Memorandum by The Confederation of Passenger
Transport (UK) (RT 19)
LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEMS
1. ABOUT CPT
The Confederation of Passenger Transport is
the national trade association representing the interests of operators
of bus, coach and fixed track passenger transport systems, including
the owners and operators of the principal light rail and tramway
systems in the United Kingdom.
2. THE SELECT
COMMITTEE'S
INQUIRY
The Transport Sub-committee wishes to investigate
Light Rapid Transit with a view to seeing whether and how to assist
the growth of such schemes in the UK. This follows the Committee's
recommendation, in its report on the Government's Transport White
Paper, that "the Government should carefully appraise light
rail projects, giving particular weight to their ability to attract
large numbers of people from their cars."
In its response, the Government agreed that
light rail can have a role to play, but added that "the capital
costs of light rail are very high and more modest guided bus schemes
and comprehensive bus priority measures can often deliver similar
benefits at considerably less cost."
CPT recognises that in the majority of towns
in the country, buses will remain the dominant mode of public
transport. Nevertheless, we believe that, in the right place—generally,
on heavily used corridors in the larger cities—the benefits
of light rail will outweigh its costs. In these circumstances,
light rail can make an important contribution to the right mixture
of public transport for an urban area. We develop these views
further in the remainder of this response.
3. WHAT IS
LIGHT RAPID
TRANSIT?
There is a continuous spectrum of public transport
provision which ranges from bus to heavy rail, as shown in the
diagram below. In general, as we progress through the spectrum
from bus to heavy rail, the speed and capacity of the modes increases.
| Bus on road or tram on street
|
| Busway transit |
| Light rail or Guided light transit |
| Metro or Underground |
| Heavy rail |
Light rapid transit covers the centre of the spectrum. The
term implies that the vehicles are lighter than on a traditional
railway. Consequently, they can accelerate and decelerate faster,
and stations or stops can be closer together, making them suitable
for urban operation. At lighter end, light rapid transit includes
trams such as those in Blackpool operating largely in a publicly-accessible
place; at the heavier end, the term includes metro systems such
as in Tyne and Wear which have some of the characteristics of
suburban rail.
The key to providing a fast, reliable public transport system
is segregation—that is, separating the transit vehicles
from other traffic, either alongside the highway or on a completely
separate track—so they can run at higher speed and are not
delayed by congestion. Segregation is easier to provide for a
rail mode, because the presence of rails marks the mode out as
requiring different treatment from other traffic. Most examples
of light rapid transit, therefore, are rail-based modes such as
metros or light rail, the modern form of the traditional street
tramway.
For buses and street-running trams, complete segregation
is less acceptable, and assistance is more usually in the form
of priorities at junctions and bus lanes. These measures are helpful
in producing a better quality service, but produce a lower quantum
of benefits. Busway transit (buses on segregated tracks) lies
at one end of the range of modes which are considered as light
rapid transit.
Light rapid transit also includes other urban transit systems
which do not run on rails but which otherwise have similar characteristics,
such as guided light transit, electrically-powered rubber-tyred
vehicles running on a dedicated track. Technically-advanced systems
such as these have been proposed for some cities in the UK.
In this paper, we shall concentrate on light rail, as most
existing examples of light rapid transit are of that form. In
general the conclusions will also apply to other types of light
rapid transit, and should be read in that light. We also consider
busways because of the perception that they provide a cheaper
alternative to light rail.
4. LIGHT RAIL
AND BUSWAY
TRANSIT
4.1. Light rail
Light rail, the modern form of the tramway, is an efficient
mode of public transport. It is particularly well-suited to the
movement of high numbers of passengers along fixed urban corridors.
It can be controlled by signals, as on a railway, or on the driver's
line-of-sight. Light rail can therefore run on a mixture of purpose
built tracks, existing railway routes, former railway alignment,
and city streets. Stations can be spaced close together and can
be simply a platform in the street. Light rail can combine the
speed of train travel with the advantages of a bus for access
to town and city centres.
Light rail can also share tracks with suburban trains to
achieve a rapid journey to the city centre, then divert onto city
streets to provide better access. There are currently no track-sharing
systems in Britain, but there are examples in continental Europe,
and track-sharing is planned on the Sunderland extension of Tyne
and Wear Metro and in the West Midlands.
4.2. BUSWAY
TRANSIT
A busway provides a dedicated right-of-way for buses, which
may be alongside a highway or on another alignment. The main advantage
of a busway over a bus route on an ordinary road is that it automatically
provides priority over other traffic; other vehicles are excluded.
The major problem of enforcing a conventional bus lane is thereby
avoided.
Busways have an advantage over light rail in that at the
end of the segregated section buses are able to fan out onto ordinary
roads to serve a wide geographical area whilst providing a through
service to and from all destinations. They can also be constructed
in short sections, each being opened when ready, to bypass congested
sections or to avoid places where construction cost would be prohibitively
high, as in a city centre.
Buses on a busway can be automatically steered. The advantage
of guidance is that the lane can be narrower than a busway where
vehicles are manually steered. This makes the busway both cheaper
and easier to integrate into urban environment. Guidance also
aids docking the vehicle at a stop to provide level access. The
mechanism can be either kerb-guidance, where small guidance wheels
run along a specially-constructed kerb and operate the steering
mechanism, or cable-guidance, electronically following a cable
in the road. In either case, the driver can take over the steering
if necessary, and retains control of the speed and headway (though
cable guidance may allow the possibility of automatically restricting
the maximum speed in pedestrian areas).
5. THE CHARACTERISTICS
OF LIGHT
RAIL AND
BUSWAY TRANSIT
5.1. The advantages of light rail
Light rail systems have a number of advantages over the the
traditional bus, some of which also apply to high quality bus
services and busways:
— it offers higher capacity;
— it offers a smoother ride;
— its precise path makes it more acceptable in pedestrian
areas;
— with the right priorities over traffic, it can
provide a reliable service;
— it appears to have a better image;
— it attracts more passengers who might otherwise
travel by car;
— being electrically powered, it reduces pollution
in the city.
5.2. Type of city served
Light rail is faster and has a higher capacity than the bus.
In normal service the maximum achievable capacity on a light rail
system is 15,000 to 20,000 passengers per hour in each direction.
Light rail can achieve higher capacities, but only in unusual
circumstances, such as clearing a sports stadium after an event.
For comparison, the maximum capacity of metro trains is about
30,000 passengers per hour in each direction. Regular buses can
carry 5,000 to 6,000 passengers per hour.
The capacity of buses on a busway is limited by the rate
at which they can use stops or exit onto city streets. This puts
an overall limit of about 7,000 passengers per hour in each direction.
Speed and high capacity are, however, only useful where the
journey is long enough and there is sufficient passenger demand
to realise the advantages. This points to the major application
as being on heavily used corridors. This will generally be in
the larger cities.
Other local factors can favour rail. Manchester Metrolink
has benefited from several favourable factors of this sort: it
added city-centre penetration to existing well-used rail links,
it has direct interchange with rail and bus, and it has strong
destinations at the outer ends of the route. This last factor
is also apparent in Midland Metro, Docklands, Croydon and the
Meadowhall Branch in Sheffield.
5.3. Costs
The capital cost of a new light rail line lies approximately
in the range £3 million to £10 million per kilometre.
This is the overall cost, including infrastructure and a typical
number of stations and vehicles. It also includes the cost of
diverting utilities—a major expense for any fixed track
system.
Obviously the actual cost of any individual system will depend
on many factors, such as the type of route, number of vehicles,
number of stations, etc. Systems which are built on a former railway,
such as Manchester Metrolink (£4.7 million/km), will be towards
the lower end of the range. Systems which require a lot of construction
in the street, involving the costly diversion of utilities' apparatus,
tend to cost more. South Yorkshire Supertram, for example, which
runs mainly on existing highway, cost £8.3 million/km. New
tunnels or elevated tracks will increase the cost considerably.
However, it is important to note that light rail is an order
of magnitude cheaper than alternatives such as new metro or heavy
rail construction, and gives similar benefits. Light rail should
be regarded as a cheap railway rather than as an expensive bus.
In addition, the operating cost of a light railway, over its lifespan
of 30 years or more, is much less than that of a bus-based alternative,
mainly because one driver can serve many more passengers.
Making use of an existing railway alignment lowers the cost
and improves the prospects for light rail. However, the revenue-earning
potential will also be affected: the line may attract fewer passengers
if it does not follow current travel patterns.
The cost of a busway can vary a great deal, depending on
the type of construction. On an existing bus corridor, the cost
of installing sections of busway can be as low as £1 million
per lane-km, excluding the cost of vehicles, depots etc. For complete
new systems on reserved track with new stations, infrastructure
and a new vehicle fleet, the capital cost could be similar to
that of a light rail line.
5.4 Light rail systems in the UK
Light rail systems have been enjoying something of a renaissance
over the last couple of decades, with several new systems opening,
and schemes being considered for most of Britain's larger cities.
Blackpool has its original tramway, and the following light rail
systems have opened recently:
|
| Tyne and Wear Metro (1980)
| South Yorkshire Supertram (1994)
|
| London Docklands Light Railway (1987)
| Midland Metro (1999) |
| Manchester Metrolink (1992) | Croydon Tramlink (due to open early 2000)
|
|
Schemes are also planned in Nottingham, South Hampshire,
Leeds and Bristol. The Annex gives further details of these schemes
and of light rail in other countries.
5.5 Busways in the UK and abroad
In the UK, there are two existing guided busways, in Leeds
and Ipswich. There is a major guided bus scheme planned for Edinburgh,
and a scheme for Northampton, using technically advanced guided
buses. Runcorn has a busway, used by conventional (non-guided)
buses, opened in 1967.
There are very few examples of busways in other countries,
but there are examples in Adelaide, Essen, Ottawa and Pittsburgh.
Further details of these systems are given in the Annex.
6. THE SUCCESSES
OF LIGHT
RAIL SYSTEMS
6.1 Ridership
In nearly all cities in the world with a new light rail system,
it is well used, with ridership growing over the years after opening.
In Britain, the Docklands Light Railway had to be increased in
capacity, and Manchester Metrolink is currently experiencing crush
loadings at peak times.
On South Yorkshire Supertram, the initial ridership was lower
than expected, and this attracted a certain amount of adverse
publicity. There were, however, a number of unforeseeable or uncontrollable
factors which adversely affected ridership, for example changes
in land use, economic circumstances, and the lack of priority
given to the system. Currently, patronage is in line with that
forecast, following changes to fares and service levels, marketing
initiatives, and the introduction of conductors to improve fare
collection and revenue protection, with incidental improvements
to vandalism and security problems.
A busway transit system can offer some of the same advantages.
The guided bus in Leeds offers a reduction in journey times, improved
reliability, new vehicles and strong marketing. As a result it
has experienced a large growth in passenger numbers, with growth
still continuing.
Not only does a new light rail or busway system attract
passengers to use the system itself, but it can also increase
the total number of passengers using public transport.
6.2 Effect on road traffic
When a new light rail system is introduced in a city, it
typically attracts around half to two-thirds of its passengers
from bus, with about half the remainder being former car users,
and a similar proportion making new journeys. One of the justifications
for building a light rail system is that this produces a reduction
in road traffic. In Britain, such benefits to non-users are among
the criteria for public funding. Studies of British systems show
the following results:
Manchester Metrolink
— attracts about 15 per cent of its passengers from
cars;
— equivalent to a reduction in car traffic of two
to two-and-a-half million journeys per annum;
— 10 per cent reduction in total car traffic in
the Metrolink corridors;
— 2 per cent reduction in peak traffic entering
central Manchester;
— equivalent to a reduction in city centre car parking
requirement of 1,200 spaces;
— over the same period, traffic in areas not served
by Metrolink increased by 5-10 per cent.
Tyne and Wear
— 3 to 4 per cent less car traffic growth in the
city centre than in outer areas;
— increase in the use of park-and-ride;
— 724 peak-hour journeys forecast to transfer from
car to Metro on Sunderland extension;
— benefits of £18 million per annum to the
remaining car users as a result.
South Yorkshire Supertram
— attracts 22 per cent of its passengers from cars;
— indications of a reduction in car journeys to
Meadowhall;
— increased use of park-and-ride.
Results from cities in other countries are similar. In Nantes,
there was an increase in 65 per cent in the number of public transport
users, with 35 per cent of these having previously used a car.
The demand for city centre car park spaces was about 1,000 fewer.
In Lille it was estimated that about 3,000 fewer car journeys
per day were made to the city centre.
Although light rail attracts substantial numbers of former
car users, the overall effect on road congestion across the city
is small, generally amounting to perhaps one or two years' natural
growth in traffic. One reason is that a light rail line serves
at most two or three corridors into the city centre. Even if the
reduction in road traffic in these corridors is substantial, as
was found in Manchester, it would be unreasonable to expect there
to be much effect in other corridors.
Another reason is that there is a latent demand for car travel.
In the absence of other measures, therefore, any car journeys
which transfer to public transport are likely to be replaced by
others.
By providing an attractive alternative to the use of the
car, light rail can make it more acceptable to introduce traffic
restraint and environmental measures such as parking restrictions,
pedestrianisation, or—for the future—road charging.
Light rail may also have a small effect on the speed of road
traffic. According to some analysts, traffic congestion reaches
an equilibrium when a journey by car takes, on average, the same
time as by public transport. If a faster public transport mode
such as light rail is introduced, car travellers will transfer
to it until the average speed of the remaining traffic rises to
that of the new mode, to the benefit of all travellers.
6.3 Non-quantifiable benefits of light rail
Light rail provides a high quality of public transport. Experience
with Quality Partnerships between bus operators and local authorities
shows that high quality public transport, whether bus or rail,
is attractive to passengers, and is particularly effective in
attracting car users. Some of the attractive features of a quality
public transport system are:
— Comfortable, modern vehicles;
— Attractive and well lit stations or stops, which
can be equipped with seats and shelter;
— Stops with names for easy recognition, both for
the traveller looking for the system and for the passenger looking
for where to get off;
— Information provided at stops and is easy to obtain;
— A well-used system with other people around, to
give a feeling of security;
— A comprehensive network of routes serving the
whole area
Light rail also has some specific features:
— A comfortable ride on modern, continuously welded
track;
— Smooth acceleration and braking;
— Free from noise and vibration;
— Quiet and vibration-free on the exterior;
— Being electrically driven, light rail is free
from pollution at the point of use;
— Rails or fixed track provide an impression of
permanence: the passenger knows where the system runs;
— A good accident record, being—like buses—several
times safer than cars in urban areas;
— Research shows that rail based modes are perceived
to have an attractive image, and are more likely to attract car
users.
In the longer term, a light rail system brings benefits to
the conurbation as a whole. Developing transport infrastructure
facilitates a relocation of land use activity. In Tyne and Wear
there have been developments adjacent to the Metro line. In Manchester
it is estimated that 5,000 permanent jobs were created following
the introduction of Metrolink, and the local GDP grew by £170
million per annum. Midland Metro and the Beckton extension of
the Docklands Railway were expressly constructed to act as catalysts
for re-development.
7. DIFFICULTIES FACING
LIGHT RAIL
SYSTEMS
7.1 During Development
Obtaining Legal Powers
Formerly, light rail systems in the UK required a Parliamentary
Act to give the necessary legal powers. This procedure has now
been replaced (except in Scotland) by the Transport and Works
Act (TWA) 1992.
The main advantages of TWA are that it simplifies the Parliamentary
procedure. Inquiries are held locally, by a professional Inspector,
rather than in Parliamentary committee. However, the promoter
still faces lengthy and expensive procedures (typically three
years from first application to decision). The promoter must use
considerable resources in designing a scheme in detial, with no
indication as to if or when approval will eventually be forthcoming.
Busway transit systems which require non-highway land and
cannot be built under highway powers are subject to the same procedure.
Obtaining Funding
Obtaining funding is usually a greater hurdle than obtaining
powers. Most light rail systems have been built using Government
grants (known as Section 56 grants). The assessment process is
detailed and is based on benefits to non-users, such as reduction
in traffic congestion.
The major factor that militates against light rail schemes
is that a substantial amount of time and money has to be spent
in order to submit a proposal to Government for funding, without
any indication as to whether the scheme will eventually go ahead.
As a result of the lengthy processes, the gestation period for
an LRT scheme is long, typically at least eight to 10 years between
conception and operation. During that time the criteria used for
assessment and the preferred funding methods can change. The Government's
decision on funding often depends on budgetary considerations
as well as on the merits of the scheme in question. The process
can be wasteful in time and resources.
More recently, light rail schemes have exploited new sources
of finance, in particular private finance initiatives. The light
rail scheme for Nottingham and the extensions in Manchester are
financed almost entirely in this way. However, the uncertainties
associated with the lengthy process for obtaining powers are an
obstacle to finding private sector partners. It is difficult for
the private sector to commit funds for three or more years ahead,
with no guarantee of return. It would be better if a decision
in principle could be made to fund a scheme, within a defined
timescale, before some of the most detailed design work had to
be undertaken.
7.2 During construction
Disruption and Traffic Delays During Construction
Some disruption to traffic during construction of a light
rail system is inevitable, especially when building in-street.
This causes a certain amount of adverse criticism in the media,
although it tends to disperse once the benefits of the system
become apparent. In Croydon, lessons were learned from the earlier
systems, and better traffic management was introduced, together
with requirements on the contractors for phasing the work. This
led to a much lower level of complaints and criticism.
Diversion of Utilities
A major element in the construction of a light rail line
in the street is the diversion of utilities' equipment—gas,
electricity, telephone cables, etc.—to locate them away
from the rails. Until recently, the utilities contributed 18 per
cent of the cost of relocation, in recognition of the fact that
the equipment was renewed in the process. The Government has recently
reduced this contribution to 7½ per cent for public transport
projects (although it remains at 18 per cent for highway projects).
This increases a major element of the cost of light rail construction,
and effectively constitutes a "tramway tax".
Accessibility Requirements
The Rail Vehicles Accessibility Regulations contain provisions
for the construction of rail vehicles to aid disabled people.
The Regulations were finalised only two months before they came
into force in January 1999, so vehicles which had been designed
and ordered before the final provisions were decided contained
minor departures from the requirements. It was therefore necessary
to obtain exemptions, a procedure which takes the form of an Order
laid before Parliament, and is cumbersome and time-consuming.
A second problem is that operators are likely to find themselves
in a vulnerable position if a minor defect occurs. This is because
the defect must be put right on the first return of the vehicle
to depot—in practice, before the start of service the next
day. Since light rail systems hold few complete spare vehicles,
this may result in a vehicle being taken out of service to avoid
the operator committing a criminal offence. This inevitably reduces
the service for all passengers, including the disabled passengers
whom the Regulations were intended to help.
The Consortium Approach
Recent light rail systems have been constructed by a consortium
of civil engineer, operator, vehicle manufacturer and financier.
One lesson from this approach is that the experience of an operator
is essential in designing many features of the system, so the
operator must be involved as early as possible in the design process.
If this is not done, the contractor, working to a timescale and
budget, might be tempted to economise on certain features which
can cause on-going problems for the operator. An example is not
installing CCTV cameras at stops, which can lead later to problems
of vandalism and security.
When inviting tenders for extensions, the presence of an
incumbent operator may make it difficult to obtain truly competitive
bids. On the one hand, the incumbent operator has a head start
in putting in a bid. On the other, if another consortium wins
the bid, it will be necessary to cancel the existing contract,
invoking termination penalties. This happend in Manchester when
tendering for the Eccles extension. Similar considerations apply
when one consortium has been involved in preliminary design, then
another wins the main bid.
Loss of expertise is another consideration, and leads to
inefficient use of resources when a virtually new team is put
together for every contract. The team will have to re-learn all
the snags and solutions which occur during construction, putting
pressure on a fixed budget.
Aesthetics
A light rail line can improve the appearance of city, especially
in the city centre, but only if attention is paid to the aesthetic
aspects of construction. Items such as street furniture, the paving
of grassing of the tracks, and supports for overhead wires can
be designed to give a better appearance and minimise the impact
of the line. Unfortunately, these factors also tend to cost a
little extra, and are an easy target for a contractor or the government
needing to achieve a fixed budget.
It should not be forgotten that, while many factors can improve
the appearance of a light rail line, these are marginal to the
construction of the public transport system itself. With other
modes of transport, they would be regarded as general city improvements
unrelated to public transport. This puts light rail at an unfair
disadvantage in comparison with other modes.
7.3 After opening
Vandalism
Vandalism problems are not confined to light rail systems,
and are simply a reflection of problems in society. It is now
routine for light rail stops to be equipped with CCTV cameras
linked to the central control room, who have access to police,
and this helps keep the problem to manageable levels. The introduction
of conductors in South Yorkshire has also helped to contain the
problem.
Some systems have also experienced vandalism during construction.
Again, this is largely a problem shared with other sectors of
industry, perhaps exacerbated by the extended layout of a railway
construction site.
Competition from Buses
One of the reasons for the initial low patronage in Sheffield
was the fact that some of the light rail corridors were also served
by fast bus services which took a more direct route. This was
not so much of a problem in Manchester because, being based on
a former railway, Metrolink offered a faster journey, though recently
some express bus services have been introduced. In the West Midlands,
Metro is part of the same company as the predominant bus operator,
and there has been a substantial co-ordination of services.
Potential competition from bus services is a fact of life
in a deregulated environment, when bus operators are free to respond
to a perceived demand. The solution is to recognise the respective
merits of light rail and bus, and design light rapid transit systems
accordingly—in other words, horses for courses.
The Problems of Success
Ridership on a light rail line may grow to the point where
vehicles are overcrowded, as occurs at peak times in Manchester.
One advantage of light rail is that it may be possible to couple
vehicles together to provide extra capacity, but only if platform
lengths allow it. Alternatively, a higher frequency can be provided,
but only if there are sufficient vehicles available, and if the
track layout does not have bottlenecks such as stretches of single
line. The requirements for expansion must be allowed for when
designing the system. There must also be provision for occasional
increased capacity at certain locations to serve football matches,
music concerts and the like. Unfortunately, financial considerations
will often dictate that only minimum provision is made, another
example of how economies in construction can cause operational
problems later.
8. CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
From the foregoing discussion we can draw out a number of
conclusions relating to light rapid transit, and recommendations
which would aid the growth of light rapid transit as part of the
package of measures to improve transport in cities. The conclusions
are framed with reference to light rail, but would mostly apply
to any form of light rapid transit.
Light rail (and other forms of light rapid transit) should
be viewed realistically as an available transport mode
It should be neither dismissed out of hand nor regarded as
the solution to all problems.The right mix of modes for a given
town or city will depend on the particular set of circumstances.
Light rail is most likely to be appropriate in busier corridors
in the larger cities, but local circumstances might favour light
rail in other locations. In the right circumstances, light rail
can make an important contribution to the right mixture of public
transport for an urban area.
Light rail produces quality public transport which attracts
passengers, especially from cars:
— it attracts more travellers to public transport
and increases total public transport use;
— in particular it attracts travellers who would
otherwise use a car;
— it is better for the environment because it is
non-polluting at the point of use;
— it aids economic regeneration and urban renewal.
Quality Costs Money
Admittedly, light rail is expensive—though not as expensive
as heavy rail or new road construction. It should be viewed as
a cheaper alternative to rail rather than an expensive alternative
to bus. Furthermore, not all of the costs are directly attributable
to light rail; some of the cost arises from improvements to the
city environment (pedestrianisation or betterment of utilities'
apparatus, for example). Light rail needs to be judged fairly
alongside other transport modes, to ensure that the system which
gives the greatest benefits in return for cost is chosen.
Busway systems can give some of the same benefits, but in smaller
amounts
New funding sources, such as Private Finance Initiatives and
road-user charging, are becoming available for public transport
schemes
They will only be acceptable, however, if they produce significant
visible improvement in public transport. Light rail provides such
improvements, and given the availability of new funding sources
will not be so dependent on government grants.
Light rail is an important part of an integrated transport
package, including through tickets, park-and-ride, city centre
improvements etc
The procedures for obtaining powers through the Transport and
Works Act need to be simplified.
Faster decisions and powers that last for a sufficient period
would make it easier to obtain funding, and reduce the overall
cost of the system. An early indication of approval in principle
would reduce wasteful detailed planning on schemes which do not
go ahead.
The operator of the system needs to be involved from the start
of the design process
Otherwise, there is a temptation to economise on design features
which can result in problems and cost to the operator later—economising
on CCTV resulting in vandalism problems, for example.
There is a need for standardisation
Using a new design team, and designing different equipment
for each new system, results in extra cost.
The accessibility regulations for rail vehicles should be revised
This is required to avoid placing unreasonable restrictions
on light rail operators, while in no way compromising the provision
of facilities for the disabled.
The utilities' contribution to the diversion and betterment
of their equipment should be restored to its former level
The extra cost which the reduction of this contribution places
on light rail systems is a major element of their cost, and could
make the difference between viability and non-viability.
9. IN CONCLUSION
In this paper, the Confederation of Passenger Transport has
tried to present a realistic assessment of light rail (and other
forms of light rapid transit) as a public transport mode. We believe
that, in the right location, light rapid transit can make an important
contribution to the provision of public transport for an urban
area.
If requested to do so, CPT would be happy to be called as
witnesses to give oral evidence to the Transport Sub Committee
and to answer any questions and clarify or expand on any of the
points raised.
October 1999
| 
