UK Cities Clamour For New LRT Funding: Light rail has been both in and out of favour in Britain in recent years. Now, it is flavour of the month again, though the reasons why are not entirely clear - Rapid Transit Review

International Railway Journal, Nov, 2001 by Mike Knutton

THREE years ago light rail transit (LRT) in Britain was moribund with the government giving clear priority to buses as the cure-all for urban congestion. Today that same government has set a target to double the use of LRT by 2010 and is providing funding for up to 25 new lines.

As Dr Lewis Lesley, organiser of the Light Rail 2001 conference and exhibition to be held in Manchester this month, has noted: "The UK government has changed from a 'bus is best' approach to 'trains not jams'."

Britain currently has four LRT systems in operation, one is under construction, three have been approved, at least four others are at a less advanced stage, and there are plans for extensions to five systems. This tally does not include Tyne & Wear Metro, which opened between 1980 and 1984, or London's Docklands Light Railway, which opened in 1987, as these are classified as light metros because there is no street running involved.

Systems in operation are Manchester Metrolink, South Yorkshire Supertram (Sheffield), Midland Metro (Birmingham), and Croydon Tramlink. All have also proposed extensions. Nottingham Express Transit (NET) is under construction and due to open in 2003 followed by a number of extensions, while Leeds Supertram, South Hampshire Rapid Transit (linking Portsmouth, Gosport, and Fareham), and Bristol and South Gloucestershire have all been approved.

Still more projects are at a less advanced stage. They include new systems in Merseyside (Liverpool), for which the government is considering an appraisal, and Hull. There are also plans for further extensions in Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, and Nottingham plus a plan to modernise and extend the Blackpool Tramway. There is also a project to introduce the through-running tram-train concept in Tyne & Wear. In Scotland, a scheme has been unveiled for a light rail line in Edinburgh linking Princes Street, Leith and the [pounds sterling]1 billion Waterfront development scheme. And, as part of the refranchising of some mainline operations, the conversion of some heavy rail lines to light rail lines in south Wales is to be studied.

In the early 1990s the former Conservative government was keen on LRT. It funded Manchester and Sheffield and supported Leeds. Then, in the mid-1990s it lost enthusiasm because of problems with South Yorkshire Supertram in Sheffield. "They felt it was not good value for money. There were also general issues about the affordability of schemes which, at an average of [pounds sterling]200 million for every 10km, is not cheap," said Mr Tim Ryder of the London-based consultant, Steer Davies Gleave. (One of the offshoots of the high cost in Britain has been the development of the guided bus concept).

Labour was also cold to LRT after it came to power, but, according to Ryder, the change of attitude towards light rail began about the end of 1999. "The pace of change was quite quick, moving from cold uninterest to approving three Manchester Metrolink schemes within a year.

"They also started to give more encouraging signs to Leeds, Hampshire, and Bristol to the extent that when Leeds was putting its Local Transport Plan together last summer they were confident enough to apply not only for the first line but also for two more," he told IRJ.

There have been some changes to the processes for getting light rail schemes approved that have enabled them to be assessed in a more favourable light The government has changed the methods by which projects are now appraised and valued, including the means of assessing user benefits.

"This was previously done on the narrow basis of assessing benefits to road users. But taking that as the main criterium made it very difficult to achieve a beneficial cost benefit ratio," Ryder said.

Now, wider benefits such as the social and economic benefits of regeneration, transport integration, social inclusion, and the environment are taken into account in a multi-criteria approach that makes it easier to justify the investment in a light rail project.

A growing interest by local authorities in imposing road user charges for access by motorists to city centres has also encouraged the government to support light rail schemes. Local authorities have to find 25% of the funding for LRT projects. Road user charges represent a sustainable income source to underpin the local element of funding.

In Britain, Bristol in particular is very keen on road charging and this may explain why the city's plans for LRT are now, after a number of false starts, being enthusiastically supported by the government.

Ryder therefore believes that the two factors that have made the biggest difference to the government's now-positive view of LRT are the political will that pushed through some significant changes in methodology plus the availability of funds announced in the 10-year transport plan to 2010.

He does not, however, believe, as some do, that the planning process has delayed and continues to delay projects. In the past it took nine or 10 years to bring a scheme to fruition. Indeed in exceptional cases like Leeds it will have taken 16 years by the time the system is up and running.