c-1-1 ngt alternatives review report

CORE DOCUMENT C-1-1

Leeds New Generation Transport

Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

Final Report

January 2014

Prepared for: Prepared by:

Metro

Wellington House

40-50 Wellington Street

Leeds

LS1 2DE

Steer Davies Gleave

67 Albion Street

Leeds LS1 5AA

+44 (0)113 389 6400

www.steerdaviesgleave.com


Contents

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1

Background ............................................................................................ 1

Purpose of Review ................................................................................... 1

Funding ................................................................................................ 1

Context ................................................................................................ 3

Public Consultation .................................................................................. 3

Shortlisted Options .................................................................................. 3

Findings ................................................................................................ 4

Report Structure ..................................................................................... 5

2 SCOPE OF REVIEW .................................................................................. 7

Introduction ........................................................................................... 7

In Scope Options ..................................................................................... 7

Scheme Objectives .................................................................................. 7

Basis of Corridors Considered .................................................................... 10

Section Summary ................................................................................... 11

3 OPTION FILTERING ................................................................................ 13

Introduction ......................................................................................... 13

Track-Based Options ............................................................................... 13

Externally Powered Bus Based Options......................................................... 14

Conventional (On-board Powered) Bus Based Options ...................................... 15

Section Summary ................................................................................... 17

4 OPTION SPECIFICATION .......................................................................... 19

Introduction ......................................................................................... 19

Required System Outputs Specification ........................................................ 19

Trolleybus ........................................................................................... 20

Catenary-Free Electric Bus ....................................................................... 21

Light Rail Transit ................................................................................... 21

Ultra-Light Rail Transit ............................................................................ 23

Comparable Bus Option ........................................................................... 23

Low Cost Bus Option ............................................................................... 24

Section Summary ................................................................................... 25

5 OPTIONS ASSESSMENT AGAINST OBJECTIVES ............................................... 27


Contents

Introduction ......................................................................................... 27

LTP Objective - Economy: ........................................................................ 27

LTP Objective - Low Carbon: .................................................................... 32

LTP Objective - Quality of Life: ................................................................. 33

Section Summary ................................................................................... 36

6 OPTIONS ASSESSMENT AGAINST DELIVERY CONSTRAINTS ................................ 39

Introduction ......................................................................................... 39

Affordability ........................................................................................ 39

Deliverability ....................................................................................... 40

Potential for System Expansion ................................................................. 42

Commercial Case ................................................................................... 43

Outcomes Realisation ............................................................................. 44

Value for Money .................................................................................... 45

Section Summary ................................................................................... 46

7 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................... 49

Introduction ......................................................................................... 49

Summary of Approach ............................................................................. 49

Recommended Options ........................................................................... 50

FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Potential Major Transport Investment Corridors ..................... 10

TABLES

Table 2.1 Assessment Categorisation ............................................... 11

Table 5.1 Objective One: Maximise Leeds’ Growth .............................. 27

Table 5.2 Objective Two: Support Economic Growth ............................ 29

Table 5.3 Objective Three: Support Regeneration ............................... 30

Table 5.4 Objective Four: Improve Effectiveness ................................. 31

Table 5.5 Objective Five: Reduce Greenhouse Gases ............................ 32

Table 5.6 Objective Six: Safe & Healthy Environment ........................... 34

Table 5.7 Objective Seven: Improve Accessibility ................................ 35

Table 6.1 Affordability Delivery Constraint ........................................ 39


Contents

Table 6.2 Deliverability Delivery Constraint ....................................... 41

Table 6.3 System Expansion Delivery Constraint .................................. 42

Table 6.4 Commercial Case Delivery Constraint .................................. 43

Table 6.5 Outcomes Realisation Delivery Constraint ............................. 44

Table 6.6 Value for Money Delivery Constraint .................................... 46

APPENDICES

A FUNDING CONSTRAINTS

B SERVICE DELIVERY ALTERNATIVES

C MANDATE FOR ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS


1

1 Introduction

Background

1.1 Leeds New Generation Transport (NGT) is a major public transport scheme being

promoted by Metro and Leeds City Council (LCC). In July 2012 Department for

Transport (DfT) Programme Entry Re-approval was achieved for the proposed

trolleybus-based system, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to

majority fund implementation of the project.

1.2 Further Government approvals are required before contracts can be placed and

construction works started. Legal powers to implement the project are being

sought through an application for a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO), which

was made on 19 September 2013. On 28 November 2013, following a consultation

period, the Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin confirmed the anticipated

public inquiry into the TWAO application.

Purpose of Review

1.3 To obtain the TWAO and to confirm the Government funding approval, among

other things the Promoters must demonstrate that they have considered an

appropriate and reasonable set of alternatives to the promoted option. They must

set out the justification for promoting their Preferred Option in comparison to

these other options.

1.4 From the inception of the NGT project, the Promoters have considered

alternatives alongside development of the trolleybus option. This report sets out

the main technology alternatives to a trolleybus based system and presents the

comparative strengths and weaknesses of each. It brings together work undertaken

over the life of the scheme’s development. The applicability of the findings of

these earlier analyses has been considered in light of current circumstances and

more recently available and developing options have also been included in the

review.

1.5 This review does not set out to detail the selection of suitable corridors for NGT,

nor does it present the identification and selection of alignment or other design

alternatives which have been given careful consideration through the scheme

development process. These aspects are detailed in separate documents.

1.6 From the technology options which are credible on the NGT corridors, the most

comparable proposal (‘Next Best Alternative’) and the best ‘Low Cost Alternative’

options are identified for further analysis through the modelling and appraisal

framework developed for the promoted scheme. Formal consideration of the

economic case for the Next Best Alternative and Low Cost Alternative is a

requirement for Department for Transport funding. The comparative performance

of these options is reported within the updated scheme business case.

Funding

1.7 Since the Major Scheme Business Case (MSBC) was submitted to the Department for

Transport at the end of 2009 there has been a change in the way that Government


2

supports capital investment in locally-promoted transport major schemes. Further

details setting out the resulting funding constraints on local transport major

schemes are set out in Appendix A to this report.

1.8 At the time of the MSBC submission, the Department for Transport had a major

scheme programme and associated budget. Through the MSBC submission process,

Promoters applied for ‘Programme Entry’, this signifying that the Government was

minded to contribute a defined amount to the scheme’s cost, subject to:

I the project’s outputs and outcomes not changing significantly

I there being no material change to the financial contribution asked from the

Department

I no material change to the value for money case

1.9 Following its election in May 2010, the Coalition Government ended the major

scheme process and is in the process of devolving decision making on funding

decisions to a more local level. Schemes that were already in DfT’s programme at

the time of the election continue to be co-funded by Government (subject to

revisions made to scheme specification, funding mix and implementation timetable

which were made as part of a ‘Best and Final Funding Bid’ process – a process that

led to some schemes being dropped from the programme). NGT is one of the

schemes that remained eligible for Government support.

1.10 The important point is that the funding available from Government for NGT is now

only currently available for a trolleybus scheme between Holt Park and Stourton

via Leeds City Centre. Should the current scheme not be pursued, unless it could

be shown that an alternative delivered comparable outputs and outcomes at no

greater cost and with an acceptable level of risk, the earmarked DfT funding

would return to the Department’s general budget. Any option that did not meet

these criteria would require an alternative and locally-sourced funding solution.

1.11 In July 2013 the devolved funding allocations were confirmed in a written

statement to Parliament1. For the spending period during which NGT will be

implemented (2015/16 – 2020/21) the funding being made available to West

Yorkshire and York Local Transport Body (LTB) totals £100.9 million. This total

excludes funding for NGT. The statement is clear that DfT funding for NGT is

dependent on the scheme going ahead as planned. Without DfT support there

would be insufficient funding available from the LTB for a scheme of the scale of

NGT, even in a situation where no other transport investment were made in the

area.

1.12 With the development of the £1 billion West Yorkshire Plus Transport Fund

(WYTF), Metro and its local authority partners are putting in place a mechanism to

secure additional transport investment in the metropolitan county. The WYTF aims

to improve employment accessibility. Committing a project of the size of NGT

would constrain the ability of the Fund to deliver its objectives. Currently 29

schemes are earmarked for WYTF support. Not all these schemes could be

supported if a NGT-sized scheme were funded from WYTF.

1 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/local-transport-body-funding-allocations


3

1.13 This situation is in contrast with that which pertained at the time the MSBC was

submitted in 2009. At that time, if either the DfT had decided not to grant

Programme Entry status, or the Promoters had decided that an alternative

approach best met its objectives, the Promoters would have been at liberty to

apply to the DfT for funding for a different option and DfT would have considered

this on its merits.

Context

1.14 The majority of routes in Leeds, including routes on or close to the NGT corridors,

are currently served by conventional diesel bus vehicles. Hybrid diesel-electric

double-deckers part-funded by the DfT’s Green Bus Fund were introduced in

Summer 2011 on Routes 7/7A/7S/X7 (First) and in Spring 2013 on Routes 163/166

(Arriva). Hybrid vehicles offer substantial emissions benefits, with reductions in

fuel consumption; the diesel engine automatically switching off when the vehicle

is stationary or travelling at low speed. However for the majority of the route the

vehicles operate under diesel power with similar emissions to conventional diesel

vehicles.

Public Consultation

1.15 Formal public consultation on the trolleybus proposal has been undertaken at

various times during the project’s development. This consultation has shown a high

level of support for NGT.

1.16 More generally, the consultation showed a high level of support for proposed

improvements on the NGT alignment and for the provision of Park & Ride facilities

on the north and south lines. Almost two-thirds of respondents wanted more

environmentally-friendly vehicles. There were some concerns about the impact of

the scheme on traffic/congestion. The likely public support for the technology

options in this report has been considered in light of these issues.

1.17 The key attributes that respondents wanted in a new public transport system were:

I More punctual services

I Cheaper fares

I Faster services

1.18 The degree to which various technologies allow the Promoters to secure these

goals over the lifetime of investment has been considered in this review.

Shortlisted Options

1.19 Currently available public transport technology options were reviewed for

suitability for implementation on the north and south NGT corridors. Shortlisted

technologies were considered in terms of their potential performance against the

scheme objectives and against key delivery constraints, including affordability and

deliverability within the funding timeframe. At this stage options which did not

satisfy any particular constraint, and therefore could not be delivered, were

discounted from further consideration.

1.20 A shortlist of five technology options were identified as being suitable in the

context of the identified corridors, taking into account both physical


4

opportunities/constraints as well as potential service/capacity requirements.

These comprise:

I Light Rail Transit (LRT or tram) - steel wheeled vehicles operating on rails,

powered by electricity from overhead lines and capable of operating both on

street and fully segregated from traffic. Similar in concept to systems in

Sheffield, Nottingham and Croydon

I Ultra-Light Rail Transit (ULRT) - a proposed lower cost light rail technology.

The proponents of ULRT suggest that, in comparison with LRT, cost savings

would result from ULRT requiring a shallower track construction for the lighter

weight vehicles. Vehicles would have on-board energy storage rather than being

powered from overhead lines. While prototype systems have been developed,

the technology remains unproven at the scale of investment proposed in Leeds.

Even if ULRT could be delivered within the affordability constraints, the

implementation risk of this alternative cannot be accepted by the Promoters

I Trolleybus - rubber-tyred vehicles with motors powered by electricity from

overhead lines. It offers a quiet and smooth ride, a high level of energy

efficiency and zero emissions at point of use. Modern trolleybus systems exist in

many locations around the world and represent a technology which the

Promoters have confidence will be delivered within time and budget constraints

I Catenary-free electric bus – a relatively recent development taking advantage

of improvements in on-board energy storage systems. The concept is based on

vehicles equipped with batteries, fast charged at termini, and super-capacitors,

which can be flash charged (eg for 20 seconds) at stops, which together allow

reasonable lengths of operation without overhead lines. Prototype and trial

operations are underway, but at present it is unknown whether the commercial

production of suitable catenary-free vehicles will commence within the NGT

delivery timeframe. The implementation risk of this alternative therefore

cannot be accepted by the Promoters

I Bus - a comparable bus option with the same high level of segregation and

priority at junctions as the above options. A separate study2 considered the

most appropriate bus vehicle technology option in terms of improving energy

efficiency and reducing emissions at point of use. Bus-based systems have been

proven across the UK and the world; however hybrid and electric alternatives to

diesel propelled vehicles are a relatively recent development. Current vehicles

that are electrically powered from on-board source would either require

considerable investment in energy supply (for example hydrogen for fuel cell

vehicles) and/or a significantly larger fleet, allowing sufficient time in the

timetable for efficiently recharging vehicles

Findings

1.21 The proposed trolleybus option is demonstrably the strongest option taking into

consideration the scheme objectives and the constraints which are fundamental to

successful delivery of a major public transport intervention. Trolleybus is a highly

energy efficient technology offering a quiet and smooth ride, and zero emissions at

2 Sub Mode Options Investigation, Mott MacDonald, January 2014


5

point of use. Market research with car users and bus passengers3 in Leeds found

that a modern trolleybus system would be preferable to a conventional bus-based

option and would attract more mode-shift from car. On balance these advantages

are considered to outweigh the visual impact of the overhead lines. DfT has

confirmed Programme Entry funding approval exclusively for a trolleybus scheme.

1.22 If a suitable bus Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) can be made or a Quality

Contract Scheme (QCS) successfully implemented on the corridors (for example

because West Yorkshire Integrated Transport Authority proceeds with its proposal

for a county-wide QCS or an NGT specific QCS is developed), the potential would

exist to implement a comparable bus option that could deliver up to a point the

outputs and outcomes of the trolleybus option. There is significant uncertainty

whether a suitable VPA or a QCS can be introduced; without either the Promoters’

influence over outcomes realisation and access to any operating surplus to offset

borrowing would not be sufficient for a project of this scale. Plug-in diesel-electric

hybrid bus vehicle technology is specified for the comparable bus option. The

comparable bus option would operate under diesel power for around half of its

distance in service and therefore would result in more noise than the trolleybus

option and adverse emissions along the line of the route.

1.23 The comparable bus option is forecast to attract less transfer from private car use

than a trolleybus system and therefore reduced highway flows will not balance the

reallocation of capacity to public transport to the same extent. The resulting

increase in highway congestion will have a larger noise and air pollution impact.

Implementation of this option could not be through a single powers process and to

allow its funding to be used, would require DfT to accept that the outputs and

outcomes of this option are sufficiently similar to those from the trolleybus option.

Therefore, it has higher risks associated with scheme delivery than trolleybus.

1.24 Without a suitable VPA or QCS in place there is not a credible deliverable option

sufficiently similar to the trolleybus scheme to be considered a comparable

alternative (irrespective of how it may be funded). Therefore the option in such a

context is for the Low Cost Alternative comprising an on-line upgrade of existing

services along the northern corridor, Park & Ride provision at Bodington, and a

new Park & Ride only service from Stourton.

1.25 The purpose of this report is to set out the robust process of technology option

selection that has been used to identify alternatives for more detailed assessment

including quantified analysis through the NGT modelling and appraisal framework.

The results of this assessment are detailed within the updated scheme business

case.

Report Structure

1.26 The remainder of this report is structured as follows:

I Section 2 sets out the scope of the review, including defining the processes by

which options are compared

I Section 3 introduces the technology options which are available and identifies

those which are suitable for implementing on the NGT corridors

3 Stated Preference Study, Steer Davies Gleave, August 2008


6

I Section 4 sets out and justifies the consistent and comparable specification of

the shortlisted options

I Section 5 considers the performance of the shortlisted options against the

Promoters’ objectives

I Section 6 considers the performance of the shortlisted options against key

delivery constraints

I Section 7 summarises the best performing options

I Appendices to this report comprise:

A) further details of the current funding environment

B) supporting information on the options for service delivery

C) the mandate specifying the characteristics of the Preferred Option, Next

Best Alternative and Low Cost Alternative this review recommends for

further appraisal


7

2 Scope of Review

Introduction

2.1 This section describes the scope of the alternatives review report, setting out the

objectives which have been considered in specifying and assessing technology

options, the constraints to be considered in delivering any option, and finally

confirming the corridors for which options have been considered.

In Scope Options

2.2 This report considers alternative public transport solutions within the same north-

south corridors as NGT. The filtering of technology options which are suitable for

implementation on the NGT corridors is set out in Section 3. It is considered that a

representative and sufficiently large range of options have been specified and

assessed within this report and therefore that its conclusions are robust. However,

it is not practical for this report to consider each and every conceivable option or

combination of options.

2.3 Over time, the detailed specification of options considered in this report may

change, or additional options may be suggested, for example because of

developing technologies.

2.4 The robustness of the conclusions of this report is not considered to be reduced

because any specific option has not been included. Examples include alignment,

route or service frequency variants of options which have been considered or an

emerging vehicle technology. Nonetheless, the assessment framework within this

report has been specified to be appropriate for any technology option proposed

and provides a consistent basis for considering any additional options in the future

should that be worthwhile.

Scheme Objectives

2.5 A set of scheme objectives have been developed, which set out the outcomes the

Promoters aspire to achieve with NGT. These objectives were specified to be

consistent with established land-use and transport policy. They take into

consideration direct local transport problems such as capacity limitations and

reliability, wider social and economic issues including accessibility to job

opportunities and impacts on the environment. These objectives have been

reviewed at key stages of the scheme’s promotion and continue to be consistent

and complementary to the current policy framework. They are fundamental to the

review of technology options.

2.6 These objectives are set out on the following page, grouped by the higher level

Objectives from West Yorkshires Third Local Transport Plan4. The text in italics

was prepared alongside development of the objectives to give guidance on how

quantitative and qualitative measures can be used to help assess the degree to

4 http://www.wyltp.com

http://www.wyltp.com/


8

which NGT proposals meet the project objectives. This guidance has been used in

this report, in comparing the performance of technology options.

I LTP Objective - Economy:

1. Maximise growth of the Leeds economy by enhancing its competitive

position and facilitating future employment and population growth

In quantitative terms this means maximising the Net Present Value of the

proposal – as conventional benefits form part of Objective 4, the focus here

is on Wider Impacts. It also recognises the population/household growth

pressures. In qualitative terms it is about ‘quality of life’ and ‘putting

Leeds on the map’

2. Support and facilitate the sustainable growth of Leeds, recognising the

importance of its city centre to the future economy of the Leeds City Region

This is about increasing person capacity into the city centre especially

during peak periods, recognising the constraints on road capacity, car

parking capacity and without further investment, rail capacity. This

captures the spatial dimension of where we want growth to happen

3. Support and facilitate targeted regeneration initiatives and economic growth

in the more deprived areas of Leeds

This is about improving the links between the more deprived areas of Leeds

and employment/education opportunities, as well as explicitly supporting

the delivery of other policy initiatives. This too has a spatial dimension, but

it is more about the beneficiaries of growth

4. Improve the efficiency of the city's public transport and road networks

This is the conventional DfT Value for Money case measured as the quantity

of user benefits (journey time, quality, but also reliability, option value

etc) and non-user benefits (impact on congestion). ‘Improve’ should be

taken as relative to the Do-Minimum scenario rather than now

I LTP Objective - Low Carbon:

5. Reduce transport's emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases

This objective captures the global environmental impacts of the project in

comparison to the Do-Minimum scenario

I LTP Objective - Quality of Life:

6. Promote quality of life through a safe and healthy built and natural

environment

The impacts on the local environment incorporate townscape, local air

quality, noise, safety etc. This objective captures making best use of

existing assets. Again the comparison is against the Do-Minimum scenario

7. Contribute to enhanced quality of life by improving access for all to jobs and

services

Key services include but are not limited to hospitals, tertiary education

(Universities, Leeds City College) and the railway station (access to national

networks). ‘Improving’ should be taken as relative to the Do-Minimum

scenario rather than now


9

2.7 The main purposes of the scheme objectives are to provide a framework for

scheme development and to allow a quantitative comparison to be made between

close alternatives. One of the purposes of this report is to identify which

technologies could be specified on the NGT corridors to offer a performance

comparable to the trolleybus option (Section 3) and therefore are justified for

more detailed development including: specifying broad alignments and service

patterns (Section 4); and consideration of technology options’ comparative

performance against the objectives (Section 5).

2.8 A set of constraints listing the key deliverability issues which need to be

considered by the Promoters have also been identified. These are also relevant to

the review of technology options. They can be summarised as follows:

I Affordability

The Promoters must be able to fund the scheme capital costs from its own

or third party sources

I Deliverability

The proven level of public and political support for alternatives also

influences the level of delivery risk

DfT funding is time constrained and therefore any differences in the

delivery programme and risks associated with delivery to that programme

must be taken into account

I Potential for System Expansion

No unreasonable barrier to extending the scope of the system in the future,

for example aiming to avoid proprietary technology which could limit

competitive procurement of vehicles/infrastructure in the future

I Commercial Case

Procurement of the option must be achievable competitively in line with EU

regulations

Revenue received must exceed the operating costs. The extent to which the

resulting revenue surplus will support scheme funding/expansion is also

important

I Outcomes Realisation

In terms of the level of influence which the Promoters would have in

delivering the outputs and outcomes of the project which contribute to its

value for money

I Value for Money

Irrespective of whether funding is provided by DfT or locally, any scheme

needs to provide the best value for money of all reasonable/relevant

alternatives

2.9 The definition of these constraints allows a comparative assessment of the

performance of the technology options (Section 6) in these areas. This assessment

is additional to the consideration of options against objectives, ensuring that the

Next Best Alternative and Low Cost Alternative identified are practical, deliverable

options.


10

Basis of Corridors Considered

2.10 In a 2009 review of the strategic context for public transport in Leeds, four

corridors were identified as being appropriate for major public transport

investment. This review identified existing and anticipated future problems on the

key radial corridors approaching the city centre and considered the applicability of

alternative interventions. This work was summarised in Investing in Public

Transport: A Framework for Leeds (2009)5, which was later incorporated within

LTP3.

2.11 The strategic rationale for two of the four identified corridors underpinned the

business case submitted to the Department for Transport which led to the

allocation of Government funding for a trolleybus system:

I Otley A660 Corridor – on the basis of it being the busiest and most crowded

bus corridor; having a high level of highway congestion; with opportunities to

achieve material public transport journey time and punctuality improvements;

and potential for Park & Ride demand

I Five Towns/Wakefield A61/M621 Corridor – on the basis of having a high level

of highway congestion; and potential for Park & Ride demand

2.12 The strategic justification of public transport investment in these corridors has

been reviewed and confirmed in preparation for an application for TWAO powers6.

This review confirmed that the transport issues underpinning the selection of the

A660 Corridor and A61/M621 corridor as the north and south NGT lines have not

materially changed in the time since the 2009 study. Neither have there been any

material changes on any of the other radial bus corridors into Leeds that would

suggest that they are more suitable for NGT rollout at this time.

FIGURE 2.1 POTENTIAL MAJOR TRANSPORT INVESTMENT CORRIDORS

5 http://www.ngtmetro.com/uploadedFiles/Content/Documents/Archive/AFrameworkForLeeds_summary.pdf

6 NGT Strategic Fit – A Review, Steer Davies Gleave, January 2014

http://www.ngtmetro.com/uploadedFiles/Content/Documents/Archive/AFrameworkForLeeds_summary.pdf


11

Section Summary

2.13 This section introduces the scope of technology options being considered and sets

out the current scheme objectives and associated constraints. It sets out why

options being considered have been considered to public transport improvements

on the A660 and A61/M621 corridors, concluding that the original strategic

justification for major public transport investment on these corridors remains

robust.

2.14 Later sections of this report consider the fit of various technology options with the

scheme objectives and delivery constraints set out in this section. Table 2.1

summarises the approach to assessing options. A four point scale has been used in

consideration of the performance against objectives, allowing a high level

comparison between options from those which have the most significant impact to

those which have no material impact. A similar mechanism has been used in the

assessment of options which meet the delivery constraints; however a single

‘adverse’ score represents options which are not in line with the requirements of

any constraint, representing options which cannot be implemented, or not without

taking on an unacceptable level of risk, and therefore should not be considered

further.

TABLE 2.1 ASSESSMENT CATEGORISATION

Assessment Description

+++ Options which make a significant contribution towards meeting the

objective or delivery constraint

++ Options which make a material contribution towards meeting the objective

or delivery constraint

+ Options which make a limited but positive contribution towards meeting

the objective or delivery constraint

= Options which make no material contribution towards meeting the

objective/delivery constraint or are otherwise neutral in their effect

For options which cannot meet the requirements of the delivery constraint

and therefore should be ruled out


13

3 Option Filtering

Introduction

3.1 This section describes the process which has been used to identify public transport

technology options which are suitable for implementation on the NGT corridors,

taking into account physical opportunities/constraints as well as potential service/

capacity requirements.

Track-Based Options

3.2 Track-based technology options can broadly be split by the degree of segregation

from other modes/travellers. For steel rail systems this is the legally defined7

difference between tramway (which includes ‘rails which are laid wholly or mainly

along a street or in any other place to which the public has access’) and a railway

(which can cross a carriageway but otherwise the public does not have access to

the track). As well as steel rail systems, other technologies based on provision of a

continuous segregated track have been considered.

Railway Options

3.3 The NGT corridors do not offer any opportunity for a continuous fully segregated

alignment at ground level. Therefore surface rail, beam, magnetic or track-based

guided options (for example the rubber-tyred track-based bus systems used by

airports) are not appropriate in this context. Along the north line in particular,

visual intrusion is a particular concern of residents. Therefore any elevated form of

the above technologies or cableway would not be appropriate.

3.4 An underground (or partially underground) railway has been proposed by third

parties as an alternative to the promoted trolleybus. Underground construction is a

technically challenging and extremely high cost option offering full and absolute

segregation and therefore is appropriate where very high capacity is required

within the densest urban centres. Existing traveller flows in Leeds are not

sufficient to justify the risks and costs of such a system.

Tramway Options

3.5 Plans for a Light Rail Transit (LRT) option along the NGT corridors (Leeds

Supertram) have previously been developed and were the subject of a successful

(but now lapsed) application for implementation powers by Metro and Leeds City

Council. It follows that an LRT option must be suitable for implementation on

these corridors and should be considered further.

3.6 An Ultra-Light Rail Transit (option) ULRT has been put forward by its proponents.

ULRT is a proposed lower cost rail technology, the suggestion being that a

shallower track construction and on-board power supply rather than overhead lines

would result in cost savings in comparison to LRT. ULRT is expected to have a very

7 Transport and Works Act 1992, Chapter 42, Part III Miscellaneous and General, Section 67 Interpretation,

Paragraph (1)


14

similar footprint to LRT and therefore it is considered a suitable technology for

implementation on the NGT corridors to be considered further.

3.7 A partially underground tramway option would be unsuitable for the same reasons

as an underground or partially underground railway given above.

Track-based Option Summary

3.8 The following track-based options are sufficiently credible to be considered

further in this review of technology options:

I Light Rail Transit (LRT)

I Ultra-Light Rail Transit (ULRT)

3.9 The following options have been filtered out as being unsuitable for the context of

the NGT corridors:

I Railway

I Aerial cableway

I Magnetic levitation

I Monorail

I Track-based with side guidance

I Personal rapid transit

I Overhead/elevated track-based options

Externally Powered Bus Based Options

3.10 The first set of bus based options considered are based on vehicles which

predominantly draw electricity in normal operation from infrastructure located

along the alignment.

Trolley Vehicle Options

3.11 The NGT scheme as promoted is based on modern trolleybus technology,

comprising rubber tyred vehicles with motors powered by electricity from

overhead lines. The technical feasibility of this option for the NGT corridors has

been established and therefore this option is considered further in this report.

Rail Guided Trolley Vehicle Options

3.12 A further potential refinement of trolleybus technology is in combination with a

form of vehicle guidance. Two systems based on proprietary technologies are in

current operation in France. The stated advantages over a 'standard' trolleybus are

the potential for vehicles to pass closer together than if drivers were to steer and

improved 'docking' at stops. The disadvantages are the increased implementation

costs and an increase in maintenance/renewal costs from the significant rutting

impact of tyres always running on the same path. These options are not considered

further in this report on the grounds that they offer limited extra benefit over

trolleybus for additional cost.

Other Guided Trolley Vehicle Options

3.13 A variety of other ‘bus’ guidance options could be used with trolleybus for all or

some of the proposed route, including kerb, optical and magnetic technologies. In

its current form wire-guided bus, as was proposed in Merseyside and attempted for


15

Millennium Transit, is not now considered a credible technology for public

transport and has not been considered further. Whether guidance is included

within the trolleybus option would have limited influence on the performance

against objectives and constraints. Therefore it has not been considered as a

distinct option at this stage. However there is scope for the inclusion of guidance

technology within later design development if worthwhile.

Catenary-Free Electric Bus Options

3.14 A catenary-free electric bus is an emerging application of improved SuperCapacitor

or modern flywheel technology to trolleybus type vehicles to store energy, usually

in combination with a battery pack. The key advantage of these technologies is

that they can be ‘flash’ charged during passenger service, for example within a

typical stop occupation time, at a significantly faster rate than currently

commercially available battery packs

3.15 The flash charge would power a vehicle between consecutive charging points.

Overhead line equipment would not be required, but infrastructure would be

needed at each charging point. Although this technology is maturing in its

application to overhead line powered rail and bus vehicles (where, for example, it

has been shown to improve energy efficiency) current prototypes and technology

trials are based on a range of (mostly) proprietary energy transfer systems. At

present it is unknown whether the commercial production of suitable catenary-

free vehicles will commence within the NGT delivery timeframe, however on the

basis of the evidence available at this time it appears to be suitable for application

on the NGT corridors and has been considered further in this report.

3.16 Bus vehicles with battery packs charged while out of passenger service are

considered within the following section of this report.

Externally Powered Bus Based Option Summary

3.17 The following externally powered options are sufficiently credible to be considered

further in this review of technology options:

I Trolleybus (including kerb/optical/magnetic guidance sub-options)

I Catenary-free electric bus (including kerb/optical/magnetic guidance sub-

options)

3.18 The following options have been filtered out as being unsuitable for the context of

the NGT corridors:

I Road-based with rail guidance options (for example GLT and Translohr)

I Road-based with cable guidance

Conventional (On-board Powered) Bus Based Options

3.19 The second group of bus based options considered are based on vehicles which are

powered from on-board energy storage over the full length of operation (for

example without intermediate charging, for which see catenary-free electric bus

description above). A separate sub mode options study2 has examined the bus

vehicle options available in some detail and recommends the best current option

for different options. The choice of vehicle has limited influence on whether the

option is credible in the context of the NGT corridors and is therefore not


16

considered in this initial filtering. In a similar way to the trolleybus options (above)

different guidance technologies are not considered to represent distinct options;

however appropriate guidance infrastructure could be included at a later design

stage.

3.20 The sub mode options study concluded that the best current conventional (on-

board powered) bus based options were a 'plug-in' diesel hybrid bus as the sub

mode representing the comparable bus option and a 'standard' diesel hybrid bus as

a low cost bus option.

3.21 A 'plug-in' hybrid bus with top-up fast charging stations installed at each route

terminus has the capability to operate on electric power for distances of up to

7 km, enabling operation without any adverse on-street emissions in sensitive

areas. On other sections of route the vehicle would travel under conventional

diesel power. The availability of a diesel engine which can also recharge the

battery pack ensures that a level of charge can be maintained that will optimise

its life.

3.22 Plug-in hybrid buses, including an 18m articulated version, are expected to be in

full commercial production by late 2015. Although not yet a fully proven

technology, the technology risk presented by the use of a plug-in hybrid bus is

considered to be significantly lower than for a fuel cell hybrid bus or a catenary-

free electric bus and lower than for a pure battery electric bus. This is because

the driveline remains similar to the current generation of 'standard' hybrids but

with the addition of a larger battery pack and roof mounted pantograph charging

equipment based closely on existing and proven heavy rail technology.

3.23 A 'standard' hybrid bus has no capability to operate solely on electric power for any

significant distance, but offers fuel economy gains and therefore reduced CO2

emissions and local air quality benefits in comparison to a conventional diesel bus.

Diesel hybrid propulsion is now a mature technology with considerable market

traction. As a result the cost premium over diesel buses is falling and fuel economy

gains may in future provide a commercial payback. This sub mode thus provides a

credible low cost bus option that would make a limited but positive contribution

against the NGT scheme objectives.

3.24 Other sub modes considered were rejected on the following grounds:

I Fuel cell hybrid bus (powered by hydrogen) - an immature application of this

technology that remains uneconomic for commercial use, with a vehicle capital

cost of the order of two and a half times that of a comparable trolleybus for

limited additional benefit

I Gas bus (powered by biomethane from waste) - this option performs best in

terms of reducing the 'well to wheel' greenhouse gas emissions of the NGT

service but was rejected on the grounds of low energy efficiency and inability

to operate 'adverse emission free' over any part of the NGT corridors.

Electricity generation is a more energy efficient use of biomethane

I Battery electric bus - unsuitable for NGT due to the insufficient range and

capacity of the current generation of production vehicles and the performance

and technology risks involved in the use of currently unavailable battery

powered 18m articulated buses and fast charging technology


17

3.25 Conventional bus services currently run along the NGT corridors and therefore it

follows that a bus based option must be suitable for implementation on these

corridors and should be considered further.

Section Summary

3.26 This section has listed a broad range of public transport technology options and

filtered out options which, for various reasons, are unsuitable for implementation

on the NGT corridors. The following five technology options were identified as

being suitable in the context of the NGT corridors, taking into account physical

opportunities/constraints as well as potential service/ capacity requirements:

I Light Rail Transit (LRT or tram)


I Trolleybus

I Catenary-Free Electric Bus

I Conventional Bus

3.27 Within the following section a comparable specification is set out for each of these

options, and for a low cost option (also based on conventional bus technology).

Later sections of this report consider the fit of these options with the scheme

objectives and delivery constraints presented earlier in this report.


19

4 Option Specification

Introduction

4.1 This section sets out a broad technology-independent required system outputs

specification, based on the scheme objectives which set out the Promoters’

aspired scheme outcomes. Based on this, a broadly comparable specification is set

out for each of the technology options which were identified in the previous

filtering section as being suitable for implementation on the north and south NGT

corridors.

Required System Outputs Specification

4.2 Based on the scheme objectives, which are defined in terms of outcomes, a broad

specification of the outputs required from public transport intervention on the

northern and southern NGT corridors has been developed and is set out below. This

specification has been used to ensure that outputs from all technology options

considered are consistent and comparable, for example specified to deliver a

similar increase in passenger capacity per hour through an appropriate

combination of vehicle capacity and frequency.

Investment in public transport on the A660 and A61/M621 radial corridors into

Leeds city centre must:

I enhance the PT service offer with improved: peak and interpeak travel times;

consistency of frequency (punctuality); reliability; journey quality; and

perceived passenger value for money without materially worsening the level of

congestion affecting on other vehicles on the highway

In response to public consultation findings and to achieve the fourth scheme

objective, which is represented as conventional public sector ‘Value for Money’

I increase passenger capacity along the corridors where worthwhile with

punctual, more comfortable public transport journeys

To achieve the first and second scheme objectives in terms of maximising the

potential of the local economy and supporting the sustainable growth of Leeds

city centre

I improve public transport links between communities from Holt Park to Belle Isle

with jobs and services, and to the city centre

To achieve the third and seventh scheme objectives in terms of supporting

economic growth and contributing to enhanced quality of life

I support an increase in the energy efficiency of vehicles and reduction in

adverse emissions at point of use

I improve facilities for pedestrians and cyclists along the corridor improving

safety, reducing barriers to movement and supporting the promotion of active

modes

To achieve the fifth and sixth scheme objectives by reducing carbon emissions

and minimising the impacts of transport on health and quality of life


20

I provide sufficient capacity and attractive public transport journeys (journey

times, punctuality, journey quality) to make Park & Ride facilities at Stourton

and Bodington attractive to car users

To achieve the first and second scheme objectives in terms of increasing

person capacity into the city centre and responding to the pressures of growth

on the transport network

Trolleybus

4.3 Trolleybuses are rubber-tyred vehicles with motors powered from overhead lines.

They are an energy efficient transport option, quiet and smooth in operation and

zero-emission at the point of use. In comparison with conventional bus options,

trolleybus vehicles are cheaper to run, longer lasting, and require less

maintenance; they also offer better operational performance on gradients.

4.4 Modern trolleybuses are able to travel off wire using auxiliary power; the distance

that can be covered will depend on the specific vehicles which are offered at the

time of procurement of the scheme. The specification assumes that the full system

is wired and the auxiliary power source will be used for off-system movements

only.

4.5 Trolleybus vehicles are available in rigid, articulated and bi-articulated

configurations. On balance the Promoters have decided that the (single)

articulated version provides sufficient capacity and flexibility on the NGT

corridors. Articulated vehicles also have the advantage of being lower risk than the

more expensive but higher passenger capacity bi-articulated vehicles, including

because they do not exceed the current 18.75m UK legal length limit8 and would

therefore not require additional powers to operate.

4.6 The NGT proposal is for a trolleybus service from Holt Park (A660 Corridor, north

of Leeds) with Park & Ride at Bodington through the city centre to Stourton

(A61/M621 Corridor, south of Leeds). This proposal has developed over time,

through a process of design stages and reviews9. However development has been

influenced by the requirements of the scheme objectives at all stages.

4.7 From Holt Park a twelve minute headway weekday service would follow Holtdale

Approach and then Otley Old Road to Bodington, located just north east of the

junction of the A660 (Otley Road) with the A6120 (Outer Ring Road). From

Bodington the service would increase to a six minute headway following the A660

into Leeds.

4.8 Through Headingley an offline section behind the Arndale Centre would bypass

traffic congestion in the Headingley District Centre re-joining the A660 in the

vicinity of Richmond Road. A further southbound offline section is provided

between Rampart Road and Clarendon Road. The final approach to the city centre

follows Cookridge Street, passing through Millennium Square and then following

Park Row to City Square.

8 The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations (as amended) 1986

9 NGT Design Rationale, Mott MacDonald, January 2014


21

4.9 From City Square the route follows Boar Lane, Lower Briggate and then a new

alignment within the former Tetley Brewery site alongside Waterloo Street and

Bowman Lane. The route follows the line of Chadwick Street continuing beyond

Carlisle Road on a segregated alignment across an industrial estate towards

Hunslet Road.

4.10 The route continues southbound along Hunslet Road until turning onto Whitfield

Way then crossing Whitfield Square on a segregated alignment crossing Whitfield

Avenue to reach Church Street. Following Church Street the route follows Balm

Road until passing beneath the M621 and then Belle Isle Road to Belle Isle Circus.

The Stourton Park & Ride site is accessed from here by means of Winrose Grove.

Catenary-Free Electric Bus

4.11 A catenary-free electric bus option would have the same high level of segregation

and priority at junctions at the same level of frequency as the trolleybus option

described above. There is currently no known catenary-free system in passenger

service, however based on what is known from promotional information and trial

operations, for example in Shanghai, the service characteristics and ride

experience would be very similar to a standard trolleybus. Such an option would

therefore deliver the same significant improvement in journey time and reliability

to existing bus services on the NGT corridors.

4.12 The service pattern of the catenary-free electric bus option would be the same as

the trolleybus option above, with a twelve minute headway from Holt Park

Stourton strengthened by additional services from Bodington to Stourton to result

in a six minute headway service for the majority of the route.

4.13 The catenary-free electric bus option would use 18m articulated vehicles with

similar dimensions and capacity to the preferred vehicle configuration for the

trolleybus option. These vehicles are fitted with SuperCapacitors, battery pack and

charging equipment. They have the capability to operate for around 1,500m from

an approximately 30 second charge.

4.14 Flash charging facilities would be installed at all stops and termini. Additional

charging points are expected to be required; the average distance between stops

is slightly more than 500m and charge facilities may also be required to

accommodate sections on significant gradient and/or any sections close to the

limit which could be subject to operational delay.

4.15 A catenary-free electric bus option is expected to be broadly of the same order of

cost as standard trolleybus. Although it would not require the cost of the overhead

line equipment, vehicles are significantly more expensive than standard

trolleybuses and there would be significant cost associated with installing charging

facilities along the route. In assessing this option it is assumed that the technology

could deliver similar scheme outputs, within a comparable timeframe, for a cost

broadly similar to trolleybus.

Light Rail Transit

4.16 Leeds’ original aspiration was for a modern tram system, or Light Rail Transit

(LRT), similar in concept to examples in Sheffield and Nottingham. LRT represents


22

an attractive transport solution proven in both the UK context and in its ability to

attract car users away from their private vehicles.

4.17 LRT is based on steel wheeled electric vehicles operating on rails and powered

from overhead lines. The technology is capable of operating both on street within

or adjacent to traffic and fully segregated from the highway.

4.18 The passenger capacity of a typical Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) is greater than

trolleybuses and they are disproportionately more expensive. To provide the

required passenger capacity, a LRT service would therefore operate at a higher

headway than the proposed trolleybus option, for example ten minutes rather than

six. This would reduce the number of LRVs that would need to be purchased.

4.19 For the purposes of this comparison it has been assumed that an LRT option would

extend to Holt Park (consistent with the trolleybus, but further than the promoted

tram option which was proposed to terminate at Bodington), however it is

expected that the value for money argument for the lower passenger flow section

from Bodington to Holt Park would not be as compelling as the trolleybus option

(which includes relatively little highway infrastructure change and therefore cost

over this length; in comparison to the LRT option which would require track).

4.20 Along the north line, the general route followed would be the same as trolleybus,

following Holtdale approach and Otley Old Road to a Park & Ride site at Bodington

and then A660/Otley Road as far as Headingley. Through Headingley the same

offline section would bypass the district centre. Along the corridor the maximum

level of segregation and/or priority over other highway vehicles will be given,

taking into account the characteristics of the system, for example the different

relationship between LRVs, lines and stops. It is considered unlikely that this could

deliver significantly greater journey time savings than would be achieved with the

trolleybus option given the space and capacity constraints. From the A660 the LRT

option considered would follow the same route along Cookridge Street, passing

through Millennium Square and then following Park Row to City Square.

4.21 For the section of the south line starting from the city centre the general route

followed would also be the same as trolleybus, follows Boar Lane, Lower Briggate

and then a new alignment within the former Tetley Brewery site alongside

Waterloo Street and Bowman Lane. The route follows the line of Chadwick Street

continuing beyond Carlisle Road on a segregated alignment across an industrial

estate towards Hunslet Road. The route continues southbound along Hunslet Road

until turning onto Whitfield Way then crossing Whitfield Square on a segregated

alignment crossing Whitfield Avenue to reach Church Street then Balm Road up to

the railway bridge.

4.22 From this point the route would diverge from the trolleybus option and follow the

railway alignment to access the Park & Ride site at Stourton from the north-east

adjacent to junction 7 of the M621. The trolleybus option previously followed this

route and was realigned; however the gradient on Winrose Grove, followed to

access the Park & Ride site from the west on the new alignment, is too steep for

LRVs and therefore is not an option for LRT.


23

4.23 However, the choice between Belle Isle, railway and Hunslet Road is not expected

to make a material difference to the comparison between tram and trolleybus

options at the high level possible within this report.

4.24 LRT infrastructure is considerably more expensive than trolleybus; in addition to

LRVs being materially more expensive (even though fewer would be purchased, see

paragraph 4.18), the track costs, including increased requirement to relocate

statutory undertakers’ equipment, add a significant amount to the project cost.

LRT offers less resilience to incidents (eg maintenance or road works) than

trolleybus which can get round minor obstructions (on-wire) or divert off-wire in

more extreme circumstances. However, LRT is considered to be more attractive to

existing public transport users and car users than any other technology option and

so would generate greater benefits overall.

Ultra-Light Rail Transit

4.25 Ultra-Light Rail Transit (ULRT) or Lightweight tram is a proposed innovative lower

cost alternative to conventional LRT. The proponents of ULRT suggest that, in

comparison with LRT, cost savings would result from ULRT requiring a shallower

track construction for the lighter weight vehicles. Vehicles would have on-board

energy storage rather than being powered from overhead lines.

4.26 To date ULRT has been demonstrated on short sections of segregated track: in the

UK in Bristol Docks, on the Stourbridge railway branch line and on Southport pier.

Outside the UK a ULRT vehicle operates at Al Hoota Caves, Oman. All of these

services have run on existing tracks with a single vehicle in operation.

4.27 The current self-powered vehicle options include some form of internal

combustion generator running on clean diesel, compressed natural gas or bio-

methane. Methane (natural gas) burns cleaner than diesel and switching to bio-

methane offers a carbon neutral approach.

4.28 The upper end of the vehicle passenger capacity range that has been proposed

previously for ULRT exceeds typical trolleybus vehicle capacities but is lower than

can be achieved with tram (although, like tram, ULRT vehicles can be coupled

together). Analysis undertaken during the development of NGT shows that service

frequency has more influence on the case for the scheme than capacity and

therefore it has been assumed that a ULRT alternative would operate at the same

service frequency as trolleybus. At the level of detail possible within this

assessment it is concluded that the operating costs of ULRT would be of the same

order of magnitude as trolleybus.

4.29 An equivalent ULRT option is assumed to follow the same alignment as the LRT

option described above. In assessing this option it is assumed that the proponent’s

assertion that the technology could deliver similar scheme outputs for a cost

similar to or less than trolleybus is validated.

Comparable Bus Option

4.30 A comparable bus option would have the same high level of segregation and

priority at junctions at the same level of frequency as the trolleybus option

described above. Bus-based systems have been proven across the UK and the


24

world; a comparable bus option would deliver a significant improvement in journey

time and reliability to existing bus services on the NGT corridors.

4.31 The service pattern of the comparable bus option would be the same as the

trolleybus option above, with a twelve minute headway from Holt Park Stourton

strengthened by additional services from Bodington to Stourton to result in a six

minute headway service for the majority of the route.

4.32 The vehicle recommended for the comparable bus option is an 18m articulated

‘plug-in’ hybrid buses with similar dimensions and capacity to the trolleybus

option. These vehicles are fitted with a diesel engine, battery pack and roof

mounted pantograph charging equipment. They have the capability to operate on

electric power for distances of up to 7 km between charges, and is therefore

conservatively assumed to be capable of operating for around half of the length of

the NGT route. A single decker 12m rigid plug-in hybrid vehicle is currently on trial

in Gothenburg; however the manufacturer indicates that an 18m articulated

version is planned to be in full commercial production by late 2015.

4.33 Top-up charging stations would be installed at the Holt Park, Bodington and

Stourton termini to enable the vehicle battery pack to be charged during an

extended layover time, thus maximising the potential of the vehicle to operate

over parts of the NGT corridors without adverse on-street emissions and helping to

optimise battery life.

4.34 A comparable bus option is expected to be somewhat cheaper than trolleybus,

primarily because of it not requiring the cost of the overhead line equipment,

however additional vehicles are anticipated because of increased layover times (to

accommodate charging). For those sections in fully electric operation (around half

of the route) the ride experience and vehicle emissions would be very similar to

trolleybus. However, for the other half of the route, the vehicle would operate as

under diesel power, with passenger perceptions of the vehicle ‘ride experience’

being adversely affected by engine noise, heat and vibration. For these sections

the vehicle emissions would also be those of a diesel bus vehicle, however it is

assumed that the service would be configured to run in electric mode over the

most environmentally sensitive sections of the route.

Low Cost Bus Option

4.35 A low cost bus option would deliver improvements in bus priority along the NGT

corridors, the focus being locations with the highest passenger flows and or the

highest delays. This option would not include delivery of the segregated sections

included within the options above, however comparable bus quality corridor

improvements in Leeds and elsewhere have delivered material improvements in

journey times and reliability. The option includes Park & Ride provision at

Bodington and Stourton, although on a scale reduced from the high-investment

options detailed above.

4.36 On the northern line of route, there is a high frequency of existing commercial bus

services that would benefit from the improvements and no consequent change in

these is expected. However there is currently no service which connects the north

and south NGT corridors or which serves the proposed Stourton Park & Ride site.


25

Therefore the Promoters would tender a dedicated Park & Ride service from

Stourton to the city centre.

4.37 The low cost bus option would use 18m articulated ‘standard’ hybrid buses on the

dedicated Park & Ride service from Stourton to the city centre. These buses have

similar dimensions and capacity to the preferred vehicle configurations for the

trolleybus and comparable bus options.

4.38 A low cost bus option would be significantly cheaper than the other options

considered. The approach of targeting individual improvements where they would

deliver most benefit has the further benefit that an option could be developed to

match the funding available, including opportunities to phase the implementation

over the years within the funding cycle. Hybrid technology has been proven to

increase the fuel efficiency (and therefore reduce emissions) of vehicles, including

by the engine automatically cutting out at stops or slow speed. However for the

majority of its length passengers’ perception and ride experience of the vehicle

will be very similar to a standard diesel bus vehicle, as is the case for the current

hybrid bus vehicles operating in Leeds.

Section Summary

4.39 This section set out the required scheme specification used in the development of

options being considered. The aim of this specification, which is based on the

scheme objectives, is to ensure that all options are appropriately consistent and

comparable and therefore that the review of alternatives is undertaken on a

robust basis.

4.40 Following this the section set out broad specifications for trolleybus, catenary-free

electric bus, LRT, ULRT and bus options. The next section of this review considers

the performance of these options against the scheme objectives. Section 6 sets out

the performance of these options against the delivery constraints.


27

5 Options Assessment Against Objectives

Introduction

5.1 This section sets out an assessment of the identified options against the scheme

objectives. Five technology options were identified within Section 3 of this report

as being suitable for implementation on the NGT corridors. Options based on these

technologies (including comparable and low cost conventional bus variants) were

specified in Section 4 to meet the Required System Specification also set out in

that section.

5.2 The scheme objectives have been grouped as in Section 2, by the higher level LTP

Objectives. The text in italics was developed alongside the objectives with the

intention of giving guidance on how quantitative and qualitative measures can be

used to help assess the degree to which options meet the scheme objectives. It is

the qualitative measures which are used in this section; the quantitative measures

are used in the later assessment through the full modelling and appraisal

framework of the Preferred Option, Next Best Alternative and Low Cost Alternative

identified by this report and presented in the updated scheme business case.

LTP Objective - Economy:

1. Maximise growth of the Leeds economy by enhancing its competitive

position and facilitating future employment and population growth

In quantitative terms this means maximising the Net Present Value of the

proposal – as conventional benefits form part of Objective 4, the focus here is

on Wider Impacts. It also recognises the population/household growth

pressures. In qualitative terms it is about ‘quality of life’ and ‘putting Leeds

on the map’

5.3 Table 5.1 summarises the qualitative performance of each of the options against

this first objective. The greatest contribution against this objective will be

delivered by alternatives which deliver a visible and perceptible improvement in

public transport provision on the NGT corridors.

TABLE 5.1 OBJECTIVE ONE: MAXIMISE LEEDS’ GROWTH

Option Assessment Commentary

Light Rail Transit +++ LRT is a high status high visibility option

proven in the UK context as an attractive

alternative to car use

Ultra-Light Rail Transit +++ While ULRT would also be a high visibility

option it is an unproven technology

Trolleybus +++

The promoted option would be the first UK

implementation of a modern trolleybus

system with a visual identity distinct from

existing bus services reinforcing

perceptions of permanence and legibility


28


Catenary-Free Electric Bus +++ This option would be among the first full

operational implementations of an new

technology option, visually distinct from

conventional bus

Comparable Bus +++

Although the comparable bus option would

not be as visually distinct from existing bus

services it would be an early application of

an emerging technology solution and has

strong potential to influence population

patterns and improve quality of life

Low Cost Bus +

The low cost bus option has the potential

to influence population patterns to a

degree but as an improvement to existing

bus services rather than representing a

step change in transport provision

5.4 In terms of a qualitative assessment against first scheme objectives the differences

between the five high-investment options are not sufficiently marked to justify a

difference in assessment between them. The scale of impact of the low cost bus

option would be substantially less than the other options.

2. Support and facilitate the sustainable growth of Leeds, recognising the

importance of its city centre to the future economy of the Leeds City Region

This is about increasing person capacity into the city centre especially during

peak periods, recognising the constraints on road capacity, car parking capacity

and without further investment, rail capacity. This captures the spatial

dimension of where we want growth to happen


this second objective. Allocating priority to public transport vehicles increases

person capacity as each vehicle can carry passengers equivalent to many cars.

Increasing the capacity available for public transport requires a combination of

improved infrastructure and a reduction in highway demand, the latter through

private car users choosing to use public transport instead. Allocating more priority

to public transport will otherwise increase congestion on the corridors, in turn

decreasing person capacity because of associated delays to both public and private

transport.


29

TABLE 5.2 OBJECTIVE TWO: SUPPORT ECONOMIC GROWTH


Light Rail Transit +++

Although LRT has the potential to deliver

the highest level of increase in person

capacity, current and forecast demand

flows on the NGT corridors require only a

relatively low frequency service and

therefore cannot be expected to deliver to

the technology’s full potential

Ultra-Light Rail Transit +++

According to its proponents ULRT could be

delivered in similar capacity units to LRT –

however the capacity of demonstration

vehicles in the UK has been closer to single

decker buses

Trolleybus +++

Similar to the rail transit options above a

trolleybus system would supplement

existing bus services and increase the

passenger capacity on the corridors. A

trolleybus system would deliver the

capacity required on the corridors at a

higher frequency than an LRT option

Catenary-Free Electric Bus +++

Consistent with the trolleybus option

above a catenary-free electric bus system

would supplement existing bus services

and increase the passenger capacity on the

corridors at a higher frequency than an

LRT option

Comparable Bus ++

Market research with potential users has

shown that an option not perceived as

distinct from conventional bus would

attract fewer passengers out of their cars

than the above options and therefore

would not offset the capacity reallocation

to public transport resulting in more

congestion. It would therefore not increase

overall person capacity on the corridors to

the same extent

Low Cost Bus +

The low cost bus option would only

introduce additional passenger capacity on

the south line with the introduction of a

dedicated Park & Ride service. The on-line

nature of this route will limit the overall

increase in person capacity which can be

delivered on the corridors

5.6 Considered in qualitative terms against the second objective the options perceived

by the public as being distinct from conventional buses, which market research

and evidence from other schemes suggest would be more attractive to car users,

show the highest performance. Research suggests that the comparable bus option


30

would not attract as many travellers out of their cars; this reduces the level of

vehicle capacity which can be allocated to the bus service and therefore limits the

increase in person capacity which can be delivered. The low cost bus option is

similarly limited but also does not include the segregated sections of infrastructure

which allow public transport priority and therefore has a more limited impact on

existing traffic.

3. Support and facilitate targeted regeneration initiatives and economic growth

in the more deprived areas of Leeds

This is about improving the links between the more deprived areas of Leeds

and employment/education opportunities, as well as explicitly supporting the

delivery of other policy initiatives. This too has a spatial dimension, but it is

more about the beneficiaries of growth


this third objective. The NGT corridors link some of the more deprived areas of

Leeds, including Belle Isle and Holt Park, with opportunities and services within

the city centre, other district centres and at key education establishments and

health centres.

TABLE 5.3 OBJECTIVE THREE: SUPPORT REGENERATION


Light Rail Transit +++ LRT has been proven to support and

attract regeneration in the UK context

Ultra-Light Rail Transit +++ It can be expected that ULRT would

support regeneration in much the same

way as LRT

Trolleybus +++ It can be expected that trolleybus would

support regeneration in much the same

way as LRT

Catenary-Free Electric Bus +++ It can be expected that catenary-free

electric bus would support regeneration in

much the same way as LRT

Comparable Bus +++ High quality bus rapid transit systems have

been proven to support and attract

regeneration

Low Cost Bus + Improving existing bus journey times and

reliability can be expected to support

regeneration

5.8 In qualitative terms each of the five high-investment options are expected to

provide a high level of support regeneration along the corridors. The scale of

impact of the low cost bus option would be substantially less than the other

options.


31

4. Improve the efficiency of the city's public transport and road networks

This is the conventional DfT Value for Money case measured as the quantity of

user benefits (journey time, quality, but also reliability, option value etc) and

non-user benefits (impact on congestion). ‘Improve’ should be taken as relative

to the Do-Minimum scenario rather than now


the fourth objective. Effectiveness is the measure of the scale of the overall

benefits delivered by a scheme.

TABLE 5.4 OBJECTIVE FOUR: IMPROVE EFFECTIVENESS


Light Rail Transit +++ LRT technology has the potential to deliver

the highest level of user and non-user

benefits

Ultra-Light Rail Transit +++ The proponents of ULRT suggest it could

deliver a high proportion of the benefits of

LRT

Trolleybus +++

Trolleybus technology has the potential to

deliver overall benefits to a similar scale

as LRT on the NGT corridors at a higher

service frequency and therefore with

shorter passenger wait times

Catenary-Free Electric Bus +++ Catenary-free electric bus technology has

the potential to deliver overall benefits of

the same scale as standard trolleybus

Comparable Bus ++ That purely bus based options have been

shown to attract less new public transport

demand than the above options would

limit the benefit that could be delivered

Low Cost Bus + The low cost bus option would deliver

materially less economic benefit than the

above options

5.10 Considered in qualitative terms against this fourth scheme objective, LRT has the

potential to deliver the highest overall level of benefits, however on the NGT

corridors the proportion to which this could exceed ULRT and the trolleybus

alternatives is limited. The overall level of benefits that the comparable bus

option could deliver on the NGT corridors is lower than the other high-investment

options, particularly in terms of the impact on highway congestion.

5.11 The scale of benefit delivered by the low cost bus option would be significantly

less than for the other options. Therefore, although technically it could be an

effective option in its own right, it would make a lesser contribution to improving

the effectiveness of the City’s public transport and road networks.


32

LTP Objective - Low Carbon:

5. Reduce transport's emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases

This objective captures the global environmental impacts of the project in

comparison to the Do-Minimum scenario


the fifth objective. Greenhouse gas emissions are considered from ‘well to wheel’

for the public transport service but also in terms of the net impact on greenhouse

gases from other highway traffic.

TABLE 5.5 OBJECTIVE FIVE: REDUCE GREENHOUSE GASES


Light Rail Transit +

Systems using vehicles externally

electrically powered, such as LRT, are

typically highly energy efficient and

therefore result in lower greenhouse gas

emissions

Ultra-Light Rail Transit +

Although ULRT ‘steel wheel on steel rail’ is

energy efficient, vehicles would be

powered from on-board energy

storage/conversion adding weight to the

vehicles and depending on the individual

engine efficiency rather than central

generation. Creating and utilising a new

fuel supply chain (of any nature) would

result in further greenhouse gas emissions

to an extent offsetting the greenhouse gas

emission reduction if biomethane

propulsion were adopted

Trolleybus +

Systems using vehicles externally

electrically powered, such as trolleybus,

are typically highly energy efficient and

therefore result in lower greenhouse gas

emissions

Catenary-Free Electric Bus + Catenary-free electric bus is expected to

have broadly the same level of energy

efficiency as the standard trolleybus

option


33


Comparable Bus +

Trial operations of the specified plug-in

hybrid bus vehicle have demonstrated a

level of energy efficiency significantly

better than standard hybrid bus vehicles in

UK operation. However vehicles are

expected to run under diesel power for

around half of their distance in passenger

service because of the length of the NGT

route. Therefore this option will be less

energy efficient than either trolleybus

alternative.

Low Cost Bus =

More energy efficient hybrid bus vehicles

are becoming more common, however they

remain commercially attractive only where

grant funding is available. In comparison to

the ‘do minimum’ option - where more

efficient vehicles will also be adopted –

any benefit will be modest

5.13 In qualitative terms against this sixth objective it is the purely electrically

powered technologies from the shortlist considered, which are both energy

efficient and use existing power supply networks, which have the greatest

potential to contribute to an overall reduction in greenhouse gases. Although

biomethane propulsion could represent a carbon neutral approach, a supply

network would be required (with associated greenhouse gas emissions) and the net

impact over the potential for using equivalent renewable fuel sources in future

electricity generation would be negligible.

5.14 Taking into account all aspects of construction, energy supply, vehicle efficiency

and potential for bus network rationalisation, all of the options considered are not

expected to be significant in terms of their impact on greenhouse gases.

LTP Objective - Quality of Life:

6. Promote quality of life through a safe and healthy built and natural

environment

The impacts on the local environment incorporate townscape, local air quality,

noise, safety etc. This objective captures making best use of existing assets.

Again the comparison is against the Do-Minimum scenario


the sixth objective. The environmental aspects mainly relate to the infrastructure

associated with the option considered (for example townscape), with some

secondary impacts (for example for air quality and noise) resulting from the net

effect on the highway network. The impact on safety is dominated by accidents, in

particular highway accidents – in appraisal terms a function of the change in

highway distance travelled and therefore correlate with mode shift.


34

TABLE 5.6 OBJECTIVE SIX: SAFE & HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT


Light Rail Transit ++

The environmental benefits of LRT,

including mode shift from a proven

attractive alternative to private car use,

are offset by the townscape disbenefit of

the infrastructure – including the

associated overhead line equipment

Ultra-Light Rail Transit ++

Although ULRT would not have the

townscape disbenefit of overhead line

equipment the on-board powered vehicles

would result in air quality and noise

emissions along the route. ULRT would

have the same environmental impacts of

highway widening and introducing

segregated sections as LRT

Trolleybus ++

The environmental impact of the

trolleybus option would be similar in

nature to LRT, with the benefits of

quiet/local air quality emission free

vehicles offset by the townscape impacts

of the overhead line equipment

Catenary-Free Electric Bus ++

Although catenary-free electric bus would

not have the townscape disbenefit of

overhead line equipment it would have the

same environmental impacts of highway

widening and introducing segregated

sections as trolleybus

Comparable Bus +

The direct impacts of the comparable bus

option would generally be similar to

trolleybus. However vehicles would be

operating under diesel power for around

half of the length of the route resulting in

air quality/noise emissions. They would

therefore be perceived by travellers as

being little different to existing bus over

these sections and would attract less new

public transport demand than the above

options.

Low Cost Bus =

The environmental and safety impacts of

the low cost bus option would be modest

and are not considered to be material in

terms of an overall improvement in quality

of life

5.16 For different reasons the non-bus options are qualitatively assessed as making the

strongest contribution to enhancing the built and natural environment. The lower

vehicle emissions of LRT and trolleybus alternatives are balanced against the ULRT

and comparable bus options which do not have the townscape impact of overhead


35

line equipment. All five high-investment options follow broadly the same

alignment, require removal of the same trees and other environmental impacts,

and therefore incur the same resulting disbenefit.

5.17 The bus options would attract less mode shift from private car use and therefore

have a more limited effect in reducing the adverse emissions of highway traffic/

congestion. In particular the impact of the low cost bus option would be modest to

the extent that it could not be considered to make a material contribution against

this objective.

7. Contribute to enhanced quality of life by improving access for all to jobs and

services

Key services include but are not limited to hospitals, tertiary education

(Universities, Leeds City College) and the railway station (access to national

networks). ‘Improving’ should be taken as relative to the Do-Minimum scenario

rather than now


the seventh and final objective. Improving public transport along the NGT

corridors and across the city centre is considered to improve accessibility between

communities and services by reducing travel times and removing barriers to

movement.

TABLE 5.7 OBJECTIVE SEVEN: IMPROVE ACCESSIBILITY


Light Rail Transit +++ LRT would provide a high quality and fully

accessible additional public transport

connection along the NGT corridors

Ultra-Light Rail Transit +++ The accessibility impact of a ULRT option

would be very similar to LRT, although

potentially running at a higher service

frequency (depending on vehicle capacity)

Trolleybus +++ The accessibility impact of the trolleybus

option would be very similar to LRT,

although running at a higher service

frequency

Catenary-Free Electric Bus +++ The accessibility impact of the catenary-

free electric bus option would be the same

as standard trolleybus

Comparable Bus +++ The accessibility impact of a comparable

bus option would be the same as the

trolleybus alternatives


36


Low Cost Bus +

The accessibility impact of a low cost bus

option would be considerably less than any

of the high-investment options, with

limited impact on journey times and

reliability as segregated sections of the

alignment are not included. Being limited

to an improvement to existing bus routes

north of the university there would be no

expected overall increase in service

frequency on this section and there would

be no cross-city connection between the

north and south corridors

5.19 The options which overlay a new cross-city public transport service onto the NGT

corridors would have the greatest accessibility impact. The low cost bus option

would have a slight positive accessibility impact on the north line and as a new

Park & Ride service on the south line. However it provides no cross-city connection

or frequency enhancement.

Section Summary

5.20 This section set out the qualitative assessment of the identified options against the

objectives developed for the scheme. In general terms the high-investment options

meet the objectives for the scheme with reasonable consistency:

I The Light Rail Transit option performs well against the scheme objectives.

However the extent to which it could deliver its full potential of economic

benefits is limited on the relatively capacity and space constrained NGT

corridors. In addition, to deliver the passenger capacity required on the

corridors LRT would operate at a lower service frequency than the other

options therefore resulting in longer passenger wait times

I The Ultra-Light Rail Transit option performs reasonably well against the scheme

objectives and would run at a higher frequency than the LRT option. However

vehicles would be propelled by on-board power generation and therefore not be

adverse emission free at point of use

I The trolleybus option also performs well against the scheme objectives.

Although there are adverse townscape impacts associated with the overhead

line equipment for this option from a wider perspective it is considered to

reinforce the distinct visual identity and increase perceptions of the

permanence and legibility of the scheme

I The catenary-free electric bus would have the same environmental impacts of

highway widening and introducing segregated sections as trolleybus. Although

absence of the overhead line equipment to an extent reduces the overall

townscape impact there would also be a lessoning of the visual identity of the

scheme and reduced perceptions of permanence and legibility

I The comparable bus option performs reasonably well against the scheme

objectives, but would not be as visually distinct from existing buses as the rail

and trolleybus options above and would therefore attract less new public


37

transport demand. Therefore it is assessed as having a lesser impact on the

objectives to maximise Leeds’ growth, support economic growth and improve

effectiveness. For around half of the length of route the option would operate

under diesel power, with air quality emissions along these sections of route and

passenger perceptions of the vehicle ‘ride experience’ being adversely affected

by engine noise, heat and vibration.

5.21 The low cost bus option would be more modest in impact and therefore would

make a lower contribution against the majority of the objectives. However an

improved bus system could still offer a good performance against the objectives

for less capital investment than other options

5.22 The rail and trolleybus options offer the overall best performance when considered

across the scheme objectives. However the assessment shows that the options

considered would all deliver the objectives to a degree. The next section of this

review considers the performance of the identified options against the identified

delivery constraints.


39

6 Options Assessment Against Delivery Constraints

Introduction

6.1 This section sets out an assessment of the identified options against the

constraints which affect delivery of any option. The same six options considered

against the scheme objectives are assessed. A key difference in this assessment

against delivery constraints is that any option failing to meet a constraint is

excluded from further consideration.

Affordability

The Promoters must be able to fund the scheme capital costs from its own or

third party sources

6.2 Table 6.1 summarises the performance of each option against the affordability

delivery constraint. Affordability limits are effectively set by DfT’s NGT 2012

Programme Entry approval – to a combined Central Government grant/local

contribution of £250.6 million. As set out in paragraph 1.7 of this report and in

Appendix A there has been a change in the way that Government supports capital

investment in locally-promoted major schemes. The result is that there is now no

way to apply for additional Central Government funding, even if a more expensive

scheme could be proven to represent higher value for money.

TABLE 6.1 AFFORDABILITY DELIVERY CONSTRAINT


Light Rail Transit An LRT option meeting the required system

specification would cost materially more

than the funding currently available

Ultra-Light Rail Transit ++

Assuming that proponent’s assertions of

the cost of ULRT technology can be

validated a ULRT option which meets the

required system specification would be

affordable

Trolleybus ++ DfT Programme Entry funding approval and

associated commitments to local funding

demonstrate that the trolleybus option is

affordable

Catenary-Free Electric Bus +

The costs of a catenary-free option are

expected to be broadly comparable to

standard trolleybus, with early indications

being that the additional cost of vehicles

and charging infrastructure would exceed

the savings from removing the need for

overhead line equipment. There is,

however, no established funding route for

this option.


40


Comparable Bus +

The costs of a comparable bus option are

expected to be broadly comparable to

trolleybus. Such an option would not

include the costs of overhead line

equipment but would require additional

vehicles. Therefore this option is

considered in principle to be affordable.

There is, however, no established funding

route for this option.

Low Cost Bus ++

The low cost bus option would be subject

to a different affordability constraint,

given that DfT funding would not be

available and it would therefore be

entirely locally funded. It is anticipated

that a low cost bus option could be

delivered for less than an indicative £50

million locally sourced budget (see

Appendix A). A scheme developed within

this budget is considered to be affordable

and while there is no established funding

route for this option, its lower cost means

that there is greater chance that one could

be developed.

6.3 In terms of this constraint it is clear that the more expensive Light Rail Transit

option would not be affordable and therefore cannot be considered to be a

reasonable alternative. It is therefore not considered any further in this report.

The remaining options pass the affordability constraint and are therefore

considered further in this section.

Deliverability

The proven level of public and political support for alternatives also influences

the level of delivery risk

DfT funding is time constrained and therefore any differences in the delivery

programme and risks associated with delivery to that programme must be taken

into account

6.4 Table 6.2 summarises the performance of the remaining options against the

deliverability constraint. Critical to this assessment is the level of delivery risk

associated with each of the options – particularly where such risk could result in

delays which mean that funding approved for specific years cannot be drawn down

and it therefore lost to the Promoters.


41

TABLE 6.2 DELIVERABILITY DELIVERY CONSTRAINT


Ultra-Light Rail Transit

Delivery of a ULRT option has not been

proven at the scale of NGT. Therefore the

implementation risk of this option cannot

be accepted by the Promoters. In addition,

the restricted (and closely connected)

suppliers of this technology limit the

ability for a ULRT system to be

competitively procured (regardless of

whether the technology can be delivered

at all or at the costs the proponents

assert)

Trolleybus ++

Modern trolleybus systems have been and

continue to be implemented in many

locations around the world and the

Promoters have reasonable confidence

that this technology can be delivered

within time and budget constraints.

Powers to deliver a trolleybus system can

be obtained through a single application

under the Transport and Works Act

Catenary-Free Electric Bus

Delivery of a catenary-free electric bus

option has not been proven at the scale of

NGT. Although the technology is evolving

rapidly it is by no means certain whether a

dependable, appropriate and affordable

solution will be available within the

funding timeframe of this study. Therefore

the implementation risk of this option

cannot be accepted by the Promoters.

Comparable Bus +

For a comparable bus option the powers to

implement the segregated sections of

alignment, to obtain compulsory purchase

powers, traffic regulation orders and

development consents would require

multiple applications. Each application

would be considered in its own right rather

than as a system – increasing the level of

delivery risk associated with such an

option. However this option would not

have the adverse impacts of overhead line

equipment

Low Cost Bus ++

Although subject to similar deliverability

constraints as the comparable bus option

the considerable reduced extent of this

option reduces the level of risk associated

with it


42

6.5 In terms of this constraint the ULRT and catenary-free electric bus options, which

are both unproven at this scale of investment, represent an unacceptable level of

risk including that funding is lost or for other reasons delivery of the project

becomes unaffordable because of delay and inflation and/or is never completed.

This is obviously not acceptable to the Promoters and/or funders; therefore

neither option can be considered to be a reasonable alternative to delivering the

required outcomes in this environment and are therefore not considered any

further in this report. The remaining options pass the deliverability constraint and

are therefore considered further in this section.

Potential for System Expansion

No unreasonable barrier to extending the scope of the system in the future, for

example aiming to avoid proprietary technology which could limit competitive

procurement of vehicles/infrastructure in the future

6.6 Table 6.3 summarises the performance of the remaining options against the system

expansion delivery constraint. None of the three options considered against this

delivery constraint are dependent on proprietary technology (unlike the ULRT and

catenary-free electric bus options which have previously been excluded from

consideration) and therefore attention is focused on competitive procurement of

vehicles and deliverability of future infrastructure (whether extensions to existing

corridors or wholly new corridors being upgraded to the same technology).

TABLE 6.3 SYSTEM EXPANSION DELIVERY CONSTRAINT


Trolleybus ++

Trolleybus vehicles are available from a

range of suppliers and are expected to be

available through competitive

procurement in the future. System

expansion would benefit from the same

advantages of obtaining legal powers

described under the deliverability

constraint

Comparable Bus ++

The comparable bus option would not be

dependent on any particular technology

and therefore additional vehicles will be

available through competitive

procurement in the future. However

system expansion would be constrained by

the disadvantages of obtaining legal

powers described under the deliverability

constraint

Low Cost Bus +++

Vehicles for the low cost bus option would

be commercially provided by the service

operators with no constraint on

procurement of additional buses in the

future. The limited scale of this option

presents relatively little constraint to

expanding implementation in the future


43

6.7 All three remaining options pass the system expansion delivery constraint and are

therefore considered further in this section.

Commercial Case

Procurement of the option must be achievable competitively in line with EU

regulations

Revenue received must exceed the operating costs. The extent to which the

resulting revenue surplus will support scheme funding/expansion is also important


commercial case delivery constraint. Of particular importance is the ability for the

Promoters to influence the attributes of the service and to use any revenue surplus

in support of the initial funding contribution and/or any future expansion.

Appendix B to this report sets out the applicability of various service delivery

options for these options. The infrastructure for all three of the options considered

against this delivery constraint could be procured in line with EU regulations.

TABLE 6.4 COMMERCIAL CASE DELIVERY CONSTRAINT


Trolleybus +++

For the trolleybus option both the

infrastructure and service could be

procured to the Promoters’ specification

and revenue surplus would be available to

the Promoters

Comparable Bus

(with VPA) +

The comparable bus option could be

delivered through a Voluntary Partnership

Agreement (VPA, potentially in

combination with a statutory quality

partnership, SQP). However, there is some

doubt over whether the necessary

partnership terms would meet the required

competition test. This delivery option

would give the Promoters limited control

over the revenue surplus, particularly over

the long term, although use payments

could potentially be introduced on

segregated sections of the route

Comparable Bus

(with QCS) ++

With a Quality Contract Scheme (QCS) in

place the service for a comparable bus

option could be competitively procured

and any revenue surplus could be secured

by the Promoters. However, it is not clear

whether a comparable bus option would

meet the statutory tests for the

introduction of a scheme specific QCS on

the north and south corridors.


44


Low Cost Bus +++

The low cost bus option is expected to

result in a lower level of net revenue

surplus. Delivery of this option is not

dependent on a capital contribution repaid

by future revenue surplus and therefore

this delivery constraint is less critical for

this option

6.9 The trolleybus and low cost bus options pass the commercial case delivery

constraint and are therefore considered further in this section. Competitive

procurement of a comparable bus option to the Promoters’ specification and with

the revenue surplus available to the Promoters is not achievable under the current

deregulated bus environment, without a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA)

between the Promoters and bus operators. VPAs have successfully been introduced

across the UK for a variety of schemes; however the partnership terms required

given the scale and nature of the comparable bus option would require significant

commitments to be made by incumbent bus operators and whether the necessary

agreement would pass the required competition test is uncertain.

6.10 A Quality Contract Scheme (QCS), a form of franchising, would also allow this

delivery constraint to be met for the comparable bus scheme. However, it is

uncertain that such a contract could be demonstrated to meet the statutory tests.

Outcomes Realisation

In terms of the level of influence which the Promoters would have in delivering

the outputs and outcomes of the project which contribute to its value for money


outcomes realisation delivery constraint. Outcomes realisation is about project

evaluation – demonstrating that the scheme appraisal prepared in support of

obtaining powers and funding was robust, that the project as implemented is value

for money, and identifying lessons learned for future projects. The influence of

the Promoters in delivering the service specification is therefore key in ensuring

that the expected passenger benefits, including journey times and wait times, are

delivered as planned.

TABLE 6.5 OUTCOMES REALISATION DELIVERY CONSTRAINT


Trolleybus ++ The ability to realise the required

outcomes from the project is affected by

the limited influence that Promoters have

over competition from other bus operators


45


Trolleybus

(with QCS) +++

Delivery of trolleybus within the context of

a Quality Contract Scheme would

additionally allow the Promoters a high

level of influence over the specification of

the supporting bus network, but there is

uncertainty that such a contract could be

successfully secured.

Comparable Bus

(with VPA) ++

Within the context of a Voluntary

Partnership Agreement the Promoters

could (depending on the agreed terms)

have an adequate level of over the

specification of the comparable bus option

services and the supporting network, but

only over the limited length the agreement

remains in force

Comparable Bus

(with QCS) +++

Delivery of the comparable bus option

through a Quality Contract Scheme would

allow the Promoters a high level of

influence the over the specification of the

comparable bus service and the supporting

bus network

Low Cost Bus ++

Although (without QCS) the Promoters

would have limited influence over

specification of the supporting bus network

this option is based on improvements to

existing services and this is unlikely to be a

critical issue. The lower level of capital

investment would not require the same

level of influence over delivering outcomes

and therefore this delivery constraint is

less critical for this option

6.12 All three remaining options pass the outcomes realisation constraint and are

therefore considered further in this section. For the comparable bus the key

disadvantage of the ‘with VPA’ option in comparison to the ‘with QCS’ option is

the additional certainty over the long term that the latter approach would bring. A

Quality Contract Scheme, if the proposals could be demonstrated to meet the

statutory tests would also offer advantages to the trolleybus option in terms of this

constraint, giving the Promoters influence over the supporting bus network and

significantly reducing the risk of harmful competition from other operators.

Value for Money

Irrespective of whether funding is provided by DfT or locally, any scheme needs to

provide the best value for money of all reasonable/relevant alternatives

6.13 Table 6.6 summarises the qualitative performance of each of the remaining

options against the Value for Money constraint. A comparison of which option

returns the highest, and therefore ‘best’ BCR requires completion of the full


46

quantified appraisal and therefore will be considered within the updated scheme

business case. However, much can be deduced in terms of the costs of delivery

and the relative benefits of each option.

TABLE 6.6 VALUE FOR MONEY DELIVERY CONSTRAINT


Trolleybus ++ The trolleybus has been demonstrated to

DfT’s satisfaction to have a compelling BCR

Comparable Bus ++

The cost of comparable bus option would

be broadly similar to trolleybus. That

purely bus based options have been shown

to attract less mode shift than the above

options would limit the proportion of the

benefit that could be delivered

contributing to a reasonable BCR if the

cost of delivery could be significantly less

than trolleybus

Low Cost Bus ++

The low cost bus option would deliver

materially less economic benefit than the

above options but for significantly less

cost. Therefore it has the potential to

return a reasonable BCR

6.14 In qualitative terms there is little between the majority of the options considered

which would justify differentiating by value for money. All three remaining options

pass the final constraint of value for money and are therefore considered

appropriate options to be taken forward for quantitative analysis.

Section Summary

6.15 This section set out the assessment of the identified options against the key

constraints which affect delivery of any option. Three of the options pass these

constraints and are recommended to be taken forward for quantitative analysis

through the full modelling and appraisal framework:

I Trolleybus option; noting the overhead line equipment has costs and impacts

which are not associated with the comparable bus option. It is also noted that

the ability to realise the required outcomes from the project is affected by the

limited influence available over competition from other bus operators (without

additional powers, for example a Quality Contract Scheme (QCS), delivered

through a separate legal mechanism and uncertain as to whether such an

application of would meet the statutory tests)

I Comparable bus option; noting that either of the mechanisms which would be

required for delivery of this option are subject to uncertainty. An adequate

Voluntary Partnership Agreement would require significant commitments to be

made by the operators and is unproven as to whether an agreement reflecting

the requirements for a scheme of this scale or nature could meet the required

competition test. The alternative of a scheme specific Quality Contract Scheme

is unproven as to whether such an application of would meet the statutory tests


47

I Low cost bus option; noting that although this option would be subject to

similar service delivery limitations as the comparable bus option, because of

the much reduced scale of the project the Commercial and Outcomes

constraints are less of a concern

6.16 Three of the identified options failed to pass delivery constraints and were

therefore excluded from further consideration:

I The cost of the Light Rail Transit option significantly exceeds the funding

available from national or local sources. Therefore this option was excluded

because it does not meet the Affordability constraint

I An Ultra-Light Rail Transit option has not been proven at the scale of NGT and

has limited and connected suppliers, restricting the likelihood of being able to

competitively procure such a system. Therefore the implementation risk of this

option cannot be accepted by the Promoters. This option was excluded because

it does not meet the Deliverability constraint. Additionally a ULRT option would

be based on proprietary technology and would therefore have scored lower

than the recommended options against the system expansion delivery

constraint

I There is considerable uncertainty as to whether a dependable, appropriate and

affordable catenary-free electric bus option will be available within the funding

timeframe for the project. The implementation risk is therefore unacceptable

to the Promoters and this option was excluded because it does not meet the

Deliverability constraint. A catenary-free electric bus option would be based on

proprietary technology and would have scored lower than the recommended

options against the system expansion delivery constraint. Additionally the

catenary-free electric bus option would score worse than the comparable bus

option against the commercial case delivery constraint; the high relative cost of

catenary-free vehicles would effectively rule out a VPA approach and therefore

this option would only be deliverable with a QCS, with significant uncertainty

6.17 The promoted trolleybus system offered the overall best performance of all

identified options considered against the scheme objectives and also meets the

delivery constraints. It is therefore confirmed that the Promoters’ choice of

technology and option is robust. When considered against the comparable bus and

low cost bus options which also meet the delivery constraint the relative

performance of trolleybus against the scheme objectives is even more compelling.


49

7 Conclusions

Introduction

7.1 This review has set out the consideration of different public transport technologies

for their suitability on the NGT north and south corridors. It is considered that a

representative and sufficiently large range of options have been assessed and

therefore that the conclusions of this review are robust.

7.2 This review does not set out to justify the selection of suitable corridors for NGT

nor does it present the identification and selection of alignment or other design

alternatives which have been given careful consideration through the scheme

development process. These aspects are detailed in separate documents and are

not repeated within this report.

7.3 The final section of this report summarises the approach taken and recommends

two alternatives to the trolleybus option to be appraised through the modelling

and appraisal framework developed for NGT and included within the updated

scheme business case.

Summary of Approach

7.4 The first stage of the review process described in this report applied a filtering

process to identify a shortlist of technology options which were suitable for

implementation on the NGT corridors, taking into account physical opportunities/

constraints as well as potential service and capacity requirements. The following

options were identified as being suitable within this context:

I Light Rail Transit (LRT or tram)


I Trolleybus

I Catenary-Free Electric Bus

I Conventional bus (including a range of vehicle technologies)

7.5 For each of these options a broadly comparable ‘option’ was developed, based on

the required system specification developed to address the established scheme

objectives. Two options were developed based on conventional bus technology: a

‘comparable’ (to trolleybus) bus option; and a ‘low cost’ (bus) option – as required

in DfT business case guidance.

7.6 The second stage of review was a qualitative assessment of each of these options

against the established scheme objectives. The strongest performers were the

options with characteristics distinct from bus services, namely LRT, ULRT and the

standard and catenary-free electric bus options. Each of these options would have

similar environmental impacts from highway widening and introducing segregated

sections. Although the ULRT option would not have townscape impacts of the

overhead line equipment, it would have air quality and noise emission impacts

along the corridors. The catenary-free option has no overhead line equipment or

air quality emissions, however, there would be a lessoning of the visual identity of

the scheme and reduced perceptions of permanence and legibility.


50

7.7 The comparable bus option would be operating under diesel power for around half

of the length of the route resulting in air quality/noise emissions and would

therefore be perceived by travellers as being little different to existing bus

vehicles It was assessed as making a lesser contribution against the scheme

objectives, mainly because bus technology has been shown to attract fewer

travellers out of their cars than the other modes considered and therefore results

in less of the benefits which derive from reduced highway traffic. The low cost bus

option would just have less of an impact than the other options.

7.8 The final stage of the review was a qualitative assessment of these options against

the constraints which affect delivery of any option. At this stage any of the six

options which failed to meet any particular constraint, and therefore would not be

deliverable, was excluded and not considered against any subsequent constraints.

7.9 The trolleybus, comparable bus and low cost bus options all met the delivery

constraints. However it is noted that procurement of service for the comparable

bus option is dependent on delivering an adequate Voluntary Partnership

Agreement or Quality Contract Scheme, both of which are subject to uncertainty.

7.10 The cost of the Light Rail Transit option significantly exceeds the funding available

from national or local sources. Therefore this option was excluded because it does

not meet the Affordability constraint.

7.11 An Ultra-Light Rail Transit option has not been proven at the scale of NGT and has

limited and connected suppliers, restricting the likelihood of being able to

competitively procure such a system. Therefore the implementation risk of this

option cannot be accepted by the Promoters. This option was excluded because it

does not meet the Deliverability constraint.

7.12 There is considerable uncertainty as to whether a dependable, appropriate and

affordable catenary-free electric bus option will be available within the funding

timeframe for the project. The implementation risk is therefore unacceptable to

the Promoters and this option was excluded because it does not meet the

Deliverability constraint.

Recommended Options

Preferred Option

7.13 Trolleybus technology performed joint best against the objectives for the scheme

and has been demonstrated to meet the delivery constraints. Trolleybus is the

preferred option as it is the best performing option that meets the delivery

constraints.

Next Best Alternative

7.14 A comparable bus option performed reasonably against the scheme objectives but

not as strongly as the trolleybus option. Although it was demonstrated to meet the

delivery constraints its reliance on the Promoters being able to achieve an

adequate Voluntary Partnership Agreement with bus operators on the corridors or

on a Quality Contract Scheme, both of which have material uncertainty, means

that there is significantly more delivery risk than there is for trolleybus.


51

Nonetheless it is recommended that this option is included and quantitatively

appraised within the updated scheme business case as the Next Best Alternative.

Low Cost Alternative

7.15 The low cost bus option would make a more limited contribution against the

objectives for the scheme but there is the potential for this to be proportionate to

the cost of the scheme. It is recommended that this option is included and

quantitatively appraised within the updated scheme business case as the Low Cost

Alternative.

Full Appraisal of Options

7.16 A more detailed assessment of the two alternatives to the trolleybus option is

included within the updated business case for the trolleybus scheme, including

economic appraisal and consideration of the options’ performance against DfT’s

business, environmental and social objectives.

7.17 A mandate specifying each of these alternatives for the purposes of design and

model development is provided as Appendix C.

Leeds NGT Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

Appendix A

APPENDIX

A

FUNDING CONSTRAINTS


Appendix A

A1 FUNDING/DELIVERY CONSTRAINTS

Central Government (DfT) Major Scheme Funding

A1.1 Funding availability is a critical constraint to the option selection process. The

current approval is for £173.5 million of DfT funding towards a trolleybus system

with a total scheme cost of £250 million. This funding is from DfT’s indicative

major scheme capital funding baseline of £1.5 billion for 2015/16 to 2018/19, only

available for transport projects.

A1.2 The funding approval states that the scheme must be implemented in accordance

with the proposals set out in the Promoters’ March 2012 business case, subject to

any changes which may occur as a result of further design or as a result of any

remaining statutory processes. DfT’s funding letter sets out the conditions of that

approval, in particular that any changes to the route; timescale; cost; value for

money; or specification and delivery of services does not materially change from

the Programme Entry submission. Interpretation of this is clear. This funding would

certainly only be available for a public transport scheme on the A660/A61/M621

corridors. The likelihood of this funding being available decreases as any proposal

diverges from the trolleybus option described in the business case.

A1.3 The funding approval also specifies that any reduction achieved in the total

scheme costs would be shared by DfT and the Promoters in proportion to their

share of funding (ie 69% to DfT 31% to Metro/LCC).

A1.4 Since NGT funding was awarded, there has been regime change in DfT major

schemes funding, which sees funding decisions devolved to Local Transport Bodies

(LTBs). The national funding pot has been pro-rated to LTBs on the basis of their

population, with City Deal LTBs (which includes Leeds City Region) receiving more

- in recognition that these were further ahead in the required strengthening of

local decision making arrangements. The current NGT funding approval was the

last to be achieved under the previous process; there is no opportunity to apply for

additional DfT funding for the project. It follows that the current approved DfT

funding cannot be increased and this constrains what alternative options can be

considered.

A1.5 The confirmed funding for the West Yorkshire and York Local Transport Body is

£100.9 million for the period 2015/16 to 2020/2110. If the terms of the current DfT

funding approval cannot be satisfied a scheme of anything like the scale of NGT

could not be considered using this funding source. The current approved funding

for NGT, if lost, would be expected to be re-included in the national pot and then

be shared amongst all LTBs.

Alternative Funding Sources

A1.6 The remaining £76.5 million funding has been committed to the project by Metro

and LCC from a range of sources. This contribution includes land required for the

scheme valued at £11.6 million and project development costs (£25.3 million,

around 10% of the total scheme cost and in proportion with similar schemes),

including detailed design and the costs of procuring the system. The remaining

10 https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/local-transport-body-funding-allocations

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/local-transport-body-funding-allocations


Appendix A

£39.6 million is towards construction costs. At least £15m of this funding was

assumed to be raised by prudential borrowing on the basis that the retained

revenue surplus would exceed annual costs of loan repayment. This approach

would not be available for any alternative where the Promoters did not control the

revenue surplus. Applying the principle that revenue surplus should exceed

borrowing costs would mean that any schemes that generates a lower revenue

surplus would only support a lower level of local capital contribution.

A1.7 An indicative range of local contribution towards construction of an alternative

option would therefore be from £39.6 million (towards a proposal with a revenue

surplus at least equivalent to the trolleybus proposal) down to £24.6 million

towards a proposal where the revenue surplus is not available to the Promoters in

support of prudential borrowing.

A1.8 The only other material source of funding currently available is the £1 billion West

Yorkshire Plus Transport Fund (currently under development). The Transport Fund

includes the indicative major scheme funding devolved within the West Yorkshire

and York city deal. The primary objective of this fund is to maximise the increase

in employment and productivity growth across West Yorkshire, by the delivery of

transport schemes. The secondary objective is for the programme to improve the

ability of people in every West Yorkshire district to access jobs with two

employment accessibility minima proposed:

I A better than average improvement in employment accessibility for residents in

the most deprived 25% of West Yorkshire communities; and

I Every West Yorkshire district to gain an average improvement in employment

accessibility no less than half the average across West Yorkshire

A1.9 Committing a substantial proportion of the fund to an alternative to NGT would

significantly constrain the ability of the fund to achieve these objectives and

exceed the minima. To obtain an allocation any alternative would have to score

highly in the transport fund prioritisation, a process quite different to the previous

DfT Major Scheme regime.

Funding Conclusions

A1.10 The level of funding potentially available for alternatives to NGT varies depending

on the nature of the option considered. For example:

I Up to £250 million for an option offering comparable transport and value for

money performance to the current approved NGT trolleybus scheme

I Materially less for options for which the transport and value for money

performance has reduced to the extent that DfT withdraw the funding

approval. For example, indicatively less than £50 million based on a

combination of committed promoter funds and the West Yorkshire Transport

fund.

A1.11 In order to deliver a major investment in Leeds transport infrastructure it is

absolutely critical that any option promoted is sufficiently close (or better) in

transport and value for money performance so as to be able to convince DfT that

the current funding approval should stand.


Appendix B

APPENDIX

B

SERVICE DELIVERY ALTERNATIVES


Appendix B

B1 SERVICE DELIVERY ALTERNATIVES

Introduction

B1.1 This appendix sets out the alternative mechanisms to deliver a new public

transport service, which could be trolleybus but not exclusively so, or influence

the attributes of existing bus services in order to increase their contributions to

achieving the objectives for the NGT scheme. The section identifies the three

alternative ways of delivering an improved public transport service on the NGT

corridors taking into account the required system specification set out in the main

report.

Status Quo

B1.2 Within the existing ‘deregulated’ bus service context, bus operators register what

they consider commercially viable services with the Traffic Commissioner. Metro

tenders additional (non-commercially viable) services it sees as socially necessary,

but has a limited budget to do so. Metro can only tender services which would not

compete directly with commercial services.

B1.3 Generally both commercial and tendered bus services benefit from infrastructure

improvements that reduce journey times and/or promote punctuality. The

assumption within this context is therefore that both commercial and tendered

services would benefit from investment in the A660 and A61/M621 corridors.

B1.4 The majority of services on these corridors are currently commercial. Metro’s 2013

Leeds bus review11 was one part of a West Yorkshire wide process to reduce its

expenditure on bus services to match the funding available. This proposed the

withdrawal of all public funding from these corridors, the expected result being

withdrawal of a small number of Sunday or early morning/late evening services.

The working assumption is therefore that in the future only commercial services

will operate on these corridors.

B1.5 For commercial services, with current arrangements the Promoters have little or

no influence on: service frequency; service stop usage; routeing; punctuality;

vehicle quality or fare levels. All aspects of a tendered service could be specified,

subject to tender value for money/affordability constraints. However and as

already noted, Metro can only tender services which would not compete directly

with commercial services.

Conclusion

B1.6 Providing NGT infrastructure and relying on operators to provide an NGT service

would not be possible as the market cannot be relied upon to provide a service to

the specification required to deliver the benefits of the scheme in full. Therefore

the Promoters could have little certainty that the scheme’s intended outputs and

outcomes could be delivered and so the cost justified. The Promoters would not be

able to secure any revenue surplus and therefore would not be able to make a

local funding contribution and finance this from revenue surplus.

11 http://www.wymetro.com/consultation/busreview/leeds/

http://www.wymetro.com/consultation/busreview/leeds/


Appendix B

B1.7 While this service delivery option would not be applicable for NGT, it may be

suitable for a low cost option. However, even for that scale of scheme it is unlikely

to offer sufficient certainty of outputs and outcomes to be considered a credible

option for service delivery.

Voluntary Partnership Agreement

B1.8 With a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) the Promoters could influence, to a

degree all aspects of services offered on the NGT corridors. However a VPA would

not prevent an operator which is party to the agreement taking advantage of any

infrastructure improvements and competing on-street along the route. Also

operators cannot be bound to a VPA and could withdraw.

B1.9 Although a VPA could agree fare maxima it cannot contain any agreement on

actual fares to be charged as this would be considered a cartel and fall foul of

competition law. If the ‘NGT’ service were delivered by more than one operator

each could have a different fare structure. There must be sufficient difference

between different operators’ liveries for passengers to be able make fare based

choices between them, the result being a move away from a uniform integrated

service offer.

B1.10 The limit to what can be included within a VPA depends on what all existing bus

operators and potential new entrants to the corridors are prepared to agree to.

This includes the duration of any agreement. A key consideration is the difference

between a commercial operator’s view of success and the public sector value for

money approach required for capital funding. Some protection for private sector

investment could be made by including in the VPA provision for a Quality

Partnership Scheme (QPS) to be introduced, for example limiting access to new

bus stops or lanes to vehicles/services meeting specified standards.

B1.11 Although the Promoters would not take control of the revenue surplus, a VPA could

provide sufficient assurance to an operator to invest materially in vehicles and

depot. Under this option the reduced delivery cost to the Promoters could reduce

or remove the need for borrowing.

Conclusion

B1.12 Delivery of an NGT service using a VPA would not allow the Promoters to guarantee

a uniform service and fare offer. The deliverability of this approach is limited by

the inherent requirement for there to be a commercial operator willing to agree to

the agreement for a sufficiently long term without losing critical elements of the

Promoters’ specification. Overall a VPA would not offer a high level of certainty

that the scheme benefits would be delivered to the scale or for the duration

required for an investment of the scale of NGT. This option may also not be

appropriate for a low cost option, as and even for the reduced scale of scheme,

depending on what the operators will agree to a VPA might only offer limited and

relatively short term certainty of outputs and outcomes.

Quality Partnership Scheme

B1.13 A statutory Quality Partnership Scheme (QPS) could be made by the local transport

authority specifying various minimum quality standards that bus operators must

meet in order to use new or upgraded infrastructure. Potentially this could be


Appendix B

extended along NGT corridors given the level of investment proposed along the

whole route. However, the quality threshold could not be so high that it

represented a disproportionate barrier to entry into the market for new operators

or otherwise disproportionately affect existing competition. The duration of a QPS

is related to the effective lifespan of the facilities provided – for example this

could be up to at least thirty years for improved junctions/sections of local

carriageway widening.

B1.14 With a QPS the new infrastructure would therefore be available to any operator

which meets the defined quality threshold. Providing the highest level of priority

to the majority or all of the high frequency services currently operating on the

northern corridor would result in a greater reduction in highway capacity to other

vehicles than the trolleybus option. This would reduce the value for money of the

scheme due to reduced highway benefit/increased highway disbenefit. Therefore

only a lower level of priority would be provided, which would in turn extend

journey times and adversely affect punctuality when compared with the trolleybus

option.

B1.15 The Promoters could not retain any funding surplus with this option and although

they could theoretically introduce a charge for the use of exclusive off-highway

infrastructure the income from this is not likely to be sufficient to support

material borrowing. If the charge is too high then operators will simply bypass that

section of route, thereby compromising the initial investment and the benefits it

would bring.

Conclusion

B1.16 A QPS represents an effective and proven way of delivering a service improvement.

However, requiring vehicles of higher specification and which are more expensive

than conventional buses may be a disproportionate barrier to entry. A QPS would

not allow the highest level of priority to be given to services without compromising

value for money. Therefore it is not a credible approach to maximising the value

for money of an investment at the scale of the current proposal. This option may

therefore only be applicable for a low cost option, and even for that scale of

scheme might only offer limited certainty of outputs and outcomes.

B1.17 A VPA and a QPS can be used in combination, providing scope to agree service

delivery standards beyond a QPS. This could provide additional protection for bus

operators party to the VPA that operators which were not parties to the

agreements would face restrictions on their ability to compete directly.

Quality Contract Scheme

B1.18 Metro is developing proposals for the implementation of a West Yorkshire Quality

Contract Scheme (QCS). A QCS would replace the current deregulated framework

for the provision of local bus services with a form of franchising, with local bus

services being put out to competitive tender and provided under contract(s). An

alternative to a county-wide QCS would be an NGT-specific scheme on the

A660/A61/M621 corridors.

B1.19 With a QCS, a contract could be let for an NGT service to the Promoters’

specification and the Promoters could manage fares and have control of any


Appendix B

revenue surplus. The specification of other bus services running on the same

corridors could be adjusted to integrate them better with NGT by letting contracts

for these services or varying contracts if a QCS exists before the introduction of

NGT. In this way, conventional bus competition with NGT could be managed and

the highest level of priority could be given to a controlled frequency NGT service.

A QCS can last for a maximum of ten years, but can be renewed in further ten year

periods.

B1.20 To date no QCS has been introduced anywhere and therefore the process and

legislation remain untested. The process for proposing a QCS is involved, including

five public interest tests which do not align with Major Transport Scheme

Investment or TWAO processes in content or timescale. Relying on a scheme

specific QCS would represent a material risk to delivery of the project.

Conclusion

B1.21 A QCS would allow the Promoters the ability to manage the interaction between

NGT and competing services, removing the potential for competition from other

bus services and possibly of benefit to the scheme’s value for money. However,

restricting the use of on-street NGT infrastructure would be through specification

in the non-NGT service contracts and potentially be vulnerable in the longer term

to pressure from operators, politicians or the public. Allowing the highest level of

priority to a higher frequency of services would disbenefit other highway vehicles

and therefore would be likely to reduce the overall value for money. The unproven

ability to make a QCS represents a material risk and therefore cannot be relied on

as a delivery method for the NGT scheme until the West Yorkshire QCS is

determined. However, with a West Yorkshire scheme in place letting an ‘NGT’

service using QCS powers represents a credible option in terms of the scale of

investment planned – if the value for money of such an approach could be

demonstrated.

Service Contract

B1.22 With a service contract the Promoters would have full control over all aspects of

an NGT service, including managing fares and defining the level of revenue risk to

be passed to the operator (from none to all). Under general circumstances a

contract could not be let for a service competing with existing commercial

services. However, if implementation powers are obtained for an eligible scheme

using the Transport and Works Act 1992 Order (TWAO) procedure, the Promoters

are able to include the power to let a service contract. This is the usual

mechanism for securing the powers to create a concession or contract to operate a

tram system.

Conclusion

B1.23 A service contract represents an effective and proven way to procure an operator

for NGT; obtaining the ability to let one forms part of the proven TWAO process to

obtain powers. It provides a reliable mechanism for guaranteeing the benefits of

the scheme are realised and allows the Promoters to control any revenue surplus

for funding maintenance and also as a repayment source for capital borrowing.

However, it does not in itself offer any protection from competition from other


Appendix B

bus services. A service contract represents a credible and proven option for an

investment at the scale of the current proposal.

Summary

B1.24 This appendix sets out the range of mechanisms which could be used to deliver a

new public transport service or influence existing services to achieve the

specification required, in particular to achieve the maximum value for money and

to lock-in the benefits of the scheme sufficiently long term to guarantee that this

value for money will be realised.

B1.25 The most beneficial mechanism for an option eligible for the TWAO approach is to

include powers for letting a service contract. This represents a proven approach

and has the further advantage that the right to let a service contract is considered

simultaneously with the other implementation powers required. However, this

approach allows limited protection against competition from existing bus operators

except if used in combination with QCS powers.

B1.26 For other options a QCS is considered to be the approach offering the greatest

control of outcomes; it remains an unproven approach however. In the absence of

QCS powers a VPA or QPS scheme (separately or in combination) would be

required. It is been assumed that a combined approach would offer the best

overall approach.


Appendix C

APPENDIX

C

MANDATE FOR ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS


Appendix C

C1 LEEDS NGT – MANDATES FOR SPECIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVE

OPTIONS

Preferred Option

I Holt Park to Stourton alignment, predominantly powered from overhead lines

I Vehicles procured by promoter in sufficient numbers to be able to deliver the

planned frequency and passenger capacity reliably all day

I Park & Ride at Bodington and Stourton

I Priority measures to improve journey times and punctuality, particularly NGT

service, targeting the sections with the highest passenger loadings and/or

current delays

I Delivered within the Programme Entry funding approval

I Dedicated stops for guaranteed availability, legibility and higher quality

Next Best Alternative

I Holt Park to Stourton alignment, not/predominantly not powered from

overhead lines

I Charging/fuelling infrastructure at stops/termini/depot or as required

I Vehicles procured by promoter in sufficient numbers to be able to deliver the

planned frequency and passenger capacity reliably all day

I Vehicles capable over full working lifespan of reliably running adverse local

emission-free through environmentally sensitive sections (behind Arndale,

Millennium Square, Whitfield Way)


I Priority measures to improve journey times and punctuality, particularly NGT

service, targeting the sections with the highest passenger loadings and/or

current delays

I Closest possible to NGT specification to demonstrate applicable to approved

funding

I Delivered within the Programme Entry funding approval

I Dedicated stops for guaranteed availability, legibility and higher quality

Low Cost Alternative

I Holt Park to Stourton alignment, not powered from overhead lines

I Vehicles provided by commercial operators upgrading existing routes (no

through service)


I Additional P&R service from Stourton to University

I Priority measures to improve journey times and punctuality for all buses,

particularly aimed at the sections with the highest passenger loadings

I Delivered for maximum of £50m outturn funding (estimate of what could be

made available without DfT NGT funding)

I Improvements in level of quality at existing stops

\\sdgworld.net\Data\Leeds\PROJECTS\224\9\44\01\Outputs\Reports\Alternatives Review\Core_Document_C-1-1_NGT_Alternatives Review

Report_Final.docx

Control Sheet

CONTROL SHEET

Project/Proposal Name Leeds New Generation Transport

Document Title Leeds NGT Review of Technology Alternatives

Client Contract/Project No. M1028729

SDG Project/Proposal No. 224944

ISSUE HISTORY

Issue No. Date Details

3.1 24/01/14 Updated issue for TWAO team review

REVIEW

Originator Steve Hunter

Other Contributors Jon Peters, Tony Walmsley

Review by: Print Neil Chadwick

Sign

DISTRIBUTION

Client: Metro

Steer Davies Gleave: