Examination of Witnesses (Questions 360
- 379)
WEDNESDAY 1 MARCH 2000
MR KEITH
HILL, MR
RICHARD BIRD
AND MR
MIKE WALSH
360. Is the Government concerned that light
rail systems are to the detriment of other public services that
are in being or is it the opposite?
(Mr Hill) To the detriment in which sense, Mr Donohoe?
361. Existing bus routes or even heavy rail
routes.
(Mr Hill) Have they operated to the detriment of other
means of public transport in particular? My impression is not.
My impression is that on the corridors where they have been introduced
there has not been an increase but a stabilisation of existing
road traffic levels. I am not aware that any of these schemes
have operated to the detriment of other forms of public transport,
but can I revert to my expert on this one.
(Mr Bird) I think the position is that light rail
often helps the development of an integrated service. With a lot
of rail trips into Manchester Piccadilly station there is a Metrolink
add-on to that service so that they are complementary and a light
rail service has replaced a loss making heavy rail service and
doubled the usage on that particular line. I think as far as rail
is concerned the position is very positive. As far as buses are
concerned, most light rail schemes do result in patronage moving
from buses to light rail. This is one of the aspects which is
taken account of in the appraisal of the project and obviously
it is important there should be an overall benefit if the scheme
is to be approved. Because of the bus structure that we have obviously
there is flexibility for bus operators to reorganise their routes,
to organise feeder services to light rail or to offer services
which might be complementary or, in certain circumstances, in
competition with light rail. That is the structure that we have
at the moment.
362. Do you think light rail is more successful
at getting car drivers out of their cars in comparison with other
systems?
(Mr Hill) We have some evidence on the extent to which
light rail schemes have taken passengers out of cars. We know
that 20 per cent of the users of the Manchester Metro were car
users, although not necessarily drivers but certainly car users
and so there is some evidence that the Manchester Metro has certainly
attracted car drivers out of cars and on to the Metro. In the
case of the Midlands Metro in the West Midlands the figure is
15 per cent. So there is some evidence of attracting people out
of cars and into light rail schemes. I do not have comparable
figures for guided bus schemes.
Miss McIntosh
363. Minister, do you not think the Government
would be better advised to postpone the introduction of workplace
charging and congestion charging until alternative schemes are
in place?
(Mr Hill) Let me remind Miss McIntosh that this is
a matter for local authorities to decide and not the Government.
The Government is putting in place the statutory framework for
the introduction of workplace parking levies or road user charging
schemes, but it is entirely a matter of choice at the local level
as to whether they are brought in. I do not think you can have
a hard and firm rule on that. I think we have all agreed—and
this is how Mr Stevenson and I began on the matter—that
there is a psychological element in this which says it is certainly
sensible before you bring in these regimes to have some evidence,
but whether these schemes are completed by the time you bring
in the congestion charging regimes I think is a matter of judgment.
They do not necessarily have to be complete. What I think local
publics have to be confident of is that their money is being spent
in a way which is designed to relieve congestion and to create
an attractive public transport alternative.
364. Could I put it to the Minister that if
the charging is introduced and the alternative schemes are not
in place and my constituents are travelling from the vale of York
into, for example, the centre of York or the centre of Leeds to
commute to work they will be stranded on the outskirts of the
town.
(Mr Hill) In what sense?
365. If they do not wish to pay the charges
and there is no alternative scheme they will be stranded and prevented
from reaching their workplace.
(Mr Hill) My impression would be that in both the
case of York and Leeds neither city is so bereft of existing public
transport options that people would be literally stranded. I do
not want to be facile about that, but both of those cities have
excellent bus services and, of course, in the case of Leeds, suburban
rail services. There are already possibilities for informal as
well as formal park and ride choices on the part of your constituents.
I do take your general point that all those who face the prospect
of congestion charging regimes ought to have some assurance and
some availability of the public transport alternatives which we
see as one half of what congestion charging regimes would bring.
The other half is the reduction in congestion and the associated
economic and environmental benefits of that.
366. Perhaps it would be helpful if I sent to
the Minister the actual number of bus services that are being
cut from villages and the outskirts of the vale of York into York
so he can see for himself. Could he advise the Committee today
on what pressure the Government is putting on local authorities
to impose on the service providers of both bus services and light
rail services a proper system of through-ticketing? Madam Chairman,
I referred before to the experience I had in Denmark where there
is a network of complete integration and seamless transport; you
get off the bus, you can board the light rail system, a tram or
a train and I do not envisage that happening in this country.
Perhaps the Minister could advise whether it is their intention
to introduce a system of through-ticketing?
(Mr Hill) This Government takes the view that this
is a matter for operators and local authorities to develop these
schemes and that is why in the current Transport Bill we are bringing
in provisions which will permit and encourage the development
of joint ticketing schemes amongst operators and by the local
bus strategies which also form a part of the Transport Bill. I
have to say that the picture in reality is rather more positive
in this country than you may be painting. For example, there are
already in large parts of the country, East Anglia, for example,
extensive joint ticketing arrangements which link different bus
operators with different rail operators in terms of a single style
Smart card which can be used for all of those services. We think
that is an excellent development. We commend the operators who
have brought those schemes in and we want to see that rolled out
as extensively in the UK as possible.
Dr Ladyman
367. Can I come back to the economics of this
situation and, in particular, the economics of light rail systems
compared to guided busways. Maybe I am becoming the Committee
sceptic on this. It does seem to me that the cost of the guided
busway and the cost of buses is minuscule by comparison to the
cost of light railways. I wonder under what circumstances you
really see it being justifiable to go for a light railway system
rather than a guided bus?
(Mr Hill) My view is that if the case is made and
the appraisal stands up and it is demonstrably the best solution
to local transport demands then you should go with the light rail
scheme, but you should do it on as objective a set of criteria
as possible for the precise reason which you identify, which is
that these are very expensive schemes, there is absolutely no
doubt about it. In preparing for this Committee meeting I asked
my officials if they would dig out some comparisons between the
cost of light rail schemes and bus-based schemes and I am looking
here at two light rail schemes and one bus scheme over about the
same kind of distance. The Midland Metro Birmingham-Wolverhampton
is 21 kilometres and the capital cost is £145 million. The
Tyne & Wear Metro Sunderland extension is 19 kilometres in
length and cost £100 million. The Crawley Fastway, which
is busway and partly guided bus, is 24 kilometres and the cost
is £24 million. That £24 million does not include the
cost of the vehicles. I make the observation not in a negative
or sceptical way that for the extra £75 million in one case
or £120 million in the other case you could buy an awful
lot of buses so it is perfectly right and you are perfectly right
to look hard at that. I can assure you that the Government also
looks hard at this.
368. I suggested this at a previous Committee
meeting and I had a large number of letters from bus lovers around
the country. I am just warning you when you say you could buy
so many buses that you may share my post bag now, having said
that. The simple fact of the matter is what you just described
there is a difference between £5 million per kilometre and
£1 million per kilometre and you can buy a lot of buses with
the £4 million saved. Other than where a light rail system
is going to use an existing track or where you have a huge capacity
problem that can only be solved by a light rail system, under
what circumstances can you see the Government saying a light rail
system is preferable to a guided bus system?
(Mr Hill) I ought to point out in terms of the comparative
figures that I have been using here that particularly in the Crawley
Fastway relatively few works were required in order to put that
into operation and I think, characteristically, if you were looking
at other bus based schemes, and particularly those which involve
guided buses, you would obviously be looking at larger works and
consequentially larger sums of money. But I actually am not expressing
a preference for bus based schemes or light rail schemes at all
and if there is anybody listening in do not write to congratulate
me about it. I have quite a large post bag as it is, I understand
that I sign 12,000 letters a year. But, having said that, I come
back to the first principle which is that if the light rail scheme
can stand up in terms of appraisal as obviously the best solution
to the local transport solution then of course it would be justifiable
and should go ahead notwithstanding the admittedly high cost of
the scheme.
369. And you do not see any reason why any local
community cannot put forward through the DTP proposals for guided
bus systems if they think it can answer a local need? You are
not limiting this to urban centres?
(Mr Hill) We call them, by the way, LTPs rather than
TPPs these days.
Chairman
370. It might be rather nice if we use the English
words.
(Mr Hill) You are absolutely right. I rarely fall
into that particular error but it is an elementary error of public
speaking and I am guided by my mentor as ever in these matters!
Mr Donohoe
371. Tell us what they are.
(Mr Hill) Obviously guided busways, it has to be said,
like rail schemes do better in certain specific situations. Obviously
you need a reasonable density of population. That is one consideration
and therefore it is not absolutely axiomatically the case that
a bid for a guided busway, with respect, in Thanet would necessarily
stand up better than a bid for a guided busway in Leeds where
we know the guided busway has been very successful indeed.
Mr Ladyman
372. Would the bid for a guided busway in Thanet,
if it meant you did not have to spend £20 million on a road,
have a chance of success?
(Mr Hill) Both are subject to appraisal and both will
be examined very much in terms of the criteria which my colleague
set out earlier in terms of the new approach to appraisal and
you would take into account traffic volumes, passenger volumes,
economic considerations and various other criteria.
Chairman: Now we have got York and Thanet sorted
out—
Mr Ladyman: I will put in the bid next week!
Chairman
373. Can I ask you have you got comparative
figures for private finance initiatives when you are talking about
various costings? Have you worked out whether private finance
initiatives are more expensive in the provision of things like
light rail?
(Mr Hill) We have, I think I am correct in saying,
just one example in this area of private finance initiatives and
that is the Nottingham case and perhaps I can ask Richard.
374. Mr Bird, briefly, some figures.
(Mr Bird) Any private finance initiative case has
to pass something called the public sector comparator where the
scheme has to show that it is better value overall as a private
finance scheme.
375. We know the theory, Mr Bird.
(Mr Bird) That has certainly been applied in the Nottingham
case.
376. And?
(Mr Bird) And it will have shown that private finance
in that particular case was the best way forward. Obviously this
does vary from case to case. It will depend on the transfer of
risk to the private sector and so forth.
377. So you do not have a table of a number
of cases that we could look at in the same way as you have got
comparative figures on other aspects of light rail transport?
(Mr Hill) Can I undertake to go away and see what
we can supply the Committee with by way of various costings?
378. That would be very helpful and I think
perhaps some indication of your attitude towards different schemes
as they come up.
(Mr Hill) Future schemes? Just to clarify, that is
in terms of the sort of criteria that the Government will adopt
towards future bids?
Chairman: Financial criteria.
Mr Ladyman
379. Would it be possible to ask for a copy
of a typical bid and a typical analysis of that bid for us to
have a look at?
(Mr Hill) Is that something for the public arena?
| 
