LIGHT RAIL'S BATTLE FOR HEARTS, MINDS & WALLETS

he common feature of all the systems that have struggled to emerge is precisely that - the struggle. Gaining approval and funding for each scheme has been an elaborate and lengthy process which in the case of the South Yorkshire Supertram has required five separate Acts of Parliament to be passed, the first in 1985 with construction only starting six years later in 1991.

Currently going through the latter stages of the same process is the Midland Metro which received parliamentary approval in 1989, a guarantee of œ105m funding in 1994 and is still in the process of finding the remaining œ30m it needs to be able to build the planned system. Running neck and neck in the race for limited government funding is the Croydon Tramlink which finally received Royal Assent in 1994.

The process of gaining parliamentary approval is now not so convoluted with the introduction of the Transport and Works Act in 1992. Approval for a new scheme, or part of a scheme, now simply involves a Transport and Works Order which is much more straightforward.

However, the tortuous process of gaining funding is as difficult as ever. Despite the apparent conversion to the cause of public transport the government has not made any more money available. There is no light rail fund as such and each proposed system is considered on its merits for funding. As the teams at Croydon Tramlink and Midland Metro will testify this can be difficult to achieve. Unlike the Manchester and Sheffield systems there is no European funding available now either.

The government's private and public partnership philosophy is being rigorously applied. On the Metrolink scheme the private capital input was just œ5m, on Sheffield it was œ7m and that planned for the Midland Metro is œ10.5m. Invitations to pre-qualify for the tender process are just about to go out for Croydon's œ160m Tramlink scheme.

To date, every project which has gone ahead has kept to the step-by-step approach to give it some hope of success. 'The system has to be done in phases,' commented Les Brunton of consultants Merz and McLellan. 'You would never get a system covering a whole city in one go. It would be so big everybody would be frightened and it is much easier to upgrade than build something new.' Jeff Boak, South Yorkshire Supertram project director agreed and went one step further. 'Sheffield's system would have been much better if we had built five short routes now rather than just three longer routes. It would be much easier to upgrade from the end of a route rather than starting to tear up the city centre again when the system is extended to other areas.'

This disruption to normal life and business in the city certainly produced a reaction in Sheffield. Peter Gross, South Yorkshire Supertram's marketing manager was heavily involved at all stages of the public consultation and public liaison process and attended a staggering total of 500 meetings between 1991 and 1994. 'The reaction we got was: "I don't want a railway on my street",' remarked Gross. 'Everybody was against the Supertram at the meetings but market research in the general public revealed that 60% wanted the system.'