WEDNESDAY 1 MARCH 2000
_________
Members present:
Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody, in the Chair
Mr Andrew F Bennett
Mr Brian H Donohoe
Mr Clifford Forsythe
Mr James Gray
Dr Stephen Ladyman
Miss Anne McIntosh
Mr Bill O'Brien
Mr Bill Olner
Mr George Stevenson
_________
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES
MR KEITH HILL, a Member of the House (Parliamentary Under Secretary of
State), MR RICHARD BIRD, Director, Integrated and Local Transport
Directorate, MR MIKE WALSH, Head of Economics, Local Transport and
General Division, Department of the Environment, Transport and the
Regions, examined.
Chairman
338. Minister, may we welcome you to this Committee. I believe it
is your first attendance before us.
(Mr Hill) It certainly is in the witness stand, Chairman!
339. We always like to see poachers turn gamekeepers. The
Committee welcomes you today. We have already set two precedents. I have
already upset one Minister today so I promise to be very nice to you. The
second one is that we are all Europeans here, so if you wish to use Spanish,
French, Italian or German feel free to do so. Do you have some general
remarks you would like to make in opening or are you strong enough to go
straight to the batting?
(Mr Hill) Chairman, I know how tedious lengthy opening statements can
be, but I have prepared just one or two observations which I hope will be for
the benefit of the Committee. At least at this stage it is a pleasure to be
back with you and this is where, as you know very well, I spent five very
happy years in the last Parliament. I am accompanied by Richard Bird, who is
the Director of Integrated and Local Transport, whose responsibilities include
light rail schemes outside London, and Mike Walsh, Head of Economics and Local
Transport and he deals with the appraisal of such projects and with your
permission I propose to call upon them to assist me with my replies to your
questions if only because they know a great deal more about these matters than
I do. The Government believes that light rail systems have an important role
to play in delivering integrated transport in some of our major towns and
cities. The Metro Link in Manchester shows just how successful light rail can
be. Supertram in Sheffield is improving and we also have new systems in
Birmingham and the extension of the DLR to Lewisham with Croydon to follow
shortly. We have also approved new schemes in Nottingham and Sunderland. The
Government supported all these schemes because they represent good value for
money and form an integral part of a strategy demonstrating clearly that the
objectives of that strategy cannot be met in other ways. However, we have to
bear in mind that the capital costs of light rail systems are high when
compared to bus priority measures which may in some circumstances offer a more
cost-effective alternative. It is a question of horses for courses. A wide
range of factors, such as the level and density of likely demand on a
particular corridor need to be considered and that is done through the
economic appraisal promoters have to carry out when seeking government
funding. We are seeking to simplify and systematise that process and provide
earlier feedback to authorities on their applications and the updated guidance
on local transport plans to be published shortly will cover this. Authorities
need to decide whether revenues from congestion charging schemes or workplace
parking levies could be used to finance alternative modes to the private car,
including light rail and to show that this fits in with their overall
transport strategy for their area. We accept that high quality alternatives
to the car need to be in place before charging can be introduced. We also
need to take account of other potential sources of funding, such as the fuel
duty fund and any increases in conventional funding. Chairman, we expect that
light rail schemes will be an important component of the ten-year strategy the
Government is preparing which will draw on the best that technology has to
offer, but it will continue to be essential to demonstrate in each case that
light rail is the best solution for a particular area.
340. That is very satisfactory, Minister, and I am sure the
Committee welcome what you have got to say. How many LRT schemes do you
expect to be opened in the ten-year period that you are talking about for an
investment programme?
(Mr Hill) We already know that there are a number of schemes. The
Sunderland extension of the Metro and the Nottingham light rail scheme have
been approved and we certainly expect them to open within that ten-year
framework. It is no secret that other authorities have light rail projects
in mind. Certainly, Greater Manchester is seeking to secure extensions of the
Manchester Metro. In the West Midlands there is a wish to extend their Metro
system. Bristol has light rail projects in mind and also Leeds. None of
these have been approved, but if approved then I imagine that those schemes
would certainly be open within the ten-year period.
341. It is still a little wish-list, is it not? I think what we
would like from you is a firmer indication of which of those you would expect
to be approved.
(Mr Hill) I wish I could assist you in that matter. However, natural
caution about premature commitment on these matters prevents me from doing so.
Let me say that we are very well aware of all of these projects, that we are
in close consultation with the authorities concerned and that we are eager to
see schemes which can prove best value in their localities go forward.
Mr Bennett
342. How soon do you think you could answer the question?
(Mr Hill) I am tempted to say after the Budget. I would hope that we
can begin to think about making some announcements. Of course, the schemes
will come through mainly in the shape of components of local transport plans
because, as you know, we are now expecting the local transport authorities to
bring forward their five-year plans.
343. You dodged that pretty well. The Budget or is there any hope
of it happening before the Budget?
(Mr Hill) I think it would be extremely unlikely - I regret to tell
you and I know from which neck of the woods you are coming - that there would
be any announcements prior to the Budget. The Budget is not very long away.
Essentially I think we would expect to see these projects as part of local
transport plans. They will be submitted in July. They will cover the next
five years and we will be making announcements on them in December.
Mr Stevenson
344. Minister, could I ask you to elaborate a bit more on your
statement that public transport alternatives need to be "in place" before
charging is imposed. We have received a significant amount of evidence from
all sorts of organisations which suggests very clearly that public transport
alternatives, light rapid transit schemes, etcetera need to be in place before
charging is imposed otherwise it will be unacceptable. You seem to concur
with that view. Can we conclude that the Government is sympathetic to the
view that says that the money needs to be made available so that public
transport alternatives, including LRT, can be provided before charging takes
place?
(Mr Hill) Perhaps I might call upon my experience as a Member of this
Committee in the last Parliament when we undertook an inquiry into urban road
tolling and, in fact, as part of that inquiry we went to Norway - not quite
as far as I understand the Committee has recently travelled - and I think we
were all very struck by the experience in Oslo where, very interestingly,
prior to the introduction of tolling in that city the Norwegian authorities
had already constructed a lengthy road tunnel under the city. In other words,
when the tolling came in the motorists could see what they were paying for and
I think that is absolutely critical and I think there is a broad view across
all of the potential charging authorities that in order to justify charging
regimes of whatever description they need to be able to show in some form of
completion what exactly motorists are paying for.
345. That is very encouraging. To what extent do you see
Government allowing local authorities to borrow on the back of future revenue
streams?
(Mr Hill) I think there are a number of possible routes to the funding
of these projects of which borrowing is part of conventional funding and that
has been the traditional way in which these things have been funded with the
exception of the Nottingham light rail scheme which is a PFI scheme. The PFI
is a second route. A third route is the Fuel Duty Fund which, of course, the
Chancellor announced in the Autumn of last year, a scheme whereby if there
were to be any real increases in fuel duty that would be hypothecated to
transport investment. Thirdly, there would be the revenue streams which
resulted from charging regimes.
346. Could I press you a little further on what appears to me to
be a significant element in that package and that is borrowing, i.e. PFI or
PPP as distinct from others that you have talked about. Of course, these tend
to be complicated, they tend to be medium to long-term projects. If the
Government is determined to do what you have said they are intending to do,
that is allow authorities to plan ahead and to use whatever mechanism is
appropriate on the basis of future revenue streams, is it not right that local
authorities will have to put it in their transport plans now and that the
Government has to be saying to local authorities, subject to the appropriate
scrutiny, "This is appropriate. Get on with it"?
(Mr Hill) Yes, they do need to be embarking on these projects now, but
one of the things that the Government would want to look at, if local
authorities propose some form of borrowing as a means of funding the scheme,
would be how it would be paid back and we would certainly want to see the
sources of revenue which would enable them to do that. Of course, none of
these sources of funding need be exclusive. We certainly think it is
perfectly possible that these projects could be funded by a combination of
various means of funding.
347. Have you any idea how much may be generated by the
Chancellor's announcement of above inflation increases in fuel?
(Mr Hill) A one per cent real increase yields œ210 million for Great
Britain as a whole. It is worth bearing in mind that that sum would be
compounded if there were to be a further one per cent real increase in fuel
duty in the following year. In other words, this is a financial device which
can lead quite rapidly to the availability of very substantial sums of money
for investment in all aspects of transport.
Mr O'Brien
348. The West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Authority covers my
constituency and they are a partner in the Leeds Supertram scheme and the
authorities in the private sector have spent over œ6 million trying to meet
the changing criteria in the funding framework set by the Government. Are we
going to have a system or criteria where there will be no changes and no waste
of money and there will be a saving to council tax payers?
(Mr Hill) This is the argument that there are changing criteria in
terms of Supertrams specifically or the integrated transport package which
Leeds have put forward?
349. The Supertram criteria in particular and also the question of
the transport mode that we need in some of our cities. The West Yorkshire
Passenger Transport Authority are saying that there needs to be a clear
framework of criteria and rules which are not subject to continuing change.
(Mr Hill) Mr O'Brien, I rather think this relates to a concern which
I know Leeds City have had about the Government's response to their last local
transport plan package and the fact that there was a feeling that to some
extent the Government was rewriting the requirements and the criteria for that
package. I have had a meeting with irate local councillors on this subject
and my belief is that we have been able to set the record straight as to the
Government's intention. The Government is very supportive of Leeds as a
transport authority. We believe that Leeds is a highly innovative transport
authority. We know that many of the schemes that Leeds has introduced, guided
busways, heavy occupancy vehicle lanes, a number of interesting bus priority
provisions in the city, have proved to be extremely good value for the local
public. I have been anxious to reassure Leeds that there is no backtracking
on the Government's support for those sorts of measures. What we do need is
a thorough justification in the light of changing patterns of transport and
to some extent the population so that we can be absolutely sure that the
package they are proposing is right.
350. What proposals does your Department have in revising its
procedures for deciding whether or not a light rapid transit scheme should be
funded and avoid the delay and the additional expense incurred like with the
Supertram scheme? There has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing. What proposals
do you have to try and streamline that kind of application?
(Mr Hill) I suppose I could answer that at one level on the issue of
Transport and Works Act where I know there has been a certain amount of
discontent and certainly we are in the process of reviewing the procedures
under the TWA to see if they can be speeded up. It ought to be noted that
applications under the TWA have been dealt with much faster than under the old
Private Bill mechanism. I rather suspect that yours is a more precise
question about Supertram. At this point I am going to ask Richard Bird to
come in on this. Are you aware that there have been changes in terms of the
Government's approach to the Supertram?
(Mr Bird) I think the most important change is the arrival of local
transport plans on the scene which provide a proper planning context for
looking at proposals like the Leeds Supertram which previously could only be
considered ad hoc and can now be looked at in relation to a transport and
planning strategy for West Yorkshire and Leeds as a whole. I think that has
provided a better framework and a more consistent framework than in the past.
The other change that we are proposing is in relation to the appraisal process
and with the Minister's permission perhaps I could transfer the question to
Mike Walsh.
(Mr Walsh) What we are doing is bringing in a unified system of
appraisal which is the new approach to appraisal that has been introduced
following the White Paper which will look at the whole range of issues
including the old cost benefit but bringing into account on a standard
procedure the methods for appraisal. It is based on the five criteria of
economy, environment, safety, integration and accessibility.
351. Will this speed up the process of approving the funding
because obviously these are some areas of delay that we have to try and meet
and so reduce the delay?
(Mr Walsh) I think one of the proposals is that there would be a
greater deal of agreement on the equality and the performance of the scheme
from our point of view before it goes to the Transport and Works Act and that
would reduce the period between the Transport and Works Act and final
approval.
352. So what do you do about schemes that are admitted and do not
have a chance of being involved but still there is money spent on these
schemes? Are there criteria set to try and deter people from submitting
schemes that do not have a chance?
(Mr Walsh) We have always worked very closely with promoters as they
develop their schemes and we have always stood ready to give them guidance as
to how we thought the scheme was developing, as to whether it was a
potentially positive scheme or not and I think we will continue to do that.
I think the new procedures will make that a bit easier, but I think it is
something we have always been very keen to do.
Mr Olner
353. If the promoter wanted light rail and you assessed it and
found it to be wanting, would you automatically give guidance to the promoter
that they should be going for the guided bus or does the whole process have
to start all over again?
(Mr Walsh) No, when they come forward with proposals we have always
asked that they assess not just their preferred solution but the alternatives
as well. If they were coming forward with light rail as their preferred
solution we would expect there to be evidence that they had not just settled
on this and that earlier in the process they had looked at the alternatives
and that light rail was the best in this particular context and then at that
stage we would give them a clear steer. It would be unlikely, having done
that, that it would then fail as a light rail scheme and reappear as a private
bus scheme.
Mr Gray
354. These schemes are hugely expensive. Let us focus on the
funding first of all with regard to the petrol tax duty. You mentioned in
answer to an earlier question that one per cent equals œ210 million and if it
is compounded it could be more than that. We are talking about an awful lot
of money that the Government will have. Where will they spend it? How will
you decide which scheme to go for?
(Mr Hill) The first thing which I think we need to recall is that the
Chancellor has made it clear that this money will be hypothecated wholly to
local transport and roads improvement schemes of various sorts, so we know
that it will go on transport. Beyond that, quite clearly we will look at the
various bids made via the local transport plans by local transport authorities
and on the basis of the persuasiveness of the case made out and the appraisal
techniques that are made particularly for these major schemes we will
obviously seek to offer support to those schemes.
355. Would you accept that unlike workplace charging and
congestion charging where the new scheme benefits the very people who are
paying the tax in that area, a tax on petrol would be raised on people who
would not necessarily be benefiting from the light rapid transit system that
the Government would then choose to spend it on?
(Mr Hill) I think that is clearly the case in that direct sense where
the relationship between a driver who is paying petrol tax in Aberdeenshire,
some of which may not go into expenditure in Aberdeenshire although some of
it almost certainly will because there will be local transport plans in each
part of the country into which this additional government funding will go ---
It is perfectly true that there will be large projects in some of the major
conurbations which will receive large sums of money. I have to say as well
that regionally there is an equalisation that you do not find a situation in
which disproportionate sums of money are being devoted to particular areas of
particular cities.
356. The hypothecation advanced is that the money that is raised
from that particular passenger is spent on that particular passenger and
surely, given what you say, it will be the rural driver who pays higher petrol
taxes but it will be the urban individual who will benefit from the light
rapid transit system. How would you react to that criticism?
(Mr Hill) It will be the rural motorist who will benefit from the roads
maintenance component of the allocation in the local transport plans. It will
be the rural dweller who will benefit from the continuation which I was
pleased to announce on Monday of this week of the rural bus grant. There are
many ways in which people in the countryside, both motorists and
non-motorists, will benefit from increased expenditure on transport.
357. Let me focus on workplace parking and congestion charging in
particular. What happens if the amount of money raised through particular
schemes does not come anywhere near the amount of money required for a light
rapid transit system in that particular area?
(Mr Hill) As I said, we would anticipate that the funding of major
schemes of this sort may occur through a combination of sources of funding.
Therefore, the revenues generated from one or other form of congestion
charging may only be a part of the way in which the scheme is funded, but it
may be wholly the source of the funding as well.
358. It may be, but by admitting that and by admitting that the
Exchequer funds large parts of the scheme, are you not undermining the whole
argument in favour of hypothecation of workplace and congestion charging
because the theory in the driver's mind is "I will pay that tax and in return
I will get that", but the truth of the matter is that the amount of money
raised from the workplace parking tax is extremely unlikely to come anywhere
near or even be roughly equivalent to the costs of the scheme and therefore
that demonstrates that hypothecation is a PR exercise to try and persuade the
motorist he is getting something worthwhile.
(Mr Hill) On the contrary, I think that the motorist in a locality
which imposes a congestion charging regime will actually be able to have the
assurance that all of the monies he/she is expending in congestion charging
will go wholly to local transport projects. Of course, these local transport
projects will not be wholly funded by the congestion charging regime and the
normal processes of national funding will also come in. I have made it clear
that congestion charging is supplementary ---
Mr Gray: We will return to these matters next week in the Bill
Committee.
Mr Donohoe
359. In Edinburgh dedicated bus lanes have generated a perception
in the minds of the public that the roads that have these lanes have become
very restrictive and that it is rather anti-car. The Government is accused
by some of the press as being anti-car. What would you say in terms of the
advancement of similar schemes to the additional problems that you are heaping
upon yourself?
(Mr Hill) I am very sorry to hear that that perception has arisen in
the case of Edinburgh because I think our general experience is that where you
have dedicated bus priority lanes you have two interesting effects. Firstly,
the predictable and desired effect which is that you speed up bus journeys but
also, interestingly enough, on the whole you speed up other traffic movements
on the road at the same time. There may be a number of reasons for this. One
rather obvious reason is that one of the most tedious experiences for the
motorist is having to wait in a queue while a bus comes out of the bus lane
and negotiates around the illegally parked car and then proceeds along the bus
lane. This is a bit of a hostage to fortune, I acknowledge, but let me cite
the case of the well known M4 bus lane where not only has the bus lane speeded
up bus and taxi movements but overall speeds in that stretch of the motorway
have increased as well. Let me give you another example. There is the new
so-called "whole" route 32 over eight kilometres of North London where you
have effective enforcement of a bus lane, that is why it is known as a whole
route, because you have extremely effective enforcement.
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 Metro Link add-on to that service so
that they are complementary and a light rail service has replaced a loss
making levy 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 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 œ145
million. The Tyne & Wear Metro Sunderland extension is 19 kilometres in
length and cost œ100 million. The Crawley Fastway, which is busway and partly
guided bus, is 24 kilometres and the cost is œ24 million. That œ24 million
does not include the cost of the vehicles. I make the observation not in a
negative or sceptical way that for the extra œ75 million in one case or œ120
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 œ5 million per kilometre and œ1
million per kilometre and you can buy a lot of buses with the œ4 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 DTPs 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 œ20 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?
Chairman
380. Is that something that could be dressed up without
identifiable names.
(Mr Hill) We will see what we can provide.
Chairman: Mr Forsythe?
Mr Forsythe
381. Why is the Government planning to reduce the contribution
made by the utility companies towards the cost of diverting their services
away from the route of a new light rail system?
(Mr Hill) Why do you have to move the services, the water supply, the
gas supply, the electricity, diversionary works, where there is a sense of
grievance on the part of the operators at the fact that we are reducing the
contribution of the utilities towards the works from 18 per cent to 7.5 per
cent?
382. That is right.
(Mr Hill) Why are we doing it? Inspiration has reached me and I can
inform you that the argument is that the utilities derive an operational
benefit from the existence of roads and bridges because these provide a
convenient route for their apparatus. The 18 per cent contribution may be
regarded as least in part as rent for this facility. The same consideration
does not arise in the case of public transport.
Chairman
383. Say that again.
(Mr Hill) Shall I do that again? I will tell you what ---
384. Perhaps you would like to put that in writing, Minister, it
sounds every so slightly specious.
(Mr Hill) That was a written answer so perhaps I can put it in plain
English. I think the point is this: in the case of light rail projects the
utilities do not have the same access essentially to the cabling and
facilities under a road as they do when the road is built, so to that extent
I think the argument is that there is a use, in other words, a rent value for
the utility.
385. You are more convinced about this than I am so you had better
put it in writing.
(Mr Hill) Let me invite the brains of the outfit to explain it to you.
386. Mr Bird, we will leave that that to the miasma of information
that you are going to give us in writing.
(Mr Hill) I will be delighted to give it in writing.
Chairman: We might be delighted to quote it with various comments. Mr
Forsythe?
Mr Forsythe
387. Would that not mean the promoters of those schemes would be
put off having these systems if they have to pay extra themselves?
(Mr Hill) I think one way or the other the extra costs are not met by
the promoters but by other means, including the public purse. That is how it
works out in the end.
Chairman: We are interested in the theory; we may disagree with it. Mr
Bennett?
Mr Bennett
388. How much do you think the utilities' profits will go up as a
result of it?
(Mr Hill) Is that a rhetorical question?
389. No, I will be happy to get the answer. But I think you
perhaps were not aware how unpopular you will be in Greater Manchester as a
result of one of your earlier answers. When the Prime Minister came to open
the Metro that went into Salford he said the big bang scheme for Manchester
has got through the next stage and I think you will have disappointed a lot
of people in Manchester who expected it long before next autumn because I
think all the Manchester scheme went into last year's plans, so could you give
us a little bit more encouragement?
(Mr Hill) Now I have learnt what the Prime Minister said I think I
ought to give you a bit more encouragement. We are looking at this scheme
very earnestly and what is more, in the light of what you have told me about
the Prime Minister, very urgently as well!
390. While we are on Manchester what about track sharing. The
proposal for the extra ten lines in Manchester does not involve track sharing.
I think there was some concern in Manchester that track sharing was difficult.
You have approved the Newcastle Sunderland one with track sharing. What scope
is there for more track sharing between light and heavy rail?
(Mr Hill) That is a matter for a seriously expert opinion and I will
ask Mr Bird to answer on that.
Chairman
391. Come along serious expert!
(Mr Bird) Mr Bennett referred to the Sunderland scheme and that scheme
is a scheme that does indeed involve sharing of track between heavy and light
rail so the principle is now agreed and the Health and Safety Executive were
happy with that in principle. Obviously they will need to be consulted as the
scheme is actually implemented. I think as far as Manchester is concerned
there is no problem in principle but obviously the details will have to be
carefully considered.
392. Are you satisfied that the Strategic Rail Authority and the
Local Passenger Transport people are going to be able to co-operate
effectively? There is a lot of concern from them that you are weighting it
in the Bill in favour of the Strategic Rail Authority.
(Mr Hill) I am glad you asked that question because it gives me the
opportunity ---
393. It was not a plant!
(Mr Hill) I am aware there is concern in PTAs about these moves. We
have talked extensively to the PTAs and I think they have accepted that the
Strategic Rail Authority as is proposed and envisaged in the Bill does have
a clear stake with regard to both light rail schemes and indeed to rail
services in PT areas which contribute 20 per cent of passenger volume on the
network as a whole. It would be extraordinary if the Strategic Rail Authority
did not have a stake with, effectively, one-fifth of all rail activity in the
country. As far as light rail schemes are concerned, again light rail schemes
often, certainly in the case of Manchester, operate precisely on heavy rail
lines and again it seems sensible that the Strategic Rail Authority should
have a stake in any decision-making with regard to such schemes but, having
said that, the role of the Strategic Rail Authority, remember, is to promote
rail activity in the country and we see the role of the Strategic Rail
Authority as a positive and proactive influence in the development of light
rail schemes, both as a supporter of the promoters of those schemes but also
as a potential source of funding for the schemes as well.
394. But a lot of people in the North West will see a huge amount
of discussion going on about London at the present time and problems of
north-south, those sorts of issues. Is something going to be done about
getting rid of some of those pinch points in the North West and South
Humberside where with very short pieces of shared track it could dramatically
improve commuter services?
(Mr Hill) The Strategic Rail Authority will bring a strategic vision to
the rail network which it has lacked in the aftermath of the Railways Act
1992. There is a general acceptance that there needs to be a more integrated
approach, though not a heavy-handed approach, to these matters. Let me say
of course that pinch points in the North West and elsewhere are certainly
being looked at in the context of the current multi-modal studies which will
precisely be examining the value of public transport, ie, rail alternatives
to road on an equal basis. We expect to see the results of those in the
course of the next year and in general terms we hope that out of the
refranchising process, which we have obviously kicked off at this stage - and
my recollection is that none of the companies so far identified are in the
North West - will roll out in due course. We certainly want to see innovative
projects from the TOCs taking a stake in the infrastructure as well.
Chairman
395. Train Operating Companies.
(Mr Hill) Sorry.
396. Minister, I want to allow you to escape before very long but
I do have some other questions to ask you. Does the Government see itself
having a role in suggesting some degree of standardisation of equipment in
light rail, especially vehicles, which would have some effect of economies of
scale?
(Mr Hill) Very briefly - we have looked at that and we find it very
difficult to see in the midst of various manufacturers that it would be very
easy to bring in that sort of standardisation.
397. But it is not something you reject for all time?
(Mr Hill) No, we keep it under review.
398. Would the Government agree that it is difficult to compare
the merits of light rail and guided bus, when we do not really have an example
of a network based on guided bus?
(Mr Hill) It is difficult to make those comparisons because the
national and international experience of guided bus, as you know very well,
is extremely limited and therefore to that extent developing a systematic
comparison is not easy.
399. Had you thought of going for some kind of demonstration
project?
(Mr Hill) Demonstration? In the sense of a model?
Chairman: Ie, encouraging somebody to do a suitable scheme somewhere or
yourselves doing some sort of research to show to people ---
Mr Bennett
400. Crewe!
(Mr Hill) Inspiration has reached me again and we have done some work
in terms of the Leeds guided bus scheme which is very promising of course
which shows that journey times have speeded up by one-third and passenger
volumes have increased, I was told today by the operator, by 65 per cent in
the period, which is a remarkable achievement.
Chairman
401. Yes, it is remarkable. Do you intend to make that public in
some form that is easily accessible by the general public?
(Mr Hill) We have apparently published --- what have we published?
Have we published these statistics? Let me correct the record. The results
of the research are in the public domain.
402. Good. Can you tell us why you think light rail seems to be
much more successful in getting people out of cars than other forms of
transport?
(Mr Hill) It is a very interesting question and I suspect the answer is
partly in the realm of human psychology and it is about what people call the
bus environment and the unattractiveness of the bus environment to your middle
manager.
403. Are you guessing there, Minister, or do you have any work in
the Department?
(Mr Hill) I do not believe ---
404. We know you have great psychologists in your Department!
(Mr Hill) I do not believe there is any systematic survey data on this.
We will see if there is any. It is an interesting proposition.
Mr Donohoe
405. If there is not, will you get it?
(Mr Hill) We will supply it to the Committee if there is and I believe
that there is such data.
Chairman
406. Thank you, that would be helpful. Do you believe that there
is any evidence that light rail systems are more effective as economic
development catalysts in rundown areas than other forms of transport?
(Mr Hill) I think the evidence on this is not clear. It is arguable
that if the Docklands Light Rail scheme might be described as a light rail
project it has certainly been productive in the significant regeneration of
the Docklands area, but on the whole there is no solid evidence on this, I
have to say.
407. Has anybody got evidence on the Portland scheme in Oregon
which apparently had a very direct and clear effect?
(Mr Walsh) There is a perception abroad certainly that light rail is
more successful in generating cities and corridors than bus services are.
408. I go along with the perception, Mr Walsh. What I am saying
is can we ask if you have any hard evidence that you can present to the
Committee?
(Mr Walsh) We will check and see if there is any evidence.
409. Thank you very much. Are you satisfied as a Government that
the appropriate strategies are now in place to promote the development of the
light rapid transit systems?
(Mr Hill) Yes, and I think the evidence is there in the outside world
that there is a very lively interest across the country in our major
conurbations in the introduction or extension of light rail schemes.
410. You several times very encouragingly mentioned the local
transport plans today. Is the Department doing anything in conjunction with
the government offices and various regions to look at land planning or look
at the use of specific areas in order to encourage people to put that kind of
input into transport plans?
(Mr Hill) I think the answer is that the government offices do work
extra-ordinarily closely with the local transport authorities.
411. Forgive me, Minister, your Department has got another half to
it. What I am really saying to you is are the two halves of the Department
working together to ensure ---
(Mr Hill) Environment and transport in the regions?
412. --- That in the regions this is given high priority?
(Mr Hill) Yes, I believe that work is going forward and I think that
work is going forward via the government offices in the regions.
413. We are not too impressed in this Committee with Quality
Partnerships as opposed to Quality Contracts. Do you think it is going to be
necessary to ensure that bus and light rail services and ticketing are fully
integrated by using Quality Contracts?
(Mr Hill) We certainly do not think that Quality Contracts are the sine
qua non of joint ticketing arrangements, if I might revert to another foreign
language, even if a dead one. Indeed, there is no direct relationship between
Quality Contracts and the joint ticketing regimes that you mention.
414. Or the assurance offered.
(Mr Hill) The Quality Contracts - where, as you know, the Government is
proposing to introduce an extremely steep threshold in terms of their
implementation - do not necessarily, in our view, add to the quality of bus
services in a locality. Indeed, they reflect the failure of bus services in
a locality and do not necessarily guarantee that although there will be an
improvement that they would constitute bus services at the quality of
successful bus provision in other areas or, indeed I might add, of the great
success which voluntary Quality Partnerships have already had in many parts
of the country. There are 130 such schemes up and running in various parts
of the country and there is absolutely no doubt that they have greatly
contributed to the significant increases in bus patronage, if we think of the
leap in Brighton for example of 80 per cent in bus patronage after the
introduction of the voluntary Quality Partnership there. Undoubtedly, they
have led this big increase in bus patronage in those parts of the country
outside London over the last couple of the years.
415. As you have yourself said Minister, there are all sorts of
solutions and all sorts of different responses in different parts of the
country so we may agree to disagree on that. Finally, what work is the
Department really doing to encourage people to look at either converting
existing heavy rail or to look at the introduction of light rail systems in
areas over a certain population, or are you only being reactive? Are you
leaving it to local authorities to come forward with schemes or are you
consciously look at a forward planning regime that would assume that if, for
example, the hypothecation is to work, local authorities must have in place
alternative schemes and what are you doing do stimulate that rather than
simply react to people's existing ideas?
(Mr Hill) Again, I am conscious of the time, but let me give you a
couple of brief answers. You will be aware that the Government has now set
up something called the Congestion Charging Development Partnership which has
brought together the twenty or so local authorities who have expressed an
interest in various forms of congestion charging partnership. The first
meeting was in January, chaired by Lord Macdonald, and a second meeting has
occurred, to bring together local transport officials and locally elected
representatives involved in transport matters and DETR officials to exchange
experience and to widen knowledge and information about congestion charging
regimes and the public transport benefits in terms of investment that can
arise out of them. Central to those discussions is actually precisely light
rail schemes and measures of that description. So that I think is a genuine
proactive move. A second genuine proactive move is the work we are doing in
terms of issuing guidance with regard to local transport plans. That is about
to come out. That clarifies and sets out exactly the Government's
expectations in terms of what we are wanting local authorities to be coming
forward with. We have already a short time ago sent out a best practice guide
to local authorities which draws on what we deem to be the best local
transport plans so that these can act as a model for future submissions. We
think that is a positive and proactive step and that will of course include
transport plans which involve light rail schemes and other sorts of
significant projects but I have to say the underlying philosophy - and I do
not apologise for this - is that the Government really does believe that it
is in the end best to leave local people to produce local solutions to local
transport problems and that actually is the approach we take. The answer is,
I think, that it is a bit of both but basically we want to see the initiatives
coming from the base rather than imposing decisions top down.
416. Minister, we can see what a professional you are and how your
training in this Committee has stood you in very good stead! We are
tremendously grateful to you. We are very encouraged and we will certainly
give you very special billing in our report. Thank you very much.
(Mr Hill) It has been a pleasure, Mrs Dunwoody.
