GROUP 30 – STARBANK / TRINITY AREA

LEAD OBJECTOR NO: 151 - NEWHAVEN COMMUNITY COUNCIL

PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT SCOTT MCINTOSH Traction systems Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Wire Free Trams 4. Options for minimising the visual intrusion of overhead line 5. Conclusions 1. Resume 1.1 I am Scott McIntosh. I am a Senior Consultant in Light Rail with Mott

MacDonald the Technical Consultants for the Edinburgh Tram. I hold a degree of Master of Arts from the University of Cambridge and various post graduate qualifications, I am a Member of the Permanent Way Institution. I have around 20 years experience in Light Rail, dealing with the planning, promotion, specification, design and commissioning of systems.

1.2 I have been Project Manager for a number of projects, including Croydon Tramlink and was a member of the Board of the public/private Tramlink Project Development Group. I was a member of the UITP [International Public Transport Association] Light Rail Commission and co-author of the UITP ‘Guidelines for the Design and development of Light Rail Schemes’.

1.3 I am currently a Board member of the UK Tram consortium [the objects of which are ‘to encourage the effective development and use of light rapid transit systems in the UK…by… the development of national guidelines, codes of practice and standards based upon experience in the UK and overseas’]. I have advised on tramways in Europe and the Middle East and I am currently advising on tramways and light rail schemes in Blackpool, Glasgow, Manchester and Newcastle, as well as Edinburgh.

2. Scope of Evidence 2.1 The evidence addresses:-

Wire Free Trams

(i) Outline of possible traction systems (ii) Cost implications

3. Wire Free Trams 3.1 Worries about the aesthetic intrusion of Overhead Line Equipment

[OLE] are often expressed when tramway schemes are proposed, but they can frequently be calmed when people see well designed OLE. Many European and some of US systems have demonstrated that attractive OLE is possible. By careful planning and design it is possible to provide a street running OLE system that is far less obtrusive than some of the earlier UK systems that have been built (Manchester Metrolink, Croydon Tramlink etc).

3.2 The promoter requested their technical consultants to examine the options for alternative traction supplies in late 2004. A Report was submitted to tie in November 2004 setting out the options. Briefly stated the Report said that there are a number of technical options that could be used to mitigate, or eliminate, the visual problems of conventional overhead in difficult parts of the network. Each option has its advantages and disadvantages. This document considers two broad options. These are:

1. The use of technologies that enable trams to operate over parts of the route without the need for overhead line equipment.

2. The minimalisation of the visual intrusion of the overhead line

Technical considerations - Power consumption 3.3 The typical power characteristic of an electrically powered vehicle is

that it requires maximum current to accelerate from rest, demand then falls as the vehicle accelerates to its cruising speed, where the current consumption will only be sufficient to overcome the rolling resistance and to provide power to the auxiliary systems. Overall, a typical 30m long tram will draw about 1000 Amps from the overhead line at its peak acceleration [This is about 750 kilowatts, or about 1000 brake horse power, a typical bus has an engine power of about 300 brake horse power], current demand will fall to 200 Amps at full speed on straight and level track.

3.4 Curves and gradients will increase the demand for power and a tram meeting particularly difficult combinations of curve and gradient – such as those encountered turning out of Princes Street and Queen Street into St Andrew Square – can require to draw something approaching its maximum current to overcome the resistance of the compound curve and gradient.

Options for delivering traction power 3.5 If it was desired to eliminate OLE from particular parts of the route then

the tram could obtain its power along these sensitive parts of the route in the following ways: Energy from on board the tram

• Flywheel • Batteries • Capacitors

Generated energy • Internal combustion engine, Diesel or LPG • Fuel cell

Energy from outside tram

• Ground level power transmission

Stored energy 3.6 All stored energy systems will require additional equipment on the

tram, this can have weight and space implications as outlined above. It can also increase the maintenance complexity and cost of the car.

3.7 Storage of energy introduces a further stage of inefficiency in the total power cycle and this can reduce environmental benefits and add to operational costs.

3.8 The energy store may not be able to contain enough energy to allow the tram to perform at full performance over the wireless section [the cars proposed for Nice will only have half the performance off-wire that they will have when running off OLE]. This would be a particular problem in Edinburgh, given the severe combinations of curves and gradients found in the area from Princes St to Piccardy Place.

3.9 There is a potential that out of course delays on the wireless sections could exhaust the energy store so that an external power source would be required to move the trams back onto the powered sections. This could have severe operational implications.

3.10 None of the stored energy solutions would be suitable for use in Edinburgh.

On board generation 3.11 Although diesel/electric vehicles are available they have a number of

drawbacks;

• the diesel generator will impose a weight penalty equal to the loss of 12-20 passengers on the car

• the diesel generator will take up valuable space within the car • on low-floor trams the generator will generally be in an

enclosure within the passenger saloon, this will introduce noise and vibration into the vehicle, reducing ride quality

3.12 There is an additional problem of environmental perception in the case

of Edinburgh. A diesel tram will generate significant local air pollution [particularly in the area around St Andrew Square] and will be noisier than a ‘straight’ electric tram, both when accelerating and when decelerating.

3.13 Most dual system vehicles use ‘straight’ electric traction in the busy urban core, with the less acceptable internal combustion power being used in remoter areas. The Greater Manchester PTE has received recommendations for the consideration of the use of dual mode diesel-electric/straight electric railcars on the Marple line; these would run as pure electric cars in Manchester city centre and as diesel-electric railcars on the National Rail network. In Edinburgh the opposite would be the case, with electric traction in the suburbs and internal combustion operation in the city centre World Heritage area. This would send out quite the wrong message and would seriously compromise the green credentials of the system.

3.14 On board traffic generation was not recommended for Edinburgh

3.15 Fuel cells operate by oxidising hydrogen; the result is the production of electricity and water vapour. Hydrogen is not readily available in its free state; it requires energy to strip it from various compounds. Hydrogen in a form for use in fuel cells could therefore best be described as a store for energy; energy was required to isolate the hydrogen, energy is required to compress and transport the gas; it can then be passed through a fuel cell to produce traction current for the vehicle.

3.16 Unfortunately this entire fuel train is currently relatively inefficient – it is estimated that it requires 9kw of input for every 1kw available for traction on the vehicle. The fuel cells themselves are currently relatively expensive and are expected to have an operating life of 3-5 years. The EU has sponsored a Union-wide trial of fuel cell Passenger Carrying Vehicles. Three of these vehicles are operating in London. Whilst the system seems to have acceptable operational availability no data about capital and operating costs are available. It is too early to reach a valid conclusion as to their utility.

3.17 The main and highly sensitive component of the system is proprietary to one American company, which decides prices and delivery priority.

.

3.18 Fuel cell traction was not recommended for Edinburgh

Energy from outside the tram

‘Alimentation par Sol’ [APS] - Electrical contact from Ground level power transmission

3.19 The tram system in Bordeaux has a proprietary system of ground level power supply, provided by Alstom. This system is called ‘Alimentation par Sol’ (Feeding from the ground) – APS. The tramcars have electrical collector shoes under the car that touch a rail embedded in the highway. The rail is in electrical sections that are about 8m long, and only those sections that are under the tram are energised at 750 Volts. A complicated system of electrical switches and safety interlocks are designed to ensure that sections of rail that are not under the tramcar are ‘dead’.

3.20 The system was opened on 21st December 2003, and there are still serious reliability problems, with frequent traffic delays of about two hours when stranded trams block the route.

3.21 The contractor has failed to achieve the reliability specified in the supply contract. Whilst major efforts by the contractor has enabled the system to meet the contractual availability in the early months of 2005 it is still far too short a period to make an informed judgement as to the long term viability of the system. It is unlikely that reliability could be demonstrated adequately within the required timetable for vehicle procurement in Edinburgh.

3.22 The system safety management regime depends upon the instant de-energisation of a whole electrical section of the system in the event of one power supply rail remaining live after the passage of a tram. This is an additional safety-critical layer to add to the equipment and reinforces the requirement for a traction battery on every car to ensure that no cars are stranded in a de-energised section of the system.

3.23 The ground level supply rails will impose an additional skid risk in mixed operation. The ground level third rail stands 12mm higher than the running rails, this is likely to result in the system will require uneconomically high maintenance to keep it within acceptable road surface tolerances, it may mean that the additional level of public liability risk makes the system virtually uninsurable.

3.24 The current UK case Roe v South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive [2004] Q.B. 653 may result in a final decision that ‘tram rails’ [presumably including those required for APS] are laid ‘level’ with the carriageway. The precise definition of ‘level’ is still outstanding, but it would be difficult to imagine that 12mm proud of the carriageway would not be considered a severe hazard to road vehicles and a trip-hazard to pedestrians. This would probably mean that any UK application of APS would be confined to segregated sections of route, with a

discontinuity of the APS rail across all road crossings and fencing to prevent pedestrians crossing at all but designated, third rail free, crossing points.

3.25 APS will have a higher capital and maintenance cost than conventional ole ( there are conflicting sources of information on costs with this system – the Bordeaux project director has said that it can be up to four times more expensive than OHL equipment [reported in Tramways &Urban Transit magazine, May 2004] .

3.26 Adverse weather conditions are likely to seriously degrade the performance of the equipment. Bordeaux does not suffer from snow, ice and frost, with the consequent use of road salt and grit experienced in Edinburgh. Any one or combination of these could have a severe impact upon the operation and reliability of the system.

3.27 The supply system is proprietary and is dependent upon the continued support of the manufacturer; withdrawal of that support may render the system inoperative (a similar problem arose with the withdrawal of GEC Alstom support for the Birmingham Airport Maglev system).

3.28 Because this is a proprietary system from a single supplier, the costs cannot be managed through open tendering. Procuring this specific system would be difficult under current EU procurement legislation where open competitive tendering is required.

3.29 APS traction was not recommended for Edinburgh

Other ground level systems 3.30 Although significant efforts have been made by other manufacturers to

provide surface contact systems no other manufacturer has a commercially viable system available. Conduit systems

3.31 Conduit systems – in which electric conductor rails are carried in a tube under the street and are accessed by a central slot - have been used in the past, most notably in London, Paris and Washington. These systems were all abandoned between 1935 and the 1950’s. It is doubtful that any such system would pass a modern safety audit and be acceptable for reintroduction. Exploratory discussions with HM Railway Inspectorate have not been encouraging.

4. Options for minimising the visual intrusion of overhead line

4.1 The Nantes system is an excellent example of what can be done to produce an aesthetically satisfying design at relatively low cost. Almost the whole of Nantes Line 1 was fitted with OLE supported from centre line columns and balanced cantilever cross arms. The columns were made from standard rolled-steel I – beams, painted gloss black to minimise visual impact. The single overhead contact wire was cross-connected to a buried parallel feeder cable to minimise the size of the power feeder wire. The result was simple, clear and neat with the gloss black paint reflecting light and softening the visual impact of the columns. The system runs through the city centre and even past the historic chateau.

Nantes showing minimal visual impact from use of balanced cantilever ole supports

4.2 Although the Croydon system has been criticised for the size of some of the columns used in the town centre, these illustrations show that the use of Nantes - style centre columns in suburban areas and building fixings in the town centre has achieved an installation with minimum visual impact.

Croydon Lloyd Park with Nantes-style centre columns – as proposed for Granton Waterfront etc.

Croydon, George Street, showing use of building fixings to support OLE on city-centre onw way loop

Croydon, driver’s eye view

Wolverhampton use of circular columns to support overhead line equipment on approach to city centre

Orleans, carefully planned use of columns and wall fixings to minimise impact of ole in historic city centre

Orleans use of decorative combined traction and street lighting columns on open bridge, use of span wires fixed to c18 buildings in approaching street

Strasbourg Pont du Theatre, use of building fixings to minimise use of OLE support columns

Strasbourg use of building fixings and columns to support overhead line equipment on complex reverse curves in city centre

Grenoble, use of building fixings to minimise street furniture in aesthetically important urban landscape

Antwerp, tramway outside mediaeval city hall.

Bremen, two views of tramway passing mediaeval Rathaus in designated UNESCO World Heritage area

Melbourne traditional traction and lighting columns on new Box Hill line extension, built 2002

Combined traction columns and street lights – San Francisco [2002] on right and Princes St [1922 – 1956] on left. Note close spacing of ole supports with the San Francisco arrangement – close column spacing driven by highway lighting requirements.

5. Conclusion 5.1 None of the potential alternatives to conventional overhead power

supply has a proven track record of successful operation over a long period.

5.2 The dual mode [diesel generator/electric] systems are bulky and would seriously reduce the environmental benefits of the system.

5.3 Traction batteries are large, bulky and offer limited range and performance. Other stored energy systems are still only at the development stage.

5.4 The ground level supply – APS – system is at best only in a prototype stage, it is known to have had reliability problems, it is more expensive that overhead systems and the power supply rail may contravene the definition of ‘level with the road’ as defined in Roe v SYPTE. The system is proprietary and has only one supplier.

5.5 Overhead line equipment has over 120 years of development, it is

widely used throughout the world, there are a large number of suppliers of equipment and the system can be aesthetically acceptable. It is my contention that a carefully designed overhead line system offers the best system for the Edinburgh Tram

Scott McIntosh Expert Witness Mott MacDonald 4 July 2005

1

GROUP 30 – STARBANK / TRINITY AREA

LEAD OBJECTOR NO: 151 - NEWHAVEN COMMUNITY COUNCIL

PROMOTER WITNESS STATEMENT STUART TURNBULL Route selection Contents 1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Route Selection – Highway and Traffic Requirements 4. Shared Section Running 5. Run Time Reliability 6. Displaced Traffic 7. Peak Hour Junction Modelling 8. Conclusions 1. Resume 1.1 I am Stuart Turnbull, a Divisional Director with Jacobs Babtie. I have 17

years experience in transport planning and traffic engineering in Scotland. I am a Chartered Engineer and a Member of the Institution of Highways and Transportation and the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport.

1.2 I have been responsible for managing the input from Jacobs Babtie on

the Edinburgh Tram Line One scheme. This has involved me working closely with other members of tie’s Technical Advisers team and officials of the City of Edinburgh Council in developing appropriate junction configurations along the length of the Edinburgh Tram Line One (ETL1) route that could accommodate the needs of tram and other road users. I was also a member of the Modelling and Appraisal Working Group, the remit of which was to ensure a common approach was being taken by the Technical Advisers working on the three tram lines.

1.3 I am also Project Director on a commission for the City of Edinburgh

Council where Jacobs Babtie has been providing transport planning advisory services since November 2001. This commission has involved developing a number of schemes aimed at improving provision for buses, pedestrians and cyclists throughout Edinburgh.

1.4 In addition to my extensive experience within Edinburgh I have worked

on the proposed light rail schemes in Dublin, Manchester and South Hampshire.

2

2 Scope of Evidence 2.1 The scope of evidence relates to the proposed alignment of the

Edinburgh Tram Line One (ETL1) within the Starbank section. 2.2 Various witnesses will present evidence on the route selection and land

requirements in the area adjacent to Starbank. My evidence will cover the highway and traffic requirements associated with the proposed alignment of the Tram Line One route, in particular the following issues:-

Route Selection Shared Section Running Run Times Displaced Traffic due to Construction and Operation Peak Hour Junction Modelling

3 Route Selection – Highway and Traffic Requirements 3.1 As my colleagues have commented upon, the original proposal

identified at the NERTS stage consisted of a twin tram tracks along Starbank Road, accommodating trams operating in both directions. The width of the carriageway here varies from 6.8 to 7.5m allowing for only two traffic lanes and thus trams would run with the traffic. At the west end of Starbank Road there is insufficient room to accommodate two shared traffic/tram lanes together with parking. This would therefore result in a consequential loss of parking and servicing to adjacent properties. My colleague Mr Turner will expand on this issue.

3.2 I will comment on the Highway and Traffic issues relating to the

alternative options considered as an alternative to the original proposal utilising Starbank Road. The options considered can be summarised as follows:

Option 1: Tram to run with traffic on Starbank Road and segregated on Lower Granton Road. Originally identified during the OBC study. Option 2: The Craighall Road option comprising a one-way loop in the westbound direction along Craighall Road, East Trinity Road and York Road. The eastbound alignment would be via Starbank Road as above. Originally identified during WP1. Option 2 was not seen as a viable alternative and was not supported by the local residents and has not therefore been carried forward in any detail. Option 3: A two way tramway following the Former Railway Corridor from Lindsay Road to Trinity Crescent.

3

Option 4: Implementation of widening of Starbank Road to provide a northern footway on a structure founded in the foreshore. The tram would run with traffic as Option 1 and the extra highway capacity would be used to provide formalised parking facilities and to reduce the probability of tram-traffic conflicts. Option 5: A two way tramway following the Former Railway Corridor from Lindsay Road to Granton Road. From here the alignment would ramp up onto Granton Road and adopt northbound on-street running with traffic. At the junction of Granton Road and Boswall Road the tram would turn west to run on a segregated on street alignment on Granton Road to Granton Square.

3.3 The above options are illustrated in Figure 3.1 annexed to my

statement. 3.4 My comments on the Highway and Traffic issues associated with each

option are discussed below;

Options 1 and 4

3.5 Starbank Road is subject to congestion and on street parking throughout the day. The current levels of congestion are largely attributable to the existing alignment and operation of the Trinity Crescent/ Lower Granton Road junction. This junction would be re-configured to accommodate tram movements and would also reduce delays to other road users.

3.6 Detailed discussions with Forth Ports are continuing in an attempt to

develop a solution for the junction of Lindsay Road / Newhaven Road that enables the tram to operate in a manner that is consistent with the aspirations of The City of Edinburgh Council while enabling traffic to access and egress from the Forth Ports area in a safe and efficient manner. I have reviewed the proposed layouts prepared to date and am content in principle with these. However further design and assessment of the operation of the junctions will be required in order to satisfy the requirements of the Roads Authority.

3.7 In the Starbank Road section of the route, the tram would share the

carriageway with the existing traffic, the principles of which are discussed in the subsequent section of my statement. The impact of the tram on this section of the route should be considered within the context of the total number of tram movements per hour. This is proposed as being 8 trams per hour in each direction during a typical day, compared to approximately 1600 vehicles per hour.

3.8 The current proposal at Lower Granton Road has been developed in

consultation with local residents. The proposed alignment would consist of segregated running to the north of Lower Granton road. The

4

segregation of the tram through this section, utilising the former railway corridor would minimise the impact on Lower Granton Road.

Option 3

3.9 The segregation of the tram alignment utilising the Railway Corridor would reduce the impact on traffic. There are however issues with regards the integration of the tram at Trinity Crescent in the west and Lindsay Road in the east, where the tram would enter / exit the Railway corridor.

3.10 At the junction of Trinity Crescent, an all red stage would require to be

called to allow Tram to access and egress the railway corridor, as a result of requiring to cross the Starbank Road / Lower Granton Road corridor. Although an improvement to the existing junction arrangement would be provided to enhance capacity, it could be anticipated that the Tram stage would introduce delay to traffic on all approaches to the junction as a result of the ‘all red’ stage required.

3.11 At the junction with Lindsay Road, a number of options were

investigated, which included both at-grade and grade separated solutions. Clearly, an at-grade junction arrangement would have an impact on the operation of the Lindsay Road corridor and introduce delay to traffic at this location, whilst a grade separated solution would have minimal impact.

Option 5

3.12 The Granton Road alignment includes 920m of shared running. Three new signalised junctions would be required at;

• Granton Road-Railway Corridor; • Granton Road-Boswall Road, and • Granton Square.

3.13 It is considered likely that in order to achieve an operational junction at

Granton Road-Railway Corridor both Rosebank Road and Fraser Avenue would have to be stopped up at their intersection with Granton Road.

Summary 3.14 When considering all of the options from a traffic viewpoint, my

preferred route is Option 3 due to the proposed segregation notwithstanding the issue of connection, particularly at Trinity Crescent. However with the proposed junction arrangement at the Trinity Crescent/Lower Granton Road junction and the formalisation of parking on Starbank Road I am content that Option 4 could operate in a satisfactory manner.

5

3.15 Overall, Option 4 was identified as the preferred solution and my colleague Mr Andrew Oldfield provides evidence on the process for coming to this decision.

4 ‘Shared’ Section Running 4.1 It is proposed that a shared carriageway would be provided to cater for

existing vehicular traffic as well as trams along Starbank Road. This would mean tram and traffic sharing the same road space.

4.2 I will comment, however, on the proposed operation of the Starbank

Road section as well as the ‘tools’ available to retain tram priority within the detailed design of the corridor.

4.3 Firstly, it is worth considering the frequency of the tram on the shared

section of the route, which would be 8 trams per hour in each direction compared with approximately 1600 vehicles per hour during a typical peak period.

4.4 When a tram approaches the traffic signal controlled junction at the

entry of the shared corridor, the traffic signal controller would enable priority to be given to tram to minimise any delay. This would be achieved by providing a green signal to the tram, such that it can progress onto the shared section without stopping and incurring delay.

4.5 The downstream traffic signal controlled junctions would be alerted to

the tram’s presence within the shared corridor by means of detectors located within the shared surface at appropriate locations. The detectors allow a ‘green wave’ to be provided at the downstream junctions, such that all traffic (vehicles and tram) within the shared section on Starbank Road receive a green signal. Such an arrangement allows vehicular traffic and tram to progress through the shared section, without incurring significant stops and delays.

4.6 This level of tram priority would impact on the external approaches to

the Starbank Road corridor, however this needs to be considered in the context of the tram frequency (8 trams per hour).

4.7 The principle of the ‘green wave’ tram priority system is represented

graphically within Figure 4.1 annexed to my statement. 4.8 In addition to the introduction of tram priority along the shared section,

an improvement to the layout of the existing Starbank Road / Lower Granton Road / Trinity Crescent is proposed.

4.9 The existing junction is subject to congestion as a result of operational

constraints. Currently each approach to the junction is signalled ‘in turn’ and a significant amount of ‘green time’ is lost each cycle as a result of long intergreen periods (that is time between green signals). The long intergreens are required as a result of the distance between

6

stop lines, attributable to the existing layout and operation of the junction.

4.10 The proposed junction improvement would remove the existing double

bend arrangement which would allow both Starbank Road and Lower Granton Road to operate within the same stage. This would allow additional green time to be given to the Starbank Road and Lower Granton Road approaches. The additional green time would reduce queues and delay on approach to the junction, in particular the Starbank Road approach.

4.11 The shared section operation within Starbank Road would be subject to

Traffic Regulation Orders prohibiting stopping, loading and waiting, during tram operating hours. Such a measure would be required to ensure traffic and tram throughput is not obstructed by stopped or parked vehicles in the shared section.

4.12 Management of traffic growth within the corridor will be required as a

result of local development, such that tram priority can be maintained within the Starbank Road shared section. Such measures would be pursued by the local authority along with the operator and would be subject to consultation with both local residents as well as developers at the appropriate juncture.

5 Run Time Reliability 5.1 Run times for the tram will be maintained within the Starbank Road

shared section by the use of the tram priority measures outlined in Section 4.

5.2 In addition to these measures, the proposed improvement to the

existing Starbank Road / Trinity Crescent junction will offer an improvement to all road users within the Starbank Road corridor.

5.3 As a result of the proposed improvement and tram priority measures

discussed in earlier sections of my statement, it is anticipated that the run times proposed can be achieved.

6 Displaced Traffic due to Construction and Operation 6.1 Construction 6.1.1 A temporary traffic management strategy will be prepared, with the

involvement of the contractor, prior to the start of construction. The aim of the temporary traffic management strategy will be to set out the manner in which traffic will be dealt with during each stage of construction within each section of the route, in order that disruption to traffic can be minimised.

7

6.1.2 The traffic management plan will be developed to take account of both the enabling works, such as diversion of services, as well as the construction of tram and associated infrastructure.

6.1.3 As reported within Chapter 5 of the Environmental Statement prepared

in respect of Edinburgh Tram Line One, the objective during construction of the scheme works will be to minimise the impact of construction on the surrounding road network by:

constructing the route in manageable sections; ensuring that local diversions are in place; ensuring that construction activities take place at appropriate

times (eg use of night closures where appropriate); introducing temporary traffic management regulations to

minimise impact of parking and servicing on the flow of traffic; working closely with the public utility companies to ensure that

diversionary measures are minimised; and timely completion of the works.

6.1.4 Furthermore the Contractor will be required to comply with the Code of

Construction Practice. Prior to any works being carried out on any section of the route, the contractor’s traffic management proposals will be submitted to the City of Edinburgh Council for approval.

6.2 Operation 6.2.1 Modelling has shown that at 20 key junctions along the northern

section of the proposed route (between Newhaven Road and Granton Square) the impact of tram will be generally less than 10% re-assignment, (ie the number of vehicles with tram will be within 10% of without tram). A 10% change in traffic is similar to the effect of daily variation in traffic flows. Furthermore in the majority of cases the introduction of the tram would result in a slight reduction in traffic flows. This is because:

• there will be an element of modal transfer within Granton (for

example public transport share for trips to the Haymarket area will increase by 14% due to tram).

• the design has been developed take cognisance of other road users (ie areas of shared running where less than full priority will be afforded to the tram).

• There will only be 8 trams per hour (line 1), compared to in the order of 2000 vehicles per hour through junctions in north Edinburgh. This represents less than 1% of all vehicles.

6.2.2 Based on the above I believe that the impact of trams on the operation

of the road network in north Edinburgh will be minimal. 6.2.3 Notwithstanding the above, it will be necessary as the scheme

develops to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are

8

introduced to ensure that the transport network works efficiently. Particular measures that could be introduced will vary according to the location and the range of amenities in the immediate vicinity. Examples of these measures include:

• signing to encourage traffic to use appropriate routes; • review / enhancement of Public Transport priority measures; • incorporation of traffic calming measure to discourage traffic from

using residential streets (eg the streets to the east and west of Leith Walk);

• review of parking and servicing provision on adjacent local road network;

• provision of adequate parking for affected residents (eg Lower Granton Road); and

• management of traffic flow along shared section. 7 Modelling of Peak Hour Traffic 7.1 Throughout the development of the ETL1 alignment proprietary

technical software has been used to asses various junction configurations. Annex 1 presents a summary of the various programs used and outlines the particular context in which one is preferred over the others.

7.2 Within the Starbank area of ETL1, the VISSIM program has been

utilised to model the operation of the network during the weekday peak period for a design year of 2011. Detailed junction modelling has demonstrated that the proposed junction arrangements could accommodate the tram, at peak periods, without adversely impacting on other road users.

8 Conclusions 8.1 When considering all of the options from a traffic viewpoint, my

preferred route is Option 3 due to the proposed segregation of traffic and tram, notwithstanding the issue of connectivity particularly at Trinity Crescent. However with the proposed junction arrangement at the Trinity Crescent/Lower Granton Road junction and the formalisation of parking on Starbank Road I am content that Option 4 would operate in a satisfactory manner.

8.2 It should always be borne in mind that the satisfactory integration of the tram line and the existing road network is but one of the factors in route selection.

8.3 As a result of the proposed junction improvements and tram priority measures discussed in earlier sections of my statement, it is anticipated that the tram run times proposed can be achieved with shared section running.

9

8.4 Based on the design work undertaken to date, I believe that the proposals for Starbank Road as outlined within Mott Macdonald drawings 203011\EDIN\0527\P5 to 203011\EDIN|0530\P5 adequately accommodates the needs of tram without adversely impacting on other road users.

Stuart Turnbull Divisional Director Jacobs Babtie 04 July 2005

1

Pier Place

Craighall Road

East Trinity Road

Lennox Row

Former TriniRailway Corri

Trinity Crescent junction

Lower Granton road Starbank Road

Five ways junction

Former Trinity Railway Corridor

Granton Road

Granton Square

York Road

L

Option 1: Starbank Road and Lower Granton Road

Option 2: Craighall Road one way west bound loop

Option 3: Former Trinity Railway Corridor and Lower Granton Road

Option 4: Starbank Road and Lower Granton Road + widening for walkway (promoted route)

Option 5: Former Trinity Railway Corridor and Granton Road

Figure 1: Route options considered at Starbank/Trinity

Pier Place

Craighall Road

East Trinity Road

Lennox Row

Former TriniRailway Corri

Trinity Crescent junction

Lower Granton road Starbank Road

Five ways junction

Former Trinity Railway Corridor

Granton Road

Granton Square

York Road

L

Option 1: Starbank Road and Lower Granton Road

Option 2: Craighall Road one way west bound loop

Option 3: Former Trinity Railway Corridor and Lower Granton Road

Option 4: Starbank Road and Lower Granton Road + widening for walkway (promoted route)

Option 5: Former Trinity Railway Corridor and Granton Road

Option 1: Starbank Road and Lower Granton Road

Option 2: Craighall Road one way west bound loop

Option 3: Former Trinity Railway Corridor and Lower Granton Road

Option 4: Starbank Road and Lower Granton Road + widening for walkway (promoted route)

Option 5: Former Trinity Railway Corridor and Granton Road

Figure 1: Route options considered at Starbank/Trinity

Figure 3.1 – Alternative Routes in Trinity / Newhaven Area

1

Tram Detector Tram Detector

Tram Detected Tram Detector

Tram Detected Tram Detector

Tram Detector Tram Detected

Tram Detector Tram Detected

Tram Detector Tram Detector

Tram Priority ‘Green signal’

Enabled

Tram Detected at Approach to

First Junction

Tram Detected at Approach to

Second Junction

Tram Priority ‘Green signal’

Enabled

Normal Traffic Signal Operation

Normal Traffic Signal Operation

Key:

Tram Traffic

Signal Detector

Figure 4.1 – Tram Priority on Shared Section Running -

1

Annex 1: Traffic Analysis Programs – Definitions In order to analyse the traffic impacts of the tram and test the design scenarios, one of three computer analysis packages was used. The following statement sets out the background of each program and the circumstances in which each would be deployed. LINSIG is a traffic signal design package. It allows detailed modelling of individual traffic signal controlled junctions. LINSIG has a number of advanced features. It can choose the order of movements throughout the period of time being assessed and switch between these as the traffic demand requires. It has an internal system for assessing the most efficient cycle time (the time for the signals to complete all of the movements required before returning to the start) to use at the junction. LINSIG is an industry standard model used throughout the UK. This program is used in the following circumstances: • Individual traffic signal controlled junction. TRANSYT is an acronym for TRAffic Network StudY Tool. It was developed by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory (now TRL) to allow engineers to more easily set up the co-ordination of traffic signal timings in road networks. TRANSYT uses a fixed cycle time (the time for the signals to complete all of the movements required before returning to the start). It also has a fixed order for the different movements to take place. The program calculates the most efficient split of time for the various movements at a junction. It also looks at the timings between neighbouring junctions and selects an ‘offset’ for these so that vehicles can benefit from a ‘green-wave’ effect. TRANSYT is an industry standard program used throughout the UK and abroad. This program is used in the following circumstances: • Complex traffic signal junctions; and/or • Linked traffic signal junctions. VISSIM is a microscopic traffic simulation program. It uses driver behaviour models to predict the movement of traffic through a network. The program calculates the movements of each vehicle and pedestrian on the network over a very short time period (usually between 0.1 and 0.5 seconds) and takes into account how they will interact. It also models the controls such as give ways and traffic signals in a high level of detail. The transport network in VISSIM is represented in a 3D graphics output and vehicle movements are shown on this in real-time. This allows both technical and non-technical audiences to understand how possible schemes will work. VISSIM allows the modelling of different modes of transport such as pedestrians, cyclists, cars, buses and trams, in the same model. VISSIM is an industry standard model used throughout the UK and abroad. This program is used in the following circumstances: • Complex layouts; • Tram ‘hurry’ calls for traffic signals; • Congested network sections; and/or • Bus/Tram interaction.

GROUP 30 – STARBANK / TRINITY AREA PROMOTERS WITNESS STATEMENT TOM BLACKHALL Utilities Contents

1. Resume 2. Scope of Evidence 3. Evidence

1. Resume 1.1 I am Tom Blackhall and am Utilities Manager for Transport Initiative

Edinburgh. I have an HND in Civil Engineering and an HND in Project Management. I have been in my current post since January 2005.

1.2 Prior to this I was a commercial Management Consultant for Scottish

Water Solutions. I also consulted on behalf of a major design house as there strategic Project Manager on United Utilities projects in London. I have a total of twelve years working in the Utilities field.

1.3 I have built up a wealth of expertise in this area and have an in-depth

knowledge of provisional protection and execution of major utility divisional programmes, City and UK wide.

1.4 The Projects and Policies I have been a key figure in developing are as

follows. The restructuring of all 273 framework agreements in place at the

merging of Scottish Water from Three independent Water Authorities into one single body. This process reduced the unwieldy framework structure to a more cost efficient and robust 89 frameworks, giving Scottish water a system of frameworks that gives value for money, increased Quality and programme assurance on a programmed spend of 1.1 Billion pounds.

Strategic Project manager for a design company on all major sewage

refurbishment schemes for United Utilities covering all Urban and rural projects in Northern England with a global projects value of 40 Million over two years programmed spend.

I have also work as Project manager on various urban potable and foul

water mains replacements in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Perth as well as various rural locations over the last twelve Years.

2. Scope of Evidence • Discussions and negotiations with utilities providers to date • Single framework contract for the diversion and protection of all

public utilities is proposed. • Advance works 3 Evidence 3.1 In order to ensure value for money and give full provisional protection

to the utility companies apparatus and minimise disruption to the area effected by our diversionary programme. tie are at present negotiating a heads of terms agreement which will allow tie to act on their behalf and execute a single contractor frame work for the diversion and protection of the utilities apparatus. All utilities have agreed in principal to allowing tie to let a single framework contract on their behalf and see the commercial and programming benefits in doing so. Four Out of the nine Utility companies effected by the tram so far have sign up to the heads of terms agreement and we are at present negotiating with the other five utility companies. We will look to conclude negotiations with the remaining five utilities by the end of July 2005.

3.2 The single frame work contract procurement policy will ensure that we

are able to minimise cost to divert the effected utilities and ensure programme certainty, this will also allow for a much reduced construction period and lead to a lesser disruption to the general public and local business.

3.3 All utility companies are in agreement with this and feel it is a far better

solution to what is regarded as a difficult programming issue. 3.4 This is the first tram system to have achieved this and the industry will

be looking to use this system as a benchmark on future tram project. 3.5 As part of our policy to minimise cost and delays, which could effect

our overall construction time, certain area of diversionary works will be carried out in advance. This will be in keeping with the existing utilities programme of renewal and development of there net work to ensure we do not have to revisit an area to replace a newly replaced gas main etc.

3.7 This does not only make commercial sense it form part of our

partnership approach to utility diversions. Utility companies will look to minimise cost and delays to the project before we are mobilised by placing pipes and cable on there on renewal programme out with the swept path of the tram with minimum or no cost to the tram project.