volume 33, Number 4, June 2010) was considered by the reviewers as a “fascinating and interesting
contribution to the topic and of significant interest to an international readership”.

401
Chapter 9 Conclusion

The development of the model which was subsequently populated with the system data

was based upon data from a variety of sources which were validated to ensure the model

was robust. Within this model there were areas of data that had to be collected from

disparate sources, for example, with the emissions data presented with the cost data that

had not been previously collated. The use of a case-study location where the same route

was specified for light rail and bus to the same standard, to drive equivalent provision and

performance, is not known to have been developed previously and the generation of a cost

ratio of bus to light rail has not previously been presented.

The results from the model demonstrated that the bus and light rail vehicle emissions are

surprisingly and perhaps remarkably close; however, it would be worthwhile to consider

further lifecycle emissions as a development from this study. The financial costs for

equivalent bus-based and light rail systems appear closer than ‘conventional wisdom’

suggests where the norm is to specify a lesser quality system for buses. To achieve the

transport goals of reducing congestion there is a need to have closer equivalence between

the bus and light rail systems which mean a relatively higher bus system cost.

The institutional problems have been briefly considered in terms financial and funding

constraints, evaluation methods and political fortitude. Whilst these issues have not been

part of the main project, they have been identified as important issues that should be

addressed as part of further work.

The visit to Eindhoven introduced the concept of incremental system development. There

were certain aspects of the infrastructure that appeared over-specified for a bus-system

(which does support the notion of equivalence to light rail). This highlights the staged

approach possible through bus-based systems, but also the importance of making passive

or active provision for future enhancements to transit systems. The Eindhoven design

402
Chapter 9 Conclusion

might be contrasted with Cambridge where there has been no apparent consideration given

in the design to the possibility of upgrading beyond guided bus. The design and costs

involved in such staging is a subject for further research, this does appear to be a relatively

new concept

9.6 Further Research Opportunities

This project has informed the debate on the provision of public transport in the UK and

how bus-based systems could be used in place of light rail (or as an intermediate stage

towards light rail). There are some areas in the study that could be developed in more

detail in themes that have been considered in this study. Such areas are provided below, in

no particular order of priority, as follows:

Passenger experience and equivalence – a visit was undertaken to the Phileas system in

Eindhoven in 2006 and this did consider some aspects of the vehicle and infrastructure and

how this compared to a light rail system. A more systematic review of the user perspective

and the constituent parts of equivalence would be worthwhile. The dimensions of ‘clean,

modern, reliable and fast’ and how these relate to the core tests for equivalence and the

‘complementary measures’ that were concluded in section 9.3.2 could provide a starting-

point to understanding passenger experience-based equivalence.

Emissions analysis – the model output identified that the ‘per vehicle’ emissions are less

for the bus compared to light rail, but because of the lower capacity, the per passenger

space emissions of the bus are higher. There is an opportunity to look at how cleaner

technologies could be modelled to demonstrate a stronger environmental case for a bus-

based system. Also, this work has looked at vehicle operational emissions as the basis of

comparison, but could be extended to a complete lifecycle assessment of emissions.

403
Chapter 9 Conclusion

The future emergence of bus-based (guided) systems – possibly in conjunction with the

emissions work, it may be of value to test the viability of developing new-technology bus-

systems in the UK. There are no such schemes being implemented in the UK where the

Cambridge guided-bus relies on mechanical kerb-guidance.

Challenging the institutional regime – the lack of alternative funding mechanisms is clear

in the UK compared to, say, France. However, the transport scheme appraisal methods

have also begun to be questioned, by Network Rail for example. These two issues have the

potential to stifle development of transport schemes in the UK and lessons can be learned

from Europe and possibly the US.

Incremental development of transit systems – the visit to Eindhoven noted that there were

certain aspects of the system that appeared to be highly specified that could potentially

provide a basis for upgrade to a light rail system. This ‘phased upgrading’ of systems

would allow for costs to be spread over a number of years with a provision on a passenger-

number based business-case. This would reduce risk, but the double-impact of the

construction works would need to be considered in the overall assessment of the potential

advantages to phasing the delivery and the effects on the cost and environmental

performance.

Decision support tool – during earlier stages of the model development, some thought was

given to using the model as a decision support tool for outline assessment of public

transport schemes. The intention being that the ‘per-unit’ model data could be factored to

provide an output detailing the CAPEX, OPEX, ENVEX and ENVEM in the form of the

modified AST. This would require a ‘front-end’ data-entry interface with some in-built

logic that would ensure that the data being provided was credible. This would allow for

some ‘fine-tuning’ on infrastructure and service provision which could then be used in

analysis to validate the different options.

404
References

References

Allison (2008a) GM-Allison Hybrid Drive selected for METROBUS in Istanbul. Press
Release 22 May 2008

Allison (2008b) GM-Allison Hybrid EP50 System articulated bus [online] Available at:
<http://www.transdiesel.com.au/images/products/pdf/HybridEp50%20Articulated%20bus.
pdf> [Accessed 05 June 2011]

Anderson, D. (2010) Edinburgh Tram - MUDFA Update. Edinburgh: City of Edinburgh


Council

Anon. (2003a) Merseytram displaces Bristol in LRT funding queue. Rail Business
Intelligence. Issue 189, pp2

Anon. (2003b) ‘Historic day’ for Leeds Supertram. Tramways & Urban Transit. Vol.66,
No.785, pp164

Anon. (2003c) We’re not beaten by spiralling cost: South Hants backers seek extra cash.
Tramways & Urban Transit. Vol.66, No.788, pp284-285

Anon. (2004a) Leeds light rail in jeopardy as Darling asks for ways to cut scheme costs.
Local Transport Today, Issue 385, pp3.

Anon. (2004b) Leeds: They may have to start from scratch. Tramways & Urban Transit.
Vol.67, No.801, pp324

Anon. (2004c) Bristol scraps Supertram to limit council tax rises. Transit, No.229, pp1

Anon. (2004d) Edinburgh land sale to buy trams. Tramways & Urban Transit. Vol.67,
No.800, pp285

Anon. (2004d) Darling launches light rail NET [online] Available at: <http://www.
railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/darling-launches-light-rail-net.html> [Accessed
08 May 2008]

Anon. (2005a) Liverpool dumps builder. Tramways & Urban Transit. Vol.68, No.808,
pp124

405
References

Anon. (2005b) Can Merseytram pull back from the brink? Tramways & Urban Transit.
Vol.68, No.813, pp340

Anon. (2005c) Last-minute scramble to scrape together Mersey tram money Tramways &
Urban Transit. Vol.68, No.815, pp428-429

Anon. (2005d) £39m gone, but no news could be Leeds killer blow. Tramways & Urban
Transit. Vol.68, No.813, pp342

Anon. (2005e) Inquiry over... Cambridge guided bus decision next. Tramways & Urban
Transit. Vol.68, No.806, pp45

Anon. (2006a) Bitter blow over plan for Supertram The Sheffield Star [online] 7 July 2006
Available at: <http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/Bitter-blow-over-plan-for. 1614642.jp>
[Accessed 19 June 2011]

Anon. (2006b) Tram schemes for Portsmouth and Liverpool dropped. Rail Professional.
Issue 106, pp8

Anon. (2007a) Minister launches Cambridge guided busway construction. Tramways &
Urban Transit. Vol.70, No.833, pp166

Anon. (2007b) £116.2m for busway. Tramways & Urban Transit. Vol.70, No.839, pp416

Anon. (2007c) ‘Don’t bother us with weak schemes’ says DfT. Tramways & Urban
Transit. Vol.70, No.839, pp416

Anon. (2009a) Campaigners: ‘Exaggerated rail costs led to guided bus scheme’. Rail
Professional. Issue 149, pp12

Anon. (2009b) French government announces massive investment in light rail and metro.
International Rail Journal. Vol.49, Issue 6, pp10

Anon. (2009c) Bombardier and CAF unveil catenary-free LRVs. International Rail Journal
Vol.49, Issue 3, pp15

Anon. (2010a) Leeds: Public to get say on A65 road congestion. Yorkshire Evening Post
[online] 16 March 2010. Available at <http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/
news/Leeds-Public-to-get-say.6154684.jp> [Accessed 18 December 2010]

406
References

Anon. (2010b) DB takes over Tyne & Wear Metro [online] Available at:
<http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/10/db-takes-over-tyne-wear-
metro.html> [Accessed 19 June 2011]

Anon. (2011) UITP outlines vision for greener urban mobility. International Railway
Journal Vol.51 Issue 5, pp27

APTA (American Public Transportation Association) (2006) Public Transportation Fact


Book [pdf], Washington DC: APTA. Available at: < www.apta.com/research
/stats/factbook/documents/section_06_passengers_pages_11_to_14.pdf > [Accessed 19
April 2008]

APTS (Advanced Passenger Transport Systems) (2005a) Phileas, a new way of travelling.
Eindhoven: Samenwerkingsverband Regio Eindhoven

APTS (2005b) Tableau de mesures de valeurs sonores (dBa) intérieur sur le béton et
l'asphalte. Helmod, Netherlands: APTS

APTS (2006a) Technical specifications [online] Available at: <http://www.apts-


phileas.com/> [Accessed 19 December 2006]

APTS (2006b) Noise Measurements. Helmod, Netherlands: APTS

APTS (2008) Technical innovations applied in the Phileas [online] Available at:
<http://www.apts-phileas.com/> [Accessed 02 October 2008]

Atkins (2005) Study of High Quality Buses in Leeds. London: Atkins Ltd

Atter, L. (2010) Transport appraisal: are we asking the right questions? Transport Times
Issue 76, pp22-23

Audit Commission (2008) Public Interest Report on Merseytram. [pdf] London: Audit
Commission. Available at: < http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/Site
CollectionDocuments/PublicInterestReports/pir08merseytram.pdf> [Accessed 19 June
2011]

Audit Scotland (2011) Edinburgh trams Interim report. Edinburgh: Audit Scotland

407
References

Bae, C.C. (2004) Transportation and the Environment. In: Hanson, S. And Giuliano, G.
eds., (2004). The Geography of Urban Transportation. New York: The Guilford Press.
Ch.13.

Banister, D. (2002) Transport Planning: Second Edition London: Spon Press

Banister, D. and Button, K. (2003) Environmental Policy and Transport: An Overview. In:
Banister, D. and Button, K. eds., (2003). Transport, the environment and sustainable
development London: Spon Press

Barrow, K. (2009) Wireless Connections. International Rail Journal Vol.49, Issue 6, pp20-
21

Barry, M. (1991) Through the Cities: The Revolution in Light Rail. Dublin: Frankfort Press

BERR (Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform) (2008a) UK Energy
Sector Indicators 2008. London: BERR

BERR (2008b) UK Energy in Brief 2008. London: BERR

Black, J. (2004) What’s in store for UK light rail? Modern Railways. Vol.61, Issue 670,
pp57-60

Blunden, M. (2010) First zero-emission bus just the ticket to help air quality. London
Evening Standard 10 December 2010

Bombardier (2011) Metro - Paris, France, Technical Data [online] Available at:
<http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/rail-
vehicles/metros/paris--france?docID=0901260d8000f8f8#> [Accessed 02 June 2011]

Booz Allen Hamilton (2003) Modern Facilities at Stations (Station IOS). London: Office
of the Rail Regulator

Brader, C. (2005) High Quality Vehicles: is it what the public wants? In: Landor
Conference, Planning now for a future. Buses 2020: recreating passenger transport for a
changing world. London, 27 January 2005. London: Landor Conferences

Branden, T.V. (2000) Fair and efficient pricing in transport – the role of taxes and
charges. Birmingham: Oscar Faber

408
References

Brewer, G. (1996) Amec Building Ltd -v- Cadmus Investment Company Ltd, 5 June 1996
[online] Available at: <http://www.fticonsulting.co.uk/global/case-law/cj-9702-
37664.aspx> [Accessed 05 June 2011]

Brewer, G. (1998) City Axis Ltd -v- Daniel P Jackson, ORB 11 February 1998 [online]
Available at: <http://www.fticonsulting.co.uk/global/case-law/cj-9821-37649.aspx>
[Accessed 05 June 2011]

Briginshaw, D. (2002) British Light Rail: Plenty of plans in the pipeline. International Rail
Journal. Vol.42, Issue 11, pp44-48

Britpave (2011) Why Build Slab Track? [online] Available at: <http://www.britpave.
org.uk/RailWhyBuild.ink> [Accessed 03 June 2011]

BRTuk (2010) Handbook 2010. London: Local Transport Today

Bruce, A. (2009) Trolleybuses on order [online] Available at: <http://www.tbus.


org.uk/orders.htm> [Accessed 18 December 2009]

BS:EN50121 Railway applications – Electromagnetic compatibility. London: BSI

BS 6472-1:2008 Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings.


Vibration sources other than blasting. London: BSI

Buchanan, C. (1963) Traffic in Towns: A study of the long term problems of traffic in urban
areas. London: HMSO

Butcher, L. (2010) Roads: Workplace Parking Levy (WPL) [pdf] London: House of
Commons. Available at: <http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/
research/briefings/snbt-00628.pdf> [Accessed 19 June 2011]

Button, K. (2004) The rationale for road pricing: Standard theory and latest advances. In:
Santos. G. ed., 2004. Road pricing theory and evidence. Oxford: Elsevier. Ch.1.

Cambridgeshire CC (County Council) (2004) Transport and Works Application.


Cambridge: Cambridgeshire CC

Cambridgeshire CC (2004a) Environmental Statement. Cambridge: Cambridgeshire CC

409
References

Cambridgeshire CC (2004b) Transport and Works Application Estimate of Costs


(Enclosure 08). Cambridge: Cambridgeshire CC

Cambridge News (2010) MP calls for inquiry over guided bus 'fiasco'. [online] Available
at: <http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/MP-calls-for-inquiry-over-guided-bus-
fiasco.htm> [Accessed 19 June 2011]

Cambridge News (2011) Guided bus cost 'may hit £187m'. [online] Available at:
<http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Guided-bus-cost-may-hit-187m-
28042011.htm> [Accessed 19 June 2011]

Carbon Trust (2011) Resources - conversion factors [online] Available at:


<http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/cut-carbon-reduce-costs/calculate/carbon-
footprinting/pages/conversion-factors.aspx#‘kWh’ into ‘kg of carbon dioxide’> [Accessed
07 June 2011]

CAST.IRON (2011) The Cambridge And St. Ives Railway Organisation [online] Available
at: < http://www.castiron.org.uk/> [Accessed 23 May 2011]

Centro (2009) Integration [online] Available at: <http://www.centro.org.uk/metro


/metroservices.aspx> [Accessed 19 June 2011]

Chandler, K., and Walkowicz, K. (2006) King County Metro Transit Hybrid Articulated
Buses: Final Evaluation Results. Golden, Colorado: National Renewable Energy
Laboratory

CLG (Communities and Local Government) (2007) Table 563 Housing market: Average
valuations of residential building land with outline planning permission [online] Available
at: < http://www.communities.gov.uk/housing/housingresearch/housingstatistics/housing
statisticsby/housingmarket/livetables/> [Accessed 07 June 2011]

Considerate Constructors (2010) What is the CCS? [online] Available at: <
http://www.ccscheme.org.uk/index.php/ccs-ltd> [Accessed 12 December 2010]

Control of Pollution Act (1974) London: The National Archives

Council Directive 72/245/EEC of 20 June 1972 relating to the radio interference


(electromagnetic compatibility) of vehicles. Brussels: EEC

410
References

Cryer, P., (2001) The Research Student’s Guide to Success. Buckingham: Open University
Press

Cummins Power Generation (2002) Exhaust Emission Data Sheet 75GGHH. Columbus:
Cummins Power Generation

Dalton, A. (2009) Double trouble for tramworks as 30 miles of pipes and cables uncovered.
The Scotsman [online] Available at: <http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland/Double-
trouble-for-tramworks-as.5670132.jp> [Accessed 12 February 2010]

Dalzell, G. (2003). Is Operating Cost a Direct Measure of Inherent Safety? In: Process
Safety and Environmental Protection. Vol.81, Issue 6, pp414-417.

Daniels, L. (2005) Not a bus as we know it: the ftr project. In: Landor Conference,
Planning now for a future. Buses 2020: recreating passenger transport for a changing
world. London, 27 January 2005. London: Landor Conferences

Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) (2010) Emissions of Nitrogen
oxides: 1970-2010 [online] Available at: <http://archive.defra.gov.uk/
evidence/statistics/environment/airqual/aqemnox.htm> [Accessed: 22 May 2011]

DETR (Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions) (1998) A New Deal for
Transport: Better for Everyone [online] Available at: <http://webarchive.nationalarchives
.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/187604/A_new_deal_for_transport_be1.pdf>
[Accessed: 15 June 2008]

DETR (2000a) Transport: The Way Forward. Report of the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force
[online] Available at: <http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/environment/cvtf/
thewayforwardthefinalreporto3794> [Accessed: 15 June 2008]

DETR (2000b) Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan [online] Available at:
<http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/
whitepapers/previous/transporttenyearplan2000> [Accessed: 15 June 2008]

DETR (2001) Transport 2010: Meeting the local transport challenge [online] Available at:
<http://www.dft.gov.uk/print/pgr/regional/policy/transport2010/transport2010meetingthelo
cal3735> [Accessed: 15 June 2008]

411
References

DfT (2003a) (Department for Transport) TAG Unit 3.3.6, The Environment Capital
Approach [pdf] London: Dft Available at: <http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/
documents/expert/pdf/unit3.3.6.pdf> [Accessed 11 June 2011]

DfT (2003b) TAG Unit 3.3.9, The Heritage of Historic Resources Sub-objective, [pdf]
London:DfT Available at: <http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/
documents/expert/pdf/unit3.3.9.pdf> [Accessed 09 June 2011]

DfT (2003c) TAG Unit 3.3.11, The Water Environment Sub-Objective [pdf] London: Dft
Available at: <http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/pdf/unit 3.3.11.pdf>
[Accessed 11 June 2011]

DfT (2003d) TAG Unit 3.3.13, The Journey Ambience Sub-Objective [pdf] London: Dft
Available at: <http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/pdf/unit 3.3.13.pdf>
[Accessed 11 June 2011]

DfT (2004a) The Future of Transport: A Network for 2030 [pdf] Norwich: The Stationary
Office. Available at: <http://www.thepep.org/ClearingHouse/docfiles/The.Future.of.
Transport.pdf> [Accessed 20 June 2008]

DfT (2004b) TAG Unit 3.2, Appraisal [pdf], London: DfT. Available at: <http://www.dft.
gov.uk/webtag/documents/xpert/pdf/unit3.2.pdf> [Accessed 06 December 2006]

DfT (2004c) TAG Unit 3.3.8, The Townscape Sub-Objective [pdf] London: Dft Available
at: <http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/pdf/unit3.3.8.pdf> [Accessed 11 June
2011]

DfT (2004d) TAG Unit 3.3.7, The Landscape Sub-Objective [pdf] London: Dft Available
at: <http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/pdf/unit3.3.7.pdf> [Accessed 11 June
2011]

DfT (2004e) TAG Unit 3.3.10, The Biodiversity Sub-Objective [pdf] London: Dft Available
at: <http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/pdf/unit3.3.10.pdf> [Accessed 11
June 2011]

DfT (2005) TAG Unit 1.1, Introduction to Transport Analysis [pdf], London: DfT.
Available at: <http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/ documents/overview/pdf/unit1.1.pdf>
[Accessed 06 December 2006]

412
References

DfT (2006) Public Transport Statistics Bulletin GB: 2006 Edition. London: DfT

DfT (2007) Towards a Sustainable Transport System - Supporting Economic Growth in a


Low Carbon World [pdf] Norwich: The Stationary Office. Available at:
<http://www.thepep.org/ClearingHouse/docfiles/Towards.A.Sustainable.Transport.System.
pdf> [Accessed 04 February 2010]

DfT (2007) The NATA Refresh: Reviewing the New Approach to Appraisal [pdf] London:
DfT Available at: <http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/
consultations/archive/2008/consulnatarefresh/pdfnatarefresh.pdf> [Accessed 23 May 2011]

DfT (2008a) Road Casualties in Great Britain: Main Results: 2008 [online] Available at:
<http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesmr/
rcgbmainresults2008> [Accessed 19 December 2010]

DfT (2008b) Delivering a Sustainable Transport System [pdf] London: DfT. Available at:
<http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy
/transportstrategy/dasts/dastsreport.pdf> [Accessed 12 March 2010]

DfT (2009a) Transport Statistics Great Britain 2009 [pdf] Norwich: The Stationary Office.
Available at: <http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/221412/217792/4212241/
transportstatisticgreatbrit.pdf> [Accessed 12 March 2010]

DfT (2009b) Factsheets: UK Transport and Climate Change data [pdf] Norwich: The
Stationary Office. Available at: <http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/
datatablespublications/energyenvironment/latest/climatechangefactsheets.pdf> [Accessed
04 February 2010]

DfT (2009c) The Future of Urban Transport [online] Available at: <http://www.dft.gov.uk/
pgr/regional/policy/urbantransport/pdf/researchreport.pdf> [Accessed 10 March 2010]

DfT (2009d) TAG Unit 3.3.12, The Physical Fitness Sub-Objective [pdf] London: Dft
Available at: <http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/pdf/unit3.3.12.pdf>.
[Accessed 11 June 2011]

DfT (2009e) Analysis of Monetised Costs and Benefits [pdf] London: DfT Available at:
<http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/xls/unit3.5.1-analysis-of-monetised-
costs-and-benefits.xls> [Accessed 09 June 2011]

413
References

DfT (2009f) TAG Unit 3.5.7, The Reliability Sub-Objective [pdf] London: DfT Available
at: <http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/pdf/unit3.5.7.pdf> [Accessed 09
June 2011]

DfT (2010) Transport Spending Review Press Notice [online] Available at:
<http://nds.coi.gov.uk/clientmicrosite/Content/Detail.aspx?ClientId=202&NewsAreaId=2&
ReleaseID=416118&SubjectId=36> [Accessed 19 June 2011]

DfT (2011a) TAG Unit 3.3.3, The Local Air Quality Sub-objective [pdf] London: DfT
Available at: <http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/pdf/unit3.3.3.pdf>
[Accessed 09 June 2011]

DfT (2011b) TAG Unit 3.3.2, The Noise Sub-objective [pdf] London: DfT Available at:
<http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/pdf/unit3.3.2.pdf> [Accessed 09 June
2011]

DfT (2011c) TAG Unit 2.5, The Appraisal Process [pdf] London: Dft Available at:
<http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/project-manager/pdf/unit2.5.pdf>. [Accessed
11 June 2011]

DfT (2011d) TAG Unit 3.3.5, The Greenhouse Gases Sub-Objective [pdf] London: DfT
Available at: <http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/pdf/unit3.3.5.pdf>
[Accessed 09 June 2011]

DfT (2011e) TAG Unit 3.5.1, The Public Accounts Sub-Objective [pdf] London: DfT
Available at: <http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/pdf/unit3.5.1.pdf>
[Accessed 09 June 2011]

DfT (2011f) TAG Unit 3.5.2, The Transport Economic Efficiency Sub-Objectives [pdf]
London: DfT Available at: <http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert
/pdf/unit3.5.2.pdf> [Accessed 09 June 2011]

DieselNet (2007) Emission Standards » United States, Heavy-Duty Truck and Bus Engines
[online] Available at: <http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/hd.php> [Accessed 26
October 2009]

DieselNet (2009) Emission Standards [online] Available at: <http://www.dieselnet.com/


standards/eu/hd.php> [Accessed 26 October 2009]

414
References

Donohue, S. (2009) Counting transport plan's cost Manchester Evening News [online] 20
May 20 2009 Available at: <http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1116134
_counting_transport_plans_cost> [Accessed 19 June 2011]

DTREG (n.d.) Introduction to Decision Trees [online] Available at:


<http://www.dtreg.com/dtintro.htm> [Accessed 30-April 2011]

ECMT (European Conference of Ministers of Transport) (1999) ECMT Round Tables


Traffic Congestion in Europe Paris: Organisation for economic co-operation and
Development (OECD)

Eddington, R. (2006) The Eddington Transport Study The case for action: Sir Rod
Eddington’s advice to Government Norwich: HMSO

Edinburgh CC (City Council) (2011) Mediation restores tram momentum [online]


Available at: <http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/article/478/mediation_restores
_tram_momentum> [Accessed 19 June 2011]

EERE (US Department of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy) (2004) King County
Metro Transit [pdf] Washington D.C: EERE Available at: <http://www1.eere.energy.gov/
vehiclesandfuels/avta/pdfs/heavy/king_co_12-04.pdf> [Accessed 11 June 2011]

EIA (Energy Information Administration) (2010a) Electricity explained, data and statistics
[online] Available at: <http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity
_home#tab2> [Accessed 07 June 2011]

EIA (2010b) Electric Power Annual 2009 [online] Available at: <http://www.eia.gov/
cneaf/electricity/epa/epaxlfilees1.xls> [Accessed 07 June 2011]

Emhjellen, K., Emhjellen, M. and Osmundsen, P. (2002) Investment cost estimates and
investment decisions. In: Energy Policy. Vol.30, Issue 2, pp91-96.

Energy Saving Trust (2003) The Route to Cleaner Buses. A guide to operating cleaner, low
carbon buses. London: Energy Saving Trust

Enoch, M., Potter, S. and Ison, S. (2005) A Strategic approach to financing public transport
through property values. Public Money and Management. Vol.25, No.3, pp147–154.

Environmental Protection Act (1990) London: HMSO

415
References

European Commission (2004) ‘CUTE’ buses bring fuel cell-powered transport to London
[online] Available at: <http://ec.europa.eu/research/transport/news/article _743_en.html>
[Accessed: 10 February 2007]

Eurotransport (2011) T.E.P. Parma orders 9 innovative hybrid trolleybuses [online]


Available at: <http://www.eurotransportmagazine.com/news/industry-news/
environmentally-friendly-and-clean-t-e-p-parma-orders-9-innovative-hybrid-trolleybuses/>
[Accessed 11 June 2011]

Eyles, L. (2004) P4/A Proof of Evidence of Leo Eyles, Forecasting and Appraisal.
Liverpool: Merseytravel

Fastrack (2006) The first six months [pdf] Maidstone: Fastrack Available at:
<http://www.go-fastrack.co.uk/images/stories/documents/six-month-report.pdf> [Accessed
19 June 2011]

Fastrack (2007) Fastrack is applauded with national transport award [pdf] Maidstone:
Kent Thameside Available at: <http://www.go-fastrack.co.uk/downloads/docdownload/27-
fastrack-wins-national-transport-award-july-2007.html> [Accessed 19 June 2011]

Fastway (2010) Fastway Network [online] Available at: <http://www.metrobus.co.uk/


content/img/fastway.pdf> [Accessed 19 June 2011]

Fastway (2011) Fastway Project [online] Available at: <http://www.fastway.info/>


[Accessed 19 June 2011]

First Group (2006) What is ftr? [online] Available at: <http://www.goftr.com/york/what.


php> [Accessed 18 January 2008]

Fowler, D. (2010) Nottingham levy shows the way. Transport Times Issue 66, pp32-33

F&A (Franklin and Andrews) (2005) Midland Metro Phase 2 Extensions Airport route -
Options. London: F&A

F&A (2006a) NET Nottingham Express Transit – Network Extensions. Report on Stage 1
Estimates. London: F&A

F&A (2006b) Leigh - Salford - Manchester QBC, Estimated Capital Cost - Sectional
Analysis. London: F&A

416
References

F&A (2007a) Rail Indices 2030 Rev B. London: F&A

F&A (2007b) Cross River Tram, Preliminary Business Case, Operating and Maintenance
Cost Estimate. London: F&A

F&A (2008a) Projects [online] Available at: <http://www.franklinandrews.com/projects/>


[Accessed 01 April 2008]

F&A (2008b) TFL plans for high speed trams [online] Available at:
<http://www.franklinandrews.com/projects/?mode=type&id=15306> [Accessed 01 April
2008]

Friends of the Earth (2005) Say Yes To West London Tram! [online] Available at:
<http://www.wlfoet5.demon.co.uk/transport/trams/wltram.htm> [Accessed 23 May 2011]

FTA (Federal Transportation Administration) (2004) Characteristics of Bus Rapid Transit


for Decision-making. [pdf] Washington DC: FTA. Available at:
<http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/CBRT.pdf> [Accessed 20 April 2009]

FTA (2005) Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Express. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Demonstration Project. [pdf] Washington DC: FTA. Available at:
<http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Las_vegas_final_report.pdf> [Accessed 20 April 2009]

Gannon, M. (2010) Public sector financing options for metro and light rail transit schemes.
Logistics & Transport Focus. Vol.12, Issue 7, pp24-28

GAO (General Accounting Office) (2001) Mass Transit: Bus Rapid Transit Shows
Promise. Washington DC: US General Accounting Office

General Motors (2008) Orders for 1,700 Hybrid Buses Will Double GM-Allison Fleet.
[online] Available at: <http://www.gm.com/experience/fuel_economy/news/2008/
hybrids/hybrid_bus_012308.jsp?exist=false> [Accessed 02 October 2008]

Getzner (2008) Product/Solution: Mass-Spring-System. Bürs, Austria: Getzner Werkstoffe


GmbH

Gibbins, E. (2008) Kerb-guided busways on the wrong road? Logistics & Transport
Focus’. Vol.10, Issue 7, pp34-38

417
References

Gilder, I. (2004) P7/A Proof of Evidence of Ian Gilder, Planning, Urban Design,
Environment and Heritage. Liverpool: Merseytravel

Glaister, S. (1991) UK Bus Deregulation: The Reasons and the Experience. London:
London School of Economics

Goodwin, P. (2004) The Economic costs of road traffic congestion London: Rail Freight
Group

GMCA (Greater Manchester Combined Authority) (2011) Greater Manchester’s third


Local Transport Plan 2011/12 – 2015/16 [pdf] Manchester: GMCA Available at:
<http://www.tfgm.com/ltp3/documents/Greater_Manchester_Local_Transport_
Plan_Core_Strategy.pdf> [Accessed 19 June 2011]

Greater Nottingham Light Rapid Transit Act 1994 Norwich: HMSO

Grove, J. (2011) Busway handover welcomed but there is more work to do [online]
Available at: <http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Busway-handover-welcomed-but-
there-is-more-work-to-do-22042011.htm> [Accessed 14 June 2011]

Hall, P (2011) Power, money, and local transport the French way. Town and Country
Planning April 2011pp 166-167

Hall, T (2003) Car-ceral Cities: Social Geographies of everyday Urban Mobility. In: Miles,
M. and Hall, T. eds., (2003) Urban futures: critical commentaries on shaping the city
Oxford: Routledge Ch.6.

Halton BC (Borough Council) (2007) Introduction to Transport Co-ordination [online]


Available at: <http://www2.halton.gov.uk/publictransport/content/aboutus?a=5441>
[Accessed 19 June 2011]

Hansford, M. (2004) All tram schemes axed after cost overruns. New Civil Engineer 22
July 2004 pp6

Hass-Klau, C., Crampton G., Biereth C. and Deutsch, V. (2003) Bus or Light Rail: Making
the Right Choice. Brighton: Environmental and Transport Planning

Hawken, P., Lovins, A.B., and Lovins, L.H. (1999) – Natural Capitalism: The Next
Industrial Revolution London: Earthscan Publications Limited

418
References

HSC (Health and Safety Commission) (2004) Proposals for new safety regulations for
railways and other guided transport systems. London: HSC

HSE (Health and Safety Executive) (1997) Railway Safety Principles Guidelines Part 2
Section G, Guidance on tramways. Norwich: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office

HSE (2006) Memorandum of understanding between Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
and Office of Rail Regulation London: HSE

Hendriks, F. (1999) Public Policy and Political Institutions: The Role of Culture in Traffic
Policy Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing

Henke, C. (2008) Modern Bus Features: Trends and Future Prospects. In: Modern Bus and
New Technologies Seminar. Sacramento, 03 June 2008. New York: Parsons Brinkerhoff

Henry, L. (2009) Bus Rapid Transit as a Precursor of Light Rail Transit? In: TRB
(Transportation Research Board), Joint International Light Rail Conference: Growth and
Renewal. Los Angeles, USA 19-21 April 2009. Washington DC: TRB.

Heuer, C. (2005) Worldwide Review, Tramways and Urban Transit, Issue no. 808 pp137

Highways Agency (2005) Background Information on Traffic Congestion. [online]


Available at: <http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/8579.aspx> [Accessed 18 December
2010]

Highways Agency (2005) The Role of the Highways Agency in Local Air Quality
Management. [online] Available at: <http://www.highways.gov.uk/knowledge/
10885.htm> [Accessed 04 February 2010]

Hodgson, P. (2007) Beyond the Guided-Bus? Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol.48,
no.4, pp183-188

Hodgson, P., Potter, S. (2010) Refining light rapid transit typology: a UK perspective
Transportation Planning and Technology, 33 (4), pp.367-384

Hookham, M. (2010) Leeds trolleybus gets go-ahead [online] Yorkshire Evening Post 22
March 2010. Available at: <http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news?articleid=
6169837> [Accessed 28 May 2011]

419
References

Hoover, S. (2005) Partial STURAA Test, 12 Year 500,000 mile bus from New Flyer, Model
DE60LF University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Transportation Institute

House of Commons (2000). Light Rapid Transit Systems, Session 1999-200, HC153.
London: House of Commons

House of Commons (2005) Integrated Transport: The Future of Light Rail and Modern
Trams in the United Kingdom: Government Response to the Committee's 10th Report of
Session 2004–05 [pdf] London: The Stationery Office Limited Available at:
<http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmtran/378/378i.pdf>
[Accessed 11 March 2010]

House of Commons (2009) Transport: Costs. [online] Available at:


<http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090319/
text/90319w0002.htm> [Accessed 04 March 2010]

Ison, S. and Rye, T. (2008) Introduction: TDM Measures and their implementation. In:
Ison, S. and Rye, T. eds., (2008) The implementation and effectiveness of transport demand
measures. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Ch.1.

Jack, R. (2003) Green light for £143m of spending on Cambridge and Luton guided
busways. Transit Issue 224, pp3.

Jack, R. (2004) Warning for light rail schemes as Darling refuses to bail out Leeds. Transit,
Issue 227, pp5

Jackson, C. (2004) Third rail trams across the Garonne. Railway Gazette International
Vol.002/04, pp87-90

Jankowicz, A.D., (2000) Business Research Projects. London: Business Press

Jansen, J. (2008) Strength through co-operation [online] Available at: <http://


www.slideshare.net/amoplant/presentation-phileas> [Accessed 05 June 2011]

Jones, W., et al (2007) Politics UK. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited

420
References

Kadijk, G. and Verbeek, R. (2007) VDL Ambassador diesel EEV bus: emission
measurements and comparison with other buses. [pdf] Delft: TNO Available at:
<http://www.wijkc.nl/documents/MON-RPT-033-DTS-2007-02723.pdf> [Accessed 09
June 2011]

Kent CC (County Council) (2008) Traffic regulation orders [online] Available at:
<http://www.kent.gov.uk/roads_and_transport/highway_maintenance/traffic_regulation_or
ders.aspx> [Accessed 01 April 2008]

Kent Thameside (2007) What is Fastrack? [online] Available at: <http://www.go-


fastrack.co.uk/what-is-fastrack.html> [Accessed: 18 April 2008]

Kiepe Elektrik (2000) Low Floor Light Rail vehicle CR 4000. Dusseldorf: Kiepe Elektrik

King County (2007) New Flyer Articulated Low Floor Hybrid Bus. [online] Available
from: <http://metro.kingcounty.gov/am/vehicles/nf-a-low-floor.html> [Accessed 16th
February 2008.]

Klostermann, A., aklostermann@pdeautomotive.com (2006) Questions about Phileas and


the Eindhoven System. [email] Message to P.Hodgson (pah523.student@ open.ac.uk) Sent
29 September 2006, 15:20

Knowles, R.D. (1996) Transport impacts of Greater Manchester’s Metrolink light rail
system. Journal of Transport Geography Vol.4, Issue 1, pp1-14

Knowles, R.D. (2007) What future for light rail in the UK after Ten Year Transport Plan
targets are scrapped? Transport Policy Vol.14 pp81–93

Kordon, A. (2010) Applying Computational Intelligence: How to Create Value.


Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag

Kühn, F. (2002) Bus rapid or light rail transit for intermediate cities? In: Urban Mobility
for All – La Mobilité Urbane pour, Tenth International CODATU (Cooperation for urban
mobility in the developing world) Conference Lomé, Togo 12-15 November 2002. Lisse,
Netherlands: Zeitlinger

Laughton M.A, and Warne D.F (2003) Electrical Engineer’s Reference Book. Oxford:
Elsevier Science

421
References

Lawrence, I. (2004a) Chaos as council’s late route change demand threatens Merseytram.
New Civil Engineer Local Government File. October 2004 pp6

Lawrence, I. (2004b) £250m cuts to save Leeds Supertram. New Civil Engineer. 18
November 2004 pp6

Lay, M.G. (1990) Handbook of Road Technology. In: Lay, M.G. (1990) Handbook of Road
Technology: Traffic and transport. Vol.8. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach Publishers

Leather, D. (2010) A collective route to prosperity. Transport Times, Issue 78, pp31-32

Leeds CC (Leeds City Council) (2006) Guided Bus [online] Available from:
<http://www.leeds.gov.uk/page.aspx?egmsIdentifier=B87A58A52B06F5EE80256E
1400521B09> [Accessed: 28 December 2006]

Li, Z., Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M. (2010) Willingness to pay for travel time reliability in
passenger transport: A review and some new empirical evidence. Sydney: Institute of
Transport and Logistics Studies

Lloyds Register ODS (2007) Exterior rail vehicle noise [online] Available at:
<http://www.lr-ods.com/NEWS_and_Datasheets/Rail/DataSheets/050607%20
Exterior%20Rail%20vehicle%20noise.pdf> [Accessed 05 June 2011]

LRTA (Light Rail Transit Association) (2000) Light Rail Transit Association [online]
<http://www.lrta.org/> [Accessed 23May 2011]

LRTA (2003) Light Rail // The Successful Transport Solution. Gloucester: Light Rapid
Transit Association

Luton BC (Borough Council) (2010) Why we need the Busway [online] Accessed at:
<http://www.luton.gov.uk/internet/transport_and_streets/transport_planning/luton%20dunst
able%20busway> [Accessed 19 June 2011]

Lyon, D. (2003) Light rail – a guide to the practical, financial and legal issues. London:
Nabarro Nathanson

Mace, A. et al (2004) The urban regeneration challenge in Manchester and Leipzig.


London: Anglo-German Foundation for the Study of Industrial Society

422
References

Mack, D. (2004) P5/A Proof of Evidence of David Mack, Engineering. Liverpool:


Merseytravel

Marshalls (2010) Mistral Textured Granite Aggregate Sett Paving [pdf] Huddersfield:
Marshalls. Available at: <http://www.marshalls.co.uk/select/_data/productinfo/BPCO02
.pdf [Accessed 03 June 2011]

Masi. C.G, (2008) What are top-down and bottom-up design methods? [online] Available
from: <http://www.controleng.com/blog/820000282/post/960021096.html> [Accessed 21
May 2008]

Matra (2001) CIVIS: now in Clermont-Ferrand and Rouen, soon in Las Vegas. Press
Release 13 February 2001

McIntosh, S. (2003) What the industry needs to boost light rail development. In: Landor
Conference, Light Rail & Rapid Transit. Public transport that makes a real difference:
finding the right formula. London, 7 October 2003. London: Landor Conferences

Mercedes-Benz (2006) Citaro G Technical Data [online] Available at:


<http://www2.mercedes-benz.co.uk/content/unitedkingdom/mpc/mpc_unitedkingdom_
website/en/home_mpc/buses/home/products/new_buses/new_Citaro_G/technical_data
.0004.html> [Accessed: 13 September 2007]

Merseytravel (2003a) Transport and Works Application. Liverpool: MerseyTravel

Merseytravel (2003b) Transport and Works Application Estimate of Costs (Enclosure A10).
Liverpool: MerseyTravel

Merseytravel (2004) Transport and Works Application Planning Direction Drawing 918.
Liverpool: MerseyTravel

Metrolink (2009) Metrolink [online] Available at: <http://www.metrolink.co.uk/#>


[Accessed 19 June 2011]

Meyer, M.D. (1999) Demand Management as an element of transportation policy: Using


carrots and sticks to influence travel behaviour. Transportation Research A 33, 575–99

423
References

Miller, M (2011) Busway opening date announced - it's time to get onboard [online]
Available at: <http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/CMSWebsite/Apps/News/Details
.aspx?ref=63> [Accessed 14 June 2011]

Mitchell, S. (2004) P8/A Proof of Evidence of Steve Mitchell, Noise and Vibration.
Liverpool: Merseytravel

motor-trade-insider.com (2010) New Ford Focus to cost more in UK than US [online]


Available at: <http://www.motor-trade-insider.com/index.php/2010/12/new-ford-focus-to-
cost-more-in-uk-than-us/> [Accessed 28 October 2010]

Mourant, A (2011) Supertram’s wheels of steel. Rail Professional Issue 170, pp24-26

Municipality of Eindhoven (2006) Brainport’s advanced transport system. [pdf]


Eindhoven: Municipality of Eindhoven. Available at: <http://www.osmose-
os.org/documents/125/12565_6013_broch_Phileas_Eindhoven.pdf> [Accessed 20 April
2009]

NAEI (National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory) (2007) UNECE Emission Estimates to


2007. Particles as PM10. [online] Available at: <http://naei.defra.gov.uk
/emissions/emissions_2007/summary_tables.php?action=unece&page_name=PM1007.htm
> [Accessed 04 February 2010]

NAIGT (New Automotive Innovation Growth Team) (2009) An Independent Report on the
Future of the Automotive Industry in the UK. London: NAIGT

NAO (National Audit Office) (2004) Improving public transport in England through light
rail. London: NAO

NAO (2007) Proposed Light Rail Schemes in Leeds, Manchester and South Hampshire,
Review by the National Audit Office of the role of the Department for Transport. London:
NAO

National Express (2011) Cash Fares [online] Available at: <http://nxbus.co.uk/the-


metro/tickets-prices/metro-cash-fares/?metro%5Bstart_point%5D=Wolverhampton
%252C%2BSt%2BGeorge%2527s&metro%5Bend_point%5D=Snow%2BHill&metro%5B
submit%5D=SEARCH> [Accessed 19 June 2011]

424
References

National Rail Enquires (2011) Journey Planner [online] Available at: <http://ojp.
nationalrail.co.uk/service/fares/tickets> [Accessed 19 June 2011]

NDA (National Development Agency)bb (2007) Public Transport in Szeged will be


Renewed [online] Available at: <http://www.nfu.hu/content/2059> [Accessed: 12 October
2008]

Nellthorp. J and Mackie P.J. (2000) The UK Roads Review—a hedonic model of decision
making. Leeds: Institute for Transport Studies

NET (Nottingham Express Transit) (2005a) Depot Tour [online] Available at:
<http://www.thetram.net/about/depot.asp> [Accessed: 13 September 2007]

NET (2005b) Local Area Maps [online] Available at:


<http://www.thetram.net/maps/localarea.asp> [Accessed 02 October 2008]

nethouseprices (2011) Sold House Prices [online] Available at:


<http://www.nethouseprices.com/index.php?con=sold_prices_street_detail&street=BOUN
DARY+LANE&locality=CAVERSHAM&town=READING&cCode=EW&year=one&ho
use_style=All&house_age=All&search_radius=&outcode=RG4&incode=7TD> [Accessed
03 June 2011]

Network Rail (2010) Prioritising investment to support our economy. A new approach to
appraisal methodology [pdf] London: Network Rail Available at:
<http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/imagelibrary/downloadMedia.ashx?MediaDetai
lsID=3812> [Accessed 14 June 2011]

Nexus (2010) Metro time line - key dates [online] Available at: <http://www.nexus.
org.uk/history/metro-time-line-key-dates> [Accessed 18 June 2011]

Nohlmans, R. (2008) Phileas Bus Rapid Transit System. Eindhoven:


Samenwerkingsverband Regio Eindhoven

The Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996,
Schedule 1. London: HMSO

bb
Hungary

425
References

Nottingham CC (Nottingham City Council) (2005) Local Transport Plan, Chapter Twelve:
Implementation Programme [pdf] Nottingham: Nottingham CC. Available at:
<http://www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/home/traffic_and_travel/strategy-policy/ltp-
chapter12.pdf> [Accessed 14 June 2011]

Nottingham CC (2009) Council to officially approve first ever workplace parking levy in
UK. [pdf] Nottingham: Nottingham CC Available at: <http://www.
nottinghamcity.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=12525&p=0> [Accessed 19 June 2011]

Nottingham CC (2011) NET Phase Two: The journey so far/the journey ahead [online]
Available at: <http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/netphase2/index.aspx?articleid=8841>
[Accessed 19 June 2011]

OECD (Organisation for economic co-operation and Development) (2002) Strategies to


reduce greenhouse emissions from road transport: Analytical methods. Paris: OECD

OECD (2007) Managing Urban Traffic Congestion. Paris: OECD

Office of the Rail Regulator (2006) Railway Safety Directive [online] Available at:
<http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.1514> [Accessed 12 October 2008]

ONS (Office for National Statistics) (2004) Greenhouse gas emissions from transport.
[online] Available at: <http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_environment/
transport_report.pdf> [Accessed 04 February 2010]

ONS (2005) KS01 Usual resident population: Census 2001, Key Statistics for urban areas
[online] Available at: <http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBasessdataset.asp?vlnk=8271&
Pos=2&ColRank=1&Rank=224> [Accessed 02 June 2011]

ONS (2009) Mortality statistics: Deaths Registered in 2008 [pdf] Richmond: Office for
Public Sector Information Available at: <http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme
_health/DR2008/ DR_08.pdf> [Accessed 19 December 2010]

Parascandolo (2007) Therapia Lane Depot [online] Available at: <http://www.croydon-


tramlink.co.uk/info/infra/depot.shtml> [Accessed 05 June 2011]

Parry People Movers (2007) PPM 80 Specification [online] Available at:


<http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/PPM80-spec.htm> [Accessed: 13 September 2007]

426
References

Parry People Movers (2008) Latest News [online] Available at: <http://www.parry
peoplemovers.com/latest_news.htm> [Accessed: 18 September 2008]

Perin, F. (2003) Nottingham Express Transit Funding & Wider Strategy. In: Landor
Conference, Light Rail & Rapid Transit. Public transport that makes a real difference:
finding the right formula. London, 7 October 2003. London: Landor Conferences

Phillips, E.M., Pugh, D.S., (2000) How to get a PhD. Buckingham: Open University Press

Phraner, S.D., Roberts, R.T. (1999) Joint Operation of Light Rail Transit or Diesel
Multiple Unit Vehicles with Railroads. Washington DC: Transit Cooperative Research
Program,

Plisner, P. (2009) The French connection. Rail Professional, Issue 142, pp24-25

Potts, K. (2008) Construction Cost Management: Learning from Case Studies. Abingdon:
Taylor and Francis

Rahman, A.K.M. Mushfiqur, (2009) Estimation of direct and indirect energy requirements
for bus rapid transit (BRT) and light rail transit (LRT). M.A.Sc Carleton University,
Canada.

Railstaff (2003) Trams for Liverpool Railstaff. Issue 62, pp16

Railway Gazette (2009) Nottingham tram extension funding approved [online] Available
at: <http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/ nottingham-tram-
extension-funding-approved.html> [Accessed 19 June 2011]

Railway Technology (2010) Midland Metro Light Rail Network [online] Available at:
<http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/midland/> [Accessed 19 June 2011]

The Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations (2006). London:
HMSO

Randall, C. (2008a) Manchester C-Charge gives boost for rail. Rail Professional. Issue 136,
pp8

Randall, C. (2008b) Government under fire for failure tram expansion. Rail Professional.
Issue 137, pp11

427
References

Reade, E.J. (1997) Planning in the Future or Planning for the Future? In: Blowers, A. and
Evans, B. eds., (1997) Town planning into the 21st Century London: Routledge

Reading BC (Borough Council) (2008a) Listed Buildings in Reading [online] Available at:
<http://ww2.reading.gov.uk/documents/cultural-leisure/listed%20buildings%20in
%20reading.doc> [Accessed 06 June 2011]

Reading BC (2008b) Conservation Areas [online] Available at:


<http://www.reading.gov.uk/general.asp?id=sx9452-a77fb568> [Accessed 06 June 2011]

Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (1994) Transport and the Environment.


Oxford: Oxford University Press

Salter, A. (2008) Metro expansion on ice as Manchester votes on C Charge. Rail


Professional. Issue 141, pp9

Salter, A. (2010) Fast-track busway project rescued Manchester Evening News [online] 20
May 20 2009. Available at: <http://menmedia.co.uk/manchesterevening
news/news/transport/public_transport/s/1240896_fasttrack_busway_project_rescued>
[Accessed 19 June 2011]

Scales, N. (2005) Merseytram on time and with money to spare! Tramways & Urban
Transit. Vol.68, No.805, pp8-10

Scottish Parliament (2003) Environmental Statement, Chapter 13, Noise and Vibration
[pdf] Edinburgh: The Scottish Parliament Available at: < http://www.scottish.parliament
.uk/business/bills/17-edinburghTram1/b17-docs/chapter13.pdf> [Accessed 10 June 2011]

Serec (Swiss electromagnetics research and engineering centre) (2008) Nothing new under
the sun: trams without wires [online] Available at: <http://www.serec.ethz.ch/
newsletter/Newsletter_8_Dec08.pdf> [Accessed 31 May 2011]

SEU (Social Exclusion Unit) (2003) Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport
and Social Exclusion [pdf] London: SEU Available at: <www.lancashire.gov.uk/
corporate/web/viewdoc.asp?id=42633> [Accessed 19 December 2010]

Sharpe, L. (2008) Charged Debate. Engineering and Technology. Vol.3, Issue 11, pp14

428
References

Sharpe, L. (2009) Triple Hybrid Bus heads for Prague. Engineering and Technology. Vol.
10, pp6

SILENCE (2008) Practitioner Handbook for Local Noise Action Plans, Recommendations
from the SILENCE project. Graz, Austria: AVL List

Silvester, K. (2011) Yorkshire tram-train gets grant to develop business case. Rail
Professional. Issue 170 pp9

Siuru, W. (2002) New mass transit concept from Holland [online] Available at:
<http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-573287/New-mass-transit-concept-from.html>
[Accessed 02 October 2008]

Spencer, A.H. and Andong, W. (1996) Light Rail or Guided Bus? A comparative
evaluation for a corridor in Beijing. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol.4, 4, pp.239-251.

Stagecoach (2010) Stagecoach puts passengers first with bus blueprint for Sheffield
[online] Available at: <http://www.stagecoachplc.com/scg/media/press/pr2010/2010-03-
24/> [Accessed 19 June 2011]

Stanger, R. (2009) Comparative Performance of Los Angeles’ Transit Modes. In: TRB
(Transportation Research Board) 11th Joint Light Rail Conference, Los Angeles 20 April
2009. Washington DC: TRB

Stern, N. (2006) The Economics of Climate Change [online] Available at:


<http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/
stern_review_report.htm> [Accessed 10 March 2010]

Sturcke, J. (2008) Manchester says no to congestion charging The Guardian [online] 12


December 2008. Available at: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/dec/12
/congestioncharging-transport> [Accessed 19 June 2011]

Sully, J. (2003) Trams not jams. Modern Railways Vol.60, Issue 659, pp48-52

Symons, J. (2003a) Government must rule on funding for Midland Metro’s £114 Extension
Tramways & Urban Transit. Vol.66, No.781, pp6-7

Symons, J. (2003b) It may only take three years: Liverpool’s fast revival plan Tramways &
Urban Transit. Vol.66, No.782, pp46-47

429
References

Symons, J. (2003c). Politicians’ clash of words threatens Bristol scheme. Tramways &
Urban Transit, Vol.66 No.788, pp286

Symons, J. (2004a) Leeds strategy comes together but overrunning cost concern Tramways
& Urban Transit. Vol.67, No.794, pp46-47

Symons, J. (2004b) Leeds strategy in trouble: Darling’s in no mood to stump up extra


£500m Tramways & Urban Transit. Vol.67, No.795, pp84-85

Symons, J. (2004c) Bristol Supertram: Can it dig itself out of trouble this time? Tramways
& Urban Transit, Vol.67, No.794, pp44-45

Taplin, M. (1995) Light Rail in Europe. Harrow Weald, London: Capital Transport
Publishing

Taplin, M. (2004) What’s new around the world: full list, Tramways and Urban Transit,
issue no. 803, pp457

TBus (The Electric TBus Group) (2011a) The Electric TBus Group [online] Available at:
<http://www.tbus.org.uk/ introduction.htm> [Accessed 23 May 2011]

TBus (2011b) Trolleybuses vs. Diesel electric hybrid buses [online] Available at:
<http://www.tbus.org.uk/hybrid.htm> [Accessed 23 May 2011]

TfL (Transport for London) (n.d.) 1996 stock. Jubilee line [online] Available at:
<http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/modesoftransport/londonunderground/rollingstock/1630
.aspx> [Accessed 02 June 2011]

TfL (2007) Environment Report 2006. London: TfL

TfL (2008) Environment Report 2008. London: TfL

TfL (2009) Docklands Light Railway - Map of DLR Developments [online] Available at:
<http://developments.dlr.co.uk/map-of-developments/> [Accessed 19 June 2011]

TfL (2010) London Tramlink [pdf] London: TfL Available at: <http://www.tfl.gov.uk
/assets/downloads/corporate/london-tramlink-factsheet(1).pdf> [Accessed 19 June 2011]

The Railways and Other Transport Systems (Approval of Works, Plant and Equipment)
Regulations (1994). London: HMSO

430
References

TIE (Transport Initiatives Edinburgh) (2007) Edinburgh Tram Network Final Business
Case Version 2 [pdf] Edinburgh: TIE Available at: <http://www. edinburghtrams.com/
include/uploads/story_so_far/Final_Business_Case_Edinburgh_Tram.pdf> [Accessed 19
June 2011]

TrackMaps (2005) Railway Track Diagrams. Bradford on Avon: TrackMaps

Trams for Bath (2011) Why do we want trams in Bath? [online] Available at:
<http://www.bathtram.org/tfb/tP01.htm > [Accessed 23 May 2011]

Transdev (2009) Nantes (BusWay®) [online] Available at: < http://www.transdev.eu/


Images/Upload/Publications/BUSWAY_%20Nantes%202010_GB_WEB.pdf > [Accessed
02 June 2011]

Translohr (2007) Translohr – tramway on tires. Duppigheim, France: Translohr.

Transport Act 2000 Norwich: HMSO

Transport Alternatives (2004) "Capitol of the World?" Not When it Comes to Buses
[online] Available at: <http://www.transalt.org/press/magazine/042Spring/17capitol.html>
[Accessed: 13 September 2007]

Transport and Works Act (1992). London: HMSO

TRB (Transportation Research Board) (2003a) Appendix B Case Studies: Rouen, France.
Brief: TEAR Optically Guided Bus. In: TCRP Report 90. Bus Rapid Transit. Volume 1:
Case Studies in Bus rapid Transit [online] Available at: <http://onlinepubs.
trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp90v1_cs/Rouen.pdf> [Accessed 28 May 2011]

TRB (2003b) Appendix B Case Studies: Runcorn, United Kingdom. Brief: Runcorn. In:
TCRP Report 90. Bus Rapid Transit. Volume 1: Case Studies in Bus rapid Transit [online]
Available at: <http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp90v1_cs/Runcorn.pdf>
[Accessed 28 May 2011]

Trochim W.M.K. (2006) Deductive and Inductive Thinking. [online] Available at:
<www.socialresearchmethods.et/kb/dedind.php> [Accessed 19 February 2008]

431
References

Tzabari, Y. and Kagan, E. (2006) Experimental testing of double articulated hybrid Light
Train on Rubber Tires name Phileas in Israel [pdf] Nesher, Israel: Tzabartech Ltd
Available at: <http://www.engineers.org.il/Uploads/4869tzabari.pdf> [Accessed 06
October 2008]

Ubbels, B. and Nijkamp, P. (2002) Unconventional funding of urban public transport.


Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. Vol.7, Issue 5, pp317-329

UITP (International Association of Public Transport) (2001) Diversion of Public Utilities


for the Construction of light rail and tramway systems. Brussels: UITP

UK Land Directory (2008) Land for Sale in Berkshire [online] Available at:
<http://www.uklanddirectory.org.uk/building-land-plot-sales-berks.asp> [Accessed 14
April 2008]

UKTram (2009) Representing the Tram industry throughout the United Kingdom [online]
Available at: <http://www.uktram.co.uk/> [Accessed 01 May 2011]

Urban task Force (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance. London: Spon Press

Urban Track (2008) Urban Rail Infrastructure in a harmonised Europe [online] Available
at: <http://www.urbantrack.eu/> [Accessed 05 June 2011]

van der Spek, S. and Splint, J. (2005) Bus Rapid Transit. Delft, Netherlands: Delft
University of Technology

Veolia (2006) Ground power supply [online] Available at: <http://www.bordeaux-


tramway.veoliaenvironnement.com/technologies/ground-level.aspx> [Accessed 12 October
2008]

Volvo (2002) 182 double deckers to Dublin and London [online] Available at:
<http://www.volvo.com/bus/global/en-gb/newsmedia/press+releases/2005
/NewsItemPage.htm?channelId=3009&ItemID=28404&sl=en-gb> [Accessed: 13
September 2007]

Vuchic, V.R 2007 Urban Transit Systems and Technology. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley

Vuchic, V.R. (1999) Transportation for Livable Cities., New Jersey: Center for Urban
Policy Research

432
References

Wansbeek, C.J. (2004) Bordeaux: Pioneering is paying dividends. Tramways and Urban
Transit, Issue no. 797 pp.178-179

West Sussex CC (County Council) (2011) About Fastway [online] Available at:
<http://www.westsussex.gov.uk/leisure/getting_around_west_sussex/public_transport/fast
way-1/about_fastway.aspx> [Accessed 19 June 2011]

Weststart-CALSTART (2006) Vehicle Catalog A Compendium of Vehicles and Powertrain


Systems for Bus Rapid Transit Service 2006 Update [pdf], Washington DC: Federal
Transit Administration. Available at: <http://www.nbrti.org/docs/pdf/2006_brt
_compendium.pdf > [Accessed 02 October 2008]

Wright Group (2005) The Wright Group Drives to the Future. Galgorm, Ballymena:
Wright Group

Wright Group (2007) BRT / Streetcar. [online] Available at: <http://www.wright-


group.co.uk /site/default.asp?CATID=32> [Accessed 18 January 2008]

Wright Group (2010) StreetCar RTV brings more than just a whole new look to Rapid
Transit in Las Vegas. Press Release, 17 May 2010

York EMC Services (2011) Technical Information Note Managing EMC in the Railway
Industry [online] Available at: <http://www.yorkemc.co.uk/info/technical /tins/railway-
emc-management.html> [Accessed 05 June 2011]

Zack, J.G. (2002) Calculation and recovery of home/head office overhead. In: 3rd World
Congress on Cost Engineering, Project Management and Quantity Surveying
incorporating the 6th Pacific Association of Quantity Surveyors Congress (AIQS).
Melbourne, 14–18 April 2002. Deakin, Australia: AIQS

433
Appendix I Infrastructure Construction Level Three Data

Appendix I: Infrastructure Construction Level Three Data

This appendix details the level 3 data used and basis of computation in the model.

Ref Description Unit Computation


1 Site Preparation
1a Site investigation m Route length
Site clearance and demolition (bus
1b m2 Track length x 7.5m
corridor)
Site clearance and demolition
1c m2 Track length x 5m
(highway sections)
Track length deduct structure track
1d Excavate and remove material m3
x 0.40m x 4m
Excavate and remove material (hard Track length deduct structure track
1e m3
pavement) & ballasted x 0.35m x 4m width
1f Excavate and remove existing ballast m3
Ballasted track x 0.6m depth x 4m
Place and compact capping/bottom 3 width
1g m
ballast
Drainage (Ballasted Trackside
1h m Ballasted track
Drainage)
1i Drainage (Highway Drainage) m
Disconnect and remove lighting Track length deduct ballasted
1j m
columns
2 Highway Works
Re-surfacing highway over track - Track length (shared street & bus
2a m2
Flexible Pavement lane) x 2.5m
Re-surfacing highway over tracks -
2b m2 Track length x 2.5m (dedicated)
Marshalls 'Mistral'
Re-surfacing highway over tracks - Track length x 2.5m (segregated)
2c m2
Granite Setts deduct ballasted
Re-surfacing highway over tracks -
2d m2 Track Length x 2.5m Grass
Grass Track
Re-construction highway around Track length (shared street & bus
2e m2
track - Flexible Pavement lane) x 1.5m
Re-construction highway around
2f m2 Track length x 1.5m (dedicated)
track - Marshals 'Mistral'
Re-construction highway around Track length x 1.5m (segregated)
2g m2
track - Granite Setts deduct ballasted
Re-construction highway around
2h m2 Track Length x 1.5m Grass
track - Grass Track
Footway reconstruction - Concrete
2i m2 Shared & bus lane x 2m width
Flag Paving
2j New kerbs m Measured length

435
Appendix I Infrastructure Construction Level Three Data

Ref Description Unit Computation


Track length deduct structure track
2k Street furniture and signage m
and ballasted track
Track Length (shared street & bus
2l Resurfacing and Colouring m2
lane) x 1.5m
3 Environmental/landscaping/architectural
Boundary Segregation Fencing - Segregated track length deduct
3a m
1.8m Pallisade Fencing Ballasted Track length
Boundary Acoustic Fencing - Timber
3b m Ballasted track length
close boarded
Bus Corridor - Soft Landscaping 50% of Route length deduct
3c m2
Works segregated and shared x 5m
Segregated Corridor - Soft
3d m2 Segregated track length x 5m
Landscaping Works
30% of Route length deduct
3e Native Planting m2
segregated and shared x 5m
Ornamental Planting (including 20% of Route length deduct
3f m2
climbing plants) segregated and shared x 5m
Track length deduct structure track
3g Street lighting m
and ballasted track
3h Tree pruning nr 1 every 100m of route length
3i Tree planting nr 2 every 100m of route length
3j Public art installation nr 2 nr per route
4 Structures and Bridges
Length of structure track x width of
4a Caversham Road Elevated structure m2
the elevated section
Cost of the footbridge, based upon
4b Bath Road Footbridge sum
detail from F&A
4c Basingstoke Road Footbridge sum Cost of the footbridge, based upon
4d London Road Footbridge sum detail from F&A
5 Trackwork
Ballasted track (single line) inc Total track length deduct structure
5a m
ballast and sleepers track and street running track
Street running track (single line) inc Total track length deduct structure
5b m
track bed track and ballasted track
Track length on structure
5c Structure track(single line) m
(Caversham Road)
5d Crossover off highway nr
Number of crossovers determined
5e Crossovers in highway nr
by route/system development
5f Scissors Crossover in highway nr
5g Safe cess walkway m Ballasted track length

436
Appendix I Infrastructure Construction Level Three Data

Ref Description Unit Computation


6 Stops
Facing platforms stop, inc shelter,
6a nr
seats, lights etc
Island platform, inc shelter, seats, Number of platforms determined
6b nr
lights etc by route/system development
Single platform inc shelter, seats,
6c nr
lights etc
6d Equipment - TVM's, PID, CCTV etc nr 1 no. item per stop
Number of locations determined
6e Park & Ride Facilities nr
by route/system development
7 Traction power
OHLE off street (single track, centre Total track length for ballasted and
7a m
poles) structure
OHLE on street (single track; side Total track length deduct ballasted
7b m
poles) and structure length
Number required calculated pro-
7c Substations (equipment) nr
rata comparison to NET system
7d Substations (structure) nr 80m2 structure per substation
8 Transit System Communications and Control
The number of system elements
8a Signalling nr pro-rata the Midland Metro
estimate
8b SCADA m
Total Track length
8c Communications m
8d Cable ducts - 6 way (in highway) m Total Track length deduct ballasted
8e Cable ducts - 6 way (off highway) m Total ballasted track length
8f Operations & Control Centre nr Provisional Sum
9 Road Junction Signalling
9a Standard 'T' Junction nr
Standard 'T' Junction (inc Pedestrian
9b nr
Facilities)
Large 'T' Junction (inc Pedestrian
9c nr
Facilities) Number of road junctions
9d Standard Crossroads nr determined by route/system
Standard Crossroads (inc Pedestrian development
9e nr
Facilities)
Large Complex Crossroads (inc
9f nr
Pedestrian Facilities)
9g Roundabout crossing nr

437
Appendix I Infrastructure Construction Level Three Data

Ref Description Unit Computation

9h Single Pelican Crossing nr Number of crossings determined by


9i Double Pelican Crossing nr route/system development

Remove interface between existing


9j nr Each junction/pelican crossing on
signal installation - UTC
the system will require
New interface between signal modification
9k nr
installation - UTC
10 Ancillary works
Length of access road required,
10a Access Roads m approximated from system
development
Approximation number of
10b Demolition of buildings sum
buildings to be demolished
11 Depot
Site clearance based upon estimate
11a Site Clearance m2
of Depot footprint
11b Excavate and Remove to tip m3 Assumes all uncontaminated land
Footprint based on assumed
11c Car Park m2 number of employee/system road
vehicles
Requirement scaled from mapping
11d Access Road m2
to gain access to site from highway
Estimate of footprint based upon
11e Maintenance Facility Building m2
number of vehicles
11f Workshop equipment and stores nr Provisional Sum
11g Wash Facility nr One allowed per system
Perimeter of Depot based upon
11h Fencing m
footprint estimate
Allowance for Landscaping based
11i Landscaping m2
upon footprint estimate
Hard-standing for vehicles, turning Areas within the depot used for
11j m
areas moving
One allowed for Guided-Bus, no
11k Fuelling Point & Fuel Storage nr
light rail requirement
Ballasted track (single line) inc
11l m Depot track only (Light Rail)
ballast/sleepers
Depot switches and crossings from
11m Turnout in Ballast nr
layout plan (Light Rail)

438
Appendix I Infrastructure Construction Level Three Data

Ref Description Unit Computation

Signalling control for Depot area


11n Signalling nr
only (Light Rail)
OHLE off street (single track, centre OHLE provision for Depot area
11o m
poles) only (Light Rail)
SCADA control for Depot area
11p SCADA m
only (Light Rail)
Low platform with cleaning
11q Vehicle cleaning platforms m2 facilities (Light Rail and Guided-
Bus)

439
Appendix II Operations and Maintenance Costs

Appendix II: Operations and Maintenance Costs

This appendix details the data build-up that contributes to the OPEX Costs.

Allowance Model
Operations Light Guided- Level 2 Level 3 Code
Rail Bus Code
Business Administration
Managing Director 1 1 C-OV/C-OI -
Finance Director 1 1 C-OV/C-OI -
Marketing Director 1 1 C-OV/C-OI -
Executive Secretary 1 1 C-OV/C-OI -
Business Performance Accountant 1 1 C-OV/C-OI -
Senior Management Accountant 1 1 C-OV/C-OI -
Management Accountants 2 2 C-OV/C-OI -
Human Resources Manager 1 1 C-OV/C-OI -
Procurement/Contracts Manager 1 1 C-OV/C-OI -
Internal Communications Staff 1 1 C-OV/C-OI -
External Communications Staff 4 4 C-OV/C-OI -
Administration support 2 2 C-OV/C-OI -
Operations Staff
Operations Director 1 1 C-OV/C-OI -
Operations Manager 1 1 C-OV/C-OI -
Scheduling Manager 1 1 C-OV -
Safety Manager 1 1 C-OV/C-OI -
Duty Manager 4 4 C-OV/C-OI -
Operational Controllers 14 8 C-OI -
Customer Service Advisors 2 2 C-OV -
Revenue Recovery Staff 2 3 C-OV -
Fare Inspectors 11 17 C-OV -
Drivers 40 58 C-OV -
Driver Instructors 2 3 C-OV -
Traction Power
Power Consumption MWh C-OV -
Fuel Consumption Litre C-OV -
Business Overheads
General Overheads 4% C-OV/C-OI -
Security/British Transport Police Provisional Sum C-OV/C-OI -
Insurances Provisional Sum C-OV/C-OI -
Operational Overheads £/Vehicle Km C-OV/C-OI -

441
Appendix II Operations and Maintenance Costs

Allowance Model
Maintenance Light Guided Level 2 Level 3 Code
Rail -Bus Code
Senior Maintenance Management
Head of Engineering 1 1 C-OV/C-OI -
Head of Vehicles Engineering
(Vehicles maintenance and 1 1 C-OV C-OV/12
cleaning)
Head of Infrastructure
Engineering (P-Way, Buildings 1 1 C-OI C-OI/2,3,4,5,6,11
and Structures)
Head of Electrical Engineering
(OLE, M&EE, Substations and 1 1 C-OI C-OI/6,7,8,9,11
S&T/TVM)
Vehicles Maintenance and Cleaning
Maintenance Manager 1 1 C-OV C-OV/12
Vehicle Engineer 1 2 C-OV C-OV/12
Team Leaders (Maintenance) 2 3 C-OV C-OV/12
Administration Assistant 1 1 C-OV C-OV/12
Stores Coordinators 3 3 C-OV C-OV/12
Team Leaders (Cleaning) 2 3 C-OV C-OV/12
Mechanical and Electrical Engineering
Maintenance Manager (Resource
shared for all electrical 1 1 C-OI C-OI/6,7,8,9,11
departments)
Procurement and Contracts
1 1 C-OI C-OI/6,7,8,9,11
Specialist
Team Leader (M&E - Resource
0.7 0 C-OI C-OI/6,8,9,11
shared with Production)
Team Leader (OLE - Resource
0.6 0 C-OI C-OI/7
shared with Production)
Team Leader (Substations -
0.6 0 C-OI C-OI/7
Resource shared with Production)
Team Leader (S&T / TVM) 1 1 C-OI C-OI/6,8,9
Technical Support (S&T / TVM) 1 1 C-OI C-OI/6,8,9
Infrastructure Maintenance & Cleaning
Maintenance Manager (P-Way) 1 0 C-OI C-OI/5
Infrastructure Engineer (P-Way) 1 0 C-OI C-OI/5
Infrastructure Engineer (Highway) 0 1 C-OI C-OI/2
Team Leaders (P-Way - Resource
0.4 0 C-OI C-OI/5
shared with Production)
Team Leaders (Buildings &
Structures - Resource shared with 0.6 0.6 C-OI C-OI/3,4,6
Production)

442
Appendix II Operations and Maintenance Costs

Allowance Model
Maintenance Light Guided Level 2 Level 3 Code
Rail -Bus Code
Technical Support (Buildings &
1 1 C-OI C-OI/3,4,6
Structures)
Cleaning Manager 1 1 C-OI C-OI/3,4,6
Team Leader (Cleaning) 0.6 0.6 C-OI C-OI/3,4,6
Production Staff
Vehicle Technicians 6 8 C-OV C-OV/12
Vehicle Maintenance Assistants 4 6 C-OV C-OV/12
Vehicle Cleaners 8 10 C-OV C-OV/12
Team Leader (M&E - Shared with
0.3 0 C-OI C-OI/6,8,9,11
Management)
Electrical Technician 2 1 C-OI C-OI/6,8,9,11
Electrical Maintenance Assistant 1 1 C-OI C-OI/6,8,9,11
Team Leader (OLE - Shared with
0.4 0 C-OI C-OI/7
Management)
Electrical Technician 2 0 C-OI C-OI/6,8,9,11
Electrical Maintenance Assistant 2 0 C-OI C-OI/6,8,9,11
Team Leader (Substations- Shared
0.4 0 C-OI C-OI/7
with Management)
Electrical Technician 1 0 C-OI C-OI/7
Electrical Maintenance Assistant 1 0 C-OI C-OI/7
System Technicians 2 2 C-OI C-OI/7
TVM Technicians 2 2 C-OI C-OI/6
Infrastructure Maintenance & Cleaning
Team Leader (P-Way) 0.6 0 C-OI C-OI/5
Trackmen 4 0 C-OI C-OI/5
Team Leader (Highway) 0 1 C-OI C-OI/2
Highway Inspection 0 2 C-OI C-OI/2
Team Leaders (Buildings &
0.4 0.4 C-OI C-OI/3,4,6
Structures)
General Building staff 1 1 C-OI C-OI/,4,6,11
General Assistant 1 1 C-OI C-OI/,4,6,11
Infrastructure Cleaning Team
0.4 0.4 C-OI C-OI/,4,6,11
Leader
Infrastructure Cleaning Operatives 12 12 C-OI C-OI/,4,6,11
Rapid Response Team
Electrical Engineer 1 1 C-OI C-OI/6,7,11
S&T / TVM Engineer 1 1 C-OI C-OI/6,8,9,11
Infrastructure Engineer 1 1 C-OI C-OI/2,4,5,11
Vehicle Engineer 1 1 C-OV C-OV

443
Appendix II Operations and Maintenance Costs

Allowance Model
Maintenance Light Guided Level 2 Level 3 Code
Rail -Bus Code
Infrastructure and Vehicle Maintenance
Infrastructure
Highways Maintenance Provisional Sum C-OI C-OI/,4,6
Stops cleaning Provisional Sum C-OI C-OI/,4,6
P-Way maintenance Provisional Sum C-OI C-OI/5
Depot cleaning consumables Provisional Sum C-OI C-OI/11
Vandalism structure repairs Provisional Sum C-OI C-OI/3,4,6,11
Vehicles
Maintenance consumables Provisional Sum C-OV C-OV
Maintenance specialist Provisional Sum C-OV C-OV
subcontracts
Cleaning consumables Provisional Sum C-OV C-OV
Vandalism cleaning Provisional Sum C-OV C-OV
M&EE, OLE/Substations, S&T and TVMs
Specialist Maintenance Provisional Sum C-OI C-OI/6,8,9,11
Subcontracts
Vandalism repairs Provisional Sum C-OI C-OI/6,8,9,11

444
Appendix III Level Three Data Quantity

Appendix III: Level Three Data Quantity

This appendix illustrates the volume of infrastructure data required at level three for each

of the light rail and guided-bus systems. The number presented at the intersection of the

Component and Level 2 data code is the number of items to be assessed to provide the cost

build-up. As can be seen there are 611 light-rail level 3 codes and 500 guided-bus codes.

This totals 1111.

Infrastructure Level 3 Data


Infrastructure

GB-CGBI
LR-CGBI

GB-CABI

GB-CNBI
GB-CLBI
LR-CABI

LR-CNBI

LR-CLBI

GB-C-OI
LR-C-OI

GB-C-BI
LR-C-BI
Data Code/Component

1 Site Preparation 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

2 Highway Works 13 13 13 13 4 13 13 13 13 7

Environmental/
3 11 11 11 11 11 3 11 11 11 11 3
landscaping/architectural

4 Structures and Bridges 4 4 4 4 4 11 4 4 4 4 4 11

5 Trackwork 7 7 7 7 7 8

6 Stops 7 7 7 7 7 51 7 7 7 7 7 51

7 Traction power 4 4 4 4 4 37

Transit System Communications


8 6 6 6 6 6 39 6 6 6 6 6 38
and Control

9 Road Junction Signalling 11 11 11 11 14 11 11 11 11 13

10 Ancillary works 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

11 Depot 12 12 12 12 12 43 12 12 12 12 12 42

Light Rail Total 611 Guided-Bus Total 500

445
Appendix IV M-AST Data

Appendix IV: M-AST Data

This appendix indicates the modified AST (M-AST) model data allocation.

Light Rail Data Guided-Bus Data Type WebTAG/M-AST


LR-C-BI/1-11 GB-C-BI/1-4,6,8-11 CAPEX Public Accounts
LR-C-BV/12 GB-C-BV/12 CAPEX Public Accounts
LR-C-OI/2-11 GB-C-OI/2-4,6,8-11 OPEX Public Accounts
LR-C-OV/12 GB-C-OV/12 OPEX Public Accounts
LR-ENOV/12 GB-ENOV/12 ENVEM Noise (dB(A))
LR-ELOV/12 GB-ELOV/12 ENVEM Local Air Quality (PM10/NOx)
LR-EGOV/12 GB-EGOV/12 ENVEM Greenhouse Gases (CO2)
LR-CNBI/1-11 GB-CNBI/1-4,6,8-11 ENVEX Noise (£)
LR-CLBI/1-11 GB-CLBI/1-4,6,8-11 ENVEX Local Air Quality (£)
LR-CGBI/1-11 GB-CGBI/1-4,6,8-11 ENVEX Greenhouse Gases (£)
LR-CABI/2,4-8,11 GB-CABI/2,4,6,8,11 ENVEX Landscape/Townscape
LR-CNOV/12 GB-CNOV/12 ENVEX Noise (£)
LR-CLOV/12 GB-CLOV/12 ENVEX Local Air Quality (£)
LR-CGOV/12 GB-CGOV/12 ENVEX Greenhouse Gases (£)

447
Appendix V Running-way Build-up

Appendix V: Running-way Build-up

This appendix details the detailed build-up of the track and right of way elements for each of the light rail and guided-bus systems.

Track Type (Length m)


Length Length
Light Rail Route Section Line Ballast Paved Grass Structure Single Double
(km) (m)
R1 Park Lane- Mayfair - St.Michaels - New Lane Hill Single 2.9 2913 0 1456 1456 0 2913 0
R2 New Lane Hill - Hogarth Avenue Single 0.5 499 0 150 349 0 499 0
R3 Park Lane - Langley Hill Single 0.6 644 0 451 193 0 644 0
R4 A4 Park and Ride - Hogarth Avenue Double 0.9 885 0 0 885 0 0 885
R5 Langley Hill - A4 Park and Ride Single 1.1 1143 0 114 1028 0 1143 0
R6 Hogarth Avenue - Castle Hill Double 3.1 3074 0 922 2152 0 0 3074
R7 Castle Hill - Chatham Street Double 0.5 483 0 24 0 459 0 483
R8 Chatham Street - Watlington Street Double 1.5 1513 0 1513 0 0 0 1513
R9 Watlington Street - Chancellors Double 1.9 1907 0 1907 0 0 0 1907
R10 Chancellors - Cressingham Road Double 1.4 1416 0 708 708 0 0 1416
R11 Cressingham Road - Basingstoke Road Double 0.8 772 0 0 772 0 0 772
R12 Basingstoke Road - Madejski Stadium Double 1.7 1690 0 1690 0 0 0 1690
R13 Madejski Stadium Stop - M4 Park and Ride Double 1.2 1191 238 476 476 0 0 1191
R14 Watlington Street - London Road/A329M Double 2.3 2317 0 2317 0 0 0 2317
R15 London Road - A4 Park and Ride Double 1.2 1191 238 715 238 0 0 1191
R16 Depot Feeder (Bath Road) Single 0.8 805 748 16 0 40 805 0
22.4 22443 1225 12460 8259 499 6003 16440

449
Appendix V Running-way Build-up

Track Type (Length m)


Length Length
Guided-Bus Route Section Line Ballast Paved Grass Structure Single Double
(km) (m)
R1 Park Lane- Mayfair - St.Michaels - New Lane Hill Single 2.9 2913 0 1456 1456 0 2913 0
R2 New Lane Hill - Hogarth Avenue Single 0.5 499 0 150 349 0 499 0
R3 Park Lane - Langley Hill Single 0.6 644 0 451 193 0 644 0
R4 A4 Park and Ride - Hogarth Avenue Double 0.9 885 0 0 885 0 0 885
R5 Langley Hill - A4 Park and Ride Single 1.1 1143 0 114 1028 0 1143 0
R6 Hogarth Avenue - Castle Hill Double 3.1 3074 0 922 2152 0 0 3074
R7 Castle Hill - Chatham Street Double 0.5 483 0 24 0 459 0 483
R8 Chatham Street - Watlington Street Double 1.5 1513 0 1513 0 0 0 1513
R9 Watlington Street - Chancellors Double 1.9 1907 0 1907 0 0 0 1907
R10 Chancellors - Cressingham Road Double 1.4 1416 0 708 708 0 0 1416
R11 Cressingham Road - Basingstoke Road Double 0.8 772 0 0 772 0 0 772
R12 Basingstoke Road - Madejski Stadium Double 1.7 1690 0 1690 0 0 0 1690
R13 Madejski Stadium Stop - M4 Park and Ride Double 1.2 1191 0 476 715 0 0 1191
R14 Watlington Street - London Road/A329M Double 2.3 2317 0 2317 0 0 0 2317
R15 London Road - A4 Park and Ride Double 1.2 1191 0 715 476 0 0 1191
R16 Depot Feeder (Bath Road) Single 0.8 805 0 764 0 40 805 0
22.4 22443 0 13208 8736 499 6003 16440

450
Appendix VI OPEX Data

Appendix VI: OPEX Data

This appendix details the data build-up that contributes to the OPEX Costs. As can be seen the costs have been evaluated as the percentage contribution to
the overall OPEX cost where identifiable to a Level 2 cost. The values where quoted unless otherwise stated are the quantities of personnel included in the
cost build-up. Other allowances are for provisional costs and fuel usage. The fuel demand (electrical power or litres of diesel) is specified in the results
chapter of the thesis.

LR-C-OI/11
LR-C-OI/2

LR-C-OI/3

LR-C-OI/4

LR-C-OI/5

LR-C-OI/6

LR-C-OI/7

LR-C-OI/8

LR-C-OI/9

LR-C-OV
Light Rail
Quantity
Operations/
Allocation Resource
Maintenance

% Allocation of Cost
Managing Director 1 20 20 20 20 20
Finance Director 1 20 20 20 20 20
General Business
Operations Marketing Director 1 20 20 20 20 20
Overheads Administration
Executive Secretary 1 20 20 20 20 20
Business Performance Accountant 1 20 20 20 20 20
Senior Management Accountant 1 20 20 20 20 20
Management Accountants 2 20 20 20 20 20
Human Resources Manager 1 20 20 20 20 20
Business
Procurement and Contracts Manager 1 20 20 20 20 20
Administration
Internal Communications Staff 1 20 20 20 20 20
General Operations
Overheads External Communications Staff 4 20 20 20 20 20
Administration support 2 20 20 20 20 20
General Overheads
% 20 20 20 20 20
Business Overheads (% of operating direct costs)
Security and British Transport Police P.Sum 20 20 20 20 20
Insurances P.Sum 20 20 20 20 20

451
Appendix VI OPEX Data

LR-C-OI/11
LR-C-OI/2

LR-C-OI/3

LR-C-OI/4

LR-C-OI/5

LR-C-OI/6

LR-C-OI/7

LR-C-OI/8

LR-C-OI/9
Light Rail

LR-C-OV
Quantity
Operations/
Allocation Resource
Maintenance

Business Overheads Operational Overheads 1 20 20 20 20 20


Operations Director 1 20 20 20 20 20
Operations Manager 1 20 20 20 20 20
Operations Scheduling Manager 1 20 20 20 20 20
General Operations Staff
Safety Manager 1 20 20 20 20 20
Overheads
Duty Managers 4 20 20 20 20 20
Operational Controllers 14 20 20 20 20 20
Customer Service Advisors 2 20 20 20 20 20
Senior Maintenance
Head of Engineering 1 20 20 20 20 20
Management
Infrastructure Maintenance Maintenance Manager (P-Way) 1 100
Infrastructure Maintenance &
Cleaning Infrastructure Engineer (P-Way) 1 100
Infrastructure Engineer (Highway) 0
Team Leaders (P-Way - Resource
0.4 100
shared with Production)
Maintenance
Team Leaders (Buildings & Structures -
0.6 25 25 25 25
Resource shared with Production)
Infrastructure
Technical Support (Buildings &
Infrastructure Maintenance & 1 33 33 33
Structures)
Cleaning
Cleaning Manager 1 50 50
Operations
Team Leader (Cleaning) 0.6 50 50
Team Leader (P-Way) 0.6 100
Maintenance Trackmen (P-Way) 4 100
Team Leader (Highway) 0
Highway Inspection 0

452
Appendix VI OPEX Data

LR-C-OI/11
LR-C-OI/2

LR-C-OI/3

LR-C-OI/4

LR-C-OI/5

LR-C-OI/6

LR-C-OI/7

LR-C-OI/8

LR-C-OI/9
Light Rail

LR-C-OV
Quantity
Operations/
Allocation Resource
Maintenance

Maintenance Team Leaders (Buildings & Structures) 0.4 33 33 33


Infrastructure General Building staff 1 33 33 33
Maintenance &
Operations General Assistant 1 33 33 33
Cleaning
Infrastructure Cleaning Team Leader 0.4 33 33 33
Infrastructure Cleaning Operatives 12 33 33 33
Infrastructure Maintenance Highways Maintenance P.Sum 100
Infrastructure Operations Stops cleaning P.Sum 100
Materials Maintenance P-Way maintenance P.Sum 100
Operations Depot cleaning consumables P.Sum 100
Vandalism structure repairs P.Sum 33 33 33
Infrastructure Rapid Maintenance
Infrastructure Engineer 1 25 25 25 25
Response Team
Senior Maintenance Head of Infrastructure Engineering
Infrastructure 1 20 20 20 20 20
Management (P-Way, Buildings and Structures)
Maintenance
Maintenance Manager (Resource shared
1 20 20 20 20 20
for all electrical departments)
Operations Procurement/Contracts Specialist 1 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13
Team Leader (M&E - Resource shared
M&E Engineering 0.7 25 25 25 25
M&E with Production)
Management
Team Leader (OLE - Resource shared
Maintenance 0.6 100
with Production)
Team Leader (Substations - Resource
0.6 100
shared with Production)
Team Leader (S&T / TVM) 1 33 33 33

453
Appendix VI OPEX Data

LR-C-OI/11
LR-C-OI/2

LR-C-OI/3

LR-C-OI/4

LR-C-OI/5

LR-C-OI/6

LR-C-OI/7

LR-C-OI/8

LR-C-OI/9
Light Rail

LR-C-OV
Quantity
Operations/
Allocation Resource
Maintenance

M&E Engineering
Technical Support (S&T / TVM) 1 33 33 33
Management
Team Leader
0.3 25 25 25 25
(M&E - Shared with Management)
Electrical Technician (M&E) 2 25 25 25 25
Electrical Maintenance Assistant (M&E) 1 25 25 25 25
M&E Engineering Team Leader
M&E Maintenance 0.4 100
Production (OLE - Shared with Management)
Electrical Technician (OLE) 2 100
Electrical Maintenance Assistant (OLE) 2 100
Team Leader
0.4 100
(Substations- Shared with Management)
Electrical Technician (Substations) 1 100
Electrical Maintenance Assistant
M&E Engineering 1 100
(Substations)
Production
System Technicians (S&T / TVM) 2 33 33 33
TVM Technicians 2 33 33 33
M&E Rapid Electrical Engineer 1 20 20 20 20 20
M&E Maintenance
Response Team S&T / TVM Engineer 1 33 33 33
Specialist Maintenance Subcontracts P.Sum 25 25 25 25
M&E Subcontracts
Vandalism repairs P.Sum 100
Senior Maintenance Head of Electrical Engineering (OLE,
1 20 20 20 20 20
Management M&EE, Substations and S&T/TVM)

454
Appendix VI OPEX Data

LR-C-OI/11
LR-C-OI/2

LR-C-OI/3

LR-C-OI/4

LR-C-OI/5

LR-C-OI/6

LR-C-OI/7

LR-C-OI/8

LR-C-OI/9
Light Rail

LR-C-OV
Quantity
Operations/
Allocation Resource
Maintenance

Drivers (each driver to available 1760


33 100
Drivers hours/annum)
Operations
Driver Instructors 2 100
Fare Inspections Revenue Recovery Staff 3 100
Fare Inspectors
Fare Inspections Operations 12 100
(80% peak service coverage)
Senior Maintenance Head of Vehicles Engineering
Maintenance 1 100
Management (Vehicles maintenance and cleaning)
Power Consumption (1Q09) MW 100
Traction Power Operations
Fuel Consumption (1Q09) N/A 100
Vehicle Maintenance Vehicle Technicians 6 100
Maintenance
& Cleaning Vehicle Maintenance Assistants 4 100
Vehicle
Operations Vehicle Cleaners 8 100
Vehicle Maintenance Manager 1 100
Management/Support Maintenance Vehicle Engineer 1 100
Staff Team Leaders (Maintenance) 2 100
Administration Assistant 1 100
Vehicle Maintenance Stores Coordinators 3 100
Management/
Support Staff Operations Team Leaders (Cleaning) 2 100
Maintenance consumables P.Sum 100
Maintenance
Maintenance specialist subcontracts P.Sum 100
Vehicle Materials Operations Cleaning consumables P.Sum 100
Vandalism cleaning P.Sum 100
Maintenance
Vehicle RRT Vehicle Engineer 1 100
Total Number of Level 2 Data Codes 4 3 11 8 51 37 39 14 43 45

455
Appendix VI OPEX Data

GB-C-OI/11
GB-C-OI/2

GB-C-OI/3

GB-C-OI/4

GB-C-OI/6

GB-C-OI/8

GB-C-OI/9

GB-C-OV
Guided-Bus
Quantity
Operations/
Allocation Resource
Maintenance

% Allocation of Cost
Managing Director 1 25 25 25 25
Finance Director 1 25 25 25 25
Marketing Director 1 25 25 25 25
Executive Secretary 1 25 25 25 25
General Business Admin Business Performance Accountant 1 25 25 25 25
Operations
Overheads Staff Senior Management Accountant 1 25 25 25 25
Management Accountants 2 25 25 25 25
Human Resources Manager 1 25 25 25 25
Procurement and Contracts Manager 1 25 25 25 25
Internal Communications Staff 1 25 25 25 25
Business Admin External Communications Staff 4 25 25 25 25
Staff Administration support 2 25 25 25 25
General Overheads (as a % of operating direct costs) % 25 25 25 25
Business Overheads Security and British Transport Police P.Sum 25 25 25 25
General Insurances P.Sum 25 25 25 25
Operations
Overheads Operational Overheads P.Sum 25 25 25 25
Operations Director 1 25 25 25 25
Operations Manager 1 25 25 25 25
Operations Staff
Scheduling Manager 1 25 25 25 25
Safety Manager 1 25 25 25 25
Duty Managers 4 25 25 25 25

456
Appendix VI OPEX Data

GB-C-OI/11
GB-C-OI/2

GB-C-OI/3

GB-C-OI/4

GB-C-OI/6

GB-C-OI/8

GB-C-OI/9

GB-C-OV
Quantity
Guided-
Operations/

Bus
Allocation Resource
Maintenance

Operational Controllers
8 25 25 25 25
General Operations Staff Operations (No SCADA operators for Guided-bus)
Overheads Customer Service Advisors 3 25 25 25 25
Senior Maintenance
Head of Engineering 1 25 25 25 25
Management
Maintenance Manager (P-Way) 0
Infrastructure Engineer (P-Way) 0
Maintenance Infrastructure Engineer (Highway) 1 100
Infrastructure Maintenance
Infrastructure Team Leaders
& Cleaning 0
(P-Way - Resource shared with Production)
Team Leaders (Buildings & Structures -
0.6 25 25 25 25
Resource shared with Production)
Technical Support (Buildings & Structures) 1 33 33 33
Cleaning Manager 1 50 50
Operations
Team Leader (Cleaning) 0.6 50 50
Team Leader (P-Way) 0
Trackmen (P-Way) 0
Maintenance
Infrastructure Maintenance Team Leader (Highway) 1 100
& Cleaning Highway Inspection 2 100
Infrastructure
Team Leaders (Buildings & Structures) 0.4 33 33 33
General Building staff 1 33 33 33
Operations General Assistant 1 33 33 33
Infrastructure Cleaning Team Leader 0.4 33 33 33
Infrastructure Cleaning Operatives 12 33 33 33
Maintenance Highways Maintenance P.Sum 100
Infrastructure Materials
Operations Stops cleaning P.Sum 100

457
Appendix VI OPEX Data

GB-C-OI/11
GB-C-OI/2

GB-C-OI/3

GB-C-OI/4

GB-C-OI/6

GB-C-OI/8

GB-C-OI/9

GB-C-OV
Quantity
Guided-
Operations/

Bus
Allocation Resource
Maintenance

Infrastructure Maintenance P-Way maintenance P.Sum


Materials Operations Depot cleaning consumables P.Sum 100
Vandalism structure repairs P.Sum 33 33 33
Infrastructure
Infrastructure Rapid
Infrastructure Engineer 1 33 33 33
Response Team
Maintenance
Senior Maintenance Head of Infrastructure Engineering (P-Way,
1 20 20 20 20 20
Management Buildings and Structures)
Maintenance Manager (Resource shared for all
1 25 25 25 25
M&E Engineering electrical departments)
Management Operations Procurement and Contracts Specialist 1 17 17 17 17 17 17
Team Leader
Maintenance 0 25 25 25 25
(M&E - Resource shared with Production)
Team Leader
0
(OLE - Resource shared with Production)
M&E Engineering
Team Leader
Management 0
M&E (Substations - Resource shared with Production)
Team Leader (S&T / TVM) 1 33 33 33
Maintenance Technical Support (S&T / TVM) 1 33 33 33
Team Leader (M&E - Shared with Management) 0
Electrical Technician (M&E) 1 25 25 25 25
M&E Engineering
Electrical Maintenance Assistant (M&E) 1 25 25 25 25
Production
Team Leader (OLE - Shared with Management) 0
Electrical Technician (OLE) 0
Electrical Maintenance Assistant (OLE) 0

458
Appendix VI OPEX Data

GB-C-OI/11
GB-C-OI/2

GB-C-OI/3

GB-C-OI/4

GB-C-OI/6

GB-C-OI/8

GB-C-OI/9

GB-C-OV
Quantity
Guided-
Operations/

Bus
Allocation Resource
Maintenance

Team Leader (Substations- Shared with


0
Management)
M&E Engineering
Electrical Technician (Substations) 0
Production
Electrical Maintenance Assistant (Substations) 0
System Technicians (S&T / TVM) 2 33 33 33
M&E Maintenance TVM Technicians 2 33 33 33
Electrical Engineer 1 25 25 25 25
M&E RRT
S&T / TVM Engineer 1 33 33 33
Specialist Maintenance Subcontracts P.Sum 33 33 33
M&E Subcontracts
Vandalism repairs P.Sum 100
Senior Maintenance Head of Electrical Engineering (OLE, M&EE,
1 25 25 25 25
Management Substations and S&T/TVM)
Drivers (each driver available 1760 hours/annum) 53 100
Drivers
Operations Driver Instructors 3 100
Revenue Recovery Staff 5 100
Fare Inspections
Fare Inspectors (80% peak service coverage) 20 100
Senior Maintenance Head of Vehicles Engineering (Vehicles
Maintenance 1 100
Management maintenance and cleaning)
Vehicle Traction Power Power Consumption (1Q09) N/A 100
Operations Fuel
Traction Power Fuel Consumption (1Q09) 100
(Litres)
Vehicle Maintenance Vehicle Technicians 8 100
Maintenance
& Cleaning Vehicle Maintenance Assistants 6 100
Operations Vehicle Cleaners 10 100
Vehicle Management/
Maintenance Maintenance Manager 1 100
Support Staff

459
Appendix VI OPEX Data

GB-C-OI/11
GB-C-OI/2

GB-C-OI/3

GB-C-OI/4

GB-C-OI/6

GB-C-OI/8

GB-C-OI/9

GB-C-OV
Quantity
Guided-
Operations/

Bus
Allocation Resource
Maintenance

Vehicle Engineer 2 100


Vehicle Maintenance Team Leaders (Maintenance) 3 100
Management/Support
Administration Assistant 1 100
Staff
Stores Coordinators 3 100
Vehicle Operations Team Leaders (Cleaning) 3 100
Maintenance consumables P.Sum 100
Maintenance
Vehicle Materials Maintenance specialist subcontracts P.Sum 100
Operations Cleaning consumables P.Sum 100
Vandalism cleaning P.Sum 100
Maintenance
Vehicle RRT Vehicle Engineer 1 100
Total Number of Level 2 Data Codes 7 3 11 50 38 13 42 45

460
Appendix VII Listed Structures in Reading

Appendix VII: Listed Structures in Reading

Street Name Number Building Name Grade


St Paul’s Church Hall II
Basingstoke
64-70(E) II
Road
Little Lea Cottage II
2 Swallow House II
4&6 II
42 II
Water Tower II
Mile Post Approximately 50m South West Of
Bath Road II
Water Tower
Boundary Stone Near No. 76 II
76 II
Prospect House, Prospect Park II
Milepost II
Caversham 29 & 31 II
Road 47-57(O) Regent Place II
173-183(O) II*
185 II
187 & 189 II
Wycliffe Baptist Church II
Kings Road
2 & 2B II
86,86A & 88 II
196-200(O) II
220 & 222 II
10 Former Walter Parsons Corn Stores II
Church Of St James II
St James’ Presbytery II
Wall Between Forbury Road And Abbott’s Walk,
II
West Of St James’ Church
Forbury Road St James’ Roman Catholic School II
Archway Linking Abbey Ruins With Forbury
II*
Gardens
Main Building Of HM Prison II
The Plummery Wall II
St Laurence’s Churchyard II
1-6all Horncastle Almhouses II
12 & 14 II
New Lane Hill 221 Green Lea II
Church Of St Michael - See Church Road
II
,Tilehurst

461
Appendix VII Listed Structures in Reading

Street Name Number Building Name GRADE


Wall To Garden Of Acacias II
St Andrew’s Hall (Front Block And Stable Lodge
Redlands Road II
To North)
1-6 (DEM) Southern Hill II
31 Lodge To Whiteknights Park House II
Shinfield Road School House And Attached Laboratories At
II
Leighton Park School
Station Hill Main Building Of Reading General Station II
Church Of Saint John The Evangelist II
Watlington 44 Watlington House II *
Street Walls Enclosing Garden To West Of No. 44
II
(Watlington House)

462

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen