Welcome speech to the IMPRINT Conference on transport pricing. 4.2.2004

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. I would very much like to welcome your conference to Brussels and to the European Parliament and I trust that various Members of the parliament or its staff (the real experts) will also be attending to benefit from this very erudite group of people.

I would not pretend to be an expert in your field of discussion over these 2 days, but the importance of pricing in the effective delivery of transport policy is of increasing importance. My own political group has long argued in favour of the inclusion of external costs in order to give a better reflection of the costs, or benefits, of particular policies or processes and to have a fuller understanding of our choices. We are all aware of the use of pricing signals to encourage shifts in behaviour.

As a member of Parliament's Petitions Committee, we are frequently presented with complaints from the public as to the environmental, social or economic impact of infrastructure development. (The right of Petition to the EP is an individual right for any citizen, resident or anyone having business with the European Union). We are currently dealing with the development of yet another runway, already under construction, at Madrid airport. This has destroyed a Natura 2000 site and constricted the natural floodplain of an adjacent river, which is now causing flooding in an industrial area downstream, for which the Spanish Government and regional authorities will pick up the bill. The airport is being expanded in order to become the European gateway for flights from South America and the aim, we are told, is that no-one arriving from there should have to wait more than an hour for a connecting flight within Spain!

I represent the region of London in this Parliament. There, we have been looking at the question of airport expansion as well. My political group on the London Assembly is seriously considering a congestion charge for flights at Heathrow airport. We also agree with the Commission and the European parliament that there should be a tax on aircraft fuel, so that it operates on a more comparable basis with other modes of transport. We may disagree on the level but we agree on the principle. We don't believe that so-called cheap flights are cheap in overall costs, so we welcome yesterday's decision by the Commission with regard to Ryanair and Charleroi airport. For us air and road travel are the areas of most pressing need with regard to pricing changes as they are the most polluting.

However, when I started this wonderful job in 1999, I was struck that the airfare from London City airport to Brussels was about the same as it had been in 1991 when I had last been to travelling to Brussels. I was equally struck by the fact that travelling by Eurostar cost more than the flight. If cost were the major factor in my decisions about travelling, I would not have made a modal shift from air to rail. Were Eurostar priced on the same basis as Thalys, rail would have been a clear winner. I remember my first journey on Thalys from Brussels to Aachen, fully convinced that I would thrown out of my first-class seat because I couldn't believe I could do such a journey for under €30. I'm used to British prices, where prices rise to discourage train passengers from popular services.

London has also seen the introduction of the congestion charge. Early evaluation shows that people have changed their mode of transport as a result. After 6 months of the congestion charging scheme, there were about 60,000 fewer car movements per day in the charging zone. TfL estimate that 20% -30% of these were diverted around the zone, 50%-60% transferred to public transport and 15%-25% diverted to car share, motorcycle or pedal cycle or making adaptations such as travelling outside the charging hour or making fewer trips.

In fact, the scheme risks becoming a victim of its own success in that there is now a substantial bill for the additional new buses bought to encourage people out of private cars on to public transport and to meet that demand. The revenue from the charge was supposed to pay for them but, as many people have chosen to travel differently, there is less revenue than estimated to pay for the new buses! Not to mention the compensatory payments to the systems provider, Capita, to make up for a shortfall in projected income. I would add to the list in the Ten Steps to Implementation proposed in the conference, that it is useful to make financial and contractual provision on the basis that your pricing proposals will have the desired effect. In London there are two issues, revenue and change of behaviour. We have tried to do both - to ride both horses.

That is possibly one of the things about pricing that makes it politically controversial. What is the outcome you want to achieve? Is public transport a service of general interest and should it be priced accordingly? Should income from road tolls be ring-fenced for further transport investment? What is the purpose of the road toll? To separate traffic streams? To pay for road maintenance costs or to discourage long-distance haulage? How easy is it to meet social or environmental goals when there are strict rules on competition and single market policy?

Your expertise is crucial to decision-makers, who can often find it only too difficult to make clear decisions that really command public support.

I thank you for your work and wish you a successful conference. I hope you enjoy your time here and that your very rich and impressive programme also allows you time to enjoy each others' company and some Belgian beer, chocolates and/or chips as well.

Jean Lambert