This was another excellent and well attended meeting. Prof Tony Ridley, the speaker, is certainly one of the UKís, if not the worldís, leading transport experts. He has had direct operational experience of the Tyne and Wear Metro (he was CEO of the PTE), the Hong Kong mass transit system, the Channel Tunnel (a director), and London Underground, and a huge amount of experience working at the engineering/political interface. It was this he concentrated on.

Working in a Democracy

Some people have no access to cars, and some journeys are obviously easier by public transport, but frequently travelling by car is the prefered option. It is therefore a vote costing decision to stop electors using their cars where and whenever they choose.

Engineers, said Prof Ridley are not mere designers and builders. They need to think of themselves (as did the Greeks) as "creators". Engineers working in transport have a duty to help create the atmosphere for change and to propose solutions which help political leaders achieve the outcomes the community needs.

Three factors assisted success. First, a strong partnership between a good professional and a committed politician. Second, a consensus between all political parties. It was too easy for a populist opposition to wreck schemes. The success of the Tyne and Wear metro (funded by an unenthusiastic Tory government in a Labour authority) hung on the support by the Tory opposition leader. "We have to have it" he told John Patten. Third, control of all elements. Tyne and Wear became economic only because bus services were re-routed to feed the metro. Transport developments which raise land values need a share of the value added.

Government Policy

Prof Ridley was cautious about Labourís commitment to public transport. The White Paper, he said, was the best since Barbara Castleís, mainly because hypothecation appears to have been accepted, providing a source of subsidy without which PT will not expand. However, the test is action. Prescott has only found money for current London Underground needs - not expansion. It is not clear whether transport will be included in the coming Queenís speech. It is unclear whether integrated transport features in how the 4.4 million new homes are to be provided.

How is transport integrated?

Currently the words "integrated transport" get glazed looks. Is it easy connection between modes? or integration with land use planning? or with business and/or social needs? or to reduce environmental impacts? The solutions will not be the same. Nor will one solution work in both rural Wiltshire and urban Richmond. Each area needs individual study, a clear view of priorities, and a realistic appreciation of what is possible.

Building more road (eg taking traffic out of town centres to the rim to reduce environmental costs) may be a best option. Elsewhere improving road use efficiency using better info or tolls, would help. The cost of congestion escalates horrifically as a road reaches capacity. Price can be used to restrain general demand (the Prof was quite happy with a doubling of price) but this would impact on poor rural users.

Funding risk

Integrating transport can be expensive. If politicians want private sector investment, they must appreciate there is a cost to funding the financial risk. By making threatening noises about privatisation, Clare Short almost certainly reduced the price the taxpayer got for British Rail. Sharing risk and profits is likely to be both fairer and cheaper.

Conclusion

There are ways to integrate transport: the city states of Hong Kong and Singapore have shown how. What the UK needs is clear objectives, consensus, and political will. Transport engineers and other opinion formers could be playing a larger part.