Our Chair, Trevor Cornfoot, reflects on the recent Government announcement about the Leeds Tram Scheme and what it might mean for Coventry’s Very Light Rail (VLR) project.
As recently as June 2025, the Chancellor, the Transport Secretary and Tracy Brabin, Mayor of West Yorkshire, publicly committed £2.5 billion to the Leeds Tram Scheme.
However, just before Christmas, the Department for Transport quietly postponed the scheme until the late 2030s. The proposal involved two lines: one linking Bradford and Leeds, and another running through Leeds city centre between a major hospital and a retail park.
This is not new territory for Leeds. Over several decades, major transport schemes have been proposed and then cancelled or delayed. Leeds Supertram was approved in 2001 but cancelled in 2005 due to rising costs. A replacement trolleybus scheme was later abandoned in 2016.
The current Leeds tram was part of the Sunak government’s 2023 “Network North” plan, funded by savings from cancelling the northern legs of HS2. That plan promised £36 billion for regional transport projects, including roads, rail and buses.
So, does the delay in Leeds – a scheme with government commitment and an electoral mandate – have implications for Coventry Very Light Rail (VLR) scheme?
The wider context is one of austerity and tight public spending. Over many years the Treasury has either cancelled or delayed tram schemes, wary of rising costs and unproven technologies. Edinburgh’s tram is often cited as an example of cost overruns caused by bespoke designs, underground services and legacy infrastructure.
The Treasury, having been badly ‘burned’ by the mounting costs of HS2, is now particularly reluctant to commit billions to major transport projects. Even announcements of politically significant schemes, such as Northern Powerhouse Rail, have been repeatedly postponed throughout 2025 (but are always “expected soon”).
In Leeds, one reason for the delay is the absence of a business case. The Government’s new advisory body, NISTA (National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority), requires an initial business case before authorising further work. Ironically, local authorities cannot produce such a case without Government approval to spend the money needed to do so.
A business case must clearly identify the problem a scheme is intended to solve. For trams, this is usually reducing congestion and improving connections between communities. In Leeds, the tram routes were to be at the heart of an integrated transport network with the region’s buses, which are being brought under local authority control.
Business cases test out proposals. But since they can have two or three stages, they can have the effect of slowing down approval, often beyond the life of a parliament. Thus, projects can ‘time out’ -which might be the fate of the Leeds scheme.
What does this mean for Coventry?
Coventry is about to see its second demonstration trial of Very Light Rail. These trials aim to show that cheaper infrastructure is possible, using shallow trenching for tracks and crossings and lightweight tram vehicles. If successful, this would reduce costs and strengthen a future business case.
However, Coventry Council and VLR promoters have yet to clearly define the main problem the scheme is meant to solve.
The original proposed route—from the railway station through the city centre and Pool Meadow bus station to University Hospital—could plausibly have reduced congestion and improved access across a large section of the city.
More recent discussion, however, has focused on linking the station to Greenpower Park (the soon-to-close airport), based on the prospect of 8,000 future jobs linked to a battery gigafactory and advanced manufacturing. At present, those jobs do not exist. Until real investment and employment are in place, this represents a serious—possibly fatal—weakness in any VLR business case.
The Government is not currently committed to a Coventry VLR. What exists are incremental demonstration trials of national significance, not a funded transport project. Coventry VLR does not feature in the National Infrastructure Pipeline, unlike schemes such as the Midlands Metro Digbeth extension, the Tyne and Wear Metro extension, or the (now delayed) West Yorkshire Tram. Many of these are themselves pushed back to the mid or late 2030s.
That said, other cities will be watching Coventry closely. If the trials prove that cheaper track construction and lightweight vehicles work at scale, these innovations could be adopted elsewhere. That would reduce costs, strengthen business cases, and make tram schemes more attractive to a sceptical Treasury.
As Leeds has shown, the local context for a VLR scheme will also need to be established. How would a VLR fit into any future land use and transport strategy for Coventry? There is a brief mention of rapid transit (including VLR) in the Council’s draft Local Plan but no formal policies for it, and there is no definition of any route in the Council’s Transport Strategy. Will there be a public transport system integrating trams, buses and trains, together with cycling and walking?
Finally, if a business case is made for a Coventry VLR at some future date will such a case still have support from any new government?
So, will Coventry get a VLR?
Only if:
- the trials clearly demonstrate that infrastructure and vehicles are much cheaper than conventional tram schemes
- a credible business case can be made for a route to Greenpower Park, supported by real investment and real jobs
- a future land-use and transport plan for Coventry makes the case for a VLR to connect major employment and service locations and high-density residential areas as part of an integrated strategy
- tram schemes currently in the National Infrastructure Pipeline proceed, especially if they use technology proven in Coventry
- Coventry’s VLR is eventually added to the National Infrastructure Pipeline and funded to develop a full business case
- future governments are committed to light rail/trams and have the resources for them.
At present, the outlook for Coventry’s VLR scheme is hardly optimistic.