Proceeding contribution from Paul Rowen (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 30 November 2005. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Light Rail.
Light Rail
: Yes, preparation for light rail schemes is often expensive, and local authorities and passenger transport authorities are expected to undertake a great deal of preparatory work. Why are the standards and criteria being applied to light rail not applied to road schemes? The same argument could be applied to many heavy rail schemes, welcome though they are. The Department for Transport does not seem to subject them to the same rigorous cost-benefit analysis. The Select Committee on Transport concluded in April that"““light rail has the potential to be an important part of the transport mix . . . It needs to be part of an integrated transport system.””" I hope that in the light of recent announcements, the Select Committee will have another look at the Department for Transport's support for light rail schemes. Why is the reverse happening on the continent? More light rail schemes are being developed there, yet in the UK we seem to be going backwards. The reason is partly cost, but some bureaucratic obstacles are being placed in the way of developing light rail schemes. South London Trams has listed some of the advantages of the tram system in Croydon. Unemployment has been reduced; in New Addington, for example, it was reduced by 40 per cent. Congestion has been reduced, with about 20 per cent. of journeys being taken by tram that were previously taken by car; and road traffic has been reduced by 4 per cent. Trams can carry more than 200 passengers, which is the equivalent of three double-decker buses or two bendy buses. Trams use less fuel and do not emit fumes, so air quality is improved. More importantly, all sections of the community like them, unlike buses. Greater Manchester passenger transport authority has produced similar arguments to show the benefits of Metrolink—a subject to which I shall return. South London Trams has produced a costing annualised over 30 years comparing the cost of conventional buses, bendy buses and trams. A conventional bus works out at £46 million, a bendy bus at £32 million and a tram at £20 million. There are different ways of measuring the cost, but although the initial cost of trams is higher, trams are cheaper over 30 years.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 440 c78WH
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- Westminster Hall
- Subjects
- Contracts Costs Expenditure Procurement Rapid transit systems Trams Rolling stock
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-05 22:50:51 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_282148
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_282148
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_282148