LinksGlossaryMessagesSitemapHelp


Home

Policy Instruments

Select
Search
Filter
 Light rail
SummaryTaxonomy and descriptionFirst principles assesmentEvidence on performancePolicy contributionComplementary instrumentsReferences
Policy Contribution

Contribution to key objectives and alleviation of key problems for Manchester Metrolink, Sheffield Supertram and other systems is summarised below, with more detailed discussion of each following.

Summary of different systems’ contribution to key objectives

Objective
Manchester Metrolink
Sheffield Supertram
Other systems
Efficiency
2
1
1
Liveable streets
2
1
2
Protection of the environment
2
1
2
Equity and social inclusion
2
2
2
Safety
2
1
2
Economic growth
2
2
2
Finance
-1
-2
-4
1= Weakest possible positive contribution,5= strongest possible positive contribution
-1= Weakest possible negative contribution-5= strongest possible negative contribution
0= No contribution
Overall summary of different systems’ contribution to alleviation of key problems

Problem

Manchester Metrolink

Sheffield Supertram

Other systems

Congestion-related delay

2

1

2

Congestion-related unreliability

2

1

2

Community severance

2

1

2

Visual intrusion

-

-

-

Lack of amenity

2

1

2

Global warming

1

1

1

Local air pollution

2

1

2

Noise

2

1

1

Reduction of green space

2

2

2

Damage to environmentally sensitive sites

-

-

-

Poor accessibility for those without a car and those with mobility impairments

2

2

2

Disproportionate disadvantaging of particular social or geographic groups

2

2

2

Number, severity and risk of accidents

2

1

2

Suppression of the potential for economic activity in the area

2

2

2


Appropriate contexts

The table below provides some indication of the suitability of light rail transit for different area types.

Appropriate area-types

Area type

Suitability

City centre

5

Dense inner suburb

4

Medium density outer suburb

2

Less dense outer suburb

1

District centre

1

Corridor

3

Small town

1

Tourist town

2


Adverse side-effects of light rail

Light rail does not have many direct adverse effects, although noise, visual intrusion and increasing social inequality (because of serving high-income areas) have been indicated as examples. The first two tend to be concerns prior to opening rather than real concerns during operation as experience shows such systems are soon accepted as part of the urban fabric. The social inequity problem largely relates to the use of resources, as happened in Los Angeles where operating losses on the light rail system had to be covered out of a public transport budget which meant diverting resources away from low income bus users. This touches on the main adverse effect of light rail schemes which is their huge cost. The capital cost has to be paid out of public funds, and can be very high. Spending public funds in this way means that funding is either diverted away from other public goods and services or from private expenditure because taxes are higher than they otherwise would be (in countries such as Britain the higher taxes would not be explicitly linked to the new light rail system, but in the US, local citizens can vote to increase the scheme is essentially a political decision, which is not always rational (Edwards and Mackett, 1996, Richmond, 2001). Even if the decision to build a new light rail system is not rational there is a clear advantage in making it as successful as possible, building upon experience from elsewhere as far as possible (Mackett and Edwards, 1996). This is the rationale underlying the work by Babalik (2000) and Mackett and Babalik (2001a,b).

Top of the page

Text edited at the Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT