Supplementary memorandum by DTLR (TYP
28A)
FOLLOW-UP
TO THE
COMMITTEE MEETING
OF 30 JANUARY
1. How much of the £18.5 billion of public
investment expenditure in rail has already been allocated to current
projects?
Currently around £8.1 billion remains contractually
uncommitted out of the total public investment budget of £18.6
billion. Commitments have been made for nearly £7 billion
of network grants (covering the October 2000 Regulatory settlement
and the 2 April 2001 agreement between Government and Railtrack);
£3.5 billion for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link; and around
£30 million for freight facilities grants.
2. Can you please provide a list of the performance
indicators that are being used to assess progress towards the
Plan's objectives?
A list of performance indicators currently being
used within the Department to allow us to assess progress against
the targets and objectives in the Plan is attached.
As Willy Rickett noted in his evidence to the
Committee, the indicators on this list are used internally for
providing regular advice to Ministers on progress with the 10
Year Plan. This is a selective list: data are collected and published
on many other matters that are relevant to implementation of the
10 Year Plan and its objectives. Nor is it definitive: other indicators
are still under development, and we expect to be adding to or
amending this list over time. For many of these parameters the
amount of data available at this early stage on progress since
the Plan came into effect is still quite limited, but we will
be including the most up-to-date information we have when the
first review of the Plan is published later this year.
3. Details of historic trends in rail and
bus fares (regulated and unregulated) from 1995 including the
latest estimates of the figures for this year
BUS FARES
1994-95 TO 2000-01
Bus fares in England outside London are unregulated.
The DTLR local bus fares index shows that they have increased
by around one third over the last six years (see table 1), slightly
more in the metropolitan areas than in the shire counties. In
real terms, the increase has been 14 per cent in the Met Counties
and 12.5 per cent in the Shires.
In London, fares were regulated originally by
London Transport and since July 2000 by Transport for London (TfL).
The rise in fares has been 22 per cent in cash terms, 3.4 per
cent in real terms over the same period. Fares fell by 2.9 per
cent in real terms in 2000-01.
These trends look set to continue this year.
RAIL FARES
1994-95 TO 2000-01
Rail fares indexes showing regulated and unregulated
fares separately do not exist at present. An index is being developed
by the Strategic Rail Authority covering all types of fare, it
should in due course be able to show changes in regulated and
unregulated fares separately.
The rail fare index published as part of the
Retail Price Index (RPI) represents all national rail fares and
London Underground fares.
Table 1 shows the rail fares index used in the
RPI and a separate index for London Underground fares, from London
Transport, and, more recently, TfL. The all rail index has increased
by 21 per cent in cash terms and 3 per cent in real terms over
the last six years. In 2000-01 the all rail fares index fell by
1 per cent in real terms.
The index of London Underground fares increased
by 26 per cent over the last six years in cash terms and by 7
per cent in real terms.
The RPI index contains three types of rail fare:
— unregulated national rail (including
through travel to destinations served by light rail or London
Underground services, and to attractions where the travel cost
includes the cost of entry);
— regulated national rail; and
— regulated London Underground fares
within Travelcard Zones (singles and season tickets).
Regulated National Rail Fares
Around 40 per cent of ticket revenue is from
regulated fares. Increases have been capped at RPI minus 1 per
cent since January 1999. In 2001, this allowed increases up to
2.3 per cent outside London on Saver tickets and weekly season
tickets. In London, the arrangement has more flexibility and is
linked to performance. The cap is RPI minus 1 per cent, but with
a range of + or - 2 per cent according to performance. The actual
average increase allowed in 2001 was 1.3 per cent, or RPI minus
2 per cent.
The London area cap applies to a "basket"
of fares, which includes season tickets.
Unregulated National Rail fares
Unregulated fares are a matter for individual
train operating companies who set the level of these according
to their own commercial criteria.
4. Details of the assumptions made about the
timing of the introduction and the number of local road user charging
and workplace parking levy schemes which led to the estimate of
£2.7 billion of revenue funding being available in the Plan.
The assumptions made in developing the 10 year
plan were as follows:
Outside London
Local authorities would introduce eight road
user charging and 12 workplace parking schemes in 20 of the largest
towns and cities in England from 2004-05 onwards. (No assumption
was made about precisely which towns and cities these would be.)
The net income from these schemes would rise
to £300 million per annum by 2010-11.
Tot total amount raised over the Plan period
would be £1,350 million.
London
The Mayor is currently aiming to introduce road
user charging before the date assumed in the Plan (2004-05).
The Plan assumed that net income from charging
in London would rise from £110 million in 2004-05 to £248
million in 2010-11.
Total amount raised would be £1,521 million.
Total
Total amount assumed to be raised from charging
schemes was £2,686 million.
5. A note, outlining the division of responsibilities
for Inland Waterways with DEFRA, including the extent to which
inland ports are also the responsibility of DTLR and DEFRA.
The Department of the Environment Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA) is generally responsible for inland waterways
in England and Wales, acting together with the National Assembly
for Wales in the case of Welsh waterways. The Scottish Executive
is responsible for those in Scotland.
DEFRA has an overarching responsibility for
the waterways but is also specifically responsible for navigation,
water quality and supply, flood defence, countryside, and fishery
issues.
DEFRA sponsors British Waterways (in England
and Wales), and the Environment Agency, providing grant-in-aid
towards their activities. It also appoints members of the Inland
Waterways Amenity Advisory Council (IWAAC), a statutory body set
up to advise the Government and British Waterways about the use
and development of the latter's waterways for recreation and amenity
purposes.
The Department for Culture, Media, and Sport
is responsible for heritage, tourism and sports issues as they
relate to the waterways.
The Department for Transport Local Government
and the Regions is responsible for freight transport and regeneration
aspects on waterways. It is also responsible for ports (including
inland ports) and walking and cycling along towpaths. The limits
of ports are defined in each individual case, there is not a universal
definition.
The two Departments work closely together in
ensuring that the freight potential of inland waterways is fully
exploited.
6. Confirmation of whether the model is capable
of assessing the impacts of policies to encourage people to live
closer to where they work and whether this was examined in the
development of the Plan. In addition, please provide details of
the analysis of the effects of different housing location decisions.
The National Transport Model currently being
developed includes the facility to assess the transport impacts
of concentrating housing and employment in urban areas.
Household and employment location are inputs
to the model. Within the model, the availability of more jobs
closer to where people live results in shorter average journeys
to work. More retail employment closer to where people live results
in shorter average shopping trips, and similarly for other trip
purposes. Changes in the mix of trip lengths and destinations
then affects use of different modes of travel. For example, shorter
journeys are more likely to be made by walking or cycling, and
journeys to urban areas are more likely to be made by public transport
and so on.
We do not attempt to model the process by which
people decide where to live. The process by which they decide
how far to travel for each trip purpose is modelled as a response
to the time and money costs of the travel opportunities that exist.
The initial version of the model used for development
of the Plan did not have the capability of modelling these effects.
A small traffic reduction factor was included, based on experience
of working with local traffic models, to represent the likely
impact of "urban regeneration" policy.
DTLR
February 2002
| 
