Greenwood points out the distinct difference on the continent: “Over there, utility companies saying ‘you can’t build there’ would be laughed at in the face. The tram network takes priority. Utility companies are told ‘you have this window of opportunity to get in there and shift your stuff and it’s at your expense, not ours. If it’s not done in that time and you have a problem afterwards, we’ll charge you’.”
What drives that attitude?
“Over there transport networks are important! Mayors are voted for on the state of the tram network. They take it seriously.”
Stephen Joseph, chief executive of the Campaign for Better Transport, reckons that the prospects for the future might be brighter once elected mayors of combined authorities are voted in. Will that be enough to persuade promoters to bring forward schemes?
“It’s a complex process.” He says. “You have to be determined and have money. Multi-year funding deals might help, so you can borrow against those. There will be opportunities, but at the moment expecting Local Enterprise Partnerships to promote light rail is not going to happen.”
Joseph is also quick to point out the utility issue: “We tried to crack that one. It seemed mad to us. The utility people seem to have a lot of power, which doesn’t happen with roads. In roads there is a level of sharing. If you are a local authority, looking at whether you build a road or a tram, you face 100% of the costs of moving utilities for the tram but not for the road… it’s not a level playing field.”
Are there other ways the UK could bring down costs?
“We have to find a way of getting away from gold-plating compared with the continent. Some of that is down to safety. Tram Train has involved breaking every Network Rail gold standard in the book and overwriting them. That’s essential if we’re not going to end up with something that looks and costs very heavy rail.
“We’ve got to move to proportionate risk rather than risks based on standards, because essentially what that does is enshrine very high cost, and that’s a problem for the whole rail industry. Crack that and there is an opportunity to bring down the costs of light rail.”
No doubt that would help anyone contemplating a scheme, but at the end of the day a sizeable capital bill still has to be paid.
“What isn’t clear is where the funding is for new light rail,” continues Joseph. “There are two routes here. You could see the rail budget pay for conversion of existing heavy rail lines to light rail. That has been torpedoed by Network Rail insisting that 100% of the asset’s liability and responsibility was transferred from them - they weren’t prepared to accept 99-year leases or similar. One bridge bash could account for a whole year of highway maintenance budget!
“Nottingham raised money through a workplace parking levy. Would other places consider that for a light rail network? You need that kind of funding mechanism, or some kind of tax incremental finance scheme - for example, where light rail serves a new development and is paid for by the new business rates gained from that development.”
Clearly this sort of approach would require a lot of ‘buy in’ from a range of stakeholders. Let’s assume that’s forthcoming, and that a promoter can bring forward a sensibly costed and funded scheme. Is that enough to make light rail work in this country?
“The final problem is the Government’s demolition of the planning process. If you regard planning as a burden on business and you want sprawl to happen everywhere, you’ll get very light rail-unfriendly developments, be they housing or commercial developments. You end up with less dense developments.”
In other words, there just won’t be the required potential bums on seats along the route to bring about a commercially viable ticket income?
“If your spatial planning says ‘we’re going to have business parks next to motorway junctions that nobody can get to except by car’, and the layout is such that it will be really difficult to serve by light rail, then you won’t get light rail. You won’t have the density to justify it.
“On the other hand, if you have spatial planning that has dense city-based development - where new developments are placed along the tram - you are building up the market for the tram. It’s about having tram-friendly planning and transport policies nationally and locally. A number of places have failed to give buses priority over cars, so the idea they might give light rail priority is unlikely. It’s politically challenging, but pressure over air pollution will impel change.”
Joseph sees the three main obstacles as cost, promoters and income. These may be substantial, but he’s far from pessimistic about a future for light rail in the UK.
“The UK is not an exception. Light rail has worked in contexts like the UK. I’ve done this job long enough to remember when there was only the Blackpool tram! We’ve come a long way since then, but there is a problem with everyone inventing the wheel, which means every system is bespoke.”
To some extent it would be impossible to arrange a UK standard, as our city streets are gloriously varied. However, as Greenwood points out, there may still be a way for promoters to help themselves when it comes to the cost of the vehicles, with all the main manufacturers providing vehicles around 40 metres long, 2.65 metres wide and with 100% low floors.
“Use that as the basis. All manufacturers work on a minimum order of 20. Order less and the fixed costs go up. Order more and they come down. If something is in production, can you buy more? Don’t build a new vehicle - really really don’t!”
In September 2011 (some months before Louise Butcher wrote her paper), the Conservative/Liberal Democrat Coalition Government published a rail review paper entitled Green Light for Light Rail.
At that time, the number of passenger journeys made across the country’s light rail networks was just short of 200 million every year - a record level. Now it has reached 250 million a year, some 2.7% of all public transport journeys. The Government acknowledged the high capital costs of tram networks, commenting it was not often seen as “an affordable option for local transport authorities”.
Then Transport Minister Norman Baker made very positive noises: “Light rail is good for passengers, good for local economics, good for the local environment, and it’s a mode of public transport that passengers really enjoy using. That is why I’m committed to doing everything we can to bring costs down to make it a viable option for more communities.”
