Published on March 5, 2014
LRT 2014 : Interna4onal Case Studies UK and Canada 5th March 2014
Structure • Challenges • Cost and funding considerations • Case Study Cross River Tram, London • Lessons • Some Success stories • Valley Line, Edmonton !"
Challenges • Poli4cal support • Promoter Governance • Past ﬁnancial performance • Lack of Standardisa4on (UK) • Barriers to New Technology • Historical Op4mism in Planning -‐ Patronage overes4mates and cost Underes4mates • Risk Transfer vs Risk Sharing • Public Transport Integra4on -‐ Fair Trade Act and Compe44on Law • Roadspace realloca4on • Protracted and costly approvals process • Public percep4on -‐ Cau4ous and resistant to change even if status quo is ‘sub-‐op4mal’ • Rise in local ac4vism !"
Light rail systems have proven track record ;• Growing the public transport market • Creating modal shift • Supporting regeneration • Assisting in the creation of a new urban framework • BUT • They are seen as expensive !"
What are the major cost drivers? !" • Rolling stock costs • Track construction costs • Utility relocation costs • And • ‘Innovative’ funding schemes involving risk transfer
Risk Transfer? DfT ! Affordability ! Procurement Risk !" ! Transport Policy ! Appraisal Guidance ! Procurement Strategy Guidance ! Business Case Approval ! Strategic Prioritisation of Schemes ! Planning Approval Funder local transport capital provision ! Project Identification ! Transport Capacity ! Decongestion ! Urban Regeneration ! Social Inclusion ! Customer Satisfaction PTE / LA ! Costs ! Risks ! System Performance ! Patronage? ! Revenue? Bottom - up public investment PSP Provider Top - down Promoter ! Local Transport Plan ! Options & Feasibility Study ! LR Project Selection ! Route Selection & Service Pattern ! Transport Integration ! Business Case ! Planning Application ! Specification & Procurement ! Private Sector Investment ! Detailed Design ! Engineering Integration ! Utilities Diversion ! Infrastructure Construction ! Vehicle Supply ! Testing & Commissioning ! Operations ! Lifecycle Maintenance ! Asset Renewal
Modal Eﬃciency !" How Total Costs Vary
The Scheme and Objectives Scheme: • ew 16.5 km tramway with core alignment N from Euston to Waterloo. Branches to King’s Cross, Camden Town, Peckham and Brixton • requent trams on all branches, with F maximum frequency in the central core between Euston and Waterloo - 30tphpd • assenger capacity c.9000pphpd P • pprox 30 stops depending on final route A option Objectives: • elieve tube crowding R • timulate regeneration S • mprove accessibility I • etter connection between mainline stations B • nvironmentally friendly mode of transport E • ost efficient C !"
CRT sta4s4cs • Majority of the areas served are either classed as ‘deprived’ or ‘very deprived’ • Accessibility beneﬁts for approximately 72,000 very socially excluded residents, • 25-‐60% journey 4me savings from south London • Increase in employment access for south London (+20%) • Target groups par4cularly well served by CRT -‐ minori4es, elderly, unemployed Route Construction Forecast Patronage Length Cost (Millions per Annum) (km) 2006 estimate including 53% contingency & Optimism Bias 16.5 £650m 66 !"
Regenera4on – deprived areas !" One of the key drivers of the project was the regeneration ambitions of the partner boroughs •
Relieve peak-‐period Underground crowding Northern Line Charing Cross !" 2016 DMvDS: 1 Hour Load & Capacity Southbound 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 CAMDEN TOWN MORNINGTON (EDGWARE-SB) CRESCENT Do Minimum 2016 Load EUSTON WARREN GOODGE STREET STREET Do Something 2016 Load TOTTENHAM COURT RD NOR LEICESTER SQUARE NOR CHARING EMBANKMENT WATERLOO KENNINGTON CROSS 2016 ''Planning Standard' Capacity 2016 Severely Crowded CRT will increase passenger capacity into central London • CRT will relieve crowding on some of the busiest parts of the Underground -‐ around 3,000 peak-‐ hour trips diverted to CRT
Important new links for London’s tourist industry CRT will provide an important new tourist spine, linking several key tourist abrac4ons A fast, frequent and accessible link between the Bri4sh Museum and Bri4sh Library would be provided with the Somers Town route op4on CRT will also provide greater passenger capacity to and from Camden, which would help relieve the weekend crowding at Camden Town sta5on, which causes regular closures at present and causes disrup4on to visitors and local people !"
Integra4on with other Modes !" • Integration with: Camden Town • Mainline rail King’s Cross St Pancras Euston • Underground • Bus Holborn • Traﬃc • Pedestrians Aldwych • Cyclists • Emergency services Waterloo Elephant & Castle Aylesbury Estate Oval Peckham Brixton Peckham Rye
Camden High Street • reduce the dominance of traﬃc in Camden High Street • large reduc4on in noise and air pollu4on associated with traﬃc on the high street • Opportunity to widen pavements at junc4ons and crossings to improve pedestrian circula4on and provide opportuni4es for new sea4ng, public art and new street trees • boost to the business community !"
Traffic Management • The route will be largely on-street. However a traffic restriction, diversion and management strategy will ensure that the tram enjoys a high level of priority due to a mixture of measures including: • Selective short tram/bus only sections (in green on the right) to reduce general traffic flows along the corridor but allow local access traffic to share the route • Passing through development sites (e.g. Elephant & Castle and in Peckham) in yellow • Utilisation of tram or combined bus & tram lanes along main roads • Signal priority for trams at junctions • Priority for buses on parallel and crossing routes to mitigate any impact on remaining bus services Potential tram/ bus only section Potential tram route through development Potential tram route through parkland !"
Status • Project mothballed as consequence of GFC and change of Mayor. • Funding/ Affordability • Strong business case remains • Strong political support from London boroughs !"
Maximising the Beneﬁts !" • Suppor4ng policies: – Transit Oriented Development – concentra4ng development densi4es around sta4ons (Texas Medical centre – Houston – 90,000 jobs!) – par4cularly abractors – Simple transport planning objec4ves • Joining the dots (France) – City Centre – University-‐ Hospital Housing Developments – Malls – Technology Parks – Suppor4ng bus network – transport interchange and integra4on • Low wait and interchange 4mes • Coordinated 4metables and 4cke4ng – Kiss and ride/Park and ride – Parking Policy – single most important driver? – High quality modelling and transport planning – benchmarking – does it make sense? (err on the cau4ous side) – Realis4c project objec4ves – think long term-‐ but do everything to support it (no free parking or new low density developments!) – Sell the product as well as the idea – transport is like cornﬂakes, if you don’t sell it, it won’t sell! – Build support long term through the community – work with the schools and community groups
Planning Risks • The day of opening should see the start of a switchover from complaints to strong support • The problem you WANT is too many passengers – Success sells success • What could possibly go wrong? – Supposing there are no/few passengers? (it has happened) • Poor transport planning (poor route etc.) • Poor land use planning (probably both) • Ill deﬁned/erroneous project objec4ves • Transport forecas4ng very inaccurate (key is sense checking everything) • Business case overstated/invented • Poor transport policy (compe4ng buses, brand new freeways etc.) – has there been a change in administra4on? • Collapse in local/regional economy • Unrealis4c expecta4ons!! • No-‐one can tell the future, the point is to try to make it happen! !"
Cost Eﬀec4veness !" • Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.. – Don’t gold plate the scheme – most people just want nice transport and high end – – – – ﬁnishes are nice but can be implemented later if required/aﬀordable Seek viable suppliers from the emerging economies (Poland, SE Asia etc.) some of their stuﬀ is great and much less expensive Maximise compe44on between suppliers Decide whether the base scheme will ever be extended – will aﬀect view view on procurement Make linkages between projects – there may be saving in procurement to be made (Dijon/Brest in France ordered trams together and saved about 10%)
Nottingham Express Transit Line 1: funded by Private Sector who receive monthly payment costs - based on performance. Phase 2: DBFOM concession for extended network construction commenced December 2011. • being partly funded by Work Place Parking Levy • trong emphasis on transport integration S • obust procurement – designed to give confidence to R private sector !"
Manchester Metrolink !"
Manchester Metrolink !"
Bergen Light Rail !"
!" Valley Line Southeast to West LRT, Edmonton, AB 5th March 2014
Edmonton? !" • Background to Edmonton LRT • Low Floor Urban Style LRT – Urban Integra4on BC AB SK MB • LRT in a Winter CNL ity Edmonton Calgary Vancouver ON • P3 Delivery for the Valley Line QC • Concluding Thoughts Toronto
Exis4ng Edmonton Transit System !" • Opened in 1978 as the ﬁrst LRT system in a mid-‐sized North American city • High-‐ﬂoor, suburban LRT • 92,000 passengers per day • Five-‐minute peak opera4ng headway
Exis4ng Edmonton Transit System !" • Fully segregated and signalized system • Operates more like a European heavy rail commuter line • Very successful
Exis4ng High-‐Floor LRT Systems !"
To This…..Urban Style Low-‐Floor LRT !"
Valley Line SE to W LRT – Project Scope !" • New low-‐ﬂoor, urban-‐style LRT • One tunnel / Five bridges / Two elevated guideways • 27km of double-‐track • 29 stops and sta4ons • New transit centers and park ‘n ride • New O&M facility • 67 new 40m, low-‐ﬂoor LRVs • NOT interoperable with exis4ng LRT lines • Delivered using P3 delivery model 31
LRT in a ‘Winter City’ !" • Typically lasts for up to six months of the year • Temperatures can fall below -‐40°C • LOTS of snow that lasts for the majority of winter RESULT: • Winter is a major risk to the success of urban-‐style LRT if not considered at the outset • Design for +40°C to -‐40°C temperatures
Key Opera4onal Challenges !" • Line-‐of-‐Sight • LRV / road traﬃc shared opera4ons • Signalling systems with Line-‐of-‐Sight opera4on (No CBTC) • Intersec4on full priority / par4al priority • De-‐graded opera4ng paberns: • Line-‐of-‐Site crossovers / turn-‐back facili4es • 33
Cars S4ll Exist !" And they s4ll need access Google Earth
The Road is Only So Wide !" (Even in Alberta)
Example: Stony Plain Road Business District NEW NEW NEW !"
Urban Integra4on Approach !" • North America is NOT France! • Diﬀerent pedestrian behaviour will inﬂuence urban design • North America typically has a “heavier” approach to stops / sta4ons design • Elaborate, bespoke urban designs typically result in higher opera4on and maintenance costs
Urban Integra4on Approach !" • No panacea – build on experience and lessons learned • Think about how bidders will react AND price urban design solu4ons • Keep things simple, modular, and consistent • Edmonton philosophy – Elegant Simplicity!
Urban Integra4on Examples !"
Urban Integra4on Examples !"
Project Delivery Strategy !" • Previous projects have been delivered using Design Bid Build and/or Construc4on Management models; • Valley Line to be delivered as a P3 using a DBFOM model • Cost of Stage 1 is es4mated at $1.8 billion • Currently $1.2 billion already secured; • Working towards an RFQ issued in Spring/Summer 2014 • Financial Close – Winter 2015 • Open to Public Service – 2020
Owners Engineer • Preliminary Design used as P3 ‘Reference Design’ • Compila4on of P3 Procurement Speciﬁca4ons • Performance Speciﬁca4on Schedule for discipline • Opera4ons and Maintenance Schedule – Network deﬁning! !"
Opera4ons and Maintenance • Key elements of the schedule for the network: Interface requirements Run 4me (average and achievable) Fleet requirements Opera4onal speciﬁc requirements (eg snow clearance) • Con4nuity of system opera4on ayer the 30 year concession • • • • !"
Concluding Thoughts !" • North American ci4es are NOT Lyon or Montpellier! • Consider urban design solu4ons for individual network loca4ons • Consider opera4ons and maintenance throughout the design process • Recognize local diﬀeren4ators (North American pedestrian behaviour) • Climate can impact design • A P3 Delivery model does not necessarily reduce eﬀort during the development phase
Thank You !" For more informa5on, please contact: Colin Steiner, C.Eng P.Eng Senior Project Engineer T: 03 9037 7575 E: email@example.com Mob MacDonald Level 3, 707 Collins Street Melbourne VIC 3008 www.mobmac.com
Senior Marketing Executive at UK ... Colin Steiner & Stephen Luke, Mott MacDonald: LRT PPP in ... at Hatch Mott MacDonald. location Toronto, Canada ...
View Colin Steiner’s professional profile on LinkedIn. ... Mott MacDonald. ... Stephen Luke. Transport Planning ...
... a report card The 2011 Colin Clark lecture Stephen P ... Colin Steiner & Stephen Luke, Mott MacDonald: LRT PPP in Canada and ... Prof. Colin Carati ...
... KPMGc- Investing in student housing market. ... Colin Steiner & Stephen Luke, Mott MacDonald: LRT PPP in Canada and the UK. ... Colin McCrow - Finance ...
An international perspective on light rail. ... such as Canada, the UK and Norway have ... project including the lack of PPP ...
... Canada By Luke Hardig and Max Joelson Slide 2 Slide 3 ... Strength and Conditioning by Luke ... Colin Steiner & Stephen Luke, Mott MacDonald: ...
1 Dr Maria Milosavljevic, Chief Information Officer 2 3 4 • $14.5 million funding over four years • Multi-disciplinary, multi- agency • Maximise data ...
Crossing the Boundaries: from negligence to intentional torts from discipline to crime Bill Madden National Practice Group Leader Medical Law, Slater ...