Memorandum by the Campaign for Yorkshire
(REN 32)
RAIL SERVICES IN THE NORTH OF ENGLAND
"The Yorkshire and Humber region is at the centre
of key north-south and east-west road and rail corridors including
the M1, A1 and M62, the East Coast Main Line and Trans-Pennine
rail lines. These routes are of vital importance to the competitiveness
of the region and growing congestion problems need to be tackled
to facilitate economic development. The Humber ports represent
an important regional asset and improved road and rail links are
a priority. Increasing congestion in the main towns and cities
must be addressed to foster regeneration, improve the environment
and encourage urban renaissance. In rural areas, improved public
transport is needed to tackle problems of car dependency and social
exclusion".[19]
1. Whether the existing franchisees provide
satisfactory services, particularly in relation to safety, punctuality,
reliability, comfort and frequency of services.
1.1 The record of the regions rail franchises
is patchy and varies from a relatively effective and efficient
service provision by GNER line, to a less than satisfactory service
of Arriva and patchy provision of Midland Mainline. Getting around
the region by rail is not always easy and almost impossible in
some parts after 6pm. One local resident complained to me that
getting into Hull by public transport after that time is still
difficult.
1.2 These difficulties are compounded by
poor parking provision in many of the key stations that means
that commuter travel is often restricted by the inability to park
rather than the lack of service. This is notable around Wakefield,
York and Sheffield not to mention some of the lesser-used lines
and whilst Leeds has good parking faculties next to the station
the cost is prohibitive to many users.
1.3 The varying nature of service provision
is matched by the wide disparities in the nature and condition
of the rolling stock with Midland Mainline and some of Transpennine
coaches being substantially older and less comfortable than GNER.
1.4 Rail service providers are also hindered
by other problems. Mining subsidence around the coalfields of
South Yorkshire has been a persistent problem and still not resolved.
It means that trains have to reduce speed substantially over certain
parts of the track because of the instability caused by the subsidence.
The failure to electrify the north Midlands line has to all extents
and purposes excluded Sheffield from being on the "map"
of the major train network for the country. In particular it has
made commuting to London a long and not particularly comfortable
experience.
1.5 There are some real black spots. The
cities of Leeds and Sheffield are the fourth and fifth largest
cities in England and of great significance to the region in terms
of jobs and commuter activity. Yet they only have one through
train during the morning rush hour. Compare this with the cities
of Glasgow and Edinburgh, cities comparable in terms of size and
distance apart, which enjoy a regular rail shuttle service as
well as a good road system between the two cities. Recently the
Scottish Executive agreed £34 million subsidy to Scots Rail
to enable the service to run even more effectively. This money
has been drawn from the existing Scottish budget of £18-20
billion and interestingly takes the provision well beyond what
is required in the Public Service obligation.
1.6 In this region we have seen a 25% increase
in number of cars in the last 10 years. There are severe congestion
problems on both the M1 carriageways running through South Yorkshire
and at specific junctions (such as 33 and 34) and in West Yorkshire
at junctions 40 and 41. This in part is due to the failure to
provide an adequate train service between the two cities. A Multi
Modal Study is currently studying this but it is difficult to
see how under existing arrangements the underlying problems can
be tackled.
1.7 Unlike in Scotland commuters have no
one body to lobby for more effective transport provision. Neither
is there any one body to plan and determine future needs or link
different transport modes together. Immingham is one of the busiest
UK ports resulting in excessive freight on a road system that
is not designed to cater for the current commuter and freight
traffic. What is needed are alternative systems linking in with
British Waterways and more holistic thinking and planning of the
infrastructure.
2. Plans for investment in the rail network
in the region and whether they meet the needs of additional network
capacity and other improvements.
2.1 Resources come down to regional level
through different routes (SRA and Railtrack with involvement from
Treasury and DLTR) that makes for an integrated and balanced pattern
of investment difficult. The Ten Year plan made no provision for
a regional funding allocation. Instead individual regional projects
will be determined by bodies such as the Highways Agency and the
Strategic Rail Authority and on the Local Transport Plan settlement.
2.2 There are very different transport needs
and issues amongst the English regions depending on the growth
pressures and economic conditions of the region. There is little
reflection on drawing together the RES and rail investment and
it is difficult to see how under the current regime how regional
transport needs can be differentiated from national transport
needs.
2.3 It is also hard to dispel the belief
that all growth and future investment will be concentrated in
and around London and the South East. In the recent Select Committee
report[20]
several organisations believed that the current growth target
has led to a Plan that is dominated by improvements in the south
east at the expense of other regional improvements. This view
was upheld by the SRA Chairman Richard Bowker who acknowledged
to the Committee that the major capital investment projects were
focussed on London and the south east[21].
2.4. Each region should have its own targets
for things like modal shifts, growth in rail passengers and growth
in rail freight. This should take into account regional travel-to-work
patterns and future commuter patterns and commercial needs. The
Government's 10 Year Plan had no real mechanism for a regional
contribution to be made and considerations about regional needs
and investment other than the existing RTP drawn up by the non-statutory
Chambers.
3. The influence of rail services on the economic
and social development in the region.
3.1 There is an increasing recognition of
the significance of transport beyond the field of transport itself.
Regions economies are largely related to the effectiveness or
otherwise of the regions transport infrastructure. Transport,
land-use and economic planning are highly interdependent and require
a high degree of co-ordination and will be the only way to achieve
and deliver a fully integrated transport policy.
3.2 It is difficult to reconcile the aspirations
of the 10 Year Plan of lower congestion and reduced environmental
impacts without major improvements in rail services. Many organisations
have criticised the Plan for providing benefits linked to the
distance people travel, disproportionately assisting car-owning
and richer households.
"If the Government wishes to tackle social
exclusion then it must face up to the difficult policy decisions
needed to re-balance the cost attractiveness of public and private
transport. . . . The Department has paid only lip service to important
indicators such as accessibility, safety and social inclusion.
The Plan has been shaped too strongly by the unhelpful indicator
chosen to represent congestion. It cannot have been the Department's
objective to produce a plan that benefits the better off and those
who travel the most. However, the Plan acknowledges that it does
just that. It is in complete contradiction to the Department's
desires to reduce the need to travel and the Government's aims
to promote equity and social inclusion[22]".
3.3 There are many lessons to be learnt from
Europe. The European Commission White Paper "The Future
of the Common Transport Policy" took sustainable mobility
within Europe as its key theme with policy guidelines to ensure
that a proper balance is truck in the "complex equation"
required to curb the growth of transport without curbing economic
growth. As many Europe countries shows us it is essential that
land planning use and transport provision are handled in an integrated
fashion which can only be achieved if the two responsibilities
are placed in the same authority.
3.4 However it is not just to Europe we
should look. The Scottish Executive's Development Department covers
a much wider brief than DTLR including social justice, housing
and area regeneration, local government and finance, land use
planning and building control, European structural Funds management
and roads and transport. This places it in a strong position to
achieve strategic integration of transport.
4. THE FUTURE
4.1 Regional capacity for strategic policy
development is still relatively weak in most regions. "Current
decision-making at regional level is beset by the dominance of
the local agenda, whilst regional interests do not have a direct
line to the decision-making of national bodies such as the SRA."[23]
What is required is a single public transport authority with greater
public sector investment in infrastructure and a single regional
Strategy encompassing economic, social and environmental objectives
and making proposals for transport, land use and economic development.
4.2 Currently it is impossible to deliver
an integrated programme around transport when a crucial part (or
parts) lies outside the remit of those undertaking and delivering
regional strategies. The experience in Europe has shown that effective
spatial and transport planning require an appropriate structure
of regional and local authorities. Notably both the German Lander
and the French regions are fully responsible for regional railway
development with most new schemes linked to regional economic
and spatial strategies.
4.3 West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive
(Metro) told the SubCommittee that there is "a discrepancy
in timescales between regional guidance, local plans, transport
plans and the 10 Year Plan". The Subcommittee also noted
that greater clarity is required about the linkages between the
different levels of regional planning and transport decisions,
local transport plans and multi-modal studies. Any revised Plan
must be based on the outcomes of joined-up strategies so that
the projects contained within it represent those that will be
implemented on the ground.
4.4 Paul Salveson in a recent article suggests
a committee structure to focus on transport, environment and strategic
planning issues—especially important with the proposals
for regions to produce a Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) in future.
"One of the great benefits of regionalisation will be the
opportunity to bring back together key areas of public policy
and planning which have been torn apart over the last 20 years"[24].
This committee would supervise the work of a RTE (Regional Transport
Executive) and would place importance on sustainability and social
inclusion. In particular they could make a real difference on
both strategic rail and highway network and support and strengthen
the existing rural transport partnerships that have been established
by the Countryside Agency and local authority partners.
Jane Thomas
Director
Campaign for Yorkshire
8 June 2002
19 Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan, Department of
Environment, Transport and the Regions, July 2000. Back
20
Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions
Eighth Report, May 27 2002. Back
21
Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions
Eighth Report, May 27 2002 Chapter 1V. Implementing the Plan. Back
22
Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions
Eighth Report, May 27 2002. Back
23
Alan Wenban-Smith "Building Regional Institutional Capacity
for Integrated Transport Planning"-paper presented to IPPR
seminar on March 21. Back
24
Paul Salveson Regionalisation: A view from the North-paper presented
to IPPR seminar March 21 2002. Back
| 
