5th  March  2014  

LRT  2014  :  Interna4onal  Case  Studies  UK  and  Canada  

!"

•  Challenges •  Cost and funding considerations •  Case Study Cross River Tram,

London •  Lessons •  Some Success stories •  Valley Line, Edmonton

Structure

!"•  Poli4cal  support  

•  Promoter  Governance  

•  Past  financial  performance  

•  Lack  of  Standardisa4on  (UK)  

•  Barriers  to  New  Technology  

•  Historical  Op4mism  in  Planning  -­‐  Patronage  overes4mates  and  cost  Underes4mates  

•  Risk  Transfer  vs  Risk  Sharing  

•  Public  Transport  Integra4on  -­‐  Fair  Trade  Act  and  Compe44on  Law  

•  Roadspace  realloca4on  

•  Protracted  and  costly  approvals  process  

•  Public  percep4on  -­‐  Cau4ous  and  resistant  to  change  even  if  status  quo  is  ‘sub-­‐op4mal’  

•  Rise  in  local  ac4vism  

Challenges

!"Light rail systems have proven track record ;-

•  Growing the public transport market

•  Creating modal shift

•  Supporting regeneration

•  Assisting in the creation of a new urban framework

•  BUT

•  They are seen as expensive

!"What are the major cost drivers?

•  Rolling stock costs

•  Track construction costs

•  Utility relocation costs

•  And

•  ‘Innovative’ funding schemes involving risk transfer

!"

Funder

Promoter

Provider

DfT

PTE / LA

PSP

local transport capital provision

public investment

Bot

tom

- up

Top

- dow

n

! Affordability ! Procurement Risk

! Project Identification ! Transport Capacity ! Decongestion ! Urban Regeneration ! Social Inclusion ! Customer Satisfaction

! Costs ! Risks ! System Performance ! Patronage? ! Revenue?

! Transport Policy ! Appraisal Guidance ! Procurement Strategy Guidance ! Business Case Approval ! Strategic Prioritisation of Schemes ! Planning Approval

! Local Transport Plan ! Options & Feasibility Study ! LR Project Selection ! Route Selection & Service Pattern ! Transport Integration ! Business Case ! Planning Application ! Specification & Procurement

! Private Sector Investment ! Detailed Design ! Engineering Integration ! Utilities Diversion ! Infrastructure Construction ! Vehicle Supply ! Testing & Commissioning ! Operations ! Lifecycle Maintenance ! Asset Renewal

Risk Transfer?

!"Modal  Efficiency  How  Total  Costs  Vary  

8

!"The Scheme and Objectives

Scheme: • New 16.5 km tramway with core alignment from Euston to Waterloo. Branches to King’s Cross, Camden Town, Peckham and Brixton • Frequent trams on all branches, with maximum frequency in the central core between Euston and Waterloo - 30tphpd • Passenger capacity c.9000pphpd • Approx 30 stops depending on final route option Objectives: • Relieve tube crowding • Stimulate regeneration • Improve accessibility • Better connection between mainline stations • Environmentally friendly mode of transport • Cost efficient

!"CRT  sta4s4cs  

•  Majority  of  the  areas  served  are  either  classed  as  ‘deprived’  or  ‘very  deprived’  

•  Accessibility  benefits  for  approximately  72,000  very  socially  excluded  residents,    

•  25-­‐60%  journey  4me  savings  from  south  London  

•  Increase  in  employment  access  for  south  London  (+20%)  

•  Target  groups  par4cularly  well  served  by  CRT  -­‐  minori4es,      elderly,  unemployed  

Route

Length

(km)

Construction

Cost 2006 estimate including 53% contingency & Optimism Bias

Forecast Patronage

(Millions per Annum)

16.5 £650m 66

!"Regenera4on  –  deprived  areas  

• One of the key drivers of the project was the regeneration ambitions of the partner boroughs

!"Relieve  peak-­‐period  Underground  crowding  

CRT  will  increase  passenger  capacity  into  central  London  

•  CRT  will  relieve  crowding  on  some  of  the  busiest  parts  of  the  Underground  -­‐  around  3,000  peak-­‐hour  trips  diverted  to  CRT  

Northern Line Charing Cross 2016 DMvDS: 1 Hour Load & Capacity

Southbound

0 2000 4000 6000 8000

10000 12000 14000 16000 18000

CAMDEN TOWN (EDGWARE-SB) MORNINGTON

CRESCENT EUSTON WARREN STREET GOODGE

STREET TOTTENHAM COURT RD NOR LEICESTER

SQUARE NOR CHARING CROSS EMBANKMENT WATERLOO KENNINGTON

Do Minimum 2016 Load Do Something 2016 Load 2016 ''Planning Standard' Capacity 2016 Severely Crowded

!"Important  new  links  for  London’s  tourist  industry  

  CRT  will  provide  an  important  new  tourist  spine,  linking  several  key  tourist  abrac4ons    

  A  fast,  frequent  and  accessible  link  between  the  Bri4sh  Museum  and  Bri4sh  Library  would  be  provided  with  the  Somers  Town  route  op4on  

  CRT  will  also  provide  greater  passenger  capacity  to  and  from  Camden,  which  would  help  relieve  the  weekend  crowding  at  Camden  Town  sta5on,  which  causes  regular  closures  at  present  and  causes  disrup4on  to  visitors  and  local  people  

!"Integra4on  with  other  Modes  

•  Integration with:

•  Mainline  rail  

•  Underground  

•  Bus  

•  Traffic  

•  Pedestrians  

•  Cyclists  

•  Emergency  services  

Peckham

Aylesbury Estate

Aldwych

Oval

Elephant & Castle

Holborn

King’s Cross St Pancras

Euston

Camden Town

Waterloo

Brixton Peckham Rye

!"Camden High Street

•  reduce  the  dominance  of  traffic  in  Camden  High  Street    

•  large  reduc4on  in  noise  and  air  pollu4on  associated  with  traffic  on  the  high  street  

•  Opportunity  to  widen  pavements  at  junc4ons  and  crossings  to  improve  pedestrian  circula4on  and  provide  opportuni4es  for  new  sea4ng,  public  art  and  new  street  trees  

•  boost  to  the  business  community  

!"Traffic Management

•  The route will be largely on-street. However a traffic restriction, diversion and management strategy will ensure that the tram enjoys a high level of priority due to a mixture of measures including:

•  Selective short tram/bus only sections (in green on the right) to reduce general traffic flows along the corridor but allow local access traffic to share the route

•  Passing through development sites (e.g. Elephant & Castle and in Peckham) in yellow

•  Utilisation of tram or combined bus & tram lanes along main roads

•  Signal priority for trams at junctions •  Priority for buses on parallel and crossing routes to

mitigate any impact on remaining bus services Potential tram/bus only section

Potential tram route through development

Potential tram route through parkland

!"Status

•  Project mothballed as consequence of GFC and change of Mayor. •  Funding/ Affordability

•  Strong business case remains

•  Strong political support from London boroughs

!"Maximising  the  Benefits  

•  Suppor4ng  policies:  –  Transit  Oriented  Development  –  concentra4ng  development  densi4es  around  sta4ons  

(Texas  Medical  centre  –  Houston  –  90,000  jobs!)  –  par4cularly  abractors  –  Simple  transport  planning  objec4ves  

•  Joining  the  dots  (France)  –  City  Centre  –  University-­‐  Hospital  Housing  Developments  –  Malls  –  Technology  Parks  

–  Suppor4ng  bus  network  –  transport  interchange  and  integra4on  •  Low  wait  and  interchange  4mes  •  Coordinated  4metables  and  4cke4ng  

–  Kiss  and  ride/Park  and  ride  –  Parking  Policy  –  single  most  important  driver?  –  High  quality  modelling  and  transport  planning  –  benchmarking  –  does  it  make  sense?  (err  

on  the  cau4ous  side)  –  Realis4c  project  objec4ves  –  think  long  term-­‐  but  do  everything  to  support  it  (no  free  

parking  or  new  low  density  developments!)  –  Sell  the  product  as  well  as  the  idea  –  transport  is  like  cornflakes,  if  you  don’t  sell  it,  it  won’t  

sell!  –  Build  support  long  term  through  the  community  –  work  with  the  schools  and  community  

groups  

!"Planning  Risks  

•  The  day  of  opening  should  see  the  start  of  a  switchover  from  complaints  to  strong  support  

•  The  problem  you  WANT  is  too  many  passengers    –  Success  sells  success  

•  What  could  possibly  go  wrong?      –  Supposing  there  are  no/few  passengers?  (it  has  happened)  

•  Poor  transport  planning  (poor  route  etc.)  •  Poor  land  use  planning  (probably  both)    •  Ill  defined/erroneous  project  objec4ves  •  Transport  forecas4ng  very  inaccurate  (key  is  sense  checking  everything)  •  Business  case  overstated/invented  •  Poor  transport  policy  (compe4ng  buses,  brand  new  freeways  etc.)  –  has  there  been  a  change  in  administra4on?  

•  Collapse  in  local/regional  economy  •  Unrealis4c  expecta4ons!!  

•  No-­‐one  can  tell  the  future,  the  point  is  to  try  to  make  it  happen!  

!"Cost  Effec4veness  

•  Don’t  let  the  perfect  be  the  enemy  of  the  good..  –  Don’t  gold  plate  the  scheme  –  most  people  just  want  nice  transport  and  high  end  

finishes  are  nice  but  can  be  implemented  later  if  required/affordable    –  Seek  viable  suppliers  from  the  emerging  economies  (Poland,  SE  Asia  etc.)  some  of  

their  stuff  is  great  and  much  less  expensive  –  Maximise  compe44on  between  suppliers  –  Decide  whether  the  base  scheme  will  ever  be  extended  –  will  affect  view  view  on  

procurement  –  Make  linkages    between  projects  –  there  may  be  saving  in  procurement  to  be  

made  (Dijon/Brest  in  France  ordered  trams  together  and  saved  about  10%)  

!"Nottingham Express Transit

Line 1: funded by Private Sector who receive monthly payment costs - based on performance. Phase 2: DBFOM concession for extended network construction commenced December 2011. •  being partly funded by Work Place Parking Levy • Strong emphasis on transport integration • Robust procurement – designed to give confidence to private sector

!"Manchester  Metrolink    

!"Manchester  Metrolink    

!"Bergen  Light  Rail  

!"

5th  March  2014  

Valley  Line  Southeast  to  West  LRT,  Edmonton,  AB  

!"Edmonton?  

•  Background  to  Edmonton  LRT  

•  Low  Floor  Urban  Style  LRT  –  Urban  Integra4on  

•  LRT  in  a  Winter  City  

•  P3  Delivery  for  the  Valley  Line  

•  Concluding  Thoughts  

BC AB

ON QC

NL SK MB

Edmonton Calgary

Vancouver

Toronto

!"Exis4ng  Edmonton  Transit  System  

•  Opened  in  1978  as  the  first  LRT  system  in  a  mid-­‐sized    North  American  city  

•  High-­‐floor,  suburban  LRT  

•  92,000  passengers  per  day  

•  Five-­‐minute  peak  opera4ng  headway  

!"Exis4ng  Edmonton  Transit  System  

•  Fully  segregated  and  signalized  system  

•  Operates  more  like  a  European  heavy  rail  commuter  line  

•  Very  successful  

!"Exis4ng  High-­‐Floor  LRT  Systems  

!"To  This…..Urban  Style  Low-­‐Floor  LRT  

!"Valley  Line  SE  to  W  LRT  –  Project  Scope  

31

•  New  low-­‐floor,  urban-­‐style  LRT  

•  One  tunnel  /  Five  bridges  /    Two  elevated  guideways  

•  27km  of  double-­‐track  

•  29  stops  and  sta4ons  

•  New  transit  centers  and    park  ‘n  ride  

•  New  O&M  facility  

•  67  new  40m,  low-­‐floor  LRVs  

•  NOT  interoperable  with  exis4ng    LRT  lines  

•  Delivered  using  P3  delivery  model  

!"LRT  in  a  ‘Winter  City’  

•  Typically  lasts  for  up  to  six  months  of  the  year  

•  Temperatures  can  fall  below  -­‐40°C  

•  LOTS  of  snow  that  lasts  for  the  majority  of  winter  

RESULT:  

•  Winter  is  a  major  risk  to  the  success  of  urban-­‐style  LRT  if  not  considered  at  the  outset  

•  Design  for  +40°C  to  -­‐40°C  temperatures  

!"Key  Opera4onal  Challenges  

33

•  Line-­‐of-­‐Sight    

•  LRV  /  road  traffic  shared  opera4ons  

•  Signalling  systems  with  Line-­‐of-­‐Sight  opera4on  (No  CBTC)  

•  Intersec4on  full  priority  /  par4al  priority  

•  De-­‐graded  opera4ng  paberns:  •   Line-­‐of-­‐Site  crossovers  /  turn-­‐back  facili4es  

•     

!"Cars  S4ll  Exist  

Google Earth

And  they  s4ll  

need  access  

!"The  Road  is  Only  So  Wide    (Even  in  Alberta)  

!"

NEW

NEW NEW

Example:  Stony  Plain  Road  Business  District  

!"Urban  Integra4on  Approach  

•  North  America  is  NOT  France!  

•  Different  pedestrian  behaviour  will  influence  urban  design  

•  North  America  typically  has  a  “heavier”  approach  to  stops  /  sta4ons  design  

•  Elaborate,  bespoke  urban  designs  typically  result  in  higher  opera4on  and  maintenance  costs  

!"Urban  Integra4on  Approach  

•  No  panacea  –  build  on  experience  and  lessons  learned  

•  Think  about  how  bidders  will  react  AND  price  urban  design  solu4ons  

•  Keep  things  simple,  modular,  and  consistent  

•  Edmonton  philosophy  –  Elegant  Simplicity!  

!"Urban  Integra4on  Examples  

!"Urban  Integra4on  Examples  

!"Project  Delivery  Strategy  

•  Previous  projects  have  been  delivered  using  Design  Bid  Build  and/or  Construc4on  Management  models;  

•  Valley  Line  to  be  delivered  as  a  P3  using  a  DBFOM  model  

•  Cost  of  Stage  1  is  es4mated  at    $1.8  billion  

•  Currently  $1.2  billion  already  secured;  

•  Working  towards  an  RFQ  issued  in  Spring/Summer  2014  

•  Financial  Close  –  Winter  2015    

•  Open  to  Public  Service  –  2020  

!"Owners  Engineer  

•  Preliminary  Design  used  as  P3  ‘Reference  Design’  

•  Compila4on  of  P3  Procurement  Specifica4ons  •  Performance  Specifica4on  

Schedule  for  discipline  •  Opera4ons  and  Maintenance  

Schedule  –  Network  defining!  

!"Opera4ons  and  Maintenance  

•  Key  elements  of  the  schedule  for  the  network:  •  Interface  requirements  •  Run  4me  (average  and  achievable)  

•  Fleet  requirements  

•  Opera4onal  specific  requirements    (eg  snow  clearance)  

•  Con4nuity  of  system  opera4on  ayer  the  30  year  concession  

!"Concluding  Thoughts  

•  North  American  ci4es  are  NOT  Lyon  or  Montpellier!      •  Consider  urban  design  solu4ons  for  individual  network  loca4ons  

•  Consider  opera4ons  and  maintenance  throughout  the  design  process  

•  Recognize  local  differen4ators  (North  American  pedestrian  behaviour)  

•  Climate  can  impact  design  

•  A  P3  Delivery  model  does  not  necessarily  reduce  effort  during  the  development  phase  

!"Thank  You  

For  more  informa5on,  please  contact:  Colin  Steiner,  C.Eng  P.Eng    Senior  Project  Engineer  T:  03  9037  7575  E:  colin.steiner@mobmac.com.au  

Mob  MacDonald  Level  3,  707  Collins  Street  Melbourne  VIC    3008  www.mobmac.com