[PRCo] Re: Fw: [Weyrich_Transit] FW: [PTP] PTP02/27B: Bratislava, Nancy, Angers, Geneva, Heidelberg, Copenhagen, UK

[Boris Cefer]

I don't see anything from Ostrava. It reads only something about the capital
of Slovakia, Bratislava, where Bush and Putin met several days ago.

Boris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Harold G." <transitmgr2 at earthlink.net>
To: <pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 7:32 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Fw: [Weyrich_Transit] FW: [PTP] PTP02/27B: Bratislava,
Nancy, Angers, Geneva, Heidelberg, Copenhagen, UK


> News from Ostrava.   Harold Geissenheimer
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Weyrich <paulwey at freecongress.org>
> To: elehrer at gmail.com <elehrer at gmail.com>
> Date: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:17 AM
> Subject: [Weyrich_Transit] FW: [PTP] PTP02/27B: Bratislava, Nancy, Angers,
> Geneva, Heidelberg, Copenhagen, UK
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nawdry [mailto:nawdry at realtime.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 12:13 PM
> To: nawdry at austin.rr.com
> Subject: [PTP] PTP02/27B: Bratislava, Nancy, Angers, Geneva, Heidelberg,
> Copenhagen, UK
>
>
>
> PTP Digest 2005/02/27-B = CONTENTS
>
> * Bratislava: Bush-Putin summit shines limelight on LRT tramway network
>     Light Rail Now! NewsLog 25 February 2005
>
> * Bratislava 'busily preparing a fast-track tram system'
>     The Slovak Spectator 2/21/2005  [2005/02/21]
>
> * Nancy's  bus system, with guided-bus 'tramway', is slowest in France
>     Republican East  Saturday December 11, 2004
>
> * Angers choose steel-wheel tramway over guided-bus 'BRT'
>     URBAN TRANSIT NEWS 11 February 2005
>
> * Geneva: Latest light rail tramway extension opens
>     Light Rail Now! NewsLog 16 December 2004
>
> * Heidelberg: Light rail tramway extension project under way
>     Light Rail Now! NewsLog 15 November 2004
>
> * Copenhagen plans light rail by 2012
>     Light Rail Now! NewsLog 11 November 2004
>
> * UK: Tramways 'clean, efficient, popular' ... help economies grow
>     Supply Management Features, 17 February 2005
>
>
>
> =PTP===============================================
>
> http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog002.htm#BRA_20050225
>
> Light Rail Now! NewsLog
> 25 February 2005
>
> Bratislava: Bush-Putin summit shines limelight on city's light rail
tramway
> network
>
> Produced by the Light Rail Now! Publication Team
>
>
> Recent attention has been focused on the Slovakian capital city of
> Bratislava for hosting the "summit" meeting between US President
> George W. Bush and Russian President Valdimir Putin. "With huge
> numbers of journalists coming to Slovakia for the Bush-Putin summit,
> Bratislava city officials will take the opportunity to inform the world's
> media
> about planned developments and upgrades to essential infrastructure of
> the city" declares a news report from The Slovak Spectator (2005/02/21).
> Among these infrastructure upgrades, massive improvements are planned
> to Bratislava's already extensive light rail tramway network, totalling
some
> 243.8 km (151.2 miles).
>
> "For over 25 years Bratislava has cherished the idea of a subway system"
> relates the Spectator. "Estimated at a cost of Sk100 billion (€2.5
billion)
> [US$3.2 billion], nobody could be found to pay for it."
>
> "But since 2003, the town council has been busily preparing a fast-track
> tram system that would run above as well as under ground" reports the
> Spectator article, noting that "The tramway would use modern, low-deck,
> aerodynamic trams that hold up to 500 people." (Presumably this refers to
> lowfloor tram or streetcar vehicles, which have become the standard in
> most major European light rail tramway systems.) As models, the article
> refers to the new light rail tramway systems in Dublin and Strasbourg,
> both of which use lowfloor vehicles.
>
> The article relates that the tramway upgrade is included in a massive
> investment program along the Danube over the next five years with "new
> projects worth up to €1 billion" (US$1.3 billion) targeted for completion
in
> Bratislava. It also notes that the upgraded tramway system would be
> developed "between 2006 and 2008."
>
> Bratislava currently has 12 tramway routes using meter-gauge (1000-mm)
> tracks, and running about 225 tramcars. According to Jane's Urban
> Transport Systems (1999-2000), by the late 1990s the tramway network
> was carrying approximately 94 million annual passenger-trips, out of a
> systemwide total of more than 300 million (including motor buses and
> electric trolleybuses).
>
> Bratislava, whose current population is about 450,000, is a medium-sized
> city with an area of 367.6 sq. km (141.6 sq. miles). This calculates to a
> population density of about 1,200/sq. km or 3,200/sq. mi. Bratislava thus
> represents a case in point that, even in Europe, neither extremely high
> population nor staggering density is essential for the operation of a
> successful, high-quality urban rail transit system.
>
> In addition to the news item quoted, this report has relied on information
> from Jane's Urban Transport Systems, the iMHD.sk Bratislava website,
> and the public-transport.net website.
>
> [[]]
>
>
>
> =PTP===============================================
>
> The Slovak Spectator
> 2/21/2005  [2005/02/21]
>
> SPECIAL FOCUS - Bush-Putin summit
>
> Welcome to the future
>
>
> WITH huge numbers of journalists coming to Slovakia for the Bush-Putin
> summit, Bratislava city officials will take the opportunity to inform the
> world's media about planned developments and upgrades to essential
> infrastructure of the city.
>
> Investments on the Danube: Over the next five years new projects worth
> up to €1 billion will be completed in Bratislava.
>
> The main aim is to extend the city centre along the Danube embankment.
> A seven-kilometre boulevard with shops, apartments, congress and
> administrative facilities is planned. Both the bus station and the train
> station will be rebuilt- something that will be very welcome to visitors.
>
> Modern tramway: For over 25 years Bratislava has cherished the idea of a
> subway system. Estimated at a cost of Sk100 billion (€2.5 billion),,
nobody
> could be found to pay for it.
>
> But since 2003, the town council has been busily preparing a fast-track
> tram system that would run above as well as under ground.
> The tramway would use modern, low-deck, aerodynamic trams that hold
> up to 500 people. Such trams can now be found in Dublin and Strasbourg.
> The idea should be brought to life between 2006 and 2008.
>
>
> Twin Cities - Vienna and Bratislava: The two capitals realize the
> advantages of connecting and last year started to work on strengthening
> cooperation.
> The Twin Cities project is a chance to create an economic and cultural hot
> spot in Central Europe.
>
> [[]]
>
>
>
>
> =PTP=================================================
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> PTP NOTE: Thanks to Mike Harrington and Bill Bolton for rendering a
> translation of the original French article.  Nancy's "tramway sur pneu"
> (rubber-tired tramway) is actually a "guided-bus" or "BRT" system, using
> modified dual-mode electric trolleybuses.  For more information, see:
> "Misguided Bus"? Nancy's BRT Debacle Exposes Pitfalls of "Half-Price
> Tramway"
> http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_ncy001.htm
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> www.estrepublicain.fr
>
> Republican East
> Saturday December 11, 2004
>
> Nancy page
>
> Nancy Bus-Tram network: the slowest in France
>
>
> The Palm Award [comes from La Palme d'Or, the Cannes equivalent of
> the Oscar for best film] of Slowness
>
> With an average operating speed of 12.7 km/h, Nancy snatches The Palm
> of 2003 for the slowest tram-bus system in France.  It's 16 in Lyon and
> 17.5 in Orleans.  Explanations.  Connex promises, after some progress
> already effected in 2004, "a noticeably improved speed in 2005."
>
> Almost paradoxical.  Bus speed issues sometimes attract attention in
> areas where there are particular safety  concerns..  At the same time, the
> trams and buses of Nancy hold the national record for slowness!  This is
> at least the result of the annual study that was just published by the
> Public
> Transport Union (professional union comprising 160 undertakings).  This
> reference document has put under the microscope the 2003 operations of
> 140 systems.  And with an average operating speed of 12.7 km/h, STAN
> [Service de transport de l'agglomération Nancéienne] is the red flag of
the
> first category (metropolitan areas of more than 250,000 souls).  And even
> all categories!
>
> Of course, this speed - for as much as this situation has improved in 2004
> - isn't quite that of which the passengers are aware.  Since this includes
> stopping times but also at termini.  The duchy city does not show up any
> less far behind Strasbourg (18.2), Nantes (17.1 km/h), Rennes (19.1) or
> still Rouen (16.3).  This is grist for the mill of bicycling or walking
> advocates!  Without mentioning automobiles.
>
> In Greater Nancy, this shocking number is rationalized.  First because the
> tram line is under (almost 40% of the traffic) speed limits imposed by the
> State (15 km/h on sharp turns, 5 in the République area), limits that were
> even more restrictive in 2003.
>
> In Traffic
>
> Next "because the change of the traffic plan, which implies a delay in the
> adaptation of motorists, difficulties have arisen with which buses put
into
> traffic are also confronted,"  stresses Pascal Gaire, the traffic manager.
> "We have called on the research bureau to work line by line, to look for
or
> arrange new corridors, to improve the travel time of buses.  It's also
about
> avoiding important variations in running times."
>
> Otherwise, the study also targets the famous "relation study" (adapting
> schedules and speeds depending on the periods of the day).  "The
> operator sometimes calculates long travel durations to take into account
> the unpredictability of traffic."  Simply, the real speed on the asphalt
> would
> be better than that "established by the relation study of the Public
> Transport Union."  But with one consequence: the bus is sometimes
> ahead of schedule.  That's what the users regularly complain about.
>
> At Connex they recognize having perhaps allowed for a somewhat wide
> maneuvering room.  In the name of caution.
>
> Cost
>
> "We've had no negative impact as a result of the change of traffic plan
> and the restructuring of the system," claims Yves Schenker, recalling
that,
> since then, things have been fine-tuned.  And promising still "for 2005 a
> noticeably improved speed."
>
> Another striking number of the Public Transport Union investigation:
> expenditure by trip.  Stated plainly, how much it costs on the average to
> provide the transportation for a rider.  It is 2.21 € in Nancy against
only
> 1.06 in Montpellier, 1.88 in Bordeaux, 1 € even in Strasbourg.
>
> Is the culprit the maintenance cost of trams?  Not really if one believes
> the
> transport operators.  Rather the lack of use.  "[...] Which has however
> followed its regular progression throughout 2004," insists Christian
Parra,
> vice president of Greater Nancy.
>
> In 2003, each Nancy resident has in any case had on the average 69 trips
> on the system.  There is evidently an evolving margin since Orleans was
> 101,  St. Etienne 138.  And Strasbourg was 177!
>
> But there, the history of transportation - and of trams - is otherwise
> longer.
> But the speed is faster also ...
>
> Ghislain UTARD
>
> [[]]
>
>
>
> =PTP==================================================
>
> http://www.lrta.org/news/news0505.html
>
> URBAN TRANSIT NEWS
> 11 February 2005
>
> Light Rail Transit Association
>
> Trams for Angers
>
> The French city of Angers (population of the agglomeration 226 900) has
> decided in favour of a steel wheel tramway for a 12-km north/south line to
> be built by 2009, and estimated to carry 35 000 passengers/day by 2010.
> The line will run within 400m of 57 000 residents and 21 000 jobs, and
> enjoy a six-minute service 19 hrs/day. Tenders are being invited for 15
32-
> m trams. The project is estimated to cost EUR 180 million. A second.
> east/west, line is being evaluated.
>
>
>
>
> =PTP==================================================
>
> http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog001.htm#GEN_20041216
>
> Light Rail Now! NewsLog
> 16 December 2004
>
> Geneva: Latest light rail tramway extension opens
>
> Produced by the Light Rail Now! Publication Team
>
>
> Europe's amazing light rail transit (LRT) tramway expansion boom just
> keeps booming. On Wednesday, 15 December, Geneva's Transports
> Publics Genèvois (TPG) transit agency opened a 2.1-km (1.3-mile)
> extension of its Acacias line between Plainpalais and Pont Rouge. It's
> served by a new route, No. 15, running to Nations.
> [Associated Press, 16 Dec. 2004; Tramways & Urban Transit, August
> 2002, October 2004]
>
> "Passengers will be able to hop on a streetcar in the suburbs and arrive
at
> the main train station 10 minutes later" reports an Associated Press
article
> by writer Sam Cage. "A journey from one side of the city to the other will
> be almost halved to just 20 minutes."
> [Associated Press, 16 Dec. 2004]
>
> The new extension adds to a Geneva urban and suburban light rail
> network totalling more than 25 km (16 miles). As the AP article notes, the
> latest line is "part of an ambitious project to rebuild a network that
only
> nine years ago had dwindled to just one route."
>
> This remarkable turn-around in fortunes for the urban surface light
railway
> – particularly electric streetcar (tramway) and interurban light rail
> systems
> – is not just happening in Geneva. As the AP article reports, "The old-
> fashioned streetcar, which had nearly clanged into oblivion by the end of
> the 20th century, has been making a sleek comeback with new lines
> opening from Sydney to Paris, Buenos Aires to Houston." Thus, Geneva
> is merely "laying the latest tracks in the trend."
>
> "It's very symptomatic of a general trend to introduce more sustainable
> modes of transport" Laurent Dauby, light-rail chief for the Brussels-based
> public transport association UITP, told the AP. "I think that increasingly
> cities are challenged to provide quality of living in urban areas." The
UITP
> estimates that the extent of LRT track around the world will increase 40
> percent by 2020.
>
> In the European Union alone, the AP article notes, no less than 35 cities
> are expanding their tramway networks – including Brussels, London,
> Madrid and Paris – while an additional 18 cities are introducing entirely
> new systems. And, despite tough political struggles against public
> transport opponents, led by highway-industry interests, North America has
> long been part of the trend. "Cities across the United States – such as
> Houston, Los Angeles and Salt Lake City – have also built from scratch,
> while Washington, D.C., has just started construction on a light-rail
> system" notes the AP article.
>
> In Canada, Toronto has been expanding and upgrading its amazingly
> successful and attractive streetcar network, while Edmonton and Calgary
> have installed entirely new LRT systems. Ottawa has been operating a
> diesel-propelled light railway since 2001, and is planning expansion and
> installation of an electric LRT system. And now other cities, especially
> Waterloo-Kitchener, Vancouver, and Winnipeg, are either planning or
> strongly considering LRT.
>
>
> The elimination of urban surface electric railways – the pre-eminent
> feature of the Transit Holocaust of the 1930s-1960s – represented the
> triumph of a highway industry-political campaign to reshape cities and
> establish the supremacy of the private motor vehicle. "Trams began to
> disappear from the world's streets with the advent of cars because their
> tracks clogged roads" relates the AP. "The United States led the way in
> dismantling its networks, and Europe soon followed suit."
>
> The UITP's Laurent Dauby notes that "After World War II virtually all
(mid-
> sized) and large European cities had extensive tram networks, and they
> destroyed them. Thirty years later they have to rebuild. It's much more
> expensive."
>
> Nevertheless, despite the expense, cities and their transit agencies are
> more and more starting to perceive it's worth it. As the AP article
reports,
> "trams carry more people than buses and are about 10 times cheaper to
> build than conventional metro systems – making light rail an ideal
solution
> for medium- sized cities such as Geneva." The article notes that the Swiss
> public transport group LITRA estimates that "one multi-car tram" (i.e.,
> multi-section articulated light rail car) can carry as many passengers as
> 200 cars – "the equivalent of a .75-mile long traffic jam."
>
> "And because light rail runs on electricity – unlike most buses – there
are
> no fumes to pollute the city streets" the AP points out. "It's energy
> efficient" says the UITP's Dauby. "It doesn't necessarily rely on fossil
> fuels. It has zero emissions on the spot."
>
> While, like most cities, Geneva had scrapped almost all its tramways by
> 1969, improvements in LRT technology plus a new recognition of urban
> public transport inspired a complete reversal in attitude. The AP relates
> that, "as light-rail technology advanced, making rides smoother and
> quieter, Geneva decided to reconstruct at least part of its network to
take
> the pressure off the buses."
>
> "With almost one car for every two inhabitants," concludes the AP article,
> "Geneva's streets are clogged with traffic, and city authorities are
trying
> to
> tempt traffic off the roads by rebuilding the light-rail network –
possibly
> all
> the way to nearby towns in France"
>
> [[]]
>
>
>
> =PTP================================================
>
> http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog001.htm#HEI_20041115
>
> Light Rail Now! NewsLog
> 15 November 2004
>
> Heidelberg: Light rail tramway extension project under way
>
> Produced by the Light Rail Now! Publication Team
>
>
> The small German city of Heidelberg has started work on a 4.4-km (2.7-
> mile) extension of its light rail transit (LRT) tramway system, according
to
> the November issue of Tramways & Urban Transit. The extension, linking
> the system with the community of Kirchheim, is targeted for completion in
> late 2006, although the first 800 meters (half-mile) should be finished by
> May 2005.
>
> At a cost of EUR 30 million (about US$39 million), the extension is
costing
> about $9 million/km, or $14 million/mile – once again, suggesting the
> bargain price of LRT in delivering quality urban public transport. The
> extension will augment Heidelberg's existing 19.7-km (12.2-mile) tramway
> system.
>
> [[]]
>
>
>
>
> =PTP=================================================
>
> http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog001.htm#COP_20041111
>
> Light Rail Now! NewsLog
> 11 November 2004
>
> Copenhagen plans light rail by 2012
>
> Produced by the Light Rail Now! Publication Team
>
>
> The light rail transit (LRT) boom in Europe continues with the
> announcement that Copenhagen is planning for a 19.6-km (12.2-mi) LRT
> line, to be operational by 2012. As reported in Tramways and Urban
> Transit (Nov. 2004), "The finishing touches are being put to an agreement
> between the city and an Arriva-led consortium for a public/private
project"
> to construct the line."
>
> As T&UT reports, the LRT line would extend "between Lundtofte and
> Glostrup via Lyngby." The total cost is estimated at DKK2.2 billion, or
> about US$557 million – calculating to about $28 million/km, or $46
> million/mile.
>
> The LRT line is projected to carry ridership of 52,000 rider-trips per day
> on
> 18 light rail vehicles (LRVs). Planners hope the service will attract
> motorists from 8,000 to 9,000 private cars off the city's Ring 3 highway
> every day.
>
> The LRT line will add to Copenhagen's growing network of rail transit,
> which includes an extensive regional rail system (the S-Tog) and a light
> metro. The metro, using standard rail technology with totally automated
> operation, opened in 2002 with a line running from east to west. According
> to UrbanRail.net, "This construction project was combined with a major
> city development called Ørestad in the south of the city. The line has two
> branches on the eastern side, one south to Ørestad and the other south-
> east to Copenhagen's Airport (Lufthavn)."
>
> The first phase of the metro project (placed in service on 19 Oct. 2002)
> includes the route segments connecting Nørreport-Ørestad-Vestamager
> via Copenhagen's city center; in addition, there's a south-eastern branch
> which extends as far as Lergravsparken. Two more stations, Forum and
> Frederiksberg, were added in May 2003. On 12 Oct. 2003, the metro
> reached Vanløse, and a Flintholm station opened in early 2004.
>
> An additional City Ring line is also proposed. This would be a 16 km (10
> mi) route in subway with 16 stations, estmated to cost €1.7 billion. At
> current conversion rates, that calculates to about US$2.0 billion, or
about
> $206 billion per route-mile.
>
> With a total length of 11 km (about 7 miles), the metro line runs
> underground for 9 km (5.6 mi), with 9 relatively small underground
stations
> (61 m long, 20 m wide, or about 200 ft X 12 ft). The remainder of the
route
> is either elevated or on the surface. All stations have elevators and
> escalators and platforms are separated from the tracks by a glass wall
> and automatic screen doors – a growing feature of automated systems.
>
> The Copenhagen metro has a fleet of 34 trains, each with 3 walk-through
> cars, 6 doors on each side, 100 seats in a total capacity of aproximately
> 300 passengers a train. The system is designed for maximum train
> speeds of 80 kilometers/hour (c. 50 mph) with an average speed of 40
> kilometers/hour (24 mph) with one to two minutes between stations. A
> total ridership of 250,000 boardings per day is projected to use the
system
> regularly after the third phase begins operation, and the full system is
> placed in service.
> [UrbanRail.net, 2004/11/11; Union Switch & Signal Inc., 22 November
> 2002]
>
> [[]]
>
>
>
> =PTP============================================
>
>
http://www.supplymanagement.co.uk/EDIT/SM_featuredarticles_item.asp?id=12449
>
> Supply Management
> Features, 17 February 2005
>
> Trams get a fare deal
>
> Escalating costs threatened to derail three systems in England. But
> inventive procurement has put two back on track, says Mark Smulian
>
> It is clean, efficient, popular, fits with the government’s sustainability
> policies and helps local economies to grow. And it costs a fortune. Light
> rail has had a fitful history in the UK, but two major public-private
> projects
> now have a serious chance of going ahead after radical adjustments in
> their procurement and funding.
>
> In short, the changes mean local authorities will underwrite an agreed
> value of fare income, allowing the private contractors’ costs to be cut
> dramatically.
>
> This new lease of life has actually been forced on the local authorities
by
> transport secretary Alistair Darling, who last summer looked at the
> spiralling, and apparently open-ended, costs of Manchester’s Metrolink
> extensions, the Leeds Supertram and the South Hampshire Rapid Transit
> project, and called a halt.
>
> He said “no government could accept” such a perilous commitment. But
> he left the door open for revised, cheaper schemes. The fare guarantee
> idea has been developed to fill the gap.
>
> The Leeds and Hampshire schemes have cut costs by guaranteeing the
> local authority part of the fare revenue – a curious, but seemingly
> effective
> inversion of the private finance initiative (PFI) idea, which transfers
risk
> to
> the private sector. Manchester continues to negotiate the terms of its
deal.
>
> Leeds City Council, and the joint venture of Hampshire County Council
> and Portsmouth City Council, were required by government policy to use
> PFI for schemes both argue are essential to their local economies.
>
> But problems arose with the way the private sector sees the multiple risks
> of running an urban light rail system for 30 years: the prospect of
> construction delays; the possibility of defective rolling stock or
> engineering; unexpected hikes in electricity costs; or a change in the
> demographics of the areas served by the tram. And, unlike buses, tram
> routes cannot easily be altered.
>
> Such uncertainty induces caution in lenders, and the Leeds Supertram
> team found to its alarm that bids were far higher than expected.
>
> Potential concessionaires (private-sector partners) wanted £660 mil­lion
to
> design, build, operate and maintain the system for its initial lifespan,
but
> the government had limited its contribution to £355 million.
>
> Even with an additional £120 million available, mainly from the city
> council, the gap was unbridgeable and provoked Darling’s refusal of
> further funds.
>
> It was back to the drawing board for Steve Hemingway, the project’s
> manager. “The risks caused uneasiness among bidders as some other
> light rail schemes had not done quite as well as expected,” he says.
>
> Leeds remained confident in its analysis that the community and
> economic benefits the tram would bring could not be matched by buses,
> and that the regeneration benefits of the system would be substantial.
>
> The city council forecasts the creation of 32,000 jobs by 2014, with 70
per
> cent of workers travelling from outside the city to fill them.
>
> There is not the road capacity for them to arrive by car and the Supertram
> is expected to carry about 19 million passengers a year – a quarter of
> them former car users.
>
> “The prices came in very high and the sums did not add up,” Hemingway
> says.
>
> His solution was to simplify part of the project by deferring – he insists
> that
> does not mean “abandoning” – a spur track off the southern line.
>
> Other savings came from eschewing the extremely costly process of
> diverting all utility cables and pipes.
>
> Instead, some would be left in place and alternative connections built,
and
> others removed and replaced elsewhere.
>
> But even after these cost reductions, a funding gap remained. Another
> pool was required to make the project’s finances reach the required total.
>
> Hence the idea that the council and the government will jointly guarantee
> fare revenue for the early years to soothe bidders’ jitters. He is
currently
> unwilling to specify the sums involved.
>
> Their hope is that the funds will never be called on, and so will not be a
> real cost, but that the guarantee’s presence will enable the bidder to
> remove this element of risk.
>
> Leeds is waiting to hear whether the Department for Transport will accept
> the revised bid, but it is unclear when that decision will be handed down.
>
> South Hampshire faced a similar problem with high-risk pricing, says
> project director Steve Nicholson, but had far less scope to make savings
> from technical changes.
>
> The proposed line would link Gosport, the UK’s largest stationless town,
> with Portsmouth. The towns face each other across Portsmouth Harbour,
> beneath which a 1 kilometre tunnel would be dug.
>
> Tunnelling carries a high proportion of the cost but there would be no
> point in building any of the line without it. With the rest of the cost
> comparatively small, the only possible saving was to remove a short loop
> proposed for Fareham.
>
> Nicholson says: “Market appetite is well down for light rail, as operating
> costs seem to always go up.”
>
> South Hampshire’s market proposition was a 30-year design, build,
> finance and operate concession. The revenue was to come from fares
> and the bidding competition looked for the minimum claim on public
> subsidy for the service delivery payment.
>
> As in Leeds, the market “put in large elements to cover risk if fare
revenue
> was not as large as expected”, Nicholson says.
>
> Original bids came in at £270 million, but government PFI and grant
> support was only £170 million.
>
> The reduction in Fareham and some technical changes shaved off £70
> mil­lion, and the rest is “de-risking” of the fare income through a
revenue
> guarantee similar to the one in Leeds, Nicholson says.
>
> The councils feel they have some advantages over Leeds in that it is
> difficult for buses or cars to compete with a system that links two sides
of
> a waterway.
>
> “Leeds has a city centre system and people can run buses to compete,
> but our trams will run across a harbour between two congested peninsulas
> and we have journey times of five minutes against 45 minutes, so that is a
> pretty strong factor in our favour,” he says.
>
> The two councils can also promote tram ridership by, for example,
> designing parking and traffic policies to encourage its use and
> discouraging car commuting.
>
> Local government has its own consultancy for public-private partnerships,
> called 4Ps. Senior executive Andrew Hugill is familiar with the gripes
> about PFI appearing to involve huge contingencies for risk that would not
> arise were the project wholly funded from the public purse.
>
> But he points out that financing infrastructure from public money does not
> somehow make risks vanish: rather, there is a tendency to ignore them.
>
> As he explains: “Whatever option a local authority takes, it is clear that
> risk is a vital element and pricing it is an important factor, preferably
> one
> that is costed from the start.
>
> “PFI has led to a perception that it brings about higher risk, but risk is
> fundamental and inherent and has to be considered even if other options
> are pursued.”
>
> Light rail’s selling point is that its clean, comfortable and modern style
> appeals to people who would not otherwise be seen dead on public
> transport, and so cuts car use in line with government environmental
> policy.
>
> But another government policy demands the use of PFI to gather in
> private funding for public works, and with many of light rail’s benefits,
> including urban regeneration, being only indirect, the two do not always
sit
> happily together.
>
> It remains possible that the government will scupper these plans, and if
it
> does, the projects will again have to be rethought.
>
>
> Mark Smulian is a freelance business journalist
>
> [[]]
>
>
> ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
> ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources
> often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.WnJAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources
> often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.WnJAA/cUmLAA/KlSolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
>     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Weyrich_Transit/
>
> <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>     Weyrich_Transit-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com
>
> <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
>     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>