UK Cities Clamour For New LRT Funding: Light rail has been both in and out of favour in Britain in recent years. Now, it is flavour of the month again, though the reasons why are not entirely clear - Rapid Transit Review

International Railway Journal, Nov, 2001 by Mike Knutton

"Realistically, one should be able to design, plan, procure, and implement a scheme under today's conditions in about six years. The government has a significantly more open door than in the past where funding is concerned. This is demonstrated in Merseyside where they are planning to have their new system in operation in exactly six years," said Ryder.

The way things happen now is that each area must produce a Local Transport Plan (LTP) and all new schemes will come out of that process. It should then take say two years for the initial design and lodging of an application under the Transport & Works Act (TWA). The TWA stage depends upon the size of the scheme and its level of complexity. The process includes a public inquiry that should be completed within one year.

Then, says Ryder, comes the stage at which the greatest uncertainty exists and where the biggest delays can occur. "At this time the ball is in the government's court for granting powers and funding. Thankfully, these processes proceed more quickly today than in the past," he said.

However, Mr Scott McIntosh, development manager for light rail with Transport for London (TfL), does not see things in quite the same light. He thinks the TWA has not been as helpful as expected in terms of speeding up processes. He has no quibble with the public inquiries, which he says are neither too long nor inequitable.

The problem is the length of time it takes from the end of the public inquiry to the Inspector giving his report, as McIntosh explains. "This is often between six and nine months. Even when you consider that the Inspectors are in many cases part-time and have other responsibilities, it is madness to take so long.

"There is also a problem with the length of time it takes between the Inspector's decision and the Secretary of State signing the order. The public inquiry for the Headingley-West Leeds part of the Leeds Supertram finished in 1997, but it was only at the beginning of 2001 that funding was awarded. That is mad. Justice delayed is justice denied.

"But now that the government says money is available, it should come through more quickly. It is the bureaucratic process that is at fault, though to be fair the Department of Transport has been overloaded."

McIntosh points to the French planning system that includes a Declaration of Public Utility. "This is quicker than our own processes, and funding is also generally in place beforehand rather than having to be fought for during the processes. Their system of having mayors, who are powerful people, is beneficial. Since they opened the first modern LRT system in Nantes in 1985, they have built 13 systems, which is impressive."

Ryder, however, defends the British planning system. "It embodies some very useful safeguards. It has been demonstrated on a number of occasions that promoters do not necessarily see all the implications of their plan. The planning process has had a beneficial impact in a number of cases in terms of track alignment, the properties affected by a scheme, and the compensation to be paid," he argues.