New Inquiry:

Integrated Transport: the Future of Light Rail and Modern Trams in Britain

Response by Transport-Watch UK to the Transport Committee

Published 23rd March 2005

February 2005
Wp ref. MP/RAPID TRANSIT MEMO

History

In 1949 London trams were seen as an embarrassment to London’s post war planners.  In that year Lord Latham, chairman of the London Transport Executive delivered a speech outlining the plans for the tramways conversion programme in which he stated “the loss on the trams is about £1,000,000 per year” (over £20 million annually at today’s prices).

In contrast the Europeans are famed for their tram systems.  However, Sir Terry Mulroy, said, at an Institution of Civil Engineers meting held on 21st November 2002, that, if one asks the Planners in Geneva (home of the tram) if they would do it again, they will say quietly, Never Again – far too expensive.  Meanwhile the town of Grenoble renewed its tram tracks after only 10 years’ wear.

In America we have the example of the Bay Area Rapid Transit System (completed in 1972). Professor Hall, writing in New Society 11th November 1976, pointed out that all BART’s passengers could be carried in buses costing $40 million compared with the BART cost of $1,600 million.   (Professor Melvin Webber, cited in the article, found (a) capital costs were 50% and operating costs 5 times higher than forecast (b) ridership was half the forecast (c) costs per ride were double that by bus, and 50% above that by ordinary American car).

Despite that there is scarcely a city in the land that does not aspire to spend taxes on such systems.

UK Rapid Transit Systems – some data
The systems for which data is here presented are Docklands, Strathclyde, Manchester, Tyne and Wear, Sheffield, Centro (West Midlands) and Croydon.  Detail is in the table appended.  It shows

1. The capital cost at 2003 prices for Manchester, Tyne and Wear, Sheffield, West Midlands and Croydon amounts to £1.8.  If  Docklands is added the bill is £2.93bn.  In addition to that (and separately from the data table) Mersytram has the option of spending £225mn, Manchester hopes to spend an additional £900mn, South Hampshire is bidding for £270 million and Edinburgh for £375mn, providing a total of £1.77 billion.  Adding that to the historic expenditure of £2.93 yields £4.7bn.
2. With the exception of Sheffield no system covers operating costs.  When the costs of capital and maintenance are added costs are between 3.2 and 5.8 times as large as the receipts.
3. Including the annual cost of capital and maintenance the annual subsidy per journey has the range £2.50 (for Manchester) to £4 (for Tyne and Wear).
4. In highway terms, rail rapid transport systems are substantially disused.  E.g. the average one-way flow per track for the systems has a range equivalent to 92 to 525 buses per day ,each bus containing an average of 20 people.  That may be compared with a potential of up to 10,000 vehicles per day for a single lane of a motor road managed to avoid congestion. The comparison suggests a catastrophic under-use of valuable transport land.
5. The staff per car (or per tram) has the range 4.3 to 10.9.
6. Average journey lengths have the range 3.2 to 10.5 km.
7. The average train or tram load ranges from 17 to 50, excluding Docklands, which has 69 passengers.
8. Capital costs per route-km have the range £7.6 million to £10.4 million excluding Docklands for which the value is £43 million.

We have sought fuel consumptions but with little success.  However, data from 1990 provided the equivalent of 51 passenger miles per gallon for Tyne and Wear, 55 for Strathclyde. Also data from 2003 for Croydon’s Tramlink provides 92 passenger-miles per gallon (it has phyrister control - using breaking to provide energy for traction).  In comparison buses returning 5 miles per gallon and containing the average train loads set out in the tabulation would provide 80 to 205 passenger miles per gallon, excluding Docklands from the set.

Conclusion

1. In financial terms the £2.93bn of capital spent to date building the schemes has been entirely wasted. The same will apply to the additional £1.77bn proposed. That is because there is no possibility of the capital being repaid from the fare box.  The total, £4.7bn, amounts to over £180 for every household in the land.  Meanwhile the schemes may be of use to less than one in 100 of the nation’s population.
2. An alternative may be busways open to commercial vehicles and to cars at certain times of day.  The modern option may be to control congestion by road pricing.  Ordinary buses would then no longer suffer delay.  That would remove the need for bus lanes let alone tram systems. The key to making ordinary buses attractive is to provide a modern image and to ensure a reliable service.  That would cost a fraction of tram or light rail.
3. Light Rail can have a future in the UK only if its very high cost and the relatively trivial use to which the rights of way are put are set aside in favour of sentiment.

February 2005

Data table

Notes:
There may be some double counting in total costs in that rolling stock costs may be part of capital and operating costs include interest paid (to be distinguished from interest owed).