In this work, three types of complementary policy that can help to enhance the benefits of a new light rail scheme have been identified from the surveys: operating policies, transport planning policies and urban planning policies. These distinctions are rather artificial because several of the policies are to do with enhancing the integration of transport planning and urban planning and so could be categorised under either heading. The use of these policy instruments is considered for 11 systems: two in Canada (Calgary and Vancouver), three in Britain (Manchester, Sheffield, and Tyne and Wear), and six in the U S (Baltimore, Los Angeles, Portland, Sacramento, San Diego, and St Louis).

The measures used as part of these policies are indicated in the table below.

The operating policies for a variety of LRT systems are indicated in the table below:

The policy has been effective in enhancing the success of the system.
The policy has been implemented but failed to have significant effects.
It is not clear whether the policy has had any effect on the performance of the system.

Source: Babalik (2000), Mackett and Babalik (2001b)
Note: In Sheffield, introducing additional staff for ticket sale on board has enhanced the security image of the system.

It should be recognised that some of these indicators imply simply an assessment of the extent to which the policy has been implemented: for example, all the systems received some form of marketing and advertising even if the only coverage has been in the local press (adverse or otherwise), so a positive indication in the table implies the implementation of the policy to a significant extent, which is not necessarily the same as whether or not it was effective, only where a policy was clearly not a success is a cross allocated.

Of the systems being considered here, only Vancouver and Manchester are considered to offer high frequency service. A travelcard is a period ticket which permits travel on all public transport modes in an area. It is sometimes possible to offer a ticketing system that offers travel on several modes in a deregulated environment, but it is unlikely to be comprehensive. Such a system has been tried in Sheffield, but does not seem to have had a significant effect. All the other cities outside Britain, except Portland, have implemented such systems. The deregulation of buses in Britain (outside London) makes it very difficult to offer a travel card and free transfer to buses because these require co-operation between companies whereas deregulation is designed to encourage competition.

Calgary, Portland and St Louis offer some free travel. For example, free travel is offered between six stations in the city centre off-peak on St Louis MetroLink. The idea is that it will encourage those who would otherwise never use public transport to try it, thereby overcoming a mental barrier.
As mentioned above, all new light rail systems are likely to be publicised, but some systems have had explicit marketing and advertising campaigns. All the North American systems were the subject of such campaigns, but in the case of Sacramento it seems to have been fairly ineffective. Of the three British systems, only in Sheffield has there been an extensive campaign, but it has not been very effective.

Like many examples of publicly-owned infrastructure, light rail systems can be vulnerable to vandalism. They can also be perceived as dangerous for lone travellers, particularly after dark. All non-automatic systems carry a driver, but he or she is usually in a locked driving cab, partly for their protection. For all these reasons some systems have staff either at stations or on board. Whilst this increases costs, it can save money in terms of revenue protection and reducing vandalism, and can enhance revenue by encouraging those who would otherwise find travelling unescorted intimidating. For example, in Sheffield the ticket machines on the stations were regularly vandalised and there was considerable revenue loss from non-payment of fares. The introduction of conductors has helped to increase revenue significantly.

An indication of the effectiveness of transport planning policies to increase the benefits of LRT are shown in the table below.

The policy has been effective in enhancing the success of the system.
The policy has been implemented but failed to have significant effects.
It is not clear whether the policy has had any effect on the performance of the system.

Source: Babalik (2000), Mackett and Babalik (2001b)
Note: * Policy was implemented and was effective during the first 5 years of the operation

Integrating the system into regional planning and integrating the system into existing urban projects are to do with integration of the light rail system into the existing infrastructure, either by incorporating it into a regional plan as happened in Calgary, Vancouver, Portland and Tyne and Wear, or incorporating it into an existing urban project, such as regeneration of an area, as has happened in Vancouver, Tyne and Wear, San Diego and, unsuccessfully, in Sheffield.

A light rail system is more likely to be successful if it connects two large centres which generate or attract trips, preferably over the whole day, to ensure a continuous high level of patronage. This happened in Calgary, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Portland, St Louis and San Diego. In all cases except the last it seems to have helped increase patronage. The effects are not so clear in the case of San Diego.

Buses can serve a complementary role to a light rail system by acting as feeder services. This approach takes advantage of the bus's ability to go on any road, to collect passengers to take to the light rail system which can then take them into the city centre at high speed on a segregated track. Buses can also be used as distributors if appropriate. This method is used for the North American systems. Deregulation of buses in Britain prevents it. It was used in Tyne and Wear until the buses were deregulated in 1986.

Integration with walking and cycling are further considerations. Safe and convenient walk and cycle routes to the stations are likely to increase patronage by reducing the total disutility (generalised cost) of the trip. Improving access by cycle to public transport interchanges can significantly increase their catchment area. A report by the Bikerail consultancy on the potential for integrating cycling and heavy-rail estimated that whilst only 19% of the population were within a 15 minute walk of a station, 60% are within 15 minutes of their nearest station by cycle (Bikerail 1999).

Cycle parking is a relatively cheap and space efficient means of improving integration between LRT and cycles. Consideration should also be given to allowing cycle carriage, particularly during the off-peak. In the Netherlands 30% and 10% of light rail trips access and egress interchanges by bike respectively, demonstrating the potential of the integration of cycles and light rail transit (Presentation by Hugh McClintock, 2004). Significant levels of integration between cycling and LRT have been achieved in various European cities such as Basle, Freiburg, Karlsruhe and Strasbourg (McClintock, 2004).

The other two policies relate to car parking: providing car parks at stations means that the light rail system can be used for park and ride. Restricting parking in the city centre can make use of light rail relatively more attractive. Car parking has been provided at stations on all the systems except Vancouver. In the British systems it does not seem to have been very effective. Only in Calgary has car parking been restricted elsewhere as a policy to encourage light rail use.

Calgary seems to be the place where transport planning policies have been used most to encourage use of the light rail system. In Britain, some policies have been tried, but they do not seem to have been very successful, especially in Manchester and Sheffield. All the US systems have been the subject of at least two complementary transport planning policies which seem to have been successful.

The systems utilising urban planning policies to increase benefits are shown in the table below.

The policy has been effective in enhancing the success of the system.
The policy has been implemented but failed to have significant effects.
It is not clear whether the policy has had any effect on the performance of the system.

Source: Babalik (2000), Mackett and Babalik (2001b)
Note: * These are the projects that the systems were integrated into the second transport planning policy; therefore, they are not shown under urban planning policies to avoid double counting.

One urban planning policy that is used in North America is rezoning. This means changing local plans to encourage location of activities that will produce many light rail trips near to stations. Sometimes local ordinances are varied, for example allowing higher buildings close to stations than would normally be allowed. Rezoning has been used successfully in Vancouver, Los Angeles, Portland, San Diego and St Louis.

Several of the urban planning policies shown here relate to the concept of synergy between the light rail scheme and major urban development schemes: the urban development generates passengers for the light rail system, the light rail system provides access for customers, staff and residents who will make the urban development scheme more successful. These include offering incentives for transit-oriented development as has happened in Vancouver, Portland, Sacramento (unsuccessfully), San Diego, and St Louis. Other ways urban projects can be used to encourage use of the light rail system are by undergoing major redevelopment projects in the city centre, or elsewhere, undertaking joint projects of which the light rail scheme is an integral part, and locating public development at stations, either facilities for public use or offices in which public servants work. Vancouver, Los Angeles, Portland and St Louis are the cities where such policies have been used most successfully.

The final complementary policy to be considered here is pedestrianising streets. This means closing streets to cars to make them available for pedestrians, and in some cases, light rail vehicles. This means that the light rail system can operate in the city centre without interference from cars, pedestrians can access shops without having to worry about traffic in crossing streets, the whole environment can be landscaped and made more pleasant, and car journeys to the centre are discouraged. Often park and ride facilities on the light rail system means that motorists can travel efficiently to the city centre without taking their cars all the way. Issues such as deliveries have to be addressed. This is a good example of a situation in which the introduction of a new light rail scheme can be used to instigate a whole series of improvements to the city.

These types of urban planning policy have been used most extensively in Vancouver and Portland. They have not been used much in Calgary, Baltimore and the British cities.

Babalik (2000) has developed a simple technique for assessing the factors which make urban public transport schemes successful. Success seems to be a function of two sets of factors: the nature of the city and the complementary policies that are used. Once it has been decided to develop a light rail scheme in a city, apart from careful choice of the line of the routes, success or otherwise seems to depend fairly heavily on the skilful use of these complementary policies. Such skilful use seems much more prevalent in North America than Britain. This means that, although cities in Britain with their relatively high densities and low car ownership levels, are intrinsically more amenable to light rail, some of the North American systems are more successful. In fact, of the systems examined by Babalik (2000) the most successful ones seem to be in Canada, in Vancouver and Calgary. Then come systems such as those in St Louis, Portland and San Diego, which seem to be doing better than those in Britain. It can be seen in the tables above that these North American systems have many of the complementary policies in places, whereas that is not the case to the same extent in Britain. It ought to be added that some of the US systems, such as those in Baltimore and Sacramento are fairly unsuccessful, and these are the ones where such complementary policies have been used less.

It has been shown that complementary policy instruments can be used to enhance the benefits of light rail schemes, and the work cited suggests that such policies can make the difference between success and failure.