[sustran] More on UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway

[Eric Bruun]

Dear Sustran readers:

Covering operating costs, even by the definition used in Dublin, would be
considered an excellent result in most of the richer cities in Europe and
North America. But this definition of covering operating cost is
problematic, of I will mention more below.

As I have said before, I support quality bus network additions, but they are
not necessarily the equal of rail projects. I don't know the circumstances
of the specific alignments in Dublin, but here are some considerations that
can often makes rail a better alternative:

1) High labor costs.  If demand is high and service is frequent, then very
large vehicles cut labor costs. If Dublin is like the UK, operator wages are
probably quite low and unions weak or non-existent. In this case labor costs
are not as important as in countries where workers are better paid.

2) High peak to base ratios. Rail vehicles can have their rakes (or consists
in North America) lengthened at low marginal cost. Each unit of bus capacity
costs the same as the last on busways. The marginal cost for buses (and old
fashioned streetcars) actually increases during peak hours if they are in
mixed traffic operation.

3) Existing disused rail rights-of-way in decent locations can save a lot of
time and money for rail projects.

4) Where there is no way to avoid tunneling or huge suspension bridges. Once
this is necessary, then the cost of rail and electrification may not be such
a large incremental increase. Not every large city has the width of
right-of-way available that the main trunk line of TransMillenio in Bogota
requires. Creating such a corridor would require the same kind of massive
dislocation and disruption that motorways require. There also may be serious
water crossings.

5) Lack of enforcement of bus lanes. Rail rights-of-way can be designed to
deter other vehicles. (Bus rights-of-way can also do this, in theory, but
there is often much pressure to let other vehicles fill the "empty space".)

6) Corridors where development is going to intensify. Even if the demand is
met by buses at a reasonable frequency today, there may have to be a
continuous wall of them in the future. This becomes quite unattractive in
areas where there are many residences and/or pedestrians. It also means that
pedestrians have to be excluded. Fewer rail vehicles providing equal
capacity at much longer headways might make it possible to keep the
right-of-way more open.

7) System operating cost is relevant, not modal operating cost. This is
where the auditors and right-wing idealogues get it all wrong. In some
corridors it makes sense to transfer passengers to large trunk vehicles and
use the buses for higher frequency local feeders, circulators, and
tangential connectors. In this way, more service to more origin-destination
pairs is offered for an equal operating budget. This is even more true when
there are high peak-to-base ratios.

Eric



----- Original Message -----
From: "Brendan Finn" <etts at indigo.ie>
To: "Asia and the Pacific sustainable transport"
<sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 5:40 AM
Subject: [sustran] Re: UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway


> For what it's worth :
>
> In Dublin we will soon have two new tram/LRT lines in operation. The UK
> National Audit seems to have triggered a little freedom of information
here.
>
> The Rail Procurement Agency (RPA) has entered into a contract with CONNEX
> who will operate the system. We are told that this contract will have a
> value of 20 million Euro per year. We are also told that the forecast
> carryings are 20 million passengers per year, and the forecast revenue
> (collected by RPA) is 20 million Euro per year. Following the UK National
> Audit, the RPA has assured us that the forecasting was done to
> "international standards" - whatever these actually are.
>
> The "optimistic" forecast, therefore, is that revenues barely cover direct
> operating cost. "Optimistic" means that there is zero contribution to the
> 700 million Euro plus investment, zero contribution to the maintenance
costs
> (not in the CONNEX contract), zero contribution to customer-facing
services
> such as ticketing and information, and zero surplus for future
development.
> Incredibly, that's the "optimistic" version based on the "international
> standard" forecasts.
>
> Forgive my cynicism as I point out that the capital investment on these
two
> LRT lines is equivalent to 4 years total costs (note : full costs, not
> subsidy) for the bus network which always has and always will carry the
vast
> majority of public transport passengers in Dublin. It is also about 10
times
> greater than the extensive and excellent Quality Bus Corridor Network
which
> is well under way.
>
> Trams are very nice to use, and it was very considerate of previous
> generations to make the investments for many cities. They are truly a
legacy
> to any city. However, transport professionals should maintain their
> integrity and not pretend either that they make economic sense or that
they
> are the most effective mobility solution, especially when compared with
the
> very best bus-based alternatives.
>
> With best wishes,
>
> Brendan Finn.
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Contact details are : e-mail : etts at indigo.ie   tel : +353.87.2530286
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alan Howes" <Alan.Howes at cbuchanan.co.uk>
> To: ">" <SUSTRAN <sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 10:20 AM
> Subject: [sustran] Re: UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway
>
>
> I never suggested anyone should rely on the UK government's viewpoint (I
> gave that up myself a long time ago).  I gave the information so that
people
> could find out why the UK government is doing what it is doing.
>
> My own view, FWIW, is that UK government policy has switched from being
too
> much pro-tram to being too much anti-tram - such abrupt policy changes are
> not helpful, but are unfortunately all too common.
>
> But I also feel that where cash for transport investment is scarce, as is
> often the case in the developing world (but should NOT be the case in the
UK
> which is crying out for better transport infrastructure), bus-based
systems
> can often offer better value for money than rail-based ones.  An
over-short
> summary of my views, but I don't have time for more at present.
>
> Alan
>
> --
> Alan Howes
> Associate Transport Planner
> Colin Buchanan and Partners
>
> 4 St Colme Street
> Edinburgh      EH3 6AA
> Scotland
> email:  alan.howes at cbuchanan.co.uk
> tel:      (0)131 240 2892 (direct)
>            (0)131 226 4693 (switchboard)
>            (0)7952 464335  (mobile)
> fax:     (0)131 220 0232
> www: http:/www.cbuchanan.co.uk/
> _______________________________
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
> solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> Unless you are the named addressee, or authorised to receive it for the
> addressee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If
you
> have received this email in error please contact the sender by replying to
> this email.
> Any views expressed by an individual within this email which do not
> constitute or record professional advice relating to the business of CBP,
do
> not necessarily reflect the views of the company. Any professional advice
or
> opinion contained within this email is subject to our terms and conditions
> of business.
> We have taken precautions to minimise the risk of transmitting software
> viruses. We cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused by
> software viruses.
> _______________________________
>
>
> >>> Eric Bruun <ericbruun at earthlink.net> 25/04/04 23:09:06 >>>
>
> Normally, I just read and learn from this discussion group. But this is
the
> second time in the recent past that I simply have to say something.
>
> The UK is a very special case. The Central Government's definition of what
> is good performance is not the same as in Europe or in North America.
> Because of the Private Finance Initiative, the rates of return required
are
> higher than for public projects. Projects also might be based on the
> investors getting some of the fare revenue. The Croydon Tramlink in London
> would be considered a success elsewhere, but it is not a financial success
> for the private investors through no fault of their own. Transport for
> London sensibly is introducing Smart Cards with integrated fares, so that
> there are fewer fares collected than anticipated, but the investors are
not
> being compensated for this change of plans.
>
> This experience is causing potential investors to be cautious. It is not
> helped by the fact that the Government doesn't allow coordination with bus
> networks so that there may be massive duplicative service.
>
> The last two issues of Urban Transport International have had interesting
> articles about this. I would not rely only on the Government's viewpoint.
>
> Eric Bruun
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan P Howes <alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk>
> Sent: Apr 25, 2004 9:54 PM
> To: sustran-discuss at list.jca.apc.org
> Cc: Jerry Schneider <jbs at peak.org>
> Subject: [sustran] UK Funding switch from Light Rail to Busway
>
> That's two people now who have asked about the above.  Most of the
> coverage I have seen of this is in the UK specialist magazines Local
> Transport Today and Transit - neither of which publish on-line.
> Though I will see if I can find an article to scan.
>
> There's some fairly good coverage though, on the BBC website at
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3651587.stm  Useful links to follow too.
>
> Another source is the UK Department for Transport website.  It's big,
> and I haven't yet found a definitive article.  But if you take a look
> at -
> http://www.dft.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2003_0170
> [UK DfT > Home > Local Transport > Local transport plan - process and
> initiatives > Local transport capital settlements > Local transport
> plans settlement - December 2003]
> you will find details of DfT capital grants for local transport.  Lots
> of busways - no trams!  If you dig around on the DfT site you might
> find more.
>
> Then, hot off the press (April 23rd) there is a report from the UK
> National Audit Office at http://www.nao.org.uk/pn/03-04/0304518.htm
>
> I haven't had time as yet to read the exec summary, let alone the full
> report.  But basically it is pointing out the fact that tram schemes
> in the UK have mostly fallen short of meeting planned performance, and
> looks at why.
>
> Regards, Alan
> --
> Alan P Howes, Perthshire, Scotland
> alan at ourpeagreenboat.co.uk
> http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/alanhowes/  [Needs Updating!]
>
>
>
>