LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT ASSOCIATION Discussion Document No. 39 January 2006 LIGHT RAIL POLICY CHANGE - "A WHITEHALL FARCE"

INTRODUCTION Many people may be surprised, but remain somewhat hopeful, at the media speculation which accompanied some very pointed questions about Leeds Supertram. Many of us will have doubted the Government claim about the scheme not representing the best value of public money. A counter claim that Leeds is now the largest city in Europe without trams or an underground system made little impression at Westminster and close on £40-m in development costs was casually written off by the Government. Ministers now want the city to spend money on more frequent bus services using new vehicles, a policy "U" turn if ever there was one. The leader of Leeds City Council suggested that the citizens of this city had been let down in a way that no Government has ever let down an area of the country before. "THEY" encouraged Supertram, “THEY" also put £350-m on the table, and it was "THEM" that destroyed the scheme (1). A WARNING TO OTHERS Don't waste fees on advice from consultants or engage qualified engineers because the debacle in Leeds tends to reflect this Government's lack of a clear transport policy, especially for development outside London and the South East (2). This is exactly what happened in Leeds, blocked partly because of over optimistic estimates and partly because of Alistair Darling's insistence of a build and operate policy being in private hands (3). The 37% cost increase in Leeds could be compared with the 70% cost increase of the A66 Temple Sowerby Bypass (Cumbria). This bypass has not been stopped and when built will generate more traffic (4). DELAYS, CAUSED BY GOVERNMENT, ABSOLUTELY UNFORGIVABLE Although the deputy leader of Leeds City Council acknowledged that not everyone supported the Supertram scheme, we nevertheless suggest that everybody in this city should unite to say that delays caused by the Government are absolutely unforgivable (5). A HOLLOW RING "Whilst the Government supports tram schemes in the right places, it does not do so at any cost". This quoted statement by Alistair Darling was presumably considered by him to be in the public interest. Unfortunately, most of his recent light rail decisions have been negative, an attitude that rings hollow on considering that most of the cost increases stem from the Government itself (6). THE CORE OF THE PROBLEM, TOWN CENTRE ACCESS Transport funding (M25 and Crossrail) in the London area seems to be more readily available than for local urban transit in the north. A scheme similar to the failed Leeds project but in the London area will test Government policy and particularly the north/south bias. Known to have strong public support, a line passing through Sutton and its high street is currently undergoing a feasibility study by consultants. The Council here feels that the case for light rail is very strong and sustainable transit with good public access without a parking requirement. Transport for London (TfL) has shown confidence by making a staff allocation towards the tender process (8). Although the "raison d’être" is almost identical to rejected projects in the north, it is hoped that London's different funding procedures will permit a more positive outcome. TIME FOR DARLING TO GO This heading was the "Train of Thought" comment in TODAY'S RAILWAY'S in response to the alleged illegal suggestion from Alistair Darling that Liverpool and Knowsley councils underwrite a

This document is published to stimulate discussion and does not necessarily represent the views of the LRTA Registered Office: c/o Haslams 133 Lichfield Street, Walsall, West Midlands WS1 1SL, Great Britain A private company limitted by Guarantee Registered in England and Wales Company number 5072319 LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT ASSOCIATION Discussion Document No. 39 January 2006 Page 2 of 2 contingency fund in case the Merseytram project goes over budget. This blank cheque approach, declared illegal by lawyers in Liverpool, was most likely a scam to stop Merseytram going ahead (9). Merseytravel, upset at the Government’s negative action, have indicated legal action to restore this funding loss. “Wanted for £200-m robbery” was the front page of a Liverpool newspaper (10). CONCLUSION With all these negative anti-light rail decisions and the collective financial waste that accompanies them, the Government could be embarrassed at its urban transit approach being thought of as "a Whitehall farce". The claims of saving public money sounds a little hollow when a Parliamentary debate revealed that long term, the tram is often the more economical mode. REFERENCES 1) BBC News - 3rd November 2005. 2) Leeds Supertram Website - 3rd November 2005. 3) PRIVATE EYE - 25th November 2005. 4) BBC News - 6th November 2005. 5) LRTA Website - 3rd November 2005. 6) LRTA Website - 29th November 2005. 7) A reader survey - early 2005 - SOUTH LONDON GUARDIAN - overwhelming support for tram extensions to Croydon network. 8) SUTTON GUARDIAN - 18th November 2005. 9) TODAY’S RAILWAYS UK - Platform 5 Publishing Ltd - page 5 -January 2006. 10) LIVERPOOL ECHO - 30th December 2005

------Prepared by F A Andrews for the LRTA Development Group - January 2006 To comment on this discussion document please write to the Development Officer (address below) or preferably E-mail: [email protected]

For LRTA Membership details contact: For more details about Light Rail please contact LRTA Subscriptions, LRTA Development Officer, 38 Wolseley Road, 7 Crofton Avenue, SALE M33 7AU Horfield, Bristol BS7 0BP Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

Visit the LRTA website www.lrta.org

This document is published to stimulate discussion and does not necessarily represent the views of the LRTA