Contents
1. Introduction - why light rail?
World-wide success for light rail
The High Wycombe south-east quadrant
An opportunity for a key light rail link
Advantages of light rail over buses
Light rail is a better investment
Light rail and Ultra Light Rail (ULR)
First Objectives
Local Plan launched April 1998
AEA Technology Rail
The 9km route of the former High Wycombe to Bourne End Rail Link
3. Swiss Rail, Chiltern Railways and a bridge over Gordon Road
Problems associated with the proposed busway
An alternative proposal
Proposal for a co-ordinated transport network
Bowstring Truss to cross Gordon Road
4. Travel and
transport between High Wycombe and the Thames Valley
Currently, no realistic public transport exists
Bus services are often unsuitable for meeting trains
5. The Positive Public Transport Strategy
Transport policies 1992-1993
The revival of light rail and the re-use of the HBL in 21st Century
6. The Corridors Study -a further approach to congestion problems
Developing the Positive Public Transport Strategy
7. The Busway Planning Application and three discredited
consultancy studies performed 1996-97
The Engineer's Report (February 2001) submitted to support the Planning Application
The viability of services on the HBL
Passenger numbers on buses to Bourne End
Rejection of the Buchanan Report by Wycombe District Council
8. Global Warming -the need to reduce vehicle associated CO2 emissions
The key features of light rail
Ultra Light Rail (ULR)
10. The "New Approach To Appraisal" (NATA) for transport schemes
Sustainable transport is now an urgent priority.
Factors included in the New Approach To Appraisal
11. Reinstatement of the HBL with light rail or ULR
Feasibility
Diversions
Costs of ULR Reinstatement
Viability of the scheme
12. Summary
The construction of the busway
Replacing
the bridge over Gordon Road
1.0 Introduction - Why light rail?
1.1 World-wide success for light rail
In the struggle to reduce the impact of the car, the recent revival of light rail is proving to be the local transport success story in this country and abroad.(1)
1.2 The High Wycombe southeast quadrant
Around High Wycombe, the southeast quadrant is particularly congested. Travellers for London, Heathrow and three motorways, the M4, M40 and M25, all move through this area, as well as more local journeys to and from work in an area of low unemployment.
There is no realistic public transport between High Wycombe and the Thames Valley, e.g. Maidenhead, Slough and Reading, and there are important constraints on communications. These include the built environment alongside established roads, the topography of the Chiltern Hills, large areas of protected landscape and the Thames and its bridges. The recent studies of the "corridor" roads serving High Wycombe confirmed there is little scope for bus lanes or other increased road capacity. (See Section 6.)
1.3 An opportunity for a key light rail link
There is a 9km disused rail track running east and then south from High Wycombe train station, that carried the High Wycombe / Bourne End rail link (HBL) from 1854-1970. This now offers a great opportunity to create a new, modern public transport service, using the Wye Valley through the hills, and leading direct to a rail bridge over the Thames. This could exploit the popularity and other benefits of light rail and provide a key north - south link between two rail lines which run approximately east-west, i.e. Chiltern Railways at High Wycombe and the Great Western Main Line at Maidenhead, reached via Thames Trains at Bourne End.
1.4 Advantages of
light rail over buses
Transport planners often see "flexibility" as the key advantage of buses, but to the travelling public, a set of rails offers greater assurance not only that their public transport will be on time, but also reach its stated destination without any detours, and that the service will continue thus for years to come. Most motorists prefer to spend hours in traffic jams rather than get on a bus.
Nevertheless, a significant number of drivers find light rail to be an acceptable alternative to their car. For example, the 28km Croydon Tramlink, which opened in May 2000, which has exceeded all expectations. It carries 50,000 people per day and has received the Large Project of the Year award.(2)
1.5 Light rail is a better investment
The modal shift (i.e. the amount of movement of people away from cars and on to public transport) is approximately 20% from car to light rail.(3) This has convinced the Government that money invested in light rail is well spent.(4) Substantial grants have been made. One example of this is a 28km scheme in Leeds, which is to cost £487,000,000. Bus improvements are also necessary, for social inclusion and other reasons, but in general, any increased patronage includes only very little modal shift.(5) Therefore, light rail must be seriously considered wherever it is feasible.
1.6 Light rail and Ultra Light Rail (ULR)(6)
Most light rail successes have so far been high capacity systems suited to large conurbations, such as Manchester, Birmingham, Croydon and Sheffield. However, congestion is not confined to big cities, and smaller capacity systems are being developed which are suitable for lesser catchment areas such as the HBL corridor (which could include an extension to Maidenhead). ULR uses the minimum of land, is almost silent and requires no overhead power supply. Also it makes very efficient use of energy and could draw power from renewable sources. Current models are to have a top speed of 50km/hr, with powerful, smooth acceleration.
Such a light rail
scheme could increase public transport popularity and travel opportunities, and
reduce congestion problems in Wycombe District and over a wide area beyond the
HBL corridor
2.0 Studies performed by the High Wycombe Society and AEA
Technology Rail on the disused High Wycombe - Bourne End Rail link (see map)
2.1 First objectives
These Studies were begun by the Society's Transport Group in January 1994, at the suggestion of Christopher Wallis, a civil engineer and member of the High Wycombe Society. In 1982 he played a key role in saving a vital viaduct on the Settle- Carlisle railway, which was threatened with closure. This is now a busy passenger and freight route. Until 1998 the main aim of the Transport Group was simply to secure the protection of the HBL track against further encroachment, for possible re-use for suitable public transport. It was considered that Ultra Light Rail seemed to possess the appropriate potential.
2.2 Local Plan launched April 1998
At the meeting, which launched the Local Plan Consultation Draft, the District Council spokesman stated that any development would face problems due to the heavy congestion already on major and minor roads. It therefore seemed appropriate to now give serious consideration to reinstating the HBL with a transport system which would be most likely to attract maximal modal shift, while causing minimal environmental disturbance.
2.3 AEA Technology Rail
In September 1999 the Head of Light Rail at this leading independent rail consultancy, made a preliminary survey of the HBL for reinstatement with Ultra Light Rail. It was concluded that this was entirely feasible.(8) (See also Section 11.)
3.0 Swiss Rail, Chiltern Railways and a bridge over Gordon Road
3.1 Problems associated with the proposed busway
A short Section (1.2km) of the HBL track is to be used for
a busway between High Wycombe station and the London Road. The proposed busway design will cost
£4,670,000 and cause needless problems for the buses, the railway, Gordon Road
traffic, light rail and Global Warming.
The design that is featured in the Planning Application would destroy
the embankment westwards from Gordon Road, by removing 16,500 m3 of
soil - at least 1,000 lorry loads. (7) This would
necessitate building substantial retaining structures to support the adjacent
main line railway. The destruction is
to create a new road that will involve buses crossing heavy traffic in Gordon
Road, to their mutual disadvantage and entail all HBL vehicles wasting time and
fuel negotiating gradients. Such irreversible destruction should not be
undertaken unless it can guarantee greater benefits than a less damaging
alternative.
3.2 An alternative proposal
The dismantled bridge over Gordon Road could be replaced at less cost and would leave the embankment (built by Brunel in 1854) undisturbed. It would provide a clear, level route for both buses and light rail and allow Gordon road traffic to pass unhindered underneath.
Some minor works would be needed on the east side of Gordon Road, to overcome an obstruction, but this is very minor compared with the destruction of the embankment. A steel "bow string" bridge could be built off-site and quickly put into place. Civil Engineer Christopher Wallis has prepared a scheme drawing for such a bridge (see diagram). The total cost of this alternative busway is estimated at more than £1,000,000 cheaper than the design in the Planning Application.
3.3 Proposals for a co-ordinated transport network
An article in the Times, 17th April 2001, described the business connection between John Laing (who owns Chiltern Railways) and Swiss Rail, who run the highly efficient rail service within Switzerland's famous integrated public transport. The Consortium is looking to develop a new co-ordinated transport network around Chiltern Railways, Thames Trains and Wessex Rail. The HBL would be a vital link within this network.
The design of the proposed busway must therefore allow for a transport link that could be readily integrated into the new network. The design in the Planning Application would not do this.
Hence there are
several good reasons for rejecting the busway design as in the Planning
Application
4.0 Travel and transport between High Wycombe and the Thames Valley
4.1 Currently, no realistic public transport exists
Many people wish to make relatively short journeys (5-20 miles) in both directions, to Maidenhead, Slough, High Wycombe etc. These journeys may be for work, school, college or to the Slough Court (the "family" court for Wycombe residents). Those travelling by car encounter heavy congestion and long delays. Those without cars face either trying to obtain a lift or else not travel. This may mean that they will have to refuse a job, training course etc. Public transport only becomes feasible if the traveller is somehow able to get to Bourne End station in time to use the rail services. (Maidenhead 11 minutes, Slough 19 minutes, Windsor, a 6-minute connection from Slough and Reading a 14-minute connection from Maidenhead).
An example of the difficulties facing would-be travellers is that of a consultant who can no longer drive due to eyesight problems. He has found that the Chiltern Rail services allow him to easily reach clients over a wide area (greater than 50 miles), but he refuses work in the Maidenhead / Slough area, because the amount of wasted time and consequent frustration makes it not worthwhile (See Appendix).
4.2 Bus services are often unsuitable for meeting trains
Road congestion is a key factor in delaying buses so that they are unable to meet trains reliably, unless the bus journey is quite short and is along a route covered by several bus services. Bus - rail connections between High Wycombe and Bourne End are most unlikely to ever meet these requirements (Sections 5.1 and 6.1).
Re-use of the
whole HBL with light rail would be more beneficial than the 1.2-km busway alone.
5.0 The Positive Public Transport Strategy (PPTS)
5.1 Transport
policies in 1992-1993
Heavy congestion in and around High Wycombe led to a major study by Halcrow Fox in 1992 -93 and to the adoption of this strategy, with the aim of encouraging motorists to use public transport. At that time, national transport policies were still dominated by road building and so the PPTS was a bold and far-sighted initiative. However, in 1993 the only options for implementing such a strategy were Park & Ride, bus lanes and Positive Parking arrangements. The idea of re-using the HBL did not arise and the revival of light rail as an option was still some years away.
5.2 The
revival of light rail and the re-use of the HBL in the 21st century
The successes of light rail(1,2) and the possibility of re-using the HBL, offer a new public transport opportunity. This could make a significant impact on congestion and travel, along and beyond the HBL corridor, with benefit to job opportunities, educational prospects and reduced journey times. There will also be related economic benefits and the fulfilment of vital environmental requirements.
6.0 The Corridors Study - a further approach to congestion problems
6.1 Developing
the Positive Public Transport Strategy
The "corridors" study of the main road routes into High Wycombe, (north, south, east and west) was ordered to assist in the implementation of the bus lanes (see Section 5.1). The proposals and associated factors were discussed at length at two Wycombe Transport Strategy Panel meetings held on 1st December 2000 and 29th March 2001. There is to be a public consultation planned for later this year. The conclusion so far appears to be that while minor improvements would be possible, adequate bus lanes could not be accommodated. The discussion referred to A4094 being "as bad as Handy Cross" and to congestion on the London Road being boosted by short local car trips.
As the aim of the Study was to reduce congestion, it is curious that no consideration has been given to re-using the HBL other than as a cycle track, particularly as the HBL was the subject of three consultancy studies in 1996 - 97. Light rail could not only provide a fast link between two rail networks (High Wycombe and Bourne End stations) but also serve a number of shorter trips along the route, including those linked to fifteen schools.
7.0 The busway Planning Application and three discredited consultancy studies performed in 1996-97
7.1 The Engineer's
Report (February 2001) submitted to support the Planning Application
In Paras. 2.1 and Section 4 of the Engineer's Report those seeking permission to destroy the embankment (Section 3.1 above), refer to the Buchanan Study made in April 1996 and to the 1997 Maunsell Study in order to support their case against light rail.
7.2 The viability
of services on the HBL
These two studies and a third (Maunsell 1996) all concluded that any kind of rail service on the HBL would not be viable, but the Society's view is that their evidence is incomplete and not convincing because all three studies
¨ Failed to consider school-associated travel.
¨ Ignored potential HBL users wishing to connect with rail services at High Wycombe and Bourne End.
¨ Took no account of the problems experienced by people wishing to travel between High Wycombe and the Thames Valley, by car or public transport (Section 4.1 and Appendix).
Thus the 1996 -97 studies completely ignored significant sections of the HBL's potential market. These omissions become ever more relevant as congestion problems get worse and the popularity of light rail increases. (1, 4)
The Maunsell 1997 study assumed that the Buchanan figures for user numbers were correct, and reproduced them in their own study. However, the Buchanan report considered only the middle 7km of the 9km track. Their figures included only those people whose journey would be entirely within the 7km or who would leave the HBL at London Road to go to High Wycombe town centre, via the London Road, not the "busway" route.
7.3 Passenger
numbers on buses to Bourne End
The Buchanan report noted the passenger numbers on Bourne End buses and interpreted the low figures as indicating low patronage for any future HBL service. They failed to discover that people wishing to connect with a train would not usually use the bus to get them to the station on time, due to the difficulties illustrated in Sections 4.1, 4.2 and the Appendix.
7.4 Rejection
of the Buchanan report by Wycombe District Council
The Buchanan report was commissioned jointly by Bucks County and Wycombe District Councils. However, it contained so many flaws that the Wycombe District Council rejected it unanimously on the 3rd June 1996.
Wycombe District Council went on to commission its own study (Maunsell October1996), chiefly to secure protection for the part of the track now being re-used for the busway. This exposed another flaw in the Buchanan study, which had recommended that there should be no protection. That recommendation was based on incorrect information supplied by County Officers.
County Officers also told Buchanan that safeguarding the railway at Gordon Road (i.e. replacing the bridge mentioned in Section 3.2) would prevent the construction of the new access road. In 1995 the High Wycombe Society's Civil Engineer, Chris Wallis, submitted to the County Council Officers a scheme drawing which illustrated how the bridge and the road could both be accommodated. This potential solution was repeatedly ignored.
8.0 Global Warming - the need to reduce vehicle -associated CO2
emissions
8.1 Increasing
awareness and concern about Global Warming
The International outrage at President Bush's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol indicates the wide recognition that every effort must be made to reduce CO2 emissions. Transport makes an increasing contribution to these emissions. It is important to note that reinstating the HBL with light rail could provide a form of transport that would not only be very energy efficient, but would also be likely to achieve a useful modal shift from cars to the HBL (See Sections 1.4 and 1.5). The mounting threats from Global Warming are powerfully documented in the special Environment Supplement issued with the New Scientist on 28th April 2001 and reinforce the case for avoiding unnecessary gradients (Sections 3.1 and 3.2).
9.0 Light rail and Ultra Light Rail (ULR) - popular, unobtrusive
public transport, making economic use of land and energy(6)
9.1 The key features of light rail
The rails indicate to potential travellers a clear assurance of purpose and a route without detours, plus a fair guarantee of permanence. There is also the reassurance that traffic congestion will not disrupt schedules, making efficient use of driver time. Light rail requires the minimum of land because it is guided and the unobtrusive rails are set narrower than the vehicles (unlike guided buses). Steel wheels are more robust than tyres (and are recyclable) and moving on steel rails they consume less energy than tyres on roads.
Electric power offers nil pollution at the point of use with the possibility of using renewable energy. Light rail can be located and accessed in areas where heavy rail would be too obtrusive and costly. Also modern light rail is very quiet.
9.2 Ultra
Light Rail (ULR)(6)
The main features of light rail which have made it so valuable in big conurbations, are much needed in smaller catchment areas such as the HBL corridor. ULR has a smaller capacity, (35 passengers per unit, two may be coupled together) but its lighter weight, efficient transmission and regenerative braking make its energy consumption very low. It also requires lighter (and cheaper) foundations. The use of flywheel energy storage avoids the need for an obtrusive and costly overhead power supply. ULR should meet many travel needs with minimum environmental disturbance.
10.0 The "New approach to appraisal " (NATA) for transport
schemes
10.1 Sustainable
transport is now an urgent priority
In the consultant studies (Section 7 above), viability was judged solely in terms of costs, revenues from fares, and the consequent return on capital. By March 2000 when the "Guidance on Full Local Transport Plans" was issued by the DETR, it had become clear that much of the essential investment in public transport would never be made, if such factors remained the only criteria governing capital outlay. Light rail schemes now attract substantial grants.(4)
10.2 Factors
included in the New Approach to Appraisal
Annexe E in the Guidance on Full Local Transport Plans indicates many factors that must be included when appraising the overall costs and benefits of a scheme, such as:-
· Noise
· Townscape
· Carbon dioxide emissions
· Integration
· Wider economic costs of congestion and land use
· Landscape
· Improved transport efficiency
· Safety
·
Travel opportunities
11.0 Reinstatement of the HBL with light rail or ULR
11.1 Feasibility
The former railway was single track with passing places, but it used Brunel's broad gauge. The ULR could be mostly double track with only a few very short sections of single track. All but about 200m of track has been sold, but more than 80% is still open ground. In addition to the 1.2km busway, which could easily be integrated with light rail if the bridge were replaced, there are two other sections where light rail could share with other traffic. These are cul de sac service roads equivalent to 0.3km. All bridges have been dismantled, and so in addition to the two similar bridges over Gordon Road and London Road, two much smaller ones would need replacing (see Section 2.3).
11.2 Diversions
The track has been built over at Bassetsbury Lane (0.65km), near Treadaway Hill (0.12km) and two sites in the Wooburn area, totalling about 0.65 km. For most of these sections diversions would be straightforward on adjacent open land, but for three short lengths, more complex engineering would be needed to avoid demolition.
11.3 Costs of ULR reinstatement
The alternative busway design, involving replacing the bridge over Gordon Road, would be about £1,000,000 cheaper than the design featured in the Planning Application.
If ULR shared the busway, there would be the additional cost of laying the rails in the road surface. Along most other sections of the route, vegetation would have to be cleared and ballast repaired before replacing the rails. Land purchase and light rail "stations" would be extra. Most of the diversions would be somewhat more expensive and the small sections of complex engineering would be still more costly. Overall, the cost is expected to be in the region of £2-3 million per km on the 8km beyond the busway. This price per kilometre compares favourably with the £4.67 million for 1.2km of the busway design, which would destroy the embankment but not provide a bridge, as in the Planning Application.
11.4 Viability of the scheme
Applying the "New Approach to Appraisal" (Section 10.2), would require taking account of the present rising costs of congestion and emissions, the constraints in Sections 1.2 and 6.1 and fuel costs etc. as well as the new public transport opportunities, together with the consequent economic benefits. The assessment of all the costs and benefits is for professionals applying the up-to-date NATA procedures.
12.0 Summary
The alternative busway design could aid greater reduction in congestion, over a wider area, and greater economic, travel and environmental benefits, by permitting efficient use of light rail on the HBL.
12.1 The construction of the busway
This must be such as to allow maximal modal shift from cars to public transport, by re-using the full 9km of the HBL (not just the 1.2km busway) for light rail, to increase travel opportunities between High Wycombe and the Thames Valley. This should include facilitating the maximum use of the rail services at High Wycombe and Bourne End .
12.2 Replacing the bridge over Gordon Road
Replacing the bridge would avoid needless problems for
§ The busway buses
§ The railway
§ Gordon Road traffic
§ Light rail on the HBL
It would address the needs arising from Global Warming, as well as assisting integration of the HBL into the new rail network involving Chiltern Railways, Thames Trains and Wessex Rail (see Section 3.3).
Some examples of journeys between High Wycombe and the Thames Valley
1. A Wycombe solicitor and a District Councillor both find it necessary to arrange car travel for their clients or constituents who have to attend Slough Court.
2. A Wycombe resident can travel by rail and Underground to his London office in Chancery Lane quicker than he can drive to his Maidenhead office, and for a teacher living in Maidenhead, the time-consuming, unpredictable car journey was a factor in her resigning her job in High Wycombe.
3. Wycombe residents wishing to attend training courses in Slough experience great public transport problems. Likewise, Wycombe housing applicants put in "Bed and Breakfast" accommodation in Slough, when trying to get to/from jobs in High Wycombe.
4. A Wycombe boy attending the Choir School in Windsor travels by train from Bourne End, but must first get a lift from his father in order to catch the train. Similarly for a Flackwell Heath resident working in Maidenhead and for a Wycombe man working in Slough, who had earlier found that the bus journey alone took 75 minutes.
5. A consultant living in High Wycombe whose eyesight now prevents him driving, must use public transport to visit his clients. He finds he can cover areas 50miles away using Chiltern Rail services, particularly via connections at South Ruislip and Marylebone, but he refuses work nearer home in the Thames Valley, because poor public transport and traffic congestion consumes so much time and effort.
A ULR service on
the HBL could be used with advantage by all these travellers.
The studies reported here have been carried out over more than seven years by the members of the High Wycombe Society's transport group, with the valued help and support from many others. These include Society members and Wycombe District Councillors, notably Frances Alexander, Clare Martens and Maurice Oram, and Frances Presland, Hon. Secretary of the Society.
For these studies the engineering input is of fundamental importance, so special thanks is due to two Group members, Christopher Wallis C. Eng, MICE, who first suggested the protection and re-use of the disused trackbed and Colin Harrison MIRSE. We are also much indebted to Trevor Griffin, Head of Light Rail at AEA Technology Rail for his expert assistance and encouragement.
1. Tramways & Urban Transit, May 2001, pp.184 -187. A world review of light rail developments, citing 64 cities in 20 countries.
2. New Civil Engineer, 12- 19 April 2001, p.2 - success of the Croydon Tramlink.
3. Modern Railways, August 2000, p.54, Sheffield Supertram achieves 22% modal shift.
4. Tramways & Urban Transit, May 2001, pp.164-169. Forthcoming light rail developments in the UK.
5. Modern Railways, May 2001, pp.54-56. An account of the developments in the West Midlands PTE. A bus "showcase" project attracted a 30% increase in patronage, but only 2% modal shift from the car.
6. Griffin. T., Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit. "Ultra Light Rail Developments", to be published.
7. Engineer's Report supporting the Busway Planning Application (February 2001). Para 3.7 states 16,500m3 soil to be removed from the site.
8. Griffin. T., -personal communication, September 1999.