Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Colin Steiner & Stephen Luke, Mott MacDonald: LRT PPP in Canada and the UK
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Colin Steiner & Stephen Luke, Mott MacDonald: LRT PPP in Canada and the UK

415
views

Published on

Colin Steiner, Senior Project Engineer & Stephen Luke, APNA Regional Practice Leader Transport / Urban Planning & LRT, Mott MacDonald delivered this presentation at the 2014 Light Rail conference in …

Colin Steiner, Senior Project Engineer & Stephen Luke, APNA Regional Practice Leader Transport / Urban Planning & LRT, Mott MacDonald delivered this presentation at the 2014 Light Rail conference in Melbourne. Across the globe the conception and delivery of light rail projects has been growing at an incredible rate. Seen as an efficient and sustainable way to alleviate the congestion that cripples the expansion of many key urban zones, light rail is fast becoming a central solution in the evolution of Australia's major urban areas. In order to work towards a congestion free future, it is imperative that federal and state governments support light rail projects.

Light Rail 2014 explored all the possible funding options for light rail projects, while also looking at international case studies, the latest rolling stock, braking technology, among many more. For more information about the event, please visit the conference website: http://www.informa.com.au/lightrailconference

Published in: Business

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
415
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
23
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. LRT  2014  :  Interna4onal  Case  Studies  UK  and  Canada   5th  March  2014  
  • 2. Structure •  Challenges •  Cost and funding considerations •  Case Study Cross River Tram, London •  Lessons •  Some Success stories •  Valley Line, Edmonton !"
  • 3. Challenges •  Poli4cal  support   •  Promoter  Governance   •  Past  financial  performance   •  Lack  of  Standardisa4on  (UK)   •  Barriers  to  New  Technology   •  Historical  Op4mism  in  Planning  -­‐  Patronage   overes4mates  and  cost  Underes4mates   •  Risk  Transfer  vs  Risk  Sharing   •  Public  Transport  Integra4on  -­‐  Fair  Trade  Act  and   Compe44on  Law   •  Roadspace  realloca4on   •  Protracted  and  costly  approvals  process   •  Public  percep4on  -­‐  Cau4ous  and  resistant  to  change   even  if  status  quo  is  ‘sub-­‐op4mal’   •  Rise  in  local  ac4vism   !"
  • 4. 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 !"
  • 5. What are the major cost drivers? !" •  Rolling stock costs •  Track construction costs •  Utility relocation costs •  And •  ‘Innovative’ funding schemes involving risk transfer
  • 6. Risk Transfer? DfT ! Affordability ! Procurement Risk !" ! Transport Policy ! Appraisal Guidance ! Procurement Strategy Guidance ! Business Case Approval ! Strategic Prioritisation of Schemes ! Planning Approval Funder local transport capital provision ! Project Identification ! Transport Capacity ! Decongestion ! Urban Regeneration ! Social Inclusion ! Customer Satisfaction PTE / LA ! Costs ! Risks ! System Performance ! Patronage? ! Revenue? Bottom - up public investment PSP Provider Top - down Promoter ! Local Transport Plan ! Options & Feasibility Study ! LR Project Selection ! Route Selection & Service Pattern ! Transport Integration ! Business Case ! Planning Application ! Specification & Procurement ! Private Sector Investment ! Detailed Design ! Engineering Integration ! Utilities Diversion ! Infrastructure Construction ! Vehicle Supply ! Testing & Commissioning ! Operations ! Lifecycle Maintenance ! Asset Renewal
  • 7. Modal  Efficiency   !" How  Total  Costs  Vary  
  • 8. 8
  • 9. The Scheme and Objectives Scheme: •  ew 16.5 km tramway with core alignment N from Euston to Waterloo. Branches to King’s Cross, Camden Town, Peckham and Brixton •  requent trams on all branches, with F maximum frequency in the central core between Euston and Waterloo - 30tphpd •  assenger capacity c.9000pphpd P •  pprox 30 stops depending on final route A option Objectives: •  elieve tube crowding R •  timulate regeneration S •  mprove accessibility I •  etter connection between mainline stations B •  nvironmentally friendly mode of transport E •  ost efficient C !"
  • 10. CRT  sta4s4cs   •  Majority  of  the  areas  served  are  either   classed  as  ‘deprived’  or  ‘very  deprived’   •  Accessibility  benefits  for  approximately   72,000  very  socially  excluded  residents,     •  25-­‐60%  journey  4me  savings  from  south   London   •  Increase  in  employment  access  for  south   London  (+20%)   •  Target  groups  par4cularly  well  served  by   CRT  -­‐  minori4es,      elderly,  unemployed   Route Construction Forecast Patronage Length Cost (Millions per Annum) (km) 2006 estimate including 53% contingency & Optimism Bias 16.5 £650m 66 !"
  • 11. Regenera4on  –  deprived  areas   !" One of the key drivers of the project was the regeneration ambitions of the partner boroughs • 
  • 12. Relieve  peak-­‐period  Underground  crowding   Northern Line Charing Cross !" 2016 DMvDS: 1 Hour Load & Capacity Southbound 18000 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 CAMDEN TOWN MORNINGTON (EDGWARE-SB) CRESCENT Do Minimum 2016 Load EUSTON WARREN GOODGE STREET STREET Do Something 2016 Load TOTTENHAM COURT RD NOR LEICESTER SQUARE NOR CHARING EMBANKMENT WATERLOO KENNINGTON CROSS 2016 ''Planning Standard' Capacity 2016 Severely Crowded CRT  will  increase  passenger  capacity  into  central  London   •  CRT  will  relieve  crowding  on  some  of  the  busiest  parts  of  the  Underground  -­‐  around  3,000  peak-­‐ hour  trips  diverted  to  CRT  
  • 13. 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   !"
  • 14. Integra4on  with  other  Modes   !" •  Integration with: Camden Town •  Mainline  rail   King’s Cross St Pancras Euston •  Underground   •  Bus   Holborn •  Traffic   •  Pedestrians   Aldwych •  Cyclists   •  Emergency   services   Waterloo Elephant & Castle Aylesbury Estate Oval Peckham Brixton Peckham Rye
  • 15. 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   !"
  • 16. 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 !"
  • 17. Status •  Project mothballed as consequence of GFC and change of Mayor. •  Funding/ Affordability •  Strong business case remains •  Strong political support from London boroughs !"
  • 18. 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  
  • 19. 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!   !"
  • 20. 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%)  
  • 21. Nottingham Express Transit Line 1: funded by Private Sector who receive monthly payment costs - based on performance. Phase 2: DBFOM concession for extended network construction commenced December 2011. • being partly funded by Work Place Parking Levy •  trong emphasis on transport integration S •  obust procurement – designed to give confidence to R private sector !"
  • 22. Manchester  Metrolink  !"  
  • 23. Manchester  Metrolink    !"
  • 24. Bergen  Light  Rail   !"
  • 25. !" Valley  Line  Southeast  to  West  LRT,  Edmonton,  AB   5th  March  2014  
  • 26. Edmonton?  !" •  Background  to  Edmonton  LRT   •  Low  Floor  Urban  Style  LRT  –   Urban  Integra4on   BC AB SK MB •  LRT  in  a  Winter  CNL ity   Edmonton Calgary Vancouver ON •  P3  Delivery  for  the  Valley  Line   QC •  Concluding  Thoughts   Toronto
  • 27. 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  
  • 28. Exis4ng  Edmonton  Transit  System  !" •  Fully  segregated  and   signalized  system   •  Operates  more  like  a   European  heavy  rail   commuter  line   •  Very  successful  
  • 29. Exis4ng  High-­‐Floor  LRT  Systems  !"
  • 30. To  This…..Urban  Style  Low-­‐Floor  LRT  !"
  • 31. Valley  Line  SE  to  W  LRT  –  Project  Scope  !" •  New  low-­‐floor,  urban-­‐style  LRT   •  One  tunnel  /  Five  bridges  /     Two  elevated  guideways   •  27km  of  double-­‐track   •  29  stops  and  sta4ons   •  New  transit  centers  and     park  ‘n  ride   •  New  O&M  facility   •  67  new  40m,  low-­‐floor  LRVs   •  NOT  interoperable  with  exis4ng     LRT  lines   •  Delivered  using  P3  delivery   model   31
  • 32. 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  
  • 33. Key  Opera4onal  Challenges  !" •  Line-­‐of-­‐Sight     •  LRV  /  road  traffic  shared  opera4ons   •  Signalling  systems  with  Line-­‐of-­‐Sight  opera4on  (No  CBTC)   •  Intersec4on  full  priority  /  par4al  priority   •  De-­‐graded  opera4ng  paberns:   •   Line-­‐of-­‐Site  crossovers  /  turn-­‐back  facili4es   •      33
  • 34. Cars  S4ll  Exist  !" And  they  s4ll   need  access   Google Earth
  • 35. The  Road  is  Only  So  Wide     !" (Even  in  Alberta)  
  • 36. Example:  Stony  Plain  Road  Business  District   NEW NEW NEW !"
  • 37. 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  
  • 38. 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!  
  • 39. Urban  Integra4on  Examples  !"
  • 40. Urban  Integra4on  Examples  !"
  • 41. 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  
  • 42. 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!   !"
  • 43. 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   •  •  •  •  !"
  • 44. 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  
  • 45. 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