The author examines the relationship between transport investment and urban regeneration in an English provincial city. On the whole transport objectives and policy initiatives have not been addressed, in urban policy effected by successive governments since 1977. In part as a consequence, there has been a marked dearth of empirically based intraurban research in which that nexus between transport infrastructure and social and economic renewal has been explored. In the early 1990s, Sheffield proved to be an especially interesting laboratory within which to examine this issue because of the construction of a new light rail-transit system, the South Yorkshire Supertram (SYS), and a substantial programme of new and improved roads. During the period 1992 to 1996, the research team undertook ‘before-and-after’ surveys of the effects of the SYS and enhanced road provision on five elements of urban regeneration: image, property values, land use, business (relocation, and labour mobility. New investment had only a relatively limited impact on regeneration and, where effects could be identified, enhanced road investment proved significantly more beneficial than did the SYS. However, the policy environment within which the SYS was implemented was never likely to maximise regeneration, primarily because of the lack of integration across regeneration agencies and transport providers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlcockPCraigGLawlessPPearsonSRobinsonD, 1998, “Inclusive regeneration: a report to the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions”, The Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, forthcoming
2.
AshworthG JVoogdH, 1990Selling the City (Belhaven Press, London)
BanisterD (Ed.), 1995Transport and Urban Development (Spon, London)
5.
CLG, 1994, “The way ahead; plans for the economic regeneration of Sheffield”, City Liaison Group, Sheffield City Council, Town Hall, Sheffield S1 2HH
6.
CongdonP, 1988, “The interdependence of geographical migration with job and housing mobility in London”Regional Studies2281–93
7.
DETR, 1997a, “Regeneration programmes: the way forward”, Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU
8.
DETR, 1997b, “Developing an integrated transport policy”, Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU
9.
DiamondDSpenceN, 1989Infrastructure and Industrial Costs in British Industry (The Stationery Office, London)
10.
DoE, 1977Policy for the Inner Cities Cmnd 6845, Department of the Environment (The Stationery Office, London)
11.
DoE, 1994aAssessing the Impact of Urban Policy Inner Cities Directorate, Department of the Environment (The Stationery Office, London)
12.
DoE, 1994b, “Transport”, PPG 13, Department of the Environment (The Stationery Office, London)
13.
DoE, 1996City Challenge, Interim National Evaluation Department of the Environment (The Stationery Office, London)
14.
DoE, 1997aPartners in Regeneration; The Challenge Fund; Bidding GuidanceDepartment of the Environment, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU
15.
DoE, 1997b, “UK round table on sustainable development, second annual report”, Department of the Environment, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU
16.
DoT, 1978Report of the Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment Chairman Sir George Leitch, Department of Transport (The Stationery Office, London)
17.
DoT, 1993Paying for Better Motorways: Issues for Discussion Cmnd 2200. Department of Transport (The Stationery Office, London)
18.
DoT, 1996Transport — The Way Forward: The Government's Response to the Transport Debate Department of Transport (The Stationery Office, London)
19.
EliasPWhiteM, 1991, “Recruitment in local labour markets: employer and employee perspectives”, RP-86, Employment Department, Employment Department
20.
Environment Committee, 1992This Common Inheritance: Second Year Report (The Stationery Office, London)
21.
GriecoM, 1994The Impact of Transport investment Projects Upon the Inner City: A Literature Review (Avebury, Aldershot, Hants)
22.
Halcrow, Fox and Associates, 1990, “Proposed Department of Transport criteria for Section 56 grants: report to PTE group and Department of Transport”, technical note 10, Halcrow, Halcrow
23.
HayAHaywoodR, 1994, “South Yorkshire's supertram: construction problems of new urban infrastructure”Local Government Policy Making21(3) 42–46
24.
HuddlestonJ RPangotraP P, 1990, “Regional and local economic impacts of transportation investments”Transportation Quarterly44579–594
25.
ImmergluckD W, 1993, “The role of public infrastructure in urban economic development”Economic Development Quarterly7310–318
26.
JonesBBachelorL, 1993The Sustaining Hand: Community Leadership and Corporate Power (University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KS)
27.
LawCKnowlesRGrimeESeniorL, 1996, “Metrolink impact study”, Department of Geography, University of Salford, Salford
28.
LawlessP, 1994, “Partnership in urban regeneration in the UK: the Sheffield central area study”Urban Studies311303–1324
29.
LawlessPDabinettG, 1995, “Urban regeneration and transport investment: a research agenda”Environment and Planning A271029–1048
30.
LinnekarB JSpenceN A, 1992, “An accessibility analysis of the impact of the M25 London orbital motorway on Britain”Regional Studies2631–48
31.
ParkinsonM, 1981, “The effect of road investment on economic development in the UK”, WP-43, Government Economic Service, Department of Transport, Eland House, Bressenden Place, London SW1E 5DU
32.
Pieda, 1991, “Rank link project: a comparative appraisal of socio-economic and development impacts of alternative routes”, report for British Railway Board; Pieda, 10 Chester Street, Edinburgh EH3 4AU
33.
PlayerRHaywoodR, 1996, “Land-use planning along the strategic road network and Supertram lines”, Supertram Impact Paper No. 29, Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield
34.
RCEP, 1995Eighteenth Report: Transport and the Environment Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
35.
RietveldP, 1994, “Spatial economic impacts of transport infrastructure supply”Transport Research A28329–341
36.
RobinsonJ F FStokesG, 1987, “Rapid transit and land use: the effects of the Tyne and Wear Metro”, DP-88, Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne
37.
SCC, 1996, “Development opportunities along the Supertram corridors in Sheffield”, Sheffield Development Office, Sheffield City Council, Town Hall, Sheffield S1 2HH
38.
SCC, STEC, 1994, “Sheffield's bid to the single regeneration budget”Sheffield Training and Enterprise Council, Sheffield City Council, Town Hall, Sheffield S1 2HH
39.
SCC, STEC, 1995, “Growing together: youth and inner city; regeneration in partnership in Sheffield”, Sheffield City Council, Town Hall, Sheffield S1 2HH
40.
SDC, 1995, “Annual report and accounts, 1994”, Sheffield Development Corporation, Don Valley House, Savile Street East, Sheffield S4 7UQ
41.
SimpsonW, 1992Urban Structure and the Labour Market (Clarendon Press, Oxford)
42.
StokerGYoungS, 1993Cities in the 1990s (Longman, Harlow, Essex)
43.
SYPTE, 1995, “South Yorkshire joint package bid, 1996/97”, South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive, Exchange Street, Sheffield
44.
TownroePDabinettG, 1995, “The evaluation of public transport investments within cities”The Annals of Regional Science29175–188
45.
VickermanR WFlowerdewA D J, 1990, “The channel tunnel: the economic and regional impact”, special report 2024, Economist Intelligence Unit, 40 Duke Street, London W1M 5DA
