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

[Jonathan E. D. Richmond]

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004, Eric Bruun wrote:

>
>
> 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.
>

The cheaper cost from larger vehicles argument is based largely on myth.
Cost structures are complex, and in a great many cases bus costs come in
well below rail for equivalent volumes of service ata given quality level.
I interviewed dozens of people who came out with the claim that trains
were cheaper because "you only need one driver," and such imagery does
influence decision makers. The reality is different.


> 2) High peak to base ratios. Rail vehicles can have their rakes (or consists
> in North America) lengthened at low marginal cost.

Yes, but you still pay for the capital equipment sitting idle most of the
day, and there are also system costs and oiperational issues to changing
consists during the day -- and as I said, the cost of drivers is but one
of many.


 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.
>

But you cannot compare that situation with a rail one as you are not
comparing like with like. Data shows that busway operating costs are
substantially below rail equivalents. Please see my "whole system
approach" paper on this, where I presented a great deal of data.



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

And you can put buses on them as well if you really want to, but a major
problem has been the use of such disused rights-of-way simply because they
exist, and not because they follow useful routes. There are many examples
of this across the States, for example in Sacramento where the light rail
crosses industrial areas with difficult access to housing.


>
> 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.

These are high-cost options. Of course, bus tunnels can be built, as in
Seattle, but an alternative approach is to try to make existing
surface-level infrastructure work better.


>
> 5) Lack of enforcement of bus lanes.

So enforce them!

 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".)
>

This is not likely to happen with a well-designed busway. But, in certain
cases, it may make sense to allow other vehicles in. For example, the
extensive busway corridors built in Houston operate with carpools as well,
thereby carrying a great volume of efficiently packed vehicles. Houston
has documented substantial environmental improvement from its transportation
developments, unmatched by any of the cities that have gone for rail.


> 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.

More misleading imagery. Rail systems operating in the street are
disruptive as well. If there is a separate right of way, buses are no more
of an impediment than trains.

 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.

This increases costs greatly. Again, I have done a great deal of study on
this and, time and again, bus feeder type financial performance is well
below that of radial/trunk lines. When you covert from bus to rail you
generally move from the costs of providing single-seat direct trunk
services to having to operate feeder bus lines to the rail stations and
then pay for the train costs as well. The combined cost is substantial,
but rail advocates never include the bus feeder costs they have created in
rail system costs. I absolutely agree that system rather than modal cost
is most important -- that's why I wrote about a "whole-system approach."
But we need to look at the evidence in a scientific way. Please, also, do
not refer to "right-wing idealogues" to dismiss people whose opinions you
don't care for. There are many people who care deeply about equity and do
not like observing the damage done to the interests of those of lower
income by projects which waste resources on ineffective rail developments
while ignoring the basic-level bus improvements which could be achieved at
a far lower cost.


 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.

As I have indicated, this is based on conjecture. Check out your facts.

                                         --Jonathan


>
> 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!]
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

-----

Jonathan E. D. Richmond                               02 524-5510 (office)
Visiting Fellow                               Intl.: 662 524-5510
Transportation Engineering program
School of Civil Engineering, Room N260B               02 524-8257 (home)
Asian Institute of Technology                 Intl.: 662 524-8257
PO Box 4
Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120                        02 524-5509 (fax)
Thailand                                      Intl:  662 524-5509

e-mail: richmond at ait.ac.th               Secretary:  Ms. Nisarat Hansuksa
        richmond at alum.mit.edu		              02 524-6051
					      Intl:  662 524-6051
http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/