c-1-1 ngt alternatives review report
TRANSCRIPT
CORE DOCUMENT C-1-1
Leeds New Generation Transport
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
Final Report
January 2014
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Metro
Wellington House
40-50 Wellington Street
Leeds
LS1 2DE
Steer Davies Gleave
67 Albion Street
Leeds LS1 5AA
+44 (0)113 389 6400
www.steerdaviesgleave.com
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
Contents
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1
Background ............................................................................................ 1
Purpose of Review ................................................................................... 1
Funding ................................................................................................ 1
Context ................................................................................................ 3
Public Consultation .................................................................................. 3
Shortlisted Options .................................................................................. 3
Findings ................................................................................................ 4
Report Structure ..................................................................................... 5
2 SCOPE OF REVIEW .................................................................................. 7
Introduction ........................................................................................... 7
In Scope Options ..................................................................................... 7
Scheme Objectives .................................................................................. 7
Basis of Corridors Considered .................................................................... 10
Section Summary ................................................................................... 11
3 OPTION FILTERING ................................................................................ 13
Introduction ......................................................................................... 13
Track-Based Options ............................................................................... 13
Externally Powered Bus Based Options......................................................... 14
Conventional (On-board Powered) Bus Based Options ...................................... 15
Section Summary ................................................................................... 17
4 OPTION SPECIFICATION .......................................................................... 19
Introduction ......................................................................................... 19
Required System Outputs Specification ........................................................ 19
Trolleybus ........................................................................................... 20
Catenary-Free Electric Bus ....................................................................... 21
Light Rail Transit ................................................................................... 21
Ultra-Light Rail Transit ............................................................................ 23
Comparable Bus Option ........................................................................... 23
Low Cost Bus Option ............................................................................... 24
Section Summary ................................................................................... 25
5 OPTIONS ASSESSMENT AGAINST OBJECTIVES ............................................... 27
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
Contents
Introduction ......................................................................................... 27
LTP Objective - Economy: ........................................................................ 27
LTP Objective - Low Carbon: .................................................................... 32
LTP Objective - Quality of Life: ................................................................. 33
Section Summary ................................................................................... 36
6 OPTIONS ASSESSMENT AGAINST DELIVERY CONSTRAINTS ................................ 39
Introduction ......................................................................................... 39
Affordability ........................................................................................ 39
Deliverability ....................................................................................... 40
Potential for System Expansion ................................................................. 42
Commercial Case ................................................................................... 43
Outcomes Realisation ............................................................................. 44
Value for Money .................................................................................... 45
Section Summary ................................................................................... 46
7 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................... 49
Introduction ......................................................................................... 49
Summary of Approach ............................................................................. 49
Recommended Options ........................................................................... 50
FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Potential Major Transport Investment Corridors ..................... 10
TABLES
Table 2.1 Assessment Categorisation ............................................... 11
Table 5.1 Objective One: Maximise Leeds’ Growth .............................. 27
Table 5.2 Objective Two: Support Economic Growth ............................ 29
Table 5.3 Objective Three: Support Regeneration ............................... 30
Table 5.4 Objective Four: Improve Effectiveness ................................. 31
Table 5.5 Objective Five: Reduce Greenhouse Gases ............................ 32
Table 5.6 Objective Six: Safe & Healthy Environment ........................... 34
Table 5.7 Objective Seven: Improve Accessibility ................................ 35
Table 6.1 Affordability Delivery Constraint ........................................ 39
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
Contents
Table 6.2 Deliverability Delivery Constraint ....................................... 41
Table 6.3 System Expansion Delivery Constraint .................................. 42
Table 6.4 Commercial Case Delivery Constraint .................................. 43
Table 6.5 Outcomes Realisation Delivery Constraint ............................. 44
Table 6.6 Value for Money Delivery Constraint .................................... 46
APPENDICES
A FUNDING CONSTRAINTS
B SERVICE DELIVERY ALTERNATIVES
C MANDATE FOR ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
1
1 Introduction
Background
1.1 Leeds New Generation Transport (NGT) is a major public transport scheme being
promoted by Metro and Leeds City Council (LCC). In July 2012 Department for
Transport (DfT) Programme Entry Re-approval was achieved for the proposed
trolleybus-based system, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to
majority fund implementation of the project.
1.2 Further Government approvals are required before contracts can be placed and
construction works started. Legal powers to implement the project are being
sought through an application for a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO), which
was made on 19 September 2013. On 28 November 2013, following a consultation
period, the Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin confirmed the anticipated
public inquiry into the TWAO application.
Purpose of Review
1.3 To obtain the TWAO and to confirm the Government funding approval, among
other things the Promoters must demonstrate that they have considered an
appropriate and reasonable set of alternatives to the promoted option. They must
set out the justification for promoting their Preferred Option in comparison to
these other options.
1.4 From the inception of the NGT project, the Promoters have considered
alternatives alongside development of the trolleybus option. This report sets out
the main technology alternatives to a trolleybus based system and presents the
comparative strengths and weaknesses of each. It brings together work undertaken
over the life of the scheme’s development. The applicability of the findings of
these earlier analyses has been considered in light of current circumstances and
more recently available and developing options have also been included in the
review.
1.5 This review does not set out to detail the selection of suitable corridors for NGT,
nor does it present the identification and selection of alignment or other design
alternatives which have been given careful consideration through the scheme
development process. These aspects are detailed in separate documents.
1.6 From the technology options which are credible on the NGT corridors, the most
comparable proposal (‘Next Best Alternative’) and the best ‘Low Cost Alternative’
options are identified for further analysis through the modelling and appraisal
framework developed for the promoted scheme. Formal consideration of the
economic case for the Next Best Alternative and Low Cost Alternative is a
requirement for Department for Transport funding. The comparative performance
of these options is reported within the updated scheme business case.
Funding
1.7 Since the Major Scheme Business Case (MSBC) was submitted to the Department for
Transport at the end of 2009 there has been a change in the way that Government
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
2
supports capital investment in locally-promoted transport major schemes. Further
details setting out the resulting funding constraints on local transport major
schemes are set out in Appendix A to this report.
1.8 At the time of the MSBC submission, the Department for Transport had a major
scheme programme and associated budget. Through the MSBC submission process,
Promoters applied for ‘Programme Entry’, this signifying that the Government was
minded to contribute a defined amount to the scheme’s cost, subject to:
I the project’s outputs and outcomes not changing significantly
I there being no material change to the financial contribution asked from the
Department
I no material change to the value for money case
1.9 Following its election in May 2010, the Coalition Government ended the major
scheme process and is in the process of devolving decision making on funding
decisions to a more local level. Schemes that were already in DfT’s programme at
the time of the election continue to be co-funded by Government (subject to
revisions made to scheme specification, funding mix and implementation timetable
which were made as part of a ‘Best and Final Funding Bid’ process – a process that
led to some schemes being dropped from the programme). NGT is one of the
schemes that remained eligible for Government support.
1.10 The important point is that the funding available from Government for NGT is now
only currently available for a trolleybus scheme between Holt Park and Stourton
via Leeds City Centre. Should the current scheme not be pursued, unless it could
be shown that an alternative delivered comparable outputs and outcomes at no
greater cost and with an acceptable level of risk, the earmarked DfT funding
would return to the Department’s general budget. Any option that did not meet
these criteria would require an alternative and locally-sourced funding solution.
1.11 In July 2013 the devolved funding allocations were confirmed in a written
statement to Parliament1. For the spending period during which NGT will be
implemented (2015/16 – 2020/21) the funding being made available to West
Yorkshire and York Local Transport Body (LTB) totals £100.9 million. This total
excludes funding for NGT. The statement is clear that DfT funding for NGT is
dependent on the scheme going ahead as planned. Without DfT support there
would be insufficient funding available from the LTB for a scheme of the scale of
NGT, even in a situation where no other transport investment were made in the
area.
1.12 With the development of the £1 billion West Yorkshire Plus Transport Fund
(WYTF), Metro and its local authority partners are putting in place a mechanism to
secure additional transport investment in the metropolitan county. The WYTF aims
to improve employment accessibility. Committing a project of the size of NGT
would constrain the ability of the Fund to deliver its objectives. Currently 29
schemes are earmarked for WYTF support. Not all these schemes could be
supported if a NGT-sized scheme were funded from WYTF.
1 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/local-transport-body-funding-allocations
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
3
1.13 This situation is in contrast with that which pertained at the time the MSBC was
submitted in 2009. At that time, if either the DfT had decided not to grant
Programme Entry status, or the Promoters had decided that an alternative
approach best met its objectives, the Promoters would have been at liberty to
apply to the DfT for funding for a different option and DfT would have considered
this on its merits.
Context
1.14 The majority of routes in Leeds, including routes on or close to the NGT corridors,
are currently served by conventional diesel bus vehicles. Hybrid diesel-electric
double-deckers part-funded by the DfT’s Green Bus Fund were introduced in
Summer 2011 on Routes 7/7A/7S/X7 (First) and in Spring 2013 on Routes 163/166
(Arriva). Hybrid vehicles offer substantial emissions benefits, with reductions in
fuel consumption; the diesel engine automatically switching off when the vehicle
is stationary or travelling at low speed. However for the majority of the route the
vehicles operate under diesel power with similar emissions to conventional diesel
vehicles.
Public Consultation
1.15 Formal public consultation on the trolleybus proposal has been undertaken at
various times during the project’s development. This consultation has shown a high
level of support for NGT.
1.16 More generally, the consultation showed a high level of support for proposed
improvements on the NGT alignment and for the provision of Park & Ride facilities
on the north and south lines. Almost two-thirds of respondents wanted more
environmentally-friendly vehicles. There were some concerns about the impact of
the scheme on traffic/congestion. The likely public support for the technology
options in this report has been considered in light of these issues.
1.17 The key attributes that respondents wanted in a new public transport system were:
I More punctual services
I Cheaper fares
I Faster services
1.18 The degree to which various technologies allow the Promoters to secure these
goals over the lifetime of investment has been considered in this review.
Shortlisted Options
1.19 Currently available public transport technology options were reviewed for
suitability for implementation on the north and south NGT corridors. Shortlisted
technologies were considered in terms of their potential performance against the
scheme objectives and against key delivery constraints, including affordability and
deliverability within the funding timeframe. At this stage options which did not
satisfy any particular constraint, and therefore could not be delivered, were
discounted from further consideration.
1.20 A shortlist of five technology options were identified as being suitable in the
context of the identified corridors, taking into account both physical
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
4
opportunities/constraints as well as potential service/capacity requirements.
These comprise:
I Light Rail Transit (LRT or tram) - steel wheeled vehicles operating on rails,
powered by electricity from overhead lines and capable of operating both on
street and fully segregated from traffic. Similar in concept to systems in
Sheffield, Nottingham and Croydon
I Ultra-Light Rail Transit (ULRT) - a proposed lower cost light rail technology.
The proponents of ULRT suggest that, in comparison with LRT, cost savings
would result from ULRT requiring a shallower track construction for the lighter
weight vehicles. Vehicles would have on-board energy storage rather than being
powered from overhead lines. While prototype systems have been developed,
the technology remains unproven at the scale of investment proposed in Leeds.
Even if ULRT could be delivered within the affordability constraints, the
implementation risk of this alternative cannot be accepted by the Promoters
I Trolleybus - rubber-tyred vehicles with motors powered by electricity from
overhead lines. It offers a quiet and smooth ride, a high level of energy
efficiency and zero emissions at point of use. Modern trolleybus systems exist in
many locations around the world and represent a technology which the
Promoters have confidence will be delivered within time and budget constraints
I Catenary-free electric bus – a relatively recent development taking advantage
of improvements in on-board energy storage systems. The concept is based on
vehicles equipped with batteries, fast charged at termini, and super-capacitors,
which can be flash charged (eg for 20 seconds) at stops, which together allow
reasonable lengths of operation without overhead lines. Prototype and trial
operations are underway, but at present it is unknown whether the commercial
production of suitable catenary-free vehicles will commence within the NGT
delivery timeframe. The implementation risk of this alternative therefore
cannot be accepted by the Promoters
I Bus - a comparable bus option with the same high level of segregation and
priority at junctions as the above options. A separate study2 considered the
most appropriate bus vehicle technology option in terms of improving energy
efficiency and reducing emissions at point of use. Bus-based systems have been
proven across the UK and the world; however hybrid and electric alternatives to
diesel propelled vehicles are a relatively recent development. Current vehicles
that are electrically powered from on-board source would either require
considerable investment in energy supply (for example hydrogen for fuel cell
vehicles) and/or a significantly larger fleet, allowing sufficient time in the
timetable for efficiently recharging vehicles
Findings
1.21 The proposed trolleybus option is demonstrably the strongest option taking into
consideration the scheme objectives and the constraints which are fundamental to
successful delivery of a major public transport intervention. Trolleybus is a highly
energy efficient technology offering a quiet and smooth ride, and zero emissions at
2 Sub Mode Options Investigation, Mott MacDonald, January 2014
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
5
point of use. Market research with car users and bus passengers3 in Leeds found
that a modern trolleybus system would be preferable to a conventional bus-based
option and would attract more mode-shift from car. On balance these advantages
are considered to outweigh the visual impact of the overhead lines. DfT has
confirmed Programme Entry funding approval exclusively for a trolleybus scheme.
1.22 If a suitable bus Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) can be made or a Quality
Contract Scheme (QCS) successfully implemented on the corridors (for example
because West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority proceeds with its proposal
for a county-wide QCS or an NGT specific QCS is developed), the potential would
exist to implement a comparable bus option that could deliver up to a point the
outputs and outcomes of the trolleybus option. There is significant uncertainty
whether a suitable VPA or a QCS can be introduced; without either the Promoters’
influence over outcomes realisation and access to any operating surplus to offset
borrowing would not be sufficient for a project of this scale. Plug-in diesel-electric
hybrid bus vehicle technology is specified for the comparable bus option. The
comparable bus option would operate under diesel power for around half of its
distance in service and therefore would result in more noise than the trolleybus
option and adverse emissions along the line of the route.
1.23 The comparable bus option is forecast to attract less transfer from private car use
than a trolleybus system and therefore reduced highway flows will not balance the
reallocation of capacity to public transport to the same extent. The resulting
increase in highway congestion will have a larger noise and air pollution impact.
Implementation of this option could not be through a single powers process and to
allow its funding to be used, would require DfT to accept that the outputs and
outcomes of this option are sufficiently similar to those from the trolleybus option.
Therefore, it has higher risks associated with scheme delivery than trolleybus.
1.24 Without a suitable VPA or QCS in place there is not a credible deliverable option
sufficiently similar to the trolleybus scheme to be considered a comparable
alternative (irrespective of how it may be funded). Therefore the option in such a
context is for the Low Cost Alternative comprising an on-line upgrade of existing
services along the northern corridor, Park & Ride provision at Bodington, and a
new Park & Ride only service from Stourton.
1.25 The purpose of this report is to set out the robust process of technology option
selection that has been used to identify alternatives for more detailed assessment
including quantified analysis through the NGT modelling and appraisal framework.
The results of this assessment are detailed within the updated scheme business
case.
Report Structure
1.26 The remainder of this report is structured as follows:
I Section 2 sets out the scope of the review, including defining the processes by
which options are compared
I Section 3 introduces the technology options which are available and identifies
those which are suitable for implementing on the NGT corridors
3 Stated Preference Study, Steer Davies Gleave, August 2008
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
6
I Section 4 sets out and justifies the consistent and comparable specification of
the shortlisted options
I Section 5 considers the performance of the shortlisted options against the
Promoters’ objectives
I Section 6 considers the performance of the shortlisted options against key
delivery constraints
I Section 7 summarises the best performing options
I Appendices to this report comprise:
A) further details of the current funding environment
B) supporting information on the options for service delivery
C) the mandate specifying the characteristics of the Preferred Option, Next
Best Alternative and Low Cost Alternative this review recommends for
further appraisal
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
7
2 Scope of Review
Introduction
2.1 This section describes the scope of the alternatives review report, setting out the
objectives which have been considered in specifying and assessing technology
options, the constraints to be considered in delivering any option, and finally
confirming the corridors for which options have been considered.
In Scope Options
2.2 This report considers alternative public transport solutions within the same north-
south corridors as NGT. The filtering of technology options which are suitable for
implementation on the NGT corridors is set out in Section 3. It is considered that a
representative and sufficiently large range of options have been specified and
assessed within this report and therefore that its conclusions are robust. However,
it is not practical for this report to consider each and every conceivable option or
combination of options.
2.3 Over time, the detailed specification of options considered in this report may
change, or additional options may be suggested, for example because of
developing technologies.
2.4 The robustness of the conclusions of this report is not considered to be reduced
because any specific option has not been included. Examples include alignment,
route or service frequency variants of options which have been considered or an
emerging vehicle technology. Nonetheless, the assessment framework within this
report has been specified to be appropriate for any technology option proposed
and provides a consistent basis for considering any additional options in the future
should that be worthwhile.
Scheme Objectives
2.5 A set of scheme objectives have been developed, which set out the outcomes the
Promoters aspire to achieve with NGT. These objectives were specified to be
consistent with established land-use and transport policy. They take into
consideration direct local transport problems such as capacity limitations and
reliability, wider social and economic issues including accessibility to job
opportunities and impacts on the environment. These objectives have been
reviewed at key stages of the scheme’s promotion and continue to be consistent
and complementary to the current policy framework. They are fundamental to the
review of technology options.
2.6 These objectives are set out on the following page, grouped by the higher level
Objectives from West Yorkshires Third Local Transport Plan4. The text in italics
was prepared alongside development of the objectives to give guidance on how
quantitative and qualitative measures can be used to help assess the degree to
4 http://www.wyltp.com
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
8
which NGT proposals meet the project objectives. This guidance has been used in
this report, in comparing the performance of technology options.
I LTP Objective - Economy:
1. Maximise growth of the Leeds economy by enhancing its competitive
position and facilitating future employment and population growth
In quantitative terms this means maximising the Net Present Value of the
proposal – as conventional benefits form part of Objective 4, the focus here
is on Wider Impacts. It also recognises the population/household growth
pressures. In qualitative terms it is about ‘quality of life’ and ‘putting
Leeds on the map’
2. Support and facilitate the sustainable growth of Leeds, recognising the
importance of its city centre to the future economy of the Leeds City Region
This is about increasing person capacity into the city centre especially
during peak periods, recognising the constraints on road capacity, car
parking capacity and without further investment, rail capacity. This
captures the spatial dimension of where we want growth to happen
3. Support and facilitate targeted regeneration initiatives and economic growth
in the more deprived areas of Leeds
This is about improving the links between the more deprived areas of Leeds
and employment/education opportunities, as well as explicitly supporting
the delivery of other policy initiatives. This too has a spatial dimension, but
it is more about the beneficiaries of growth
4. Improve the efficiency of the city's public transport and road networks
This is the conventional DfT Value for Money case measured as the quantity
of user benefits (journey time, quality, but also reliability, option value
etc) and non-user benefits (impact on congestion). ‘Improve’ should be
taken as relative to the Do-Minimum scenario rather than now
I LTP Objective - Low Carbon:
5. Reduce transport's emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases
This objective captures the global environmental impacts of the project in
comparison to the Do-Minimum scenario
I LTP Objective - Quality of Life:
6. Promote quality of life through a safe and healthy built and natural
environment
The impacts on the local environment incorporate townscape, local air
quality, noise, safety etc. This objective captures making best use of
existing assets. Again the comparison is against the Do-Minimum scenario
7. Contribute to enhanced quality of life by improving access for all to jobs and
services
Key services include but are not limited to hospitals, tertiary education
(Universities, Leeds City College) and the railway station (access to national
networks). ‘Improving’ should be taken as relative to the Do-Minimum
scenario rather than now
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
9
2.7 The main purposes of the scheme objectives are to provide a framework for
scheme development and to allow a quantitative comparison to be made between
close alternatives. One of the purposes of this report is to identify which
technologies could be specified on the NGT corridors to offer a performance
comparable to the trolleybus option (Section 3) and therefore are justified for
more detailed development including: specifying broad alignments and service
patterns (Section 4); and consideration of technology options’ comparative
performance against the objectives (Section 5).
2.8 A set of constraints listing the key deliverability issues which need to be
considered by the Promoters have also been identified. These are also relevant to
the review of technology options. They can be summarised as follows:
I Affordability
The Promoters must be able to fund the scheme capital costs from its own
or third party sources
I Deliverability
The proven level of public and political support for alternatives also
influences the level of delivery risk
DfT funding is time constrained and therefore any differences in the
delivery programme and risks associated with delivery to that programme
must be taken into account
I Potential for System Expansion
No unreasonable barrier to extending the scope of the system in the future,
for example aiming to avoid proprietary technology which could limit
competitive procurement of vehicles/infrastructure in the future
I Commercial Case
Procurement of the option must be achievable competitively in line with EU
regulations
Revenue received must exceed the operating costs. The extent to which the
resulting revenue surplus will support scheme funding/expansion is also
important
I Outcomes Realisation
In terms of the level of influence which the Promoters would have in
delivering the outputs and outcomes of the project which contribute to its
value for money
I Value for Money
Irrespective of whether funding is provided by DfT or locally, any scheme
needs to provide the best value for money of all reasonable/relevant
alternatives
2.9 The definition of these constraints allows a comparative assessment of the
performance of the technology options (Section 6) in these areas. This assessment
is additional to the consideration of options against objectives, ensuring that the
Next Best Alternative and Low Cost Alternative identified are practical, deliverable
options.
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
10
Basis of Corridors Considered
2.10 In a 2009 review of the strategic context for public transport in Leeds, four
corridors were identified as being appropriate for major public transport
investment. This review identified existing and anticipated future problems on the
key radial corridors approaching the city centre and considered the applicability of
alternative interventions. This work was summarised in Investing in Public
Transport: A Framework for Leeds (2009)5, which was later incorporated within
LTP3.
2.11 The strategic rationale for two of the four identified corridors underpinned the
business case submitted to the Department for Transport which led to the
allocation of Government funding for a trolleybus system:
I Otley A660 Corridor – on the basis of it being the busiest and most crowded
bus corridor; having a high level of highway congestion; with opportunities to
achieve material public transport journey time and punctuality improvements;
and potential for Park & Ride demand
I Five Towns/Wakefield A61/M621 Corridor – on the basis of having a high level
of highway congestion; and potential for Park & Ride demand
2.12 The strategic justification of public transport investment in these corridors has
been reviewed and confirmed in preparation for an application for TWAO powers6.
This review confirmed that the transport issues underpinning the selection of the
A660 Corridor and A61/M621 corridor as the north and south NGT lines have not
materially changed in the time since the 2009 study. Neither have there been any
material changes on any of the other radial bus corridors into Leeds that would
suggest that they are more suitable for NGT rollout at this time.
FIGURE 2.1 POTENTIAL MAJOR TRANSPORT INVESTMENT CORRIDORS
5 http://www.ngtmetro.com/uploadedFiles/Content/Documents/Archive/AFrameworkForLeeds_summary.pdf
6 NGT Strategic Fit – A Review, Steer Davies Gleave, January 2014
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
11
Section Summary
2.13 This section introduces the scope of technology options being considered and sets
out the current scheme objectives and associated constraints. It sets out why
options being considered have been considered to public transport improvements
on the A660 and A61/M621 corridors, concluding that the original strategic
justification for major public transport investment on these corridors remains
robust.
2.14 Later sections of this report consider the fit of various technology options with the
scheme objectives and delivery constraints set out in this section. Table 2.1
summarises the approach to assessing options. A four point scale has been used in
consideration of the performance against objectives, allowing a high level
comparison between options from those which have the most significant impact to
those which have no material impact. A similar mechanism has been used in the
assessment of options which meet the delivery constraints; however a single
‘adverse’ score represents options which are not in line with the requirements of
any constraint, representing options which cannot be implemented, or not without
taking on an unacceptable level of risk, and therefore should not be considered
further.
TABLE 2.1 ASSESSMENT CATEGORISATION
Assessment Description
+++ Options which make a significant contribution towards meeting the
objective or delivery constraint
++ Options which make a material contribution towards meeting the objective
or delivery constraint
+ Options which make a limited but positive contribution towards meeting
the objective or delivery constraint
= Options which make no material contribution towards meeting the
objective/delivery constraint or are otherwise neutral in their effect
For options which cannot meet the requirements of the delivery constraint
and therefore should be ruled out
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
13
3 Option Filtering
Introduction
3.1 This section describes the process which has been used to identify public transport
technology options which are suitable for implementation on the NGT corridors,
taking into account physical opportunities/constraints as well as potential service/
capacity requirements.
Track-Based Options
3.2 Track-based technology options can broadly be split by the degree of segregation
from other modes/travellers. For steel rail systems this is the legally defined7
difference between tramway (which includes ‘rails which are laid wholly or mainly
along a street or in any other place to which the public has access’) and a railway
(which can cross a carriageway but otherwise the public does not have access to
the track). As well as steel rail systems, other technologies based on provision of a
continuous segregated track have been considered.
Railway Options
3.3 The NGT corridors do not offer any opportunity for a continuous fully segregated
alignment at ground level. Therefore surface rail, beam, magnetic or track-based
guided options (for example the rubber-tyred track-based bus systems used by
airports) are not appropriate in this context. Along the north line in particular,
visual intrusion is a particular concern of residents. Therefore any elevated form of
the above technologies or cableway would not be appropriate.
3.4 An underground (or partially underground) railway has been proposed by third
parties as an alternative to the promoted trolleybus. Underground construction is a
technically challenging and extremely high cost option offering full and absolute
segregation and therefore is appropriate where very high capacity is required
within the densest urban centres. Existing traveller flows in Leeds are not
sufficient to justify the risks and costs of such a system.
Tramway Options
3.5 Plans for a Light Rail Transit (LRT) option along the NGT corridors (Leeds
Supertram) have previously been developed and were the subject of a successful
(but now lapsed) application for implementation powers by Metro and Leeds City
Council. It follows that an LRT option must be suitable for implementation on
these corridors and should be considered further.
3.6 An Ultra-Light Rail Transit (option) ULRT has been put forward by its proponents.
ULRT is a proposed lower cost rail technology, the suggestion being that a
shallower track construction and on-board power supply rather than overhead lines
would result in cost savings in comparison to LRT. ULRT is expected to have a very
7 Transport and Works Act 1992, Chapter 42, Part III Miscellaneous and General, Section 67 Interpretation,
Paragraph (1)
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
14
similar footprint to LRT and therefore it is considered a suitable technology for
implementation on the NGT corridors to be considered further.
3.7 A partially underground tramway option would be unsuitable for the same reasons
as an underground or partially underground railway given above.
Track-based Option Summary
3.8 The following track-based options are sufficiently credible to be considered
further in this review of technology options:
I Light Rail Transit (LRT)
I Ultra-Light Rail Transit (ULRT)
3.9 The following options have been filtered out as being unsuitable for the context of
the NGT corridors:
I Railway
I Aerial cableway
I Magnetic levitation
I Monorail
I Track-based with side guidance
I Personal rapid transit
I Overhead/elevated track-based options
Externally Powered Bus Based Options
3.10 The first set of bus based options considered are based on vehicles which
predominantly draw electricity in normal operation from infrastructure located
along the alignment.
Trolley Vehicle Options
3.11 The NGT scheme as promoted is based on modern trolleybus technology,
comprising rubber tyred vehicles with motors powered by electricity from
overhead lines. The technical feasibility of this option for the NGT corridors has
been established and therefore this option is considered further in this report.
Rail Guided Trolley Vehicle Options
3.12 A further potential refinement of trolleybus technology is in combination with a
form of vehicle guidance. Two systems based on proprietary technologies are in
current operation in France. The stated advantages over a 'standard' trolleybus are
the potential for vehicles to pass closer together than if drivers were to steer and
improved 'docking' at stops. The disadvantages are the increased implementation
costs and an increase in maintenance/renewal costs from the significant rutting
impact of tyres always running on the same path. These options are not considered
further in this report on the grounds that they offer limited extra benefit over
trolleybus for additional cost.
Other Guided Trolley Vehicle Options
3.13 A variety of other ‘bus’ guidance options could be used with trolleybus for all or
some of the proposed route, including kerb, optical and magnetic technologies. In
its current form wire-guided bus, as was proposed in Merseyside and attempted for
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
15
Millennium Transit, is not now considered a credible technology for public
transport and has not been considered further. Whether guidance is included
within the trolleybus option would have limited influence on the performance
against objectives and constraints. Therefore it has not been considered as a
distinct option at this stage. However there is scope for the inclusion of guidance
technology within later design development if worthwhile.
Catenary-Free Electric Bus Options
3.14 A catenary-free electric bus is an emerging application of improved SuperCapacitor
or modern flywheel technology to trolleybus type vehicles to store energy, usually
in combination with a battery pack. The key advantage of these technologies is
that they can be ‘flash’ charged during passenger service, for example within a
typical stop occupation time, at a significantly faster rate than currently
commercially available battery packs
3.15 The flash charge would power a vehicle between consecutive charging points.
Overhead line equipment would not be required, but infrastructure would be
needed at each charging point. Although this technology is maturing in its
application to overhead line powered rail and bus vehicles (where, for example, it
has been shown to improve energy efficiency) current prototypes and technology
trials are based on a range of (mostly) proprietary energy transfer systems. At
present it is unknown whether the commercial production of suitable catenary-
free vehicles will commence within the NGT delivery timeframe, however on the
basis of the evidence available at this time it appears to be suitable for application
on the NGT corridors and has been considered further in this report.
3.16 Bus vehicles with battery packs charged while out of passenger service are
considered within the following section of this report.
Externally Powered Bus Based Option Summary
3.17 The following externally powered options are sufficiently credible to be considered
further in this review of technology options:
I Trolleybus (including kerb/optical/magnetic guidance sub-options)
I Catenary-free electric bus (including kerb/optical/magnetic guidance sub-
options)
3.18 The following options have been filtered out as being unsuitable for the context of
the NGT corridors:
I Road-based with rail guidance options (for example GLT and Translohr)
I Road-based with cable guidance
Conventional (On-board Powered) Bus Based Options
3.19 The second group of bus based options considered are based on vehicles which are
powered from on-board energy storage over the full length of operation (for
example without intermediate charging, for which see catenary-free electric bus
description above). A separate sub mode options study2 has examined the bus
vehicle options available in some detail and recommends the best current option
for different options. The choice of vehicle has limited influence on whether the
option is credible in the context of the NGT corridors and is therefore not
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
16
considered in this initial filtering. In a similar way to the trolleybus options (above)
different guidance technologies are not considered to represent distinct options;
however appropriate guidance infrastructure could be included at a later design
stage.
3.20 The sub mode options study concluded that the best current conventional (on-
board powered) bus based options were a 'plug-in' diesel hybrid bus as the sub
mode representing the comparable bus option and a 'standard' diesel hybrid bus as
a low cost bus option.
3.21 A 'plug-in' hybrid bus with top-up fast charging stations installed at each route
terminus has the capability to operate on electric power for distances of up to
7 km, enabling operation without any adverse on-street emissions in sensitive
areas. On other sections of route the vehicle would travel under conventional
diesel power. The availability of a diesel engine which can also recharge the
battery pack ensures that a level of charge can be maintained that will optimise
its life.
3.22 Plug-in hybrid buses, including an 18m articulated version, are expected to be in
full commercial production by late 2015. Although not yet a fully proven
technology, the technology risk presented by the use of a plug-in hybrid bus is
considered to be significantly lower than for a fuel cell hybrid bus or a catenary-
free electric bus and lower than for a pure battery electric bus. This is because
the driveline remains similar to the current generation of 'standard' hybrids but
with the addition of a larger battery pack and roof mounted pantograph charging
equipment based closely on existing and proven heavy rail technology.
3.23 A 'standard' hybrid bus has no capability to operate solely on electric power for any
significant distance, but offers fuel economy gains and therefore reduced CO2
emissions and local air quality benefits in comparison to a conventional diesel bus.
Diesel hybrid propulsion is now a mature technology with considerable market
traction. As a result the cost premium over diesel buses is falling and fuel economy
gains may in future provide a commercial payback. This sub mode thus provides a
credible low cost bus option that would make a limited but positive contribution
against the NGT scheme objectives.
3.24 Other sub modes considered were rejected on the following grounds:
I Fuel cell hybrid bus (powered by hydrogen) - an immature application of this
technology that remains uneconomic for commercial use, with a vehicle capital
cost of the order of two and a half times that of a comparable trolleybus for
limited additional benefit
I Gas bus (powered by biomethane from waste) - this option performs best in
terms of reducing the 'well to wheel' greenhouse gas emissions of the NGT
service but was rejected on the grounds of low energy efficiency and inability
to operate 'adverse emission free' over any part of the NGT corridors.
Electricity generation is a more energy efficient use of biomethane
I Battery electric bus - unsuitable for NGT due to the insufficient range and
capacity of the current generation of production vehicles and the performance
and technology risks involved in the use of currently unavailable battery
powered 18m articulated buses and fast charging technology
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
17
3.25 Conventional bus services currently run along the NGT corridors and therefore it
follows that a bus based option must be suitable for implementation on these
corridors and should be considered further.
Section Summary
3.26 This section has listed a broad range of public transport technology options and
filtered out options which, for various reasons, are unsuitable for implementation
on the NGT corridors. The following five technology options were identified as
being suitable in the context of the NGT corridors, taking into account physical
opportunities/constraints as well as potential service/ capacity requirements:
I Light Rail Transit (LRT or tram)
I Ultra-Light Rail Transit (ULRT)
I Trolleybus
I Catenary-Free Electric Bus
I Conventional Bus
3.27 Within the following section a comparable specification is set out for each of these
options, and for a low cost option (also based on conventional bus technology).
Later sections of this report consider the fit of these options with the scheme
objectives and delivery constraints presented earlier in this report.
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
19
4 Option Specification
Introduction
4.1 This section sets out a broad technology-independent required system outputs
specification, based on the scheme objectives which set out the Promoters’
aspired scheme outcomes. Based on this, a broadly comparable specification is set
out for each of the technology options which were identified in the previous
filtering section as being suitable for implementation on the north and south NGT
corridors.
Required System Outputs Specification
4.2 Based on the scheme objectives, which are defined in terms of outcomes, a broad
specification of the outputs required from public transport intervention on the
northern and southern NGT corridors has been developed and is set out below. This
specification has been used to ensure that outputs from all technology options
considered are consistent and comparable, for example specified to deliver a
similar increase in passenger capacity per hour through an appropriate
combination of vehicle capacity and frequency.
Investment in public transport on the A660 and A61/M621 radial corridors into
Leeds city centre must:
I enhance the PT service offer with improved: peak and interpeak travel times;
consistency of frequency (punctuality); reliability; journey quality; and
perceived passenger value for money without materially worsening the level of
congestion affecting on other vehicles on the highway
In response to public consultation findings and to achieve the fourth scheme
objective, which is represented as conventional public sector ‘Value for Money’
I increase passenger capacity along the corridors where worthwhile with
punctual, more comfortable public transport journeys
To achieve the first and second scheme objectives in terms of maximising the
potential of the local economy and supporting the sustainable growth of Leeds
city centre
I improve public transport links between communities from Holt Park to Belle Isle
with jobs and services, and to the city centre
To achieve the third and seventh scheme objectives in terms of supporting
economic growth and contributing to enhanced quality of life
I support an increase in the energy efficiency of vehicles and reduction in
adverse emissions at point of use
I improve facilities for pedestrians and cyclists along the corridor improving
safety, reducing barriers to movement and supporting the promotion of active
modes
To achieve the fifth and sixth scheme objectives by reducing carbon emissions
and minimising the impacts of transport on health and quality of life
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
20
I provide sufficient capacity and attractive public transport journeys (journey
times, punctuality, journey quality) to make Park & Ride facilities at Stourton
and Bodington attractive to car users
To achieve the first and second scheme objectives in terms of increasing
person capacity into the city centre and responding to the pressures of growth
on the transport network
Trolleybus
4.3 Trolleybuses are rubber-tyred vehicles with motors powered from overhead lines.
They are an energy efficient transport option, quiet and smooth in operation and
zero-emission at the point of use. In comparison with conventional bus options,
trolleybus vehicles are cheaper to run, longer lasting, and require less
maintenance; they also offer better operational performance on gradients.
4.4 Modern trolleybuses are able to travel off wire using auxiliary power; the distance
that can be covered will depend on the specific vehicles which are offered at the
time of procurement of the scheme. The specification assumes that the full system
is wired and the auxiliary power source will be used for off-system movements
only.
4.5 Trolleybus vehicles are available in rigid, articulated and bi-articulated
configurations. On balance the Promoters have decided that the (single)
articulated version provides sufficient capacity and flexibility on the NGT
corridors. Articulated vehicles also have the advantage of being lower risk than the
more expensive but higher passenger capacity bi-articulated vehicles, including
because they do not exceed the current 18.75m UK legal length limit8 and would
therefore not require additional powers to operate.
4.6 The NGT proposal is for a trolleybus service from Holt Park (A660 Corridor, north
of Leeds) with Park & Ride at Bodington through the city centre to Stourton
(A61/M621 Corridor, south of Leeds). This proposal has developed over time,
through a process of design stages and reviews9. However development has been
influenced by the requirements of the scheme objectives at all stages.
4.7 From Holt Park a twelve minute headway weekday service would follow Holtdale
Approach and then Otley Old Road to Bodington, located just north east of the
junction of the A660 (Otley Road) with the A6120 (Outer Ring Road). From
Bodington the service would increase to a six minute headway following the A660
into Leeds.
4.8 Through Headingley an offline section behind the Arndale Centre would bypass
traffic congestion in the Headingley District Centre re-joining the A660 in the
vicinity of Richmond Road. A further southbound offline section is provided
between Rampart Road and Clarendon Road. The final approach to the city centre
follows Cookridge Street, passing through Millennium Square and then following
Park Row to City Square.
8 The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations (as amended) 1986
9 NGT Design Rationale, Mott MacDonald, January 2014
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
21
4.9 From City Square the route follows Boar Lane, Lower Briggate and then a new
alignment within the former Tetley Brewery site alongside Waterloo Street and
Bowman Lane. The route follows the line of Chadwick Street continuing beyond
Carlisle Road on a segregated alignment across an industrial estate towards
Hunslet Road.
4.10 The route continues southbound along Hunslet Road until turning onto Whitfield
Way then crossing Whitfield Square on a segregated alignment crossing Whitfield
Avenue to reach Church Street. Following Church Street the route follows Balm
Road until passing beneath the M621 and then Belle Isle Road to Belle Isle Circus.
The Stourton Park & Ride site is accessed from here by means of Winrose Grove.
Catenary-Free Electric Bus
4.11 A catenary-free electric bus option would have the same high level of segregation
and priority at junctions at the same level of frequency as the trolleybus option
described above. There is currently no known catenary-free system in passenger
service, however based on what is known from promotional information and trial
operations, for example in Shanghai, the service characteristics and ride
experience would be very similar to a standard trolleybus. Such an option would
therefore deliver the same significant improvement in journey time and reliability
to existing bus services on the NGT corridors.
4.12 The service pattern of the catenary-free electric bus option would be the same as
the trolleybus option above, with a twelve minute headway from Holt Park
Stourton strengthened by additional services from Bodington to Stourton to result
in a six minute headway service for the majority of the route.
4.13 The catenary-free electric bus option would use 18m articulated vehicles with
similar dimensions and capacity to the preferred vehicle configuration for the
trolleybus option. These vehicles are fitted with SuperCapacitors, battery pack and
charging equipment. They have the capability to operate for around 1,500m from
an approximately 30 second charge.
4.14 Flash charging facilities would be installed at all stops and termini. Additional
charging points are expected to be required; the average distance between stops
is slightly more than 500m and charge facilities may also be required to
accommodate sections on significant gradient and/or any sections close to the
limit which could be subject to operational delay.
4.15 A catenary-free electric bus option is expected to be broadly of the same order of
cost as standard trolleybus. Although it would not require the cost of the overhead
line equipment, vehicles are significantly more expensive than standard
trolleybuses and there would be significant cost associated with installing charging
facilities along the route. In assessing this option it is assumed that the technology
could deliver similar scheme outputs, within a comparable timeframe, for a cost
broadly similar to trolleybus.
Light Rail Transit
4.16 Leeds’ original aspiration was for a modern tram system, or Light Rail Transit
(LRT), similar in concept to examples in Sheffield and Nottingham. LRT represents
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
22
an attractive transport solution proven in both the UK context and in its ability to
attract car users away from their private vehicles.
4.17 LRT is based on steel wheeled electric vehicles operating on rails and powered
from overhead lines. The technology is capable of operating both on street within
or adjacent to traffic and fully segregated from the highway.
4.18 The passenger capacity of a typical Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) is greater than
trolleybuses and they are disproportionately more expensive. To provide the
required passenger capacity, a LRT service would therefore operate at a higher
headway than the proposed trolleybus option, for example ten minutes rather than
six. This would reduce the number of LRVs that would need to be purchased.
4.19 For the purposes of this comparison it has been assumed that an LRT option would
extend to Holt Park (consistent with the trolleybus, but further than the promoted
tram option which was proposed to terminate at Bodington), however it is
expected that the value for money argument for the lower passenger flow section
from Bodington to Holt Park would not be as compelling as the trolleybus option
(which includes relatively little highway infrastructure change and therefore cost
over this length; in comparison to the LRT option which would require track).
4.20 Along the north line, the general route followed would be the same as trolleybus,
following Holtdale approach and Otley Old Road to a Park & Ride site at Bodington
and then A660/Otley Road as far as Headingley. Through Headingley the same
offline section would bypass the district centre. Along the corridor the maximum
level of segregation and/or priority over other highway vehicles will be given,
taking into account the characteristics of the system, for example the different
relationship between LRVs, lines and stops. It is considered unlikely that this could
deliver significantly greater journey time savings than would be achieved with the
trolleybus option given the space and capacity constraints. From the A660 the LRT
option considered would follow the same route along Cookridge Street, passing
through Millennium Square and then following Park Row to City Square.
4.21 For the section of the south line starting from the city centre the general route
followed would also be the same as trolleybus, follows Boar Lane, Lower Briggate
and then a new alignment within the former Tetley Brewery site alongside
Waterloo Street and Bowman Lane. The route follows the line of Chadwick Street
continuing beyond Carlisle Road on a segregated alignment across an industrial
estate towards Hunslet Road. The route continues southbound along Hunslet Road
until turning onto Whitfield Way then crossing Whitfield Square on a segregated
alignment crossing Whitfield Avenue to reach Church Street then Balm Road up to
the railway bridge.
4.22 From this point the route would diverge from the trolleybus option and follow the
railway alignment to access the Park & Ride site at Stourton from the north-east
adjacent to junction 7 of the M621. The trolleybus option previously followed this
route and was realigned; however the gradient on Winrose Grove, followed to
access the Park & Ride site from the west on the new alignment, is too steep for
LRVs and therefore is not an option for LRT.
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
23
4.23 However, the choice between Belle Isle, railway and Hunslet Road is not expected
to make a material difference to the comparison between tram and trolleybus
options at the high level possible within this report.
4.24 LRT infrastructure is considerably more expensive than trolleybus; in addition to
LRVs being materially more expensive (even though fewer would be purchased, see
paragraph 4.18), the track costs, including increased requirement to relocate
statutory undertakers’ equipment, add a significant amount to the project cost.
LRT offers less resilience to incidents (eg maintenance or road works) than
trolleybus which can get round minor obstructions (on-wire) or divert off-wire in
more extreme circumstances. However, LRT is considered to be more attractive to
existing public transport users and car users than any other technology option and
so would generate greater benefits overall.
Ultra-Light Rail Transit
4.25 Ultra-Light Rail Transit (ULRT) or Lightweight tram is a proposed innovative lower
cost alternative to conventional LRT. The proponents of ULRT suggest that, in
comparison with LRT, cost savings would result from ULRT requiring a shallower
track construction for the lighter weight vehicles. Vehicles would have on-board
energy storage rather than being powered from overhead lines.
4.26 To date ULRT has been demonstrated on short sections of segregated track: in the
UK in Bristol Docks, on the Stourbridge railway branch line and on Southport pier.
Outside the UK a ULRT vehicle operates at Al Hoota Caves, Oman. All of these
services have run on existing tracks with a single vehicle in operation.
4.27 The current self-powered vehicle options include some form of internal
combustion generator running on clean diesel, compressed natural gas or bio-
methane. Methane (natural gas) burns cleaner than diesel and switching to bio-
methane offers a carbon neutral approach.
4.28 The upper end of the vehicle passenger capacity range that has been proposed
previously for ULRT exceeds typical trolleybus vehicle capacities but is lower than
can be achieved with tram (although, like tram, ULRT vehicles can be coupled
together). Analysis undertaken during the development of NGT shows that service
frequency has more influence on the case for the scheme than capacity and
therefore it has been assumed that a ULRT alternative would operate at the same
service frequency as trolleybus. At the level of detail possible within this
assessment it is concluded that the operating costs of ULRT would be of the same
order of magnitude as trolleybus.
4.29 An equivalent ULRT option is assumed to follow the same alignment as the LRT
option described above. In assessing this option it is assumed that the proponent’s
assertion that the technology could deliver similar scheme outputs for a cost
similar to or less than trolleybus is validated.
Comparable Bus Option
4.30 A comparable bus option would have the same high level of segregation and
priority at junctions at the same level of frequency as the trolleybus option
described above. Bus-based systems have been proven across the UK and the
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
24
world; a comparable bus option would deliver a significant improvement in journey
time and reliability to existing bus services on the NGT corridors.
4.31 The service pattern of the comparable bus option would be the same as the
trolleybus option above, with a twelve minute headway from Holt Park Stourton
strengthened by additional services from Bodington to Stourton to result in a six
minute headway service for the majority of the route.
4.32 The vehicle recommended for the comparable bus option is an 18m articulated
‘plug-in’ hybrid buses with similar dimensions and capacity to the trolleybus
option. These vehicles are fitted with a diesel engine, battery pack and roof
mounted pantograph charging equipment. They have the capability to operate on
electric power for distances of up to 7 km between charges, and is therefore
conservatively assumed to be capable of operating for around half of the length of
the NGT route. A single decker 12m rigid plug-in hybrid vehicle is currently on trial
in Gothenburg; however the manufacturer indicates that an 18m articulated
version is planned to be in full commercial production by late 2015.
4.33 Top-up charging stations would be installed at the Holt Park, Bodington and
Stourton termini to enable the vehicle battery pack to be charged during an
extended layover time, thus maximising the potential of the vehicle to operate
over parts of the NGT corridors without adverse on-street emissions and helping to
optimise battery life.
4.34 A comparable bus option is expected to be somewhat cheaper than trolleybus,
primarily because of it not requiring the cost of the overhead line equipment,
however additional vehicles are anticipated because of increased layover times (to
accommodate charging). For those sections in fully electric operation (around half
of the route) the ride experience and vehicle emissions would be very similar to
trolleybus. However, for the other half of the route, the vehicle would operate as
under diesel power, with passenger perceptions of the vehicle ‘ride experience’
being adversely affected by engine noise, heat and vibration. For these sections
the vehicle emissions would also be those of a diesel bus vehicle, however it is
assumed that the service would be configured to run in electric mode over the
most environmentally sensitive sections of the route.
Low Cost Bus Option
4.35 A low cost bus option would deliver improvements in bus priority along the NGT
corridors, the focus being locations with the highest passenger flows and or the
highest delays. This option would not include delivery of the segregated sections
included within the options above, however comparable bus quality corridor
improvements in Leeds and elsewhere have delivered material improvements in
journey times and reliability. The option includes Park & Ride provision at
Bodington and Stourton, although on a scale reduced from the high-investment
options detailed above.
4.36 On the northern line of route, there is a high frequency of existing commercial bus
services that would benefit from the improvements and no consequent change in
these is expected. However there is currently no service which connects the north
and south NGT corridors or which serves the proposed Stourton Park & Ride site.
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
25
Therefore the Promoters would tender a dedicated Park & Ride service from
Stourton to the city centre.
4.37 The low cost bus option would use 18m articulated ‘standard’ hybrid buses on the
dedicated Park & Ride service from Stourton to the city centre. These buses have
similar dimensions and capacity to the preferred vehicle configurations for the
trolleybus and comparable bus options.
4.38 A low cost bus option would be significantly cheaper than the other options
considered. The approach of targeting individual improvements where they would
deliver most benefit has the further benefit that an option could be developed to
match the funding available, including opportunities to phase the implementation
over the years within the funding cycle. Hybrid technology has been proven to
increase the fuel efficiency (and therefore reduce emissions) of vehicles, including
by the engine automatically cutting out at stops or slow speed. However for the
majority of its length passengers’ perception and ride experience of the vehicle
will be very similar to a standard diesel bus vehicle, as is the case for the current
hybrid bus vehicles operating in Leeds.
Section Summary
4.39 This section set out the required scheme specification used in the development of
options being considered. The aim of this specification, which is based on the
scheme objectives, is to ensure that all options are appropriately consistent and
comparable and therefore that the review of alternatives is undertaken on a
robust basis.
4.40 Following this the section set out broad specifications for trolleybus, catenary-free
electric bus, LRT, ULRT and bus options. The next section of this review considers
the performance of these options against the scheme objectives. Section 6 sets out
the performance of these options against the delivery constraints.
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
27
5 Options Assessment Against Objectives
Introduction
5.1 This section sets out an assessment of the identified options against the scheme
objectives. Five technology options were identified within Section 3 of this report
as being suitable for implementation on the NGT corridors. Options based on these
technologies (including comparable and low cost conventional bus variants) were
specified in Section 4 to meet the Required System Specification also set out in
that section.
5.2 The scheme objectives have been grouped as in Section 2, by the higher level LTP
Objectives. The text in italics was developed alongside the objectives with the
intention of giving guidance on how quantitative and qualitative measures can be
used to help assess the degree to which options meet the scheme objectives. It is
the qualitative measures which are used in this section; the quantitative measures
are used in the later assessment through the full modelling and appraisal
framework of the Preferred Option, Next Best Alternative and Low Cost Alternative
identified by this report and presented in the updated scheme business case.
LTP Objective - Economy:
1. Maximise growth of the Leeds economy by enhancing its competitive
position and facilitating future employment and population growth
In quantitative terms this means maximising the Net Present Value of the
proposal – as conventional benefits form part of Objective 4, the focus here is
on Wider Impacts. It also recognises the population/household growth
pressures. In qualitative terms it is about ‘quality of life’ and ‘putting Leeds
on the map’
5.3 Table 5.1 summarises the qualitative performance of each of the options against
this first objective. The greatest contribution against this objective will be
delivered by alternatives which deliver a visible and perceptible improvement in
public transport provision on the NGT corridors.
TABLE 5.1 OBJECTIVE ONE: MAXIMISE LEEDS’ GROWTH
Option Assessment Commentary
Light Rail Transit +++ LRT is a high status high visibility option
proven in the UK context as an attractive
alternative to car use
Ultra-Light Rail Transit +++ While ULRT would also be a high visibility
option it is an unproven technology
Trolleybus +++
The promoted option would be the first UK
implementation of a modern trolleybus
system with a visual identity distinct from
existing bus services reinforcing
perceptions of permanence and legibility
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
28
Option Assessment Commentary
Catenary-Free Electric Bus +++ This option would be among the first full
operational implementations of an new
technology option, visually distinct from
conventional bus
Comparable Bus +++
Although the comparable bus option would
not be as visually distinct from existing bus
services it would be an early application of
an emerging technology solution and has
strong potential to influence population
patterns and improve quality of life
Low Cost Bus +
The low cost bus option has the potential
to influence population patterns to a
degree but as an improvement to existing
bus services rather than representing a
step change in transport provision
5.4 In terms of a qualitative assessment against first scheme objectives the differences
between the five high-investment options are not sufficiently marked to justify a
difference in assessment between them. The scale of impact of the low cost bus
option would be substantially less than the other options.
2. Support and facilitate the sustainable growth of Leeds, recognising the
importance of its city centre to the future economy of the Leeds City Region
This is about increasing person capacity into the city centre especially during
peak periods, recognising the constraints on road capacity, car parking capacity
and without further investment, rail capacity. This captures the spatial
dimension of where we want growth to happen
5.5 Table 5.2 summarises the qualitative performance of each of the options against
this second objective. Allocating priority to public transport vehicles increases
person capacity as each vehicle can carry passengers equivalent to many cars.
Increasing the capacity available for public transport requires a combination of
improved infrastructure and a reduction in highway demand, the latter through
private car users choosing to use public transport instead. Allocating more priority
to public transport will otherwise increase congestion on the corridors, in turn
decreasing person capacity because of associated delays to both public and private
transport.
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
29
TABLE 5.2 OBJECTIVE TWO: SUPPORT ECONOMIC GROWTH
Option Assessment Commentary
Light Rail Transit +++
Although LRT has the potential to deliver
the highest level of increase in person
capacity, current and forecast demand
flows on the NGT corridors require only a
relatively low frequency service and
therefore cannot be expected to deliver to
the technology’s full potential
Ultra-Light Rail Transit +++
According to its proponents ULRT could be
delivered in similar capacity units to LRT –
however the capacity of demonstration
vehicles in the UK has been closer to single
decker buses
Trolleybus +++
Similar to the rail transit options above a
trolleybus system would supplement
existing bus services and increase the
passenger capacity on the corridors. A
trolleybus system would deliver the
capacity required on the corridors at a
higher frequency than an LRT option
Catenary-Free Electric Bus +++
Consistent with the trolleybus option
above a catenary-free electric bus system
would supplement existing bus services
and increase the passenger capacity on the
corridors at a higher frequency than an
LRT option
Comparable Bus ++
Market research with potential users has
shown that an option not perceived as
distinct from conventional bus would
attract fewer passengers out of their cars
than the above options and therefore
would not offset the capacity reallocation
to public transport resulting in more
congestion. It would therefore not increase
overall person capacity on the corridors to
the same extent
Low Cost Bus +
The low cost bus option would only
introduce additional passenger capacity on
the south line with the introduction of a
dedicated Park & Ride service. The on-line
nature of this route will limit the overall
increase in person capacity which can be
delivered on the corridors
5.6 Considered in qualitative terms against the second objective the options perceived
by the public as being distinct from conventional buses, which market research
and evidence from other schemes suggest would be more attractive to car users,
show the highest performance. Research suggests that the comparable bus option
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
30
would not attract as many travellers out of their cars; this reduces the level of
vehicle capacity which can be allocated to the bus service and therefore limits the
increase in person capacity which can be delivered. The low cost bus option is
similarly limited but also does not include the segregated sections of infrastructure
which allow public transport priority and therefore has a more limited impact on
existing traffic.
3. Support and facilitate targeted regeneration initiatives and economic growth
in the more deprived areas of Leeds
This is about improving the links between the more deprived areas of Leeds
and employment/education opportunities, as well as explicitly supporting the
delivery of other policy initiatives. This too has a spatial dimension, but it is
more about the beneficiaries of growth
5.7 Table 5.3 summarises the qualitative performance of each of the options against
this third objective. The NGT corridors link some of the more deprived areas of
Leeds, including Belle Isle and Holt Park, with opportunities and services within
the city centre, other district centres and at key education establishments and
health centres.
TABLE 5.3 OBJECTIVE THREE: SUPPORT REGENERATION
Option Assessment Commentary
Light Rail Transit +++ LRT has been proven to support and
attract regeneration in the UK context
Ultra-Light Rail Transit +++ It can be expected that ULRT would
support regeneration in much the same
way as LRT
Trolleybus +++ It can be expected that trolleybus would
support regeneration in much the same
way as LRT
Catenary-Free Electric Bus +++ It can be expected that catenary-free
electric bus would support regeneration in
much the same way as LRT
Comparable Bus +++ High quality bus rapid transit systems have
been proven to support and attract
regeneration
Low Cost Bus + Improving existing bus journey times and
reliability can be expected to support
regeneration
5.8 In qualitative terms each of the five high-investment options are expected to
provide a high level of support regeneration along the corridors. The scale of
impact of the low cost bus option would be substantially less than the other
options.
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
31
4. Improve the efficiency of the city's public transport and road networks
This is the conventional DfT Value for Money case measured as the quantity of
user benefits (journey time, quality, but also reliability, option value etc) and
non-user benefits (impact on congestion). ‘Improve’ should be taken as relative
to the Do-Minimum scenario rather than now
5.9 Table 5.4 summarises the qualitative performance of each of the options against
the fourth objective. Effectiveness is the measure of the scale of the overall
benefits delivered by a scheme.
TABLE 5.4 OBJECTIVE FOUR: IMPROVE EFFECTIVENESS
Option Assessment Commentary
Light Rail Transit +++ LRT technology has the potential to deliver
the highest level of user and non-user
benefits
Ultra-Light Rail Transit +++ The proponents of ULRT suggest it could
deliver a high proportion of the benefits of
LRT
Trolleybus +++
Trolleybus technology has the potential to
deliver overall benefits to a similar scale
as LRT on the NGT corridors at a higher
service frequency and therefore with
shorter passenger wait times
Catenary-Free Electric Bus +++ Catenary-free electric bus technology has
the potential to deliver overall benefits of
the same scale as standard trolleybus
Comparable Bus ++ That purely bus based options have been
shown to attract less new public transport
demand than the above options would
limit the benefit that could be delivered
Low Cost Bus + The low cost bus option would deliver
materially less economic benefit than the
above options
5.10 Considered in qualitative terms against this fourth scheme objective, LRT has the
potential to deliver the highest overall level of benefits, however on the NGT
corridors the proportion to which this could exceed ULRT and the trolleybus
alternatives is limited. The overall level of benefits that the comparable bus
option could deliver on the NGT corridors is lower than the other high-investment
options, particularly in terms of the impact on highway congestion.
5.11 The scale of benefit delivered by the low cost bus option would be significantly
less than for the other options. Therefore, although technically it could be an
effective option in its own right, it would make a lesser contribution to improving
the effectiveness of the City’s public transport and road networks.
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
32
LTP Objective - Low Carbon:
5. Reduce transport's emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases
This objective captures the global environmental impacts of the project in
comparison to the Do-Minimum scenario
5.12 Table 5.5 summarises the qualitative performance of each of the options against
the fifth objective. Greenhouse gas emissions are considered from ‘well to wheel’
for the public transport service but also in terms of the net impact on greenhouse
gases from other highway traffic.
TABLE 5.5 OBJECTIVE FIVE: REDUCE GREENHOUSE GASES
Option Assessment Commentary
Light Rail Transit +
Systems using vehicles externally
electrically powered, such as LRT, are
typically highly energy efficient and
therefore result in lower greenhouse gas
emissions
Ultra-Light Rail Transit +
Although ULRT ‘steel wheel on steel rail’ is
energy efficient, vehicles would be
powered from on-board energy
storage/conversion adding weight to the
vehicles and depending on the individual
engine efficiency rather than central
generation. Creating and utilising a new
fuel supply chain (of any nature) would
result in further greenhouse gas emissions
to an extent offsetting the greenhouse gas
emission reduction if biomethane
propulsion were adopted
Trolleybus +
Systems using vehicles externally
electrically powered, such as trolleybus,
are typically highly energy efficient and
therefore result in lower greenhouse gas
emissions
Catenary-Free Electric Bus + Catenary-free electric bus is expected to
have broadly the same level of energy
efficiency as the standard trolleybus
option
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
33
Option Assessment Commentary
Comparable Bus +
Trial operations of the specified plug-in
hybrid bus vehicle have demonstrated a
level of energy efficiency significantly
better than standard hybrid bus vehicles in
UK operation. However vehicles are
expected to run under diesel power for
around half of their distance in passenger
service because of the length of the NGT
route. Therefore this option will be less
energy efficient than either trolleybus
alternative.
Low Cost Bus =
More energy efficient hybrid bus vehicles
are becoming more common, however they
remain commercially attractive only where
grant funding is available. In comparison to
the ‘do minimum’ option - where more
efficient vehicles will also be adopted –
any benefit will be modest
5.13 In qualitative terms against this sixth objective it is the purely electrically
powered technologies from the shortlist considered, which are both energy
efficient and use existing power supply networks, which have the greatest
potential to contribute to an overall reduction in greenhouse gases. Although
biomethane propulsion could represent a carbon neutral approach, a supply
network would be required (with associated greenhouse gas emissions) and the net
impact over the potential for using equivalent renewable fuel sources in future
electricity generation would be negligible.
5.14 Taking into account all aspects of construction, energy supply, vehicle efficiency
and potential for bus network rationalisation, all of the options considered are not
expected to be significant in terms of their impact on greenhouse gases.
LTP Objective - Quality of Life:
6. Promote quality of life through a safe and healthy built and natural
environment
The impacts on the local environment incorporate townscape, local air quality,
noise, safety etc. This objective captures making best use of existing assets.
Again the comparison is against the Do-Minimum scenario
5.15 Table 5.6 summarises the qualitative performance of each of the options against
the sixth objective. The environmental aspects mainly relate to the infrastructure
associated with the option considered (for example townscape), with some
secondary impacts (for example for air quality and noise) resulting from the net
effect on the highway network. The impact on safety is dominated by accidents, in
particular highway accidents – in appraisal terms a function of the change in
highway distance travelled and therefore correlate with mode shift.
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
34
TABLE 5.6 OBJECTIVE SIX: SAFE & HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT
Option Assessment Commentary
Light Rail Transit ++
The environmental benefits of LRT,
including mode shift from a proven
attractive alternative to private car use,
are offset by the townscape disbenefit of
the infrastructure – including the
associated overhead line equipment
Ultra-Light Rail Transit ++
Although ULRT would not have the
townscape disbenefit of overhead line
equipment the on-board powered vehicles
would result in air quality and noise
emissions along the route. ULRT would
have the same environmental impacts of
highway widening and introducing
segregated sections as LRT
Trolleybus ++
The environmental impact of the
trolleybus option would be similar in
nature to LRT, with the benefits of
quiet/local air quality emission free
vehicles offset by the townscape impacts
of the overhead line equipment
Catenary-Free Electric Bus ++
Although catenary-free electric bus would
not have the townscape disbenefit of
overhead line equipment it would have the
same environmental impacts of highway
widening and introducing segregated
sections as trolleybus
Comparable Bus +
The direct impacts of the comparable bus
option would generally be similar to
trolleybus. However vehicles would be
operating under diesel power for around
half of the length of the route resulting in
air quality/noise emissions. They would
therefore be perceived by travellers as
being little different to existing bus over
these sections and would attract less new
public transport demand than the above
options.
Low Cost Bus =
The environmental and safety impacts of
the low cost bus option would be modest
and are not considered to be material in
terms of an overall improvement in quality
of life
5.16 For different reasons the non-bus options are qualitatively assessed as making the
strongest contribution to enhancing the built and natural environment. The lower
vehicle emissions of LRT and trolleybus alternatives are balanced against the ULRT
and comparable bus options which do not have the townscape impact of overhead
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
35
line equipment. All five high-investment options follow broadly the same
alignment, require removal of the same trees and other environmental impacts,
and therefore incur the same resulting disbenefit.
5.17 The bus options would attract less mode shift from private car use and therefore
have a more limited effect in reducing the adverse emissions of highway traffic/
congestion. In particular the impact of the low cost bus option would be modest to
the extent that it could not be considered to make a material contribution against
this objective.
7. Contribute to enhanced quality of life by improving access for all to jobs and
services
Key services include but are not limited to hospitals, tertiary education
(Universities, Leeds City College) and the railway station (access to national
networks). ‘Improving’ should be taken as relative to the Do-Minimum scenario
rather than now
5.18 Table 5.7 summarises the qualitative performance of each of the options against
the seventh and final objective. Improving public transport along the NGT
corridors and across the city centre is considered to improve accessibility between
communities and services by reducing travel times and removing barriers to
movement.
TABLE 5.7 OBJECTIVE SEVEN: IMPROVE ACCESSIBILITY
Option Assessment Commentary
Light Rail Transit +++ LRT would provide a high quality and fully
accessible additional public transport
connection along the NGT corridors
Ultra-Light Rail Transit +++ The accessibility impact of a ULRT option
would be very similar to LRT, although
potentially running at a higher service
frequency (depending on vehicle capacity)
Trolleybus +++ The accessibility impact of the trolleybus
option would be very similar to LRT,
although running at a higher service
frequency
Catenary-Free Electric Bus +++ The accessibility impact of the catenary-
free electric bus option would be the same
as standard trolleybus
Comparable Bus +++ The accessibility impact of a comparable
bus option would be the same as the
trolleybus alternatives
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
36
Option Assessment Commentary
Low Cost Bus +
The accessibility impact of a low cost bus
option would be considerably less than any
of the high-investment options, with
limited impact on journey times and
reliability as segregated sections of the
alignment are not included. Being limited
to an improvement to existing bus routes
north of the university there would be no
expected overall increase in service
frequency on this section and there would
be no cross-city connection between the
north and south corridors
5.19 The options which overlay a new cross-city public transport service onto the NGT
corridors would have the greatest accessibility impact. The low cost bus option
would have a slight positive accessibility impact on the north line and as a new
Park & Ride service on the south line. However it provides no cross-city connection
or frequency enhancement.
Section Summary
5.20 This section set out the qualitative assessment of the identified options against the
objectives developed for the scheme. In general terms the high-investment options
meet the objectives for the scheme with reasonable consistency:
I The Light Rail Transit option performs well against the scheme objectives.
However the extent to which it could deliver its full potential of economic
benefits is limited on the relatively capacity and space constrained NGT
corridors. In addition, to deliver the passenger capacity required on the
corridors LRT would operate at a lower service frequency than the other
options therefore resulting in longer passenger wait times
I The Ultra-Light Rail Transit option performs reasonably well against the scheme
objectives and would run at a higher frequency than the LRT option. However
vehicles would be propelled by on-board power generation and therefore not be
adverse emission free at point of use
I The trolleybus option also performs well against the scheme objectives.
Although there are adverse townscape impacts associated with the overhead
line equipment for this option from a wider perspective it is considered to
reinforce the distinct visual identity and increase perceptions of the
permanence and legibility of the scheme
I The catenary-free electric bus would have the same environmental impacts of
highway widening and introducing segregated sections as trolleybus. Although
absence of the overhead line equipment to an extent reduces the overall
townscape impact there would also be a lessoning of the visual identity of the
scheme and reduced perceptions of permanence and legibility
I The comparable bus option performs reasonably well against the scheme
objectives, but would not be as visually distinct from existing buses as the rail
and trolleybus options above and would therefore attract less new public
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
37
transport demand. Therefore it is assessed as having a lesser impact on the
objectives to maximise Leeds’ growth, support economic growth and improve
effectiveness. For around half of the length of route the option would operate
under diesel power, with air quality emissions along these sections of route and
passenger perceptions of the vehicle ‘ride experience’ being adversely affected
by engine noise, heat and vibration.
5.21 The low cost bus option would be more modest in impact and therefore would
make a lower contribution against the majority of the objectives. However an
improved bus system could still offer a good performance against the objectives
for less capital investment than other options
5.22 The rail and trolleybus options offer the overall best performance when considered
across the scheme objectives. However the assessment shows that the options
considered would all deliver the objectives to a degree. The next section of this
review considers the performance of the identified options against the identified
delivery constraints.
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
39
6 Options Assessment Against Delivery Constraints
Introduction
6.1 This section sets out an assessment of the identified options against the
constraints which affect delivery of any option. The same six options considered
against the scheme objectives are assessed. A key difference in this assessment
against delivery constraints is that any option failing to meet a constraint is
excluded from further consideration.
Affordability
The Promoters must be able to fund the scheme capital costs from its own or
third party sources
6.2 Table 6.1 summarises the performance of each option against the affordability
delivery constraint. Affordability limits are effectively set by DfT’s NGT 2012
Programme Entry approval – to a combined Central Government grant/local
contribution of £250.6 million. As set out in paragraph 1.7 of this report and in
Appendix A there has been a change in the way that Government supports capital
investment in locally-promoted major schemes. The result is that there is now no
way to apply for additional Central Government funding, even if a more expensive
scheme could be proven to represent higher value for money.
TABLE 6.1 AFFORDABILITY DELIVERY CONSTRAINT
Option Assessment Commentary
Light Rail Transit An LRT option meeting the required system
specification would cost materially more
than the funding currently available
Ultra-Light Rail Transit ++
Assuming that proponent’s assertions of
the cost of ULRT technology can be
validated a ULRT option which meets the
required system specification would be
affordable
Trolleybus ++ DfT Programme Entry funding approval and
associated commitments to local funding
demonstrate that the trolleybus option is
affordable
Catenary-Free Electric Bus +
The costs of a catenary-free option are
expected to be broadly comparable to
standard trolleybus, with early indications
being that the additional cost of vehicles
and charging infrastructure would exceed
the savings from removing the need for
overhead line equipment. There is,
however, no established funding route for
this option.
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
40
Option Assessment Commentary
Comparable Bus +
The costs of a comparable bus option are
expected to be broadly comparable to
trolleybus. Such an option would not
include the costs of overhead line
equipment but would require additional
vehicles. Therefore this option is
considered in principle to be affordable.
There is, however, no established funding
route for this option.
Low Cost Bus ++
The low cost bus option would be subject
to a different affordability constraint,
given that DfT funding would not be
available and it would therefore be
entirely locally funded. It is anticipated
that a low cost bus option could be
delivered for less than an indicative £50
million locally sourced budget (see
Appendix A). A scheme developed within
this budget is considered to be affordable
and while there is no established funding
route for this option, its lower cost means
that there is greater chance that one could
be developed.
6.3 In terms of this constraint it is clear that the more expensive Light Rail Transit
option would not be affordable and therefore cannot be considered to be a
reasonable alternative. It is therefore not considered any further in this report.
The remaining options pass the affordability constraint and are therefore
considered further in this section.
Deliverability
The proven level of public and political support for alternatives also influences
the level of delivery risk
DfT funding is time constrained and therefore any differences in the delivery
programme and risks associated with delivery to that programme must be taken
into account
6.4 Table 6.2 summarises the performance of the remaining options against the
deliverability constraint. Critical to this assessment is the level of delivery risk
associated with each of the options – particularly where such risk could result in
delays which mean that funding approved for specific years cannot be drawn down
and it therefore lost to the Promoters.
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
41
TABLE 6.2 DELIVERABILITY DELIVERY CONSTRAINT
Option Assessment Commentary
Ultra-Light Rail Transit
Delivery of a ULRT option has not been
proven at the scale of NGT. Therefore the
implementation risk of this option cannot
be accepted by the Promoters. In addition,
the restricted (and closely connected)
suppliers of this technology limit the
ability for a ULRT system to be
competitively procured (regardless of
whether the technology can be delivered
at all or at the costs the proponents
assert)
Trolleybus ++
Modern trolleybus systems have been and
continue to be implemented in many
locations around the world and the
Promoters have reasonable confidence
that this technology can be delivered
within time and budget constraints.
Powers to deliver a trolleybus system can
be obtained through a single application
under the Transport and Works Act
Catenary-Free Electric Bus
Delivery of a catenary-free electric bus
option has not been proven at the scale of
NGT. Although the technology is evolving
rapidly it is by no means certain whether a
dependable, appropriate and affordable
solution will be available within the
funding timeframe of this study. Therefore
the implementation risk of this option
cannot be accepted by the Promoters.
Comparable Bus +
For a comparable bus option the powers to
implement the segregated sections of
alignment, to obtain compulsory purchase
powers, traffic regulation orders and
development consents would require
multiple applications. Each application
would be considered in its own right rather
than as a system – increasing the level of
delivery risk associated with such an
option. However this option would not
have the adverse impacts of overhead line
equipment
Low Cost Bus ++
Although subject to similar deliverability
constraints as the comparable bus option
the considerable reduced extent of this
option reduces the level of risk associated
with it
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
42
6.5 In terms of this constraint the ULRT and catenary-free electric bus options, which
are both unproven at this scale of investment, represent an unacceptable level of
risk including that funding is lost or for other reasons delivery of the project
becomes unaffordable because of delay and inflation and/or is never completed.
This is obviously not acceptable to the Promoters and/or funders; therefore
neither option can be considered to be a reasonable alternative to delivering the
required outcomes in this environment and are therefore not considered any
further in this report. The remaining options pass the deliverability constraint and
are therefore considered further in this section.
Potential for System Expansion
No unreasonable barrier to extending the scope of the system in the future, for
example aiming to avoid proprietary technology which could limit competitive
procurement of vehicles/infrastructure in the future
6.6 Table 6.3 summarises the performance of the remaining options against the system
expansion delivery constraint. None of the three options considered against this
delivery constraint are dependent on proprietary technology (unlike the ULRT and
catenary-free electric bus options which have previously been excluded from
consideration) and therefore attention is focused on competitive procurement of
vehicles and deliverability of future infrastructure (whether extensions to existing
corridors or wholly new corridors being upgraded to the same technology).
TABLE 6.3 SYSTEM EXPANSION DELIVERY CONSTRAINT
Option Assessment Commentary
Trolleybus ++
Trolleybus vehicles are available from a
range of suppliers and are expected to be
available through competitive
procurement in the future. System
expansion would benefit from the same
advantages of obtaining legal powers
described under the deliverability
constraint
Comparable Bus ++
The comparable bus option would not be
dependent on any particular technology
and therefore additional vehicles will be
available through competitive
procurement in the future. However
system expansion would be constrained by
the disadvantages of obtaining legal
powers described under the deliverability
constraint
Low Cost Bus +++
Vehicles for the low cost bus option would
be commercially provided by the service
operators with no constraint on
procurement of additional buses in the
future. The limited scale of this option
presents relatively little constraint to
expanding implementation in the future
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
43
6.7 All three remaining options pass the system expansion delivery constraint and are
therefore considered further in this section.
Commercial Case
Procurement of the option must be achievable competitively in line with EU
regulations
Revenue received must exceed the operating costs. The extent to which the
resulting revenue surplus will support scheme funding/expansion is also important
6.8 Table 6.4 summarises the performance of the remaining options against the
commercial case delivery constraint. Of particular importance is the ability for the
Promoters to influence the attributes of the service and to use any revenue surplus
in support of the initial funding contribution and/or any future expansion.
Appendix B to this report sets out the applicability of various service delivery
options for these options. The infrastructure for all three of the options considered
against this delivery constraint could be procured in line with EU regulations.
TABLE 6.4 COMMERCIAL CASE DELIVERY CONSTRAINT
Option Assessment Commentary
Trolleybus +++
For the trolleybus option both the
infrastructure and service could be
procured to the Promoters’ specification
and revenue surplus would be available to
the Promoters
Comparable Bus
(with VPA) +
The comparable bus option could be
delivered through a Voluntary Partnership
Agreement (VPA, potentially in
combination with a statutory quality
partnership, SQP). However, there is some
doubt over whether the necessary
partnership terms would meet the required
competition test. This delivery option
would give the Promoters limited control
over the revenue surplus, particularly over
the long term, although use payments
could potentially be introduced on
segregated sections of the route
Comparable Bus
(with QCS) ++
With a Quality Contract Scheme (QCS) in
place the service for a comparable bus
option could be competitively procured
and any revenue surplus could be secured
by the Promoters. However, it is not clear
whether a comparable bus option would
meet the statutory tests for the
introduction of a scheme specific QCS on
the north and south corridors.
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
44
Option Assessment Commentary
Low Cost Bus +++
The low cost bus option is expected to
result in a lower level of net revenue
surplus. Delivery of this option is not
dependent on a capital contribution repaid
by future revenue surplus and therefore
this delivery constraint is less critical for
this option
6.9 The trolleybus and low cost bus options pass the commercial case delivery
constraint and are therefore considered further in this section. Competitive
procurement of a comparable bus option to the Promoters’ specification and with
the revenue surplus available to the Promoters is not achievable under the current
deregulated bus environment, without a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA)
between the Promoters and bus operators. VPAs have successfully been introduced
across the UK for a variety of schemes; however the partnership terms required
given the scale and nature of the comparable bus option would require significant
commitments to be made by incumbent bus operators and whether the necessary
agreement would pass the required competition test is uncertain.
6.10 A Quality Contract Scheme (QCS), a form of franchising, would also allow this
delivery constraint to be met for the comparable bus scheme. However, it is
uncertain that such a contract could be demonstrated to meet the statutory tests.
Outcomes Realisation
In terms of the level of influence which the Promoters would have in delivering
the outputs and outcomes of the project which contribute to its value for money
6.11 Table 6.5 summarises the performance of the remaining options against the
outcomes realisation delivery constraint. Outcomes realisation is about project
evaluation – demonstrating that the scheme appraisal prepared in support of
obtaining powers and funding was robust, that the project as implemented is value
for money, and identifying lessons learned for future projects. The influence of
the Promoters in delivering the service specification is therefore key in ensuring
that the expected passenger benefits, including journey times and wait times, are
delivered as planned.
TABLE 6.5 OUTCOMES REALISATION DELIVERY CONSTRAINT
Option Assessment Commentary
Trolleybus ++ The ability to realise the required
outcomes from the project is affected by
the limited influence that Promoters have
over competition from other bus operators
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
45
Option Assessment Commentary
Trolleybus
(with QCS) +++
Delivery of trolleybus within the context of
a Quality Contract Scheme would
additionally allow the Promoters a high
level of influence over the specification of
the supporting bus network, but there is
uncertainty that such a contract could be
successfully secured.
Comparable Bus
(with VPA) ++
Within the context of a Voluntary
Partnership Agreement the Promoters
could (depending on the agreed terms)
have an adequate level of over the
specification of the comparable bus option
services and the supporting network, but
only over the limited length the agreement
remains in force
Comparable Bus
(with QCS) +++
Delivery of the comparable bus option
through a Quality Contract Scheme would
allow the Promoters a high level of
influence the over the specification of the
comparable bus service and the supporting
bus network
Low Cost Bus ++
Although (without QCS) the Promoters
would have limited influence over
specification of the supporting bus network
this option is based on improvements to
existing services and this is unlikely to be a
critical issue. The lower level of capital
investment would not require the same
level of influence over delivering outcomes
and therefore this delivery constraint is
less critical for this option
6.12 All three remaining options pass the outcomes realisation constraint and are
therefore considered further in this section. For the comparable bus the key
disadvantage of the ‘with VPA’ option in comparison to the ‘with QCS’ option is
the additional certainty over the long term that the latter approach would bring. A
Quality Contract Scheme, if the proposals could be demonstrated to meet the
statutory tests would also offer advantages to the trolleybus option in terms of this
constraint, giving the Promoters influence over the supporting bus network and
significantly reducing the risk of harmful competition from other operators.
Value for Money
Irrespective of whether funding is provided by DfT or locally, any scheme needs to
provide the best value for money of all reasonable/relevant alternatives
6.13 Table 6.6 summarises the qualitative performance of each of the remaining
options against the Value for Money constraint. A comparison of which option
returns the highest, and therefore ‘best’ BCR requires completion of the full
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
46
quantified appraisal and therefore will be considered within the updated scheme
business case. However, much can be deduced in terms of the costs of delivery
and the relative benefits of each option.
TABLE 6.6 VALUE FOR MONEY DELIVERY CONSTRAINT
Option Assessment Commentary
Trolleybus ++ The trolleybus has been demonstrated to
DfT’s satisfaction to have a compelling BCR
Comparable Bus ++
The cost of comparable bus option would
be broadly similar to trolleybus. That
purely bus based options have been shown
to attract less mode shift than the above
options would limit the proportion of the
benefit that could be delivered
contributing to a reasonable BCR if the
cost of delivery could be significantly less
than trolleybus
Low Cost Bus ++
The low cost bus option would deliver
materially less economic benefit than the
above options but for significantly less
cost. Therefore it has the potential to
return a reasonable BCR
6.14 In qualitative terms there is little between the majority of the options considered
which would justify differentiating by value for money. All three remaining options
pass the final constraint of value for money and are therefore considered
appropriate options to be taken forward for quantitative analysis.
Section Summary
6.15 This section set out the assessment of the identified options against the key
constraints which affect delivery of any option. Three of the options pass these
constraints and are recommended to be taken forward for quantitative analysis
through the full modelling and appraisal framework:
I Trolleybus option; noting the overhead line equipment has costs and impacts
which are not associated with the comparable bus option. It is also noted that
the ability to realise the required outcomes from the project is affected by the
limited influence available over competition from other bus operators (without
additional powers, for example a Quality Contract Scheme (QCS), delivered
through a separate legal mechanism and uncertain as to whether such an
application of would meet the statutory tests)
I Comparable bus option; noting that either of the mechanisms which would be
required for delivery of this option are subject to uncertainty. An adequate
Voluntary Partnership Agreement would require significant commitments to be
made by the operators and is unproven as to whether an agreement reflecting
the requirements for a scheme of this scale or nature could meet the required
competition test. The alternative of a scheme specific Quality Contract Scheme
is unproven as to whether such an application of would meet the statutory tests
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
47
I Low cost bus option; noting that although this option would be subject to
similar service delivery limitations as the comparable bus option, because of
the much reduced scale of the project the Commercial and Outcomes
constraints are less of a concern
6.16 Three of the identified options failed to pass delivery constraints and were
therefore excluded from further consideration:
I The cost of the Light Rail Transit option significantly exceeds the funding
available from national or local sources. Therefore this option was excluded
because it does not meet the Affordability constraint
I An Ultra-Light Rail Transit option has not been proven at the scale of NGT and
has limited and connected suppliers, restricting the likelihood of being able to
competitively procure such a system. Therefore the implementation risk of this
option cannot be accepted by the Promoters. This option was excluded because
it does not meet the Deliverability constraint. Additionally a ULRT option would
be based on proprietary technology and would therefore have scored lower
than the recommended options against the system expansion delivery
constraint
I There is considerable uncertainty as to whether a dependable, appropriate and
affordable catenary-free electric bus option will be available within the funding
timeframe for the project. The implementation risk is therefore unacceptable
to the Promoters and this option was excluded because it does not meet the
Deliverability constraint. A catenary-free electric bus option would be based on
proprietary technology and would have scored lower than the recommended
options against the system expansion delivery constraint. Additionally the
catenary-free electric bus option would score worse than the comparable bus
option against the commercial case delivery constraint; the high relative cost of
catenary-free vehicles would effectively rule out a VPA approach and therefore
this option would only be deliverable with a QCS, with significant uncertainty
6.17 The promoted trolleybus system offered the overall best performance of all
identified options considered against the scheme objectives and also meets the
delivery constraints. It is therefore confirmed that the Promoters’ choice of
technology and option is robust. When considered against the comparable bus and
low cost bus options which also meet the delivery constraint the relative
performance of trolleybus against the scheme objectives is even more compelling.
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
49
7 Conclusions
Introduction
7.1 This review has set out the consideration of different public transport technologies
for their suitability on the NGT north and south corridors. It is considered that a
representative and sufficiently large range of options have been assessed and
therefore that the conclusions of this review are robust.
7.2 This review does not set out to justify the selection of suitable corridors for NGT
nor does it present the identification and selection of alignment or other design
alternatives which have been given careful consideration through the scheme
development process. These aspects are detailed in separate documents and are
not repeated within this report.
7.3 The final section of this report summarises the approach taken and recommends
two alternatives to the trolleybus option to be appraised through the modelling
and appraisal framework developed for NGT and included within the updated
scheme business case.
Summary of Approach
7.4 The first stage of the review process described in this report applied a filtering
process to identify a shortlist of technology options which were suitable for
implementation on the NGT corridors, taking into account physical opportunities/
constraints as well as potential service and capacity requirements. The following
options were identified as being suitable within this context:
I Light Rail Transit (LRT or tram)
I Ultra-Light Rail Transit (ULRT)
I Trolleybus
I Catenary-Free Electric Bus
I Conventional bus (including a range of vehicle technologies)
7.5 For each of these options a broadly comparable ‘option’ was developed, based on
the required system specification developed to address the established scheme
objectives. Two options were developed based on conventional bus technology: a
‘comparable’ (to trolleybus) bus option; and a ‘low cost’ (bus) option – as required
in DfT business case guidance.
7.6 The second stage of review was a qualitative assessment of each of these options
against the established scheme objectives. The strongest performers were the
options with characteristics distinct from bus services, namely LRT, ULRT and the
standard and catenary-free electric bus options. Each of these options would have
similar environmental impacts from highway widening and introducing segregated
sections. Although the ULRT option would not have townscape impacts of the
overhead line equipment, it would have air quality and noise emission impacts
along the corridors. The catenary-free option has no overhead line equipment or
air quality emissions, however, there would be a lessoning of the visual identity of
the scheme and reduced perceptions of permanence and legibility.
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
50
7.7 The comparable bus option would be operating under diesel power for around half
of the length of the route resulting in air quality/noise emissions and would
therefore be perceived by travellers as being little different to existing bus
vehicles It was assessed as making a lesser contribution against the scheme
objectives, mainly because bus technology has been shown to attract fewer
travellers out of their cars than the other modes considered and therefore results
in less of the benefits which derive from reduced highway traffic. The low cost bus
option would just have less of an impact than the other options.
7.8 The final stage of the review was a qualitative assessment of these options against
the constraints which affect delivery of any option. At this stage any of the six
options which failed to meet any particular constraint, and therefore would not be
deliverable, was excluded and not considered against any subsequent constraints.
7.9 The trolleybus, comparable bus and low cost bus options all met the delivery
constraints. However it is noted that procurement of service for the comparable
bus option is dependent on delivering an adequate Voluntary Partnership
Agreement or Quality Contract Scheme, both of which are subject to uncertainty.
7.10 The cost of the Light Rail Transit option significantly exceeds the funding available
from national or local sources. Therefore this option was excluded because it does
not meet the Affordability constraint.
7.11 An Ultra-Light Rail Transit option has not been proven at the scale of NGT and has
limited and connected suppliers, restricting the likelihood of being able to
competitively procure such a system. Therefore the implementation risk of this
option cannot be accepted by the Promoters. This option was excluded because it
does not meet the Deliverability constraint.
7.12 There is considerable uncertainty as to whether a dependable, appropriate and
affordable catenary-free electric bus option will be available within the funding
timeframe for the project. The implementation risk is therefore unacceptable to
the Promoters and this option was excluded because it does not meet the
Deliverability constraint.
Recommended Options
Preferred Option
7.13 Trolleybus technology performed joint best against the objectives for the scheme
and has been demonstrated to meet the delivery constraints. Trolleybus is the
preferred option as it is the best performing option that meets the delivery
constraints.
Next Best Alternative
7.14 A comparable bus option performed reasonably against the scheme objectives but
not as strongly as the trolleybus option. Although it was demonstrated to meet the
delivery constraints its reliance on the Promoters being able to achieve an
adequate Voluntary Partnership Agreement with bus operators on the corridors or
on a Quality Contract Scheme, both of which have material uncertainty, means
that there is significantly more delivery risk than there is for trolleybus.
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
51
Nonetheless it is recommended that this option is included and quantitatively
appraised within the updated scheme business case as the Next Best Alternative.
Low Cost Alternative
7.15 The low cost bus option would make a more limited contribution against the
objectives for the scheme but there is the potential for this to be proportionate to
the cost of the scheme. It is recommended that this option is included and
quantitatively appraised within the updated scheme business case as the Low Cost
Alternative.
Full Appraisal of Options
7.16 A more detailed assessment of the two alternatives to the trolleybus option is
included within the updated business case for the trolleybus scheme, including
economic appraisal and consideration of the options’ performance against DfT’s
business, environmental and social objectives.
7.17 A mandate specifying each of these alternatives for the purposes of design and
model development is provided as Appendix C.
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
Appendix A
A1 FUNDING/DELIVERY CONSTRAINTS
Central Government (DfT) Major Scheme Funding
A1.1 Funding availability is a critical constraint to the option selection process. The
current approval is for £173.5 million of DfT funding towards a trolleybus system
with a total scheme cost of £250 million. This funding is from DfT’s indicative
major scheme capital funding baseline of £1.5 billion for 2015/16 to 2018/19, only
available for transport projects.
A1.2 The funding approval states that the scheme must be implemented in accordance
with the proposals set out in the Promoters’ March 2012 business case, subject to
any changes which may occur as a result of further design or as a result of any
remaining statutory processes. DfT’s funding letter sets out the conditions of that
approval, in particular that any changes to the route; timescale; cost; value for
money; or specification and delivery of services does not materially change from
the Programme Entry submission. Interpretation of this is clear. This funding would
certainly only be available for a public transport scheme on the A660/A61/M621
corridors. The likelihood of this funding being available decreases as any proposal
diverges from the trolleybus option described in the business case.
A1.3 The funding approval also specifies that any reduction achieved in the total
scheme costs would be shared by DfT and the Promoters in proportion to their
share of funding (ie 69% to DfT 31% to Metro/LCC).
A1.4 Since NGT funding was awarded, there has been regime change in DfT major
schemes funding, which sees funding decisions devolved to Local Transport Bodies
(LTBs). The national funding pot has been pro-rated to LTBs on the basis of their
population, with City Deal LTBs (which includes Leeds City Region) receiving more
- in recognition that these were further ahead in the required strengthening of
local decision making arrangements. The current NGT funding approval was the
last to be achieved under the previous process; there is no opportunity to apply for
additional DfT funding for the project. It follows that the current approved DfT
funding cannot be increased and this constrains what alternative options can be
considered.
A1.5 The confirmed funding for the West Yorkshire and York Local Transport Body is
£100.9 million for the period 2015/16 to 2020/2110. If the terms of the current DfT
funding approval cannot be satisfied a scheme of anything like the scale of NGT
could not be considered using this funding source. The current approved funding
for NGT, if lost, would be expected to be re-included in the national pot and then
be shared amongst all LTBs.
Alternative Funding Sources
A1.6 The remaining £76.5 million funding has been committed to the project by Metro
and LCC from a range of sources. This contribution includes land required for the
scheme valued at £11.6 million and project development costs (£25.3 million,
around 10% of the total scheme cost and in proportion with similar schemes),
including detailed design and the costs of procuring the system. The remaining
10 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/local-transport-body-funding-allocations
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
Appendix A
£39.6 million is towards construction costs. At least £15m of this funding was
assumed to be raised by prudential borrowing on the basis that the retained
revenue surplus would exceed annual costs of loan repayment. This approach
would not be available for any alternative where the Promoters did not control the
revenue surplus. Applying the principle that revenue surplus should exceed
borrowing costs would mean that any schemes that generates a lower revenue
surplus would only support a lower level of local capital contribution.
A1.7 An indicative range of local contribution towards construction of an alternative
option would therefore be from £39.6 million (towards a proposal with a revenue
surplus at least equivalent to the trolleybus proposal) down to £24.6 million
towards a proposal where the revenue surplus is not available to the Promoters in
support of prudential borrowing.
A1.8 The only other material source of funding currently available is the £1 billion West
Yorkshire Plus Transport Fund (currently under development). The Transport Fund
includes the indicative major scheme funding devolved within the West Yorkshire
and York city deal. The primary objective of this fund is to maximise the increase
in employment and productivity growth across West Yorkshire, by the delivery of
transport schemes. The secondary objective is for the programme to improve the
ability of people in every West Yorkshire district to access jobs with two
employment accessibility minima proposed:
I A better than average improvement in employment accessibility for residents in
the most deprived 25% of West Yorkshire communities; and
I Every West Yorkshire district to gain an average improvement in employment
accessibility no less than half the average across West Yorkshire
A1.9 Committing a substantial proportion of the fund to an alternative to NGT would
significantly constrain the ability of the fund to achieve these objectives and
exceed the minima. To obtain an allocation any alternative would have to score
highly in the transport fund prioritisation, a process quite different to the previous
DfT Major Scheme regime.
Funding Conclusions
A1.10 The level of funding potentially available for alternatives to NGT varies depending
on the nature of the option considered. For example:
I Up to £250 million for an option offering comparable transport and value for
money performance to the current approved NGT trolleybus scheme
I Materially less for options for which the transport and value for money
performance has reduced to the extent that DfT withdraw the funding
approval. For example, indicatively less than £50 million based on a
combination of committed promoter funds and the West Yorkshire Transport
fund.
A1.11 In order to deliver a major investment in Leeds transport infrastructure it is
absolutely critical that any option promoted is sufficiently close (or better) in
transport and value for money performance so as to be able to convince DfT that
the current funding approval should stand.
Leeds NGT Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
Appendix B
APPENDIX
B
SERVICE DELIVERY ALTERNATIVES
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
Appendix B
B1 SERVICE DELIVERY ALTERNATIVES
Introduction
B1.1 This appendix sets out the alternative mechanisms to deliver a new public
transport service, which could be trolleybus but not exclusively so, or influence
the attributes of existing bus services in order to increase their contributions to
achieving the objectives for the NGT scheme. The section identifies the three
alternative ways of delivering an improved public transport service on the NGT
corridors taking into account the required system specification set out in the main
report.
Status Quo
B1.2 Within the existing ‘deregulated’ bus service context, bus operators register what
they consider commercially viable services with the Traffic Commissioner. Metro
tenders additional (non-commercially viable) services it sees as socially necessary,
but has a limited budget to do so. Metro can only tender services which would not
compete directly with commercial services.
B1.3 Generally both commercial and tendered bus services benefit from infrastructure
improvements that reduce journey times and/or promote punctuality. The
assumption within this context is therefore that both commercial and tendered
services would benefit from investment in the A660 and A61/M621 corridors.
B1.4 The majority of services on these corridors are currently commercial. Metro’s 2013
Leeds bus review11 was one part of a West Yorkshire wide process to reduce its
expenditure on bus services to match the funding available. This proposed the
withdrawal of all public funding from these corridors, the expected result being
withdrawal of a small number of Sunday or early morning/late evening services.
The working assumption is therefore that in the future only commercial services
will operate on these corridors.
B1.5 For commercial services, with current arrangements the Promoters have little or
no influence on: service frequency; service stop usage; routeing; punctuality;
vehicle quality or fare levels. All aspects of a tendered service could be specified,
subject to tender value for money/affordability constraints. However and as
already noted, Metro can only tender services which would not compete directly
with commercial services.
Conclusion
B1.6 Providing NGT infrastructure and relying on operators to provide an NGT service
would not be possible as the market cannot be relied upon to provide a service to
the specification required to deliver the benefits of the scheme in full. Therefore
the Promoters could have little certainty that the scheme’s intended outputs and
outcomes could be delivered and so the cost justified. The Promoters would not be
able to secure any revenue surplus and therefore would not be able to make a
local funding contribution and finance this from revenue surplus.
11 http://www.wymetro.com/consultation/busreview/leeds/
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
Appendix B
B1.7 While this service delivery option would not be applicable for NGT, it may be
suitable for a low cost option. However, even for that scale of scheme it is unlikely
to offer sufficient certainty of outputs and outcomes to be considered a credible
option for service delivery.
Voluntary Partnership Agreement
B1.8 With a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) the Promoters could influence, to a
degree all aspects of services offered on the NGT corridors. However a VPA would
not prevent an operator which is party to the agreement taking advantage of any
infrastructure improvements and competing on-street along the route. Also
operators cannot be bound to a VPA and could withdraw.
B1.9 Although a VPA could agree fare maxima it cannot contain any agreement on
actual fares to be charged as this would be considered a cartel and fall foul of
competition law. If the ‘NGT’ service were delivered by more than one operator
each could have a different fare structure. There must be sufficient difference
between different operators’ liveries for passengers to be able make fare based
choices between them, the result being a move away from a uniform integrated
service offer.
B1.10 The limit to what can be included within a VPA depends on what all existing bus
operators and potential new entrants to the corridors are prepared to agree to.
This includes the duration of any agreement. A key consideration is the difference
between a commercial operator’s view of success and the public sector value for
money approach required for capital funding. Some protection for private sector
investment could be made by including in the VPA provision for a Quality
Partnership Scheme (QPS) to be introduced, for example limiting access to new
bus stops or lanes to vehicles/services meeting specified standards.
B1.11 Although the Promoters would not take control of the revenue surplus, a VPA could
provide sufficient assurance to an operator to invest materially in vehicles and
depot. Under this option the reduced delivery cost to the Promoters could reduce
or remove the need for borrowing.
Conclusion
B1.12 Delivery of an NGT service using a VPA would not allow the Promoters to guarantee
a uniform service and fare offer. The deliverability of this approach is limited by
the inherent requirement for there to be a commercial operator willing to agree to
the agreement for a sufficiently long term without losing critical elements of the
Promoters’ specification. Overall a VPA would not offer a high level of certainty
that the scheme benefits would be delivered to the scale or for the duration
required for an investment of the scale of NGT. This option may also not be
appropriate for a low cost option, as and even for the reduced scale of scheme,
depending on what the operators will agree to a VPA might only offer limited and
relatively short term certainty of outputs and outcomes.
Quality Partnership Scheme
B1.13 A statutory Quality Partnership Scheme (QPS) could be made by the local transport
authority specifying various minimum quality standards that bus operators must
meet in order to use new or upgraded infrastructure. Potentially this could be
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
Appendix B
extended along NGT corridors given the level of investment proposed along the
whole route. However, the quality threshold could not be so high that it
represented a disproportionate barrier to entry into the market for new operators
or otherwise disproportionately affect existing competition. The duration of a QPS
is related to the effective lifespan of the facilities provided – for example this
could be up to at least thirty years for improved junctions/sections of local
carriageway widening.
B1.14 With a QPS the new infrastructure would therefore be available to any operator
which meets the defined quality threshold. Providing the highest level of priority
to the majority or all of the high frequency services currently operating on the
northern corridor would result in a greater reduction in highway capacity to other
vehicles than the trolleybus option. This would reduce the value for money of the
scheme due to reduced highway benefit/increased highway disbenefit. Therefore
only a lower level of priority would be provided, which would in turn extend
journey times and adversely affect punctuality when compared with the trolleybus
option.
B1.15 The Promoters could not retain any funding surplus with this option and although
they could theoretically introduce a charge for the use of exclusive off-highway
infrastructure the income from this is not likely to be sufficient to support
material borrowing. If the charge is too high then operators will simply bypass that
section of route, thereby compromising the initial investment and the benefits it
would bring.
Conclusion
B1.16 A QPS represents an effective and proven way of delivering a service improvement.
However, requiring vehicles of higher specification and which are more expensive
than conventional buses may be a disproportionate barrier to entry. A QPS would
not allow the highest level of priority to be given to services without compromising
value for money. Therefore it is not a credible approach to maximising the value
for money of an investment at the scale of the current proposal. This option may
therefore only be applicable for a low cost option, and even for that scale of
scheme might only offer limited certainty of outputs and outcomes.
B1.17 A VPA and a QPS can be used in combination, providing scope to agree service
delivery standards beyond a QPS. This could provide additional protection for bus
operators party to the VPA that operators which were not parties to the
agreements would face restrictions on their ability to compete directly.
Quality Contract Scheme
B1.18 Metro is developing proposals for the implementation of a West Yorkshire Quality
Contract Scheme (QCS). A QCS would replace the current deregulated framework
for the provision of local bus services with a form of franchising, with local bus
services being put out to competitive tender and provided under contract(s). An
alternative to a county-wide QCS would be an NGT-specific scheme on the
A660/A61/M621 corridors.
B1.19 With a QCS, a contract could be let for an NGT service to the Promoters’
specification and the Promoters could manage fares and have control of any
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
Appendix B
revenue surplus. The specification of other bus services running on the same
corridors could be adjusted to integrate them better with NGT by letting contracts
for these services or varying contracts if a QCS exists before the introduction of
NGT. In this way, conventional bus competition with NGT could be managed and
the highest level of priority could be given to a controlled frequency NGT service.
A QCS can last for a maximum of ten years, but can be renewed in further ten year
periods.
B1.20 To date no QCS has been introduced anywhere and therefore the process and
legislation remain untested. The process for proposing a QCS is involved, including
five public interest tests which do not align with Major Transport Scheme
Investment or TWAO processes in content or timescale. Relying on a scheme
specific QCS would represent a material risk to delivery of the project.
Conclusion
B1.21 A QCS would allow the Promoters the ability to manage the interaction between
NGT and competing services, removing the potential for competition from other
bus services and possibly of benefit to the scheme’s value for money. However,
restricting the use of on-street NGT infrastructure would be through specification
in the non-NGT service contracts and potentially be vulnerable in the longer term
to pressure from operators, politicians or the public. Allowing the highest level of
priority to a higher frequency of services would disbenefit other highway vehicles
and therefore would be likely to reduce the overall value for money. The unproven
ability to make a QCS represents a material risk and therefore cannot be relied on
as a delivery method for the NGT scheme until the West Yorkshire QCS is
determined. However, with a West Yorkshire scheme in place letting an ‘NGT’
service using QCS powers represents a credible option in terms of the scale of
investment planned – if the value for money of such an approach could be
demonstrated.
Service Contract
B1.22 With a service contract the Promoters would have full control over all aspects of
an NGT service, including managing fares and defining the level of revenue risk to
be passed to the operator (from none to all). Under general circumstances a
contract could not be let for a service competing with existing commercial
services. However, if implementation powers are obtained for an eligible scheme
using the Transport and Works Act 1992 Order (TWAO) procedure, the Promoters
are able to include the power to let a service contract. This is the usual
mechanism for securing the powers to create a concession or contract to operate a
tram system.
Conclusion
B1.23 A service contract represents an effective and proven way to procure an operator
for NGT; obtaining the ability to let one forms part of the proven TWAO process to
obtain powers. It provides a reliable mechanism for guaranteeing the benefits of
the scheme are realised and allows the Promoters to control any revenue surplus
for funding maintenance and also as a repayment source for capital borrowing.
However, it does not in itself offer any protection from competition from other
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
Appendix B
bus services. A service contract represents a credible and proven option for an
investment at the scale of the current proposal.
Summary
B1.24 This appendix sets out the range of mechanisms which could be used to deliver a
new public transport service or influence existing services to achieve the
specification required, in particular to achieve the maximum value for money and
to lock-in the benefits of the scheme sufficiently long term to guarantee that this
value for money will be realised.
B1.25 The most beneficial mechanism for an option eligible for the TWAO approach is to
include powers for letting a service contract. This represents a proven approach
and has the further advantage that the right to let a service contract is considered
simultaneously with the other implementation powers required. However, this
approach allows limited protection against competition from existing bus operators
except if used in combination with QCS powers.
B1.26 For other options a QCS is considered to be the approach offering the greatest
control of outcomes; it remains an unproven approach however. In the absence of
QCS powers a VPA or QPS scheme (separately or in combination) would be
required. It is been assumed that a combined approach would offer the best
overall approach.
Leeds NGT Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
Appendix C
APPENDIX
C
MANDATE FOR ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS
Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
Appendix C
C1 LEEDS NGT – MANDATES FOR SPECIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE
OPTIONS
Preferred Option
I Holt Park to Stourton alignment, predominantly powered from overhead lines
I Vehicles procured by promoter in sufficient numbers to be able to deliver the
planned frequency and passenger capacity reliably all day
I Park & Ride at Bodington and Stourton
I Priority measures to improve journey times and punctuality, particularly NGT
service, targeting the sections with the highest passenger loadings and/or
current delays
I Delivered within the Programme Entry funding approval
I Dedicated stops for guaranteed availability, legibility and higher quality
Next Best Alternative
I Holt Park to Stourton alignment, not/predominantly not powered from
overhead lines
I Charging/fuelling infrastructure at stops/termini/depot or as required
I Vehicles procured by promoter in sufficient numbers to be able to deliver the
planned frequency and passenger capacity reliably all day
I Vehicles capable over full working lifespan of reliably running adverse local
emission-free through environmentally sensitive sections (behind Arndale,
Millennium Square, Whitfield Way)
I Park & Ride at Bodington and Stourton
I Priority measures to improve journey times and punctuality, particularly NGT
service, targeting the sections with the highest passenger loadings and/or
current delays
I Closest possible to NGT specification to demonstrate applicable to approved
funding
I Delivered within the Programme Entry funding approval
I Dedicated stops for guaranteed availability, legibility and higher quality
Low Cost Alternative
I Holt Park to Stourton alignment, not powered from overhead lines
I Vehicles provided by commercial operators upgrading existing routes (no
through service)
I Park & Ride at Bodington and Stourton
I Additional P&R service from Stourton to University
I Priority measures to improve journey times and punctuality for all buses,
particularly aimed at the sections with the highest passenger loadings
I Delivered for maximum of £50m outturn funding (estimate of what could be
made available without DfT NGT funding)
I Improvements in level of quality at existing stops
\\sdgworld.net\Data\Leeds\PROJECTS\224\9\44\01\Outputs\Reports\Alternatives Review\Core_Document_C-1-1_NGT_Alternatives Review
Report_Final.docx
Control Sheet
CONTROL SHEET
Project/Proposal Name Leeds New Generation Transport
Document Title Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives
Client Contract/Project No. M1028729
SDG Project/Proposal No. 224944
ISSUE HISTORY
Issue No. Date Details
3.1 24/01/14 Updated issue for TWAO team review
REVIEW
Originator Steve Hunter
Other Contributors Jon Peters, Tony Walmsley
Review by: Print Neil Chadwick
Sign
DISTRIBUTION
Client: Metro
Steer Davies Gleave: