'Click' here for CfIT home page 'Click' here for CfIT home page
ml_bkgnd (1K)bl_bkgnd (1K)
Reports:

Affordable mass transit - guidance

1: Introduction

What is mass transit?

1.1 For the purposes of this guidance mass transit is defined as an urban public transport system which provides a 'turn-up and go' service. This requires a maximum headway between vehicles of 10 to 15 minutes or a minimum frequency of 4-6 services per hour over core sections of route, providing a minimum capacity per direction of typically 300 passengers per hour (pph) for bus based systems and 800 pph for rail based systems. In addition it is assumed that mass transit systems as addressed by this guidance will enjoy a degree of segregation from, and/or priority over, general traffic movements, unless these can be controlled effectively through measures such as road user charging. The process detailed in this guidance is intended to address all potential mass transit technologies that are capable of providing the above levels of service. The focus of the detail of this guidance (in terms of the information supplied) is upon those technologies that are most likely to provide realistic, practical and affordable solutions in the UK context. These are defined as bus based and light rail systems, as detailed in section 2.

What is 'affordable'?

Affordability for a mass transit system is not a simple concept. Affordability for the purposes of this guidance relates to the funding of the delivery and operation of the system, including any requirement for ongoing revenue support. Affordability will depend upon the parties involved in system promotion and funding, the objectives for the system, the capital cost, private sector contributions, the financial operating performance, the benefits delivered by the system and the timescales for system implementation. For the purposes of this guidance, the principal components of the assessment of 'affordability' of a particular technology option are:

  • the capital cost;
  • the degree to which operating costs are covered by revenues and any subsidy requirement; and
  • the user and non-user benefits delivered by the system.

1.3 These components will drive three key decision areas:

  • is there sufficient funding available to pay for the capital cost? This question may be addressed at one, or more, of a local, regional or national level (depending upon the context). The assessment of this question will also depend upon the funding arrangements and funding bodies. Where private sector funding is to be sought, will the overall funding arrangements provide appropriate levels of risk for private sector investment and have the costs of private sector finance been fully included?;
  • does the technology option have a positive operating margin? - i.e. can the service be sustained from passenger fares or other available revenue flows (operating costs should include any requirements for refurbishment or renewal of system assets such as vehicles or fixed infrastructure). If not, can the subsidy be sustained? A long-term subsidy requirement may lead to the rejection of an option given constraints upon public finances. However, short/medium term subsidy may well be acceptable where (for example) a system is being promoted for economic regeneration or to 'pump prime' new development though early provision of non-car travel options; and
  • does the technology option represent good value for money? This will require an assessment of the relationship between system costs and the benefits delivered by the system. Value for money will not be an absolute measure, but is likely to be determined through comparison with alternative transport projects to enable prioritisation of spending. This may be achieved by determining a unit cost per benefit delivered (for example per unit of mode shift). This comparison may again take place at a local, regional or national level depending upon the scale and nature of the project.

What is the guidance for?

1.4 This guidance document is designed to help promoters of mass transit systems select the most suitable, affordable and cost effective technology to meet their needs. The guidance should also assist those responsible for funding and delivery such as the Department for Transport (DfT), Scottish Executive, financial institutions and PFI contractors. The guidance is non-statutory and should be used as a resource to complement existing information.

1.5 The guidance is intended to steer the development of affordable and cost effective mass transit systems, improve the record of system delivery and ensure that delivered systems achieve their forecast performance. The guidance seeks to:

  • provide an overall structure for the decision making process;
  • indicate the nature of the decisions that should be made;
  • indicate the information required to support the decision making processes;
  • identify and detail information sources together with advice regarding areas where information is currently unavailable; and
  • ensure that the best decisions are made leading to the application of the right technologies in the right places.

Guidance philosophy

1.6 The guidance is focused upon the UK context in terms of both the recommended process and the information provided to support that process. The process itself is closely linked to existing guidance in the UK and thus the UK transport context. Whilst overseas experience offers a potentially useful source of information, this is rarely directly transferable to the UK for a number of reasons, including:

  • urban population densities (particularly in Continental Europe) tend to be much higher, therefore favouring high-capacity modes;
  • in many locations urban transport operates in an entirely different planning, development and operational environment; and
  • local taxation is frequently used to support urban transport capital and operating costs.

1.7 The guidance presumes that the overall need for a mass transit system has already been established through higher level planning processes such as the Regional Transport Strategy (RTS) and/or Local Transport Plan (LTP). This will ensure that the role of the mass transit system, as part of an integrated transport and land-use strategy, complements and is complemented by other components of the strategy. Thus the overall objectives for the system, i.e. those flowing from the RTS and/or the LTP can be readily identified.

1.8 The guidance has been designed to avoid prescription. The context and criteria relating to a particular transport problem are typically unique and results from one situation are rarely directly applicable to another. Thus the guidance has a degree of flexibility inherent in its approach that enables the decision making framework to reflect the circumstances relating to a particular situation, whilst ensuring that there is a high degree of consistency in the decision making process across different locations.

1.9 The guidance is inclusive; it encourages the consideration of all potential mass transit technology options. Thus it extends from conventional bus based systems through to light rail and metro systems and alternative uses of heavy rail infrastructure. Whilst the focus is upon those technologies already in use in the UK context, it can also include consideration of new types of system and new technologies. It also encourages strategic thinking as to the geographic area(s) to be addressed and the manner and timing of implementation.

Why do we need this guidance?

1.10 The need for guidance has arisen from:

  • central Government transport objectives[1] and (DfT) Public Service Agreements[2] which require the provision of high quality public transport, offered as a positive choice alongside the private car;
  • recognition that the current rate of system delivery is insufficient to deliver Government objectives;
  • concerns regarding the affordability, cost-effectiveness and appropriateness of a number of schemes that have been promoted in recent years; and
  • below forecast performance of a number of LRT systems, leading to lack of delivery of forecast benefits (as assessed by the DfT's appraisal process for major transport schemes) and requirement for ongoing revenue support as a result of operating costs exceeding revenues.

1.11 An important part of the Government's transport policy is the reduction in reliance upon the private car through provision of improved mass transit (public transport) facilities. This will assist the delivery of a number of wider objectives including:

  • enhancing the economy through reduction of travel costs by reducing road congestion due to car traffic;
  • enabling increased travel (and thus economic development etc.) without increasing car traffic;
  • improving accessibility, especially for non car users;
  • improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gases; and
  • improving safety.

1.12 However, encouragement of mode shift and consequent reduction in car use will only be achieved through:

  • provision of mass transit services of sufficient quality to attract users from the private car; and/or
  • demand management measures, such as reallocation of highway capacity, parking controls and road user charging.

1.13 Thus, much of the emerging regional and local transport policy is based upon a combination of these elements and the provision of high quality mass transit is a high profile component of many transport strategies. However, there may be other objectives driving the promotion of a mass transit system. The most significant of these are likely to relate to land use, where the primary objective for a system may be to regenerate areas of economic decline or to provide access to facilitate new land use development.

1.14 Recent major public transport investment in urban areas has tended to concentrate upon light rail systems. However, the current rate of major mass transit scheme delivery is insufficient to meet the aspirations previously set by Government.

The Transport Ten Year Plan 2000 (DETR, 2000) envisaged by 2010 'the delivery of up to 25 new rapid transit lines in major cities and conurbations, more than doubling light rail use'. Only 7 urban areas are served by such systems at present and it is highly unlikely that the total of 25 lines will be achieved in the next 5 years.

This position would appear to be confirmed by the findings of the National Audit Office (NAO), which undertook a study of light rail systems implemented in the UK[3], and made comparison against experience from overseas. Whilst most systems delivered the anticipated services (in terms of routes, frequencies etc.), there is a significant trend for patronage levels to be lower than forecast. This in turn has reduced the benefits delivered by these systems, reduced the financial case and in some cases has led to the need for ongoing financial subsidy.

At the same time, a report by DfT 'The Future of Transport, A Network for 2030' (2004) emphasised that bus based options are likely to provide the most costeffective mass transit solution for 'most corridors'. The report continues to note that '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'. Despite the findings of these reports, there has been little evidence of increased emphasis upon such bus based systems.

1.17 Thus, an important function of this guidance is to ensure that the information and advice on the appraisal of future systems includes consideration of the full range of affordable mass transit technology options in an equitable manner.

Who is the guidance for?

1.18 The guidance will be used by a range of audiences including:

  • political decision makers, typically responsible for high level policy decisions, local transport policy and scheme development. These are most likely to be elected members of local authorities with responsibility for local transport, including passenger transport authorities and county, metropolitan district and unitary councils;
  • officers of promoting local authorities (as noted above) responsible for production of technical information, providing advice to the political level and undertaking more detailed decision making;
  • organisations working on behalf of promoting authorities (typically transport and engineering consultancy companies);
  • transport operators who will have responsibility for the operation of mass transit systems and who may also be investors in such systems;
  • potential investors in mass transit systems. These may include the public and private sectors and parties not directly involved in system promotion (such as financial institutions and PFI contractors); and
  • organisations working on behalf of funding or investing bodies. These organisations will typically be consultancies undertaking independent audits to determine the robustness of the project.

The primary users of this guidance will typically be public authorities with responsibility for transport in major urban areas, such as County, City, Regional and Unitary councils, Passenger Transport Authorities and TfL. These organisations, and those working on their behalf (such as consultancy companies), should be responsible for ensuring that the processes identified in this guidance are adopted for the promotion of any mass transit system proposals.

The secondary users of this guidance will be those organisations associated with , but not directly responsible for, the promotion of mass transit schemes. This will include those providing public sector finance (such as DfT), private sector financial organisations, PFI contractors and public transport operators. As noted above, many of these organisations will employ consultants to undertake audits and reviews of the work undertaken by the promoting authority. This guidance is intended to assist such organisations to determine whether the work undertaken by the promoting authority is robust and in accordance with best practice and whether the proposed scheme represents a sound investment.

How does it fit with existing guidance

1.21 The guidance is designed to complement existing advice on the production of Local Transport Plans (LTPs) in particular the suite of major scheme appraisal documents. This guidance seeks to:

  • put greater emphasis on strategic comparison of alternative technology options;
  • provide information and advice regarding the application of existing guidance; and
  • ensure that monitoring and review is carried out during the latter stages of the scheme development process.

Structure of the document

1.22 The remainder of the guidance covers the following areas:

  • Section 2: Phase 1 - Strategic Assessment;
  • Section 3: Phase 2 - Scheme Development and Appraisal;
  • Section 4: Phase 3 - Scheme Refinement and Monitoring; and
  • Section 5: Data.

1: As set out in 'A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone' (1998).
2: As set out in Annex B of 'The Future of Transport, A Network for 2030' (DfT 2004).
3: WebTAG Units 1.4/3.9.
4: 'Improving public transport in England through light rail' (NAO, 2004).

[ Previous ] [ Contents ] [ Next ]

 
Updated: 28.11.05 | Home | Top | © Crown copyright 2009