Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
vii
Contents
viii
Contents
ix
Contents
References 405
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
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
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
xx
Abbreviations and Acronyms
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.
Transit Mode:
Light Rail ‘LR’ - the assessment of the transit system associated with light
rail.
Infrastructure ‘I’ – all of the built elements of the transit system that includes
running way, stops, power supplies, depot facilities, traffic
management control etc.
xxiv
Glossary
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).
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
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.
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
I initially considered a study area concerning the development of a business model for
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
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
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
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
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
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
provide a data output that would allow direct comparison between modes. The UK
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
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
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
The thesis is structured around the development of the research described above. The
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.
5
Introduction
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.
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
7
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy
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
The graph in Figure 1-1 shows the distance travelled by UK residents over the period from
1952 to 2007.
900
800
700
Passenger Kilometres (Billions)
600
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
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% -
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,
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
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
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)
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
2010).
13
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy
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
Particulate matter (PM) from road vehicle use is quantified by the size of the matter
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
14
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy
Figure 1-5 UK PM10 Emissions 1970 – 2007 (Adapted from: NAEIb, 2007)
500 25
400 20
PM10 Emissions (Thousand Tonnes)
350
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
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.
1995). Noise and vibration caused by road vehicles causes stress that can trigger
respiratory, arterial hypertension, digestive problems and nervous disorders – insomnia, for
(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
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
jams but can also be applied to other transport networks, but it is the road network that is
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’
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.
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
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
and social (ECMTc, 1999) The following sections review congestion’s economic and
environmental impacts, with a review of social impacts covering both those associated
c
ECMT - European Conference of Ministers of Transport
17
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy
There is a requirement for resilient transport links and networks that otherwise can present
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
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,
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).
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
18
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy
Figure 1-7 The Effects of Vehicle Speed on Emissions (Highways Agency, 2005b)
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
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
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
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
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
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
building plans congestion would get worse as creating capacity would generate more
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,
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 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
Potential
Public Traffic
Vehicle
Transport Use Volume
Numbers
Increased Reduced
reduced
per Vehicle
Emissions
not abated
& Emissions
23
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy
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
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
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
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
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
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
TDM systems; for example the number plate recognition systems and automated billing
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
Ever since the Buchanan (1963), ‘Traffic in Towns’ report, there has been a long-standing
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
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
26
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy
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
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
• Reduced CO2 emissions and improved air quality (legally binding target to reduce
• A fairer and more inclusive society with reduced severance, better transport choices
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
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
management can improve the environmental performance of new and current vehicles. The
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,
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.
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
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
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,
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
30
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy
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
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
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
“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
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
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
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
The DfT position was made clearer in this special report, specifically citing the need for
congestion.
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
£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
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,
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
noted to be a low priority target for emission reductions and that it could be, ‘among the
34
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy
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
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
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:
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
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
36
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy
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
The action plans resulting from DaSTS are aligned to the priorities identified by Eddington
38
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy
Gateway Ports
• North London Line rail improvements for freight train access to Thames Gateway
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.
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
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
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;
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
Since the Labour Government came to power in 1997 there has been a gradual shift away
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
Figure 1-12 returns to the 2x2 matrix presented in Figure 1-9 and plots the various UK
The Future of
Urban Transport X
2009
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
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
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
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
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
42
Chapter 1 Transport Trends, Impacts and Policy
The issues that are emanating from the discussion above are:
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
43
Chapter 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
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
This section deals with the key aspects of light rail and guided-bus technical performance
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
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
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
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
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
47
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review
1885
Blackpool Tram
Tram Introduced
1980
Sheffield Supertram
1995
Policy
1996
part of this plan the operations, maintenance and refurbishment of the rolling stock is to be
48
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review
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
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
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
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
The planned £600m Metrolink extensions was part of the £2.8bn investment plan in
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-
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
access to a car (Sully, 2003). Transport benefits would lead to good integration and would
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)
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
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,
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
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
“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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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-
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
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
Figure 2-8 NET Finance and Funding (Adapted from Perin, 2003)
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).
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
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
The utility diversions contractor (Carillion who took-over from Alfred McAlpine) was
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
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
December 2010 28% of construction work had been completed but £402m (79% of the
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
68
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review
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
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
d
Edinburgh City Council
69
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review
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
enhances it to be more than a simple, conventional bus operation. The timeline for selected
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
70
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review
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
2007
Luton Airport FTR (Unguided) The Eddington & Stern Reviews
2008
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
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
guideway for buses as a means to create the route for the light rail system, even though this
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-
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
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
• Light rail corridor: Would require 10 double car light rail vehicles (£2m each) =
• ftr corridor: Probably needs 15 ‘ftr’ vehicles = £4.5m, Extensive Guideway and Bus
Hence, First claim that the total light rail cost would be £160m and ftr would be £14.5m
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
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 guided-bus system in Cambridge has been the subject of a lot of debate and opposition
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).
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
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
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
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
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
The success of the light rail systems can be considered in terms of the passenger volumes,
79
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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):
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
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
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
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
84
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review
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
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
• The promoter has to satisfy transport plan and wider governmental objectives, “we
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
• 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 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
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
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.
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
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
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:
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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).
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
In a development of this work, Ubbels and Nijkamp (2002) subsequently discussed the
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
91
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review
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
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
92
Chapter 2 Public Transport Systems Review
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
Nottingham being planned) these have not been able to secure alternative funding despite
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,
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
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
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
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
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
determining equivalence to light rail needs to be conceived in order that systems can be
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
95
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition
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.
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
• 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):
final drives. The engine can be fuelled by LPG, bio-gas or other diesel alternatives.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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 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-
“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 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
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
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.
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).
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
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
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
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)
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
109
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition
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).
As can be seen from this review of systems, there has been an increase in the diversity of
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)
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.
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
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
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
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.
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,
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
113
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition
The discussion in the BRTuk Handbook about the ftr (BRTuk, 2010) focuses wholly on the
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
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
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
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 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
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.
classification will provide an understanding of the regulatory basis and safety regimes for
115
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition
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
with signal control and suitable for light rail and BTS with buses on
• Category C Low investment street and road running without separation. Suitable for
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.
terms of speed and capacity. This leads to greater technical dependency for operation and
116
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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.
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
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
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
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.
Parry People Mover PPM80 80, single car unit Parry People Movers,2007
122
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition
‡ - Capacity stated for a standard vehicle configuration (seated and standing to 4/m2).
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.).
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Wherever the end of the tree is reached by a triangle, this denotes that the system
systems. There are five cases where these have been identified in Figure 3-19 and these are
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
127
Chapter 3 Transport System Definition
A summary representation of the proposed typology is illustrated in Figure 3-21. Note the
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
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
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.
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
• To streamline safety requirements to allow greater risk proportionality and reduce cost
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
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
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
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
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
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
So, the definitional issue is important. There is a growing recognition that the transit
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
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
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
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
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
135
Chapter 4 Research Approach
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
characteristics being compared. Cryer (2001) simply confirms the ‘traditional research
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
This exploration of the research approach has confirmed the use of a predominantly
required.
141
Chapter 4 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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
Bottom-up
Theory Unit
Inductive Reasoning
Hypothesis System
Generalisation Sub-System
Bottom-up
Observation Elements Software Development
Top-down
Theory Specification
Software Development
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
144
Chapter 4 Research Approach
Phillips and Pugh (2000) further warn the prospective researcher to be wary of the
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.
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
From Figure 4-2, the Outputs are the costs and environmental data that will emerge from
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
145
Chapter 4 Research Approach
Resources
The factoring to be
applied to the inputs
The characteristics
of the system
Constraints
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
146
Chapter 4 Research Approach
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
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
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
147
Chapter 4 Research 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
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
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
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
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
There were two methods identified in chapter 4 that could be used to develop a data
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
149
The AST illustrated in Table 5-1, as the name implies, is a structured summary form of the WebTAG assessment criteria.
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.
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
Transport and Works Act applications (Merseytram, Edinburgh Tram and Cambridge
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
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;
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
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
152
Chapter 5 Assessment Development
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:
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
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
Mode
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
cases these changes attract a cost that will be captured, for the purposes of this research
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
This section focuses on the environmental aspects of the model and how these feature in
5.7.1. Noise
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 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
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.
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
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 inclusion of the demolished buildings may appear unusual in the context of air
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
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
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
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.
These are three areas of built environmental concern that can be difficult to distinguish
(WebTAG Unit 3.3.8), noting that, ‘it is often the success of the interaction between all
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):
• Neutral effect
161
Chapter 5 Assessment Development
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
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.
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
Table 5-6
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-
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
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.
regarding the route of the transit system and given the largely urban environment the
The appraisal for the water environment sub-objective considers all manner of water
courses and effects including rivers, floodplains, groundwater, seas and estuaries, lakes
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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 improve transport economic efficiency for business users and transport providers
167
Chapter 5 Assessment Development
• to improve reliability
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?
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’
This captures, for local and central government, the costs associated with:
Operating Costs
Investment Costs
Grant/subsidy payments
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
Of the key Public Accounts table factors, it is only intended that the operating and
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
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
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.
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
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
170
Chapter 5 Assessment Development
Sections 5.7 and 5.8 have identified the following areas of appraisal to be modelled:
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
The next step is to consider how the model can be constructed to address the AST items.
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
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
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
• 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
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).
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
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
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:
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
174
Chapter 5 Assessment Development
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
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
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
− Lifecycle Phases 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
eliminated are detailed in the data sift exercise that was then conducted.
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
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
(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
respect of air quality, “Overall, construction traffic is not predicted to cause a significant
matter (PM10) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is expected on Waterloo Road and on London
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
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
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,
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).
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
180
Chapter 5 Assessment Development
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.
• 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
• How are the vehicles controlled whilst operating en-route? What facilities are
• What power supplies are required and how are they controlled for the vehicle, or
the infrastructure?
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
181
Chapter 5 Assessment Development
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
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.
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.
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
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
183
Chapter 5 Assessment Development
Figure 5-5 Croydon Tram Stop at East Croydon station (Source: Hodgson, 2004)
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
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
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
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
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
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)
Depot
Tram
Sidings
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
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.
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 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.
Operational
Description
Area
188
Chapter 5 Assessment Development
Operational
Description
Area
Traction Power
The allowance for fuel, be it diesel, LPG or electric.
Supplies
189
Chapter 5 Assessment Development
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
• 11 Depot
190
Chapter 5 Assessment Development
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
plus the 8 vehicle components. The remaining data needs specific consideration to further
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
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
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
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:
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
CGBI
CABI
CNBI
CLBI
Light Rail -
C-OI
C-BI
x
Infrastructure Codes
Environmental/ landscaping/
3 LR-C-BI/3 LR-CGBI/3 LR-CABI/3 LR-CNBI/3 LR-CLBI/3 LR-C-OI/3
architectural
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:
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
CGBI
CABI
CNBI
CLBI
Guided-Bus -
C-OI
C-BI
x
Infrastructure Codes
Environmental/ landscaping/
3 architectural
GB-C-BI/3 GB-CGBI/3 GB-CABI/3
GB-CLBI/3 GB-C-OI/3
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
194
Chapter 5 Assessment Development
At this stage of the development, the level two data sift has successfully reduced the
• Level one potential codes: 376 (for two modes, see section 5.13)
• 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
• Level two post data sift: 125 (sift at level one and two)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
198
Chapter 5 Assessment Development
The model has been developed using a top-down approach to the stage that 1127 data
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
(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
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:
199
Chapter 5 Assessment Development
The presentation of these costs in investment and operational phases would be:
A further opportunity for work outside the remit of this project, would be to ‘cost’ the
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
Table 5-18 M-AST: Modified AST for the Purposes of this Project
ENVEM
ENVEX
CAPEX
OPEX
200
Chapter 5 Assessment Development
Note that this represents the M-AST quantitative outputs of the model only, qualitative
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
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
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
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
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:
• The system layout and network was then developed based upon the location
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
203
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application
• Cost Analysis
o Capital Costs for the infrastructure and the vehicle (CAPEX) – Section 6.7
• Environmental Analysis
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
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
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
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 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
proposal.
scheme. This should include existing transit links (trunk roads, bus routes and
mainline rail stations) and key interchanges that would benefit from the integration
• The proposed location should provide the opportunity to provide a transport link to
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
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
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 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
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
(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
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
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
Mayfair
St.Michaels
Park Lane
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
Chancellors
Cressingham Road
Basingstoke Road
Callington Road
Acre Road
Madejski
Imperial Way
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
The eastern extension is relatively short and only has a further 3 stops terminating at the
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
Park
New Lane Hill
Lane
Langley Granville The Chatham Forbury Watlington London
Kingsgate
Hill Road Courts Sreet Road Street Road
University
Hospital North
Hospital South
Chancellors
Cressingham Road
Basingstoke Road
Callington Road
Acre Road
Madejski Stadium
Imperial Way
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.
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
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
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
systems being modelled were based upon the same mapping then any scaling errors apply
The total route length was determined using the intervals between the stops to describe the
216
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application
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
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
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
218
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application
Cambridgeshire County Council (CC) envisaged the Cambridge Guided-Bus scheme was
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
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
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
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.
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
Figure 6-9 Examples of Granite Setts, Left: Close-up view (Source: Bingley Stone, 2010),
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 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
C A C C D
Diverging Right Turn-out Main route straight on Crossover between tracks
223
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application
The configuration of the S&C developed for the RUN system is related to the location of
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
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
Guided-bus Stop
Guided-bus Stop
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
Callington Road
Madejski Stadium
Single Cross-over in track
Imperial Way
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
The need for overhead power supplies for the light rail option means that there is
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
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
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
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
Modern transit systems use telecommunications systems for ticketing, security and real-
time customer information screens and signalling and traction power control for the
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.
SCADA Workstation Route Control System Station Operations and Security System
B Line
A Line Communications
Communications Equipment
Equipment
234
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application
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.
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
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
An allowance of 31 for both light rail and guided-bus has been made for changes to
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
236
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application
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
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
237
Figure 6-21 Merseytram Depot Planning Direction Drawing (Source: Merseytravel, 2004)
238
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application
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-
Car Park
Vehicle Wash
Headshunt
Facility
Maintenance Shed
Control Centre
Wheel Lathe Shop
GreenFields Depot
239
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application
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
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
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
The land identified for the two systems are 10300m2 for the bus and 21000m2 for the light
rail system.
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).
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
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).
As has been discussed, the guided-bus vehicle and system are assessed on the basis of
operational issues have meant that this vehicle is undergoing a drive-train change from a
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
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
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
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
acceleration of 1.4m/s2. The DE60LF New Flyer is shorter at 18.8m and has a capacity of
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
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.
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.
So far this section has provided an overview of the transit system that has 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
The next step is to convert the data above in to a costed model in terms of capital,
environmental emissions (ENVEM). The next section addresses this and illustrates the
245
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application
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
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
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:
l
This value is hypothesised as data confidentiality prevents actual values being used
246
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application
B D E
A
Utilities Costs -
Electricty, Telecoms
EMC Compliance F
qw eqerfqerfqerf……………….1231 Demonstration Costs
etc
7654
H I
Operator & Land Acquisition
Concessionare & Compensation
Vehicle
Procurement Trial Running
K
Cost to Procure Cost to Test
Vehicle only Vehicle on built
Infrastructure
L M
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
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 data presented in figures 6-27 and 6-28 aligns with the data provided in Appendix IV
248
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application
CGOV
CNOV
EGOV
CLOV
ENOV
ELOV
Conventional Electrified
C-OV
CGBI
CNBI
CABI
C-BV
CLBI
C-OI
C-BI
Light Rail
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
EGOV
ENOV
CLOV
ELOV
C-OV
CGBI
CABI
C-BV
CNBI
CLBI
C-OI
C-BI
Guided-Bus
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
249
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application
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
(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)
In the period of the study, F&A have been involved with feasibility studies for transit
system, and development of a high speed tram for Transport for London (F&A, 2008b).
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
250
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application
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
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
251
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application
252
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application
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
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,
• Cross-track utilities can be left in place provided they can be accessed without
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.
EMC is the term given for the necessary demonstration that all electrical equipment can
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 include all aspects of the installation including all potential victims and may include
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
254
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application
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
Promoter
O&M Turnkey
Contract Contract
O&M Turnkey
Contractor Contractor
Sub-contracts Sub-contracts
Sub-contractors Sub-contractors
The example of the NET organisation provides the background to the role of the
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
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.
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)
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.
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
• 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
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,
• 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
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.
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
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
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 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
260
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application
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
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
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
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
nature will attract mobilisation and set-up costs that will need to be recovered through the
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
£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.
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
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
determine the frequency and the start and finish times of the service to gauge a
• The RUN service pattern for the light rail service was determined and a timetable
• The passenger capacity for the day was calculated for RUN based on the light rail
• 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
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
Speed (km/h)
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
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
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.
The operation of the RUN transit system has OPEX costs associated with two distinct
areas:
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
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
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
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
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
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
• The built-infrastructure – the fabric of the system in the form of the permanent
• The mechanical and electrical (M&E) infrastructure – the systems and services that
run the transit system including OLE, substations, CCTV, SCADA, telecoms,
organisation. This will be led by the Head of Engineering with a Head of Vehicles
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
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.
CGOV
CNOV
EGOV
ENOV
CLOV
ELOV
Conventional Electrified
C-OV
CGBI
CABI
C-BV
CNBI
CLBI
C-OI
C-BI
Light Rail
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
ENOV
EGOV
CLOV
ELOV
CGBI
C-OV
CNBI
CABI
C-BV
CLBI
C-BI
C-OI
Guided-Bus
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
-
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
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
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
From Figures 6-31 and 6-32, the areas left to describe are the ENVEM and ENVEX costs.
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:
270
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application
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
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)
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
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
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
Table 6-11 Light Rail Noise Estimated source contributions (SILENCE, 2008)
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
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
vibration in buildings’. Also, tram operation vibration will not be at levels that could give
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
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
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
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
o
Reference hereafter to BERR data is referring BERR, 2008a.
274
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application
(PM10 Table E12.15 from BERR, NOx Table E12.13 from BERR)
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 was operated over 2.5 million kilometres over the same period
• In the same year the Tram system produced 0.06t of NOx and 0.001t of PM10
Furthermore it can be calculated that that 0.024g/km of NOx and 0.0004g/km of PM10 are
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
NOx PM10
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.
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):
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
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
Another source of data for Phileas that was produced in 2006 confirmed that the vehicle
2006):
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
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
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
and average power demand. For this part of the analyses, the Phileas vehicle has been
disregarded.
279
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application
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
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 actual data from the NREL Laboratory Test Report was:
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
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.
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:
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
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
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
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
NOX
0.024 4.6 N/A 4.09 Negligible 8.97 14
(g/km)
PM10 Not
0.0004 0.14 N/A
Calculable
Unknown 0.002 0.03
(g/km)
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
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
for new engines introduced in 2004 – 2005 provides a basis for comparison of NOx and
r
Transport for London, 2007
284
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application
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)
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
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
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:
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
286
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application
Other key data that has resulted from the data gathering exercise in this section is the fuel
This data will be used in the calculation of the fuel consumed by the vehicles as a
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
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.
Classification Criteria
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
288
Chapter 6 Model Construction and Application
Impact Criteria
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
Impact Criteria
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
Primary Road
Conservation Area
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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.
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
demolition activities, earth moving, construction aggregate usage, movement of heavy site
vehicles on dry untreated areas and movement of vehicles over surfaces contaminated by
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
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
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
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
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).
This section has identified the data sources for the contributory factors to the M-AST:
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-
to be undertaken to turn the gathered data into comparable costs and emissions. The
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
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
B D E
A
Utilities Costs -
Electricty, Telecoms
EMC Compliance F
qw eqerfqerfqerf……………….1231 Demonstration Costs
etc
7654
H I
Operator & Land Acquisition
Concessionare & Compensation
Vehicle
Procurement Trial Running
K
Cost to Procure Cost to Test
Vehicle only Vehicle on built
Infrastructure
L M
M-AST Entry
298
Chapter 7 Modelling Results
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
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
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
299
Chapter 7 Modelling Results
The total infrastructure construction cost for the Light Rail Scheme is the sum of the Level
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
300
Chapter 7 Modelling Results
Construction
Construction Net Cost
Cost Build-up Construction Net Cost
Summary
B D
A
301
Chapter 7 Modelling Results
So, the data provides the Construction Net cost for both schemes at £125.9m for light rail
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),
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
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.
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
As detailed in the Data Gathering section and represented by the four boxes (G) – (J) in
The basis for the valuation of these costs is either pro-rata based upon the costs of an
either case the methods are both used on the basis of application by F&A in undertaking
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 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).
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:
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
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
• 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
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:
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:
306
Chapter 7 Modelling Results
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:
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
307
Chapter 7 Modelling Results
There are two assumptions that need to be made that emanate from the system equivalence
(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
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
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
Watlington Street
Service 1
Service 2
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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%
The costs or trial running are based upon a factor of the capital cost of the vehicles and the
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:
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 vehicle costs are shown in Figure 7-8 as part of the contribution to the ‘Total Project
Cost’.
L M K
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
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
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,
The fuel consumption has also been identified as 4.4kWh/km for light rail and 3.25mpg
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
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
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
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:
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.
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
322
Table 7-15 Vehicle emissions – Guided-Bus
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
Putting the emissions data developed in the previous section side-by-side allows a simple
Table 7-16 Emissions Data for Light Rail and Guided-Bus on the Reading System
• 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
• Fleet NOX emissions for BERR light rail data are a third of guided-bus. The light rail
• PM10 emissions are significantly higher with light rail BERR data over the guided-bus
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
The emissions data has been further assessed to provide additional options for analysis.
324
Chapter 7 Modelling Results
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
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
60.0
Light
LR Rail CO2/Service
CO2/service
Guided-bus
GB CO2/serviceCO2/Service
50.0
40.0
CO2 Emissions (tonnes)
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
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
Further analysis of the CO2 emissions is provided in the results analysis section.
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 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
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)
150.0
100.0
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
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
of a rate per kWh and hence emission mass per vehicle is stepped through methodically as
follows:
Laboratory (NREL) reports (Chandler and Walkowicz, 2006). This provided a value of
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.
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)
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
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
on the selected route for the system and any potential impacts. This also includes a brief
section earlier. The costs arising from mitigating noise impacts has been identified
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
• 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 7-18 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
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.
332
Chapter 7 Modelling Results
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
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
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
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
• M&E operations and maintenance– electrical and mechanical systems and controls
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
334
Table 7-20 OPEX
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
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
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
336
Chapter 7 Modelling Results
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
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
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
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
338
Chapter 7 Modelling Results
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
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 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).
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
340
Table 7-24 Reading Urban Network, Modified Appraisal Summary Table (M-AST)
341
Chapter 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
• 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
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
8.1 CAPEX
The CAPEX data is based on the development of the system described in chapter 6, the
343
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion
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
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.
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
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-
345
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion
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
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
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
Although track and power supplies represent the main costs differences there are some
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
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
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
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
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
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
349
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion
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
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
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
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.
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
351
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion
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
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
and operator (establishment) costs and hence also appear in the build-up of operational
cost.
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
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
A further reduction in cost for the guided-bus system would be financially beneficial;
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
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.
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.
354
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion
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
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
£55m
£49m
£29m
£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
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
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.
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
Vehicles (Number) 18 30 30
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
Conversely with the £28.8m (Phileas) or a £12.1m (DE60LF) budget this would procure 14
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
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
358
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion
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
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 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.
As with the infrastructure cost data, it is possible to assess the guided-bus and light rail
360
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion
It is possible to calculate the cost per space on an individual vehicle based upon the capital
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
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
Using the values from Table 8-7 the relative cost levels of each vehicle are consistent with
≡ £695/capacity-km/annum
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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 light rail costs are obviously higher than guided-bus where there is more
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
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
construction work here and also with the track and power control systems distributed
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
costs. The key issue is that as the mitigation is a cost allowance on-top of the construction
8.6 ENVEM
370
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
As with the CO2 emissions the weekly guided-bus NOx emissions exceed that of the light
373
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion
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
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
374
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion
Overall, the case for guided-bus NOX emissions does not compare to ‘national’ light rail
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.
The PM10 case is different again because the light rail emissions (using TfL data) are
previously, present surprisingly significantly higher emissions for light rail. The emissions
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.)
%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
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
Previously, the BERR data for light rail PM10 emissions was questioned as the values
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
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
376
Chapter 8 Results Analysis and Discussion
The noise and vibration issues are centred around the operation of the vehicles on the ‘live’
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
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
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
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
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
379
380
Chapter 9 Conclusion
9. Conclusion
This research project started after an analysis of the UK Transport Policy response to the
Over the development of the research, the issues evolved and were refined and ultimately
to light rail?
• In what way does a bus-based system provide a more flexible and phased transport
system?
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
equivalence to light rail. The development of the discussions in support of this and
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 problem by reviewing current light rail and bus-based systems in the UK and
worldwide.
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
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).
(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
and health links. Hawken et al (1999) bemoaned congestion smothering mobility which in
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
The use of light rail has been taken out of UK transport policy as a viable means to
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,
The research project sought to identify a credible alternative to light rail that could possibly
The development of light rail in the UK has all but ceased. Once, or possibly if, the
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
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.
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
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
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,
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):
to obtain
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
387
Chapter 9 Conclusion
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
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
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
389
Chapter 9 Conclusion
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)
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
• The vehicle must have the capability to run on-street to penetrate urban centres but
• The vehicle needs to have some capability for non-discretionary guidance as this
enforces traffic management measures which will enable prioritised running and a
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
393
Chapter 9 Conclusion
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
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
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
The matrix illustrated in Figure 9-3 shows the relative positions of the vehicle costs per
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
Direction of cost/
Increase DE60LF capacity for given cost Reduce light rail
£ emission performance
emissions further improvement
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
395
Chapter 9 Conclusion
• DE60LF (blue) – improve emissions performance by increasing the capacity for the
vehicle, the improvement will increase capacity for the same (entry-level) cost.
• Phileas (green) – unlike the DE60LF cost reductions could be sought along with
most feasible.
The bus-based system and light rail cost and emissions are comparable when considering
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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,
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
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 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.
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)
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
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’.
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
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
The results from the model demonstrated that the bus and light rail vehicle emissions are
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
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
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
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-
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
based system. Also, this work has looked at vehicle operational emissions as the basis of
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
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
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
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]
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
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 (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. 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
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]
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.
409
References
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]
CAST.IRON (2011) The Cambridge And St. Ives Railway Organisation [online] Available
at: < http://www.castiron.org.uk/> [Accessed 23 May 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]
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) 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]
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]
Eddington, R. (2006) The Eddington Transport Study The case for action: Sir Rod
Eddington’s advice to Government Norwich: HMSO
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.
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]
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]
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 (2007b) Cross River Tram, Preliminary Business Case, Operating and Maintenance
Cost Estimate. London: F&A
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 (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]
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
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.
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) 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]
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
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]
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.]
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
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
422
References
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
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
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
Mourant, A (2011) Supertram’s wheels of steel. Rail Professional Issue 170, pp24-26
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
424
References
National Rail Enquires (2011) Journey Planner [online] Available at: <http://ojp.
nationalrail.co.uk/service/fares/tickets> [Accessed 19 June 2011]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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.
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]
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
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. (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 (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]
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]
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]
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]
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
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]
Wright Group (2005) The Wright Group Drives to the Future. Galgorm, Ballymena:
Wright Group
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
This appendix details the level 3 data used and basis of computation in the model.
435
Appendix I Infrastructure Construction Level Three Data
436
Appendix I Infrastructure Construction Level Three Data
437
Appendix I Infrastructure Construction Level Three Data
438
Appendix I Infrastructure Construction Level Three Data
439
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
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.
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
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
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
445
Appendix IV M-AST Data
This appendix indicates the modified AST (M-AST) model data allocation.
447
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.
449
Appendix V Running-way Build-up
450
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
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
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
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
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
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
460
Appendix VII Listed Structures in Reading
461
Appendix VII Listed Structures in Reading
462