French cities also have the advantage of access to funds from a payroll tax dedicated to local public transport ('versement transport'). This tax, which can be up to 1.75% of a company's payroll can mean more than a £100 million a year for a city like Lyon. France's planning system is also faster. A potential Mayor can stand for office on a pledge of building a tram scheme and have that tram scheme operating at the end of his or her six year term. Lyon's two-line tram scheme took approximately three and a half years from the preliminary study to opening day. The same process took 15 years in Sheffield and 13 years in Croydon.

The report concludes: "The success of French tramway schemes is not possible under current UK public transport policy. A unique blend of shared financing, committed politics, and integrated planning have come together to make French tramway systems the success stories they are. If the success witnessed in France is to make its way to this side of the Channel, significant shifts in government policy, funding and legislation will be needed"

The report is very much in line with the findings of the recent report of the UK's National Audit Office (NAO) on light rail, summarised in the last LiRa newsletter (see www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/03-04/0304518.pdf for full report). This report was widely misinterpreted in the UK press as an attack on tram schemes. In fact the NAO was extremely positive about the benefits tram systems can bring - particularly when delivered using an integrated model, as in the rest of Europe.

Central to the strategy is the need to bring transport costs under control, the importance of shared decision making at local, regional and national levels to ensure better transport delivery, and improvements in the management of the network to make the most of existing capacity. Alistair Darling also made announcements today on the future of Crossrail, light rail schemes and published the Road Pricing Feasibility Study.
Mr Darling: "Looking ahead, the challenges we face are clear. As the economy continues to grow, and with increased prosperity, we will want to travel more and the demand for goods from all over the world will grow. Our job is to help people travel, not to stop them. The challenge for us is how we meet people's need and wish to do so whilst meeting our environmental aims."

In response to the Road Pricing Feasibility Study, Mr Darling confirmed that government would lead a national debate on road pricing, working with relevant agencies to examine how and when pricing might work. A detailed response to the Study will be published in due course. He said: "The Road Pricing Feasibility Study concludes that a national scheme has the potential to cut congestion by about a half as well as providing environmental benefits. It says that road pricing is becoming technically feasible in the next 10 -15 years. But for a scheme to work it would need general public acceptance and a great deal of preparation work over a number of years. There is still a lot of work to be done before we could be sure if this could work. But one thing is clear, doing nothing would be the worst possible option. Of course we need to invest in public transport - and we are - but that won't be enough on its own. There needs to be debate about what would make pricing acceptable to motorists. We must build a public consensus around the objectives for road pricing and how to use the revenues".

Mr Darling also announced that powers to construct Crossrail would be introduced in Parliament at the earliest opportunity. In publishing Adrian Montague's findings, he said:
"The case for a Crossrail link across London is clear and will get stronger as London continues to grow. But the plans need to be robust and value for money. The report makes clear Crossrail is needed, but that at a cost of £10 bn it represents a huge challenge both to deliver and fund. We intend to introduce a hybrid bill at the earliest opportunity to take the powers necessary for Crossrail to be built. At the same time, as the Montague report recognises, a major funding challenge remains. Government will need to work with the Mayor and the London business community to find a funding solution where everyone pays their fair share. This will include consulting on appropriate alternative funding mechanisms."
Mr Darling also made clear the costs of proposed light rail schemes needed to be better controlled: "Light rail can be very effective in persuading people to use public transport. Since 2000 new lines have opened in Croydon, Tyne and Wear, Manchester and Nottingham. "Manchester's metro has been extremely successful. But plans for the extension have been dogged by successive cost increases. The central Government capital contribution rose from £282 million cash in 2000 to £520m cash in 2002, on top of which required annual central government payments have also risen from £5m a year in 2000 to £17m a year today - worth roughly another £150m. There's a similar pattern with the Leeds and South Hampshire tram proposals. In Leeds the Present Value of the public sector contribution was capped at £355m, but is now estimated at £500 million. And in South Hampshire, the original £170m Present Value is now £100m more. And in each case there's no certainty that costs won't rise further. The NAO was right to raise concerns; looking back over the last 20 years it has cost more to provide light rail here than elsewhere in Europe. No Government could accept these schemes as they are on the basis of these cost escalations. We cannot therefore approve them. We need instead to look urgently at how light rail could be made affordable, including the best approach for procurement. We will work with local authorities on the development of schemes, building on the recent NAO recommendations."

The Future of Transport is available from the DfT's website at www.dft.gov.uk/strategy/futureoftransport