July seems to be an important month in the history of London's transport. It was in July of 1933 that the London Passenger Transport Board was formed. One of its first actions was to build upon the apparent success of the Kingston Trolleybus Conversion Programme, carried out by their predecessors, the Underground Group, and to propose the mass conversion of tramways in London to trolleybus operation. The programme began in earnest in 1935 and would have swept away all trams within a decade if it had not been for the interruption of the Second World War. However, it was the early hours of July the 6th 1952 which saw the last tram service in London.
The trolleybus followed them into history in 1962 and London Transport was left solely with the tools of the Underground Railway and the Motorbus to meet the challenge of the new decade. That this policy was unfortunate and ultimately doomed to failure is shown by the catastrophic decline in bus carryings throughout the 1960s and 70s when social change, job relocation and traffic congestion resulted in bus traffic declining year on year so that by today, more people enter the central area of London in the morning peak by private motor car than enter on the motorbus. Albeit, London Transport has now had some success in stabilising bus traffic, a notable achievement when compared to the continuing fall in ridership and increase in bus mileage generated by deregulation in the rest of the U.K.
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, there grew up in London Transport an understanding that the offer of Underground and Buses only would not be suitable to meet the challenges of the future. Underground Lines were suffering from increasing engineering complexity and soaring costs. The lead time necessary to get from conceptual design to build meant that only one entirely new line, the Victoria Line, had been constructed since the War. On the other hand, bus services were seen as increasingly unattractive.
Study of potential tram conversion had been carried out in 1977 by T.V. Runacles, but the report had not been received with unbridled enthusiasm by senior management or by the Board of London Transport. However, the necessity of providing economic and attractive public transport into the Docklands development areas lead first studies for provision of light rapid transit to the Isle of Dogs. A comparative study of modes available showed very quickly that light rail would be the most suitable solution. After protracted negotiations with the government, a fixed price contract was let for the construction of the initial phase of the Docklands Light Railway which was opened by Her Majesty the Queen on time and on budget (i.e. £77 million) on 30 July 1987.
Although using light rail technology and the concept of lightweight articulated trains running at comparatively frequent intervals, the Docklands Light Railway inherited significant elements of segregated right-of-way and this, plus the need to build elevated structures through the Isle of Dogs led ultimately to the provision of what could be classified as a lightweight automated metro rather than a conventional light railway system.
In many ways the D.L.R. has been a victim of its own success, having attracted larger and more grandiose developments to the Isle of Dogs than were originally conceived of when the railway was specified. The result of this has been that the DLR has been constantly attempting to catch up with the demand outstripping the technology provided. The railway has now grown from an initial 13 km system with trains running every 7.5 minutes, to a system which will ultimately be 22.6 km long with trains running every 2 minutes. Although originally conceived as having some street running elements, the system was ultimately built as fully segregated and the technology adopted effectively prevents it from any street running extensions now or in the future.
It was only with the development of the Croydon Light Rail Scheme in 1988/89 that street running tramways would at last return to the capital.
The success of the D.L.R. led to London Transport Planning producing a report in 1986 called Light Rail for London?. The fact that this title had a question mark at the end shows the tentative nature with which this subject was approached at the time. That report, essentially conservative in nature, identified areas of both the British Rail and London Underground system which were not carrying traffic sufficiently heavy to justify conventional heavy rail technology and asking if light rail would be suitable and more cost-effective. The report identified that limited off-street running could radically improve the performance of those lines by allowing them access to the central business district.
One of the primary networks identified in this way was centred on Croydon, with underused British Railway lines to the west and north-east, and an extremely large satellite township at New Addington (which is the largest urban development in London which did not have a rail based public transport system).
Croydon is the seventh largest urban centre in the UK, in terms of commercial floor space. It is the largest office centre in the south-east of England, outwith the City, and the largest shopping centre, outwith the West End. In addition, Croydon's west and east railway stations provide two of the major ports of entry into the urban rail network of southern England. As such, it has heavy traffic flows into and out of the centre, for travellers seeking to work and shop in Croydon or travel to central London. The road network is operating at, or slightly above, its theoretical maximum capacity already, and road building schemes are politically extremely unpopular. As such, the Croydon area was seen as peculiarly suitable for the development of a light rail system.
London Transport and British Rail carried out an initial conceptual study in 1987/88 and by 1989 we had involved the Local Authority in the development of the scheme which ultimately has become Tramlink. When I tell you that we have now had over 250 public meetings in the area between Beckenham and Wimbledon, you will see that public consultation as well as a great deal of hard work carried out by London Transport, their consultants and the London Borough of Croydon, has gone into developing this scheme. I am glad to say that the result of a major opinion survey, carried out before the Tramlink Bill was deposited, showed that some 84% of people interviewed thought that Tramlink was either a "good" or a "very good" idea and although we have had some opposition, I believe that ultimately the rightness of our decision has been shown by the success of the Bill's promotion.
The government required, as a condition of giving permission to deposit the Tramlink Bill, that we should involve the private sector at the earliest possible opportunity to bring their entrepreneurial skills into the planning of the system, and to ensure that Tramlink did not become another bloated ill-fated, over-priced, over-budget, over-time public sector scheme: this notwithstanding the fact that the original D.L.R. had been specified by London Transport and achieved on time and on budget.
It was also the Government's wish that a majority, if not all, of the finance for the scheme should be raised from the private sector and that the Government should only be perceived as the "lender of last resort". We created an unincorporated joint venture consisting of
That group has worked with us throughout the promotion of the Bill, in preparing the Performance Specifications and in the creation of the documentation necessary to let out a long-term concession for the designing, funding, building, operation and ultimate transfer of the Croydon Tramlink system.
All this hard work led to success when, on July 6 1994, exactly 42 years after the last tram ran in London, the Croydon Tramlink Bill received it's third reading in the House of Commons. On July 21 the Bill gained Royal Assent and in clearing its final hurdle it became the very last Bill to be steered through Westminster using the Parliamentary Private Bill procedure. From now on, schemes such as this will progress under the auspices of the Transport and Works Act 1992. This means that Tramlink is the first and only tram system for which London Transport has ever sought parliamentary powers.
So sixty years after London Transport obtained powers to eradicate trams and replace them with trolleybuses, we are at last back on track to bring railed electric street transport to London. Such a radical step represents a significant change of view on the part of L.T. over the past 10 to 15 years, a view bolstered by our extensive knowledge of the success of light rail schemes in Europe and North America. Of course, we have been closely involved with the Passenger Transport Executive Group, particularly its light rail section, in studying and co-operating with other U.K. cities which are bringing back light rail. The successes and failures in Manchester have provided us with much valuable experience, as had the development of the Sheffield light rail system. In the last few years London Transport has, at all levels, become more knowledgeable of, and enthusiastic for, light rail.
Croydon showed considerable courage and foresight in being willing to join with London Transport to develop the Croydon system. I am pleased to say that similar enthusiasm is being shown by a number of other London Boroughs. We carried out an initial pre-feasibility study into a light rail line for Kingston in 1990/91 and, although at the time the study was shelved, I am pleased to say that the Royal Borough is again showing interest in examining the possibilities of light rail in its area. The London Borough of Merton and the London Borough of Sutton are keen to examine the possibilities for extensions to the Tramlink system in their areas, and we expect to be carrying out feasibility studies with them over the next 12 months.
To the east of London, the whole of the Thames Corridor area offers numerous opportunities for the provision of improved public transport and one of the most prominent of these is the Barking Reach area where over the next few years, over 6000 new houses are expected to be developed on land stretching between the edge of the London Docklands Development Corporation area at Gallions and Dagenham Dock. The London Borough of Barking and Dagenham is very keen to see a high quality public transport scheme developed there and we are working closely with them towards that end. This scheme would either be a conventional modern tramway or a G.L.T.(Guided Light Transit)-type system involving some pedestrian area running, some street running, and large areas of track running in central reservations of new roads. As such, the system would be totally different in concept from the D.L.R. It would perform two major roles: linking the new development with the shopping, employment and educational opportunities in Barking and providing a feeder to the excellent commuter services from Barking into the City, Docklands and West End. Again we are planning considerable development work with both the Council and the Barking Reach Development Group over the next year.
My colleagues in London Transport Planning and Development are also in the course of carrying out a study of a typical radial corridor into London which is not already provided with an Underground service. The costs and benefits of different forms of public transport investment are being examined. This will involve comparing the costs and benefits of the construction of a full Underground line, light railway line, trolleybus line or improved bus provision along the corridor. Without wishing to pre-empt the results of that study, which will provide much valuable data about the advantages and disadvantages of different systems, it is my strong belief that light rail will almost inevitably emerge very favourably.
A number of other London Boroughs have also approached us with suggestions for areas where light rail provision could be made. We are always open to discuss such suggestions with Local Authorities or interest groups and I welcome this conference as a chance to hear from others their ideas as to where light rail could be used. It is a marvellously flexible system, able to provide railway-like comfort with bus-like accessibility. It is economic, attractive to the public and can provide a much needed boost to public transport provision. Light rail can also provide a viable solution to the problems of car dependency and pollution in urban areas.
In examining light rail we should also remember that the benefits of electric traction can be brought to areas where demand doesn't justify a full tramway. In these situations, the reintroduction of the trolleybus may be an alternative. I am glad to say that we are already planning to undertake an exercise to examine the costs and viability of trolleybus systems and their suitability for use in London.
There is also significant potential in London in lightweight people movers in pedestrianised areas from which buses are excluded, but where demand levels would be nowhere near high enough to justify a tramway. Here I would pay tribute to John Parry who has demonstrated that People Movers can be small, attractive and inexpensive. London Transport will continue to study the opportunities for such systems in London.
In conclusion, let me say that I believe that the future for improved public transport is bright. I welcome this conference. I am here to learn, to listen to your ideas, and see how we can help in the development of improved, pollution-free public transport for the people of London.