Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100
- 119)
WEDNESDAY 23 FEBRUARY 2005
MR KEITH
HOLDEN AND
MR STEWART
LINGARD
Q100 Chairman: You did not find the
Rowlands' secret of transport planning?
Mr Holden: We did not find anything
to show that the Department were proactive in terms of supporting
the industry.
Q101 Mr Stringer: This is even more
curious, if you do not mind my saying so. You do not have any
evidence that they have this information but you do have the evidence
that they are inefficient and ineffective at doing it, so you
want to give them more responsibility for carrying it out. Explain.
Mr Holden: Chairman, I think we
are probably going round in circles here. The key thing is that
the Department had a vision to grow light rail over the period
2000-10, did not have a strategy but was in a unique position
through its valuations, through seeing how proposals had developed
working with local authorities over a 10 or 15 year period of
time, looking at how those systems actually operate once they
are up and running, to help support local authorities in developing
their proposals for future systems and they have not been doing
that. We think that is something that they should be doing.
Q102 Mr Stringer: On page seven under
"Light rail systems in France and Germany have higher reported
patronage levels . . ." in the block there "Systems
connect centres of social and economic activity", you make
the point that some of the systems in this country are running
on old railway lines and I think you conclude, therefore, that
is not necessarily a good thing and that is one of the reasons
why patronage is lower, but the system that has outperformed its
original projections was precisely a system on old railway lines,
was it not?
Mr Lingard: The situation is more
mixed than perhaps we have laid out here.
Q103 Mr Stringer: It is the exact
opposite of it, is it not?
Mr Lingard: I was thinking of
the Midland Metro scheme which, of course, is built on an old
railway line and has not met its patronage levels and probably
will not do.
Q104 Mr Stringer: Would it not have
been better, rather than to give a biased view, to have explained
that this is rather a complicated situation and sometimes old
railway lines have performed better than any other areas and in
other places their performance has been worse? Why did you not
do that and then we would have had a clear objective report as
opposed to a biased conclusion?
Mr Holden: We do not think it
is a biased conclusion. What this particular box is pointing out
is the practice in France and Germany where they do connect most
extensively with these centres of economic activity. The issue
around whether or not you actually utilise existing or perhaps
under-used heavy rail or obsolete heavy rail obviously depends
upon what the local authority wants from its light rail system.
For example, it can provide you benefits with regard to reduced
construction costs. Obviously, potentially it can help you in
terms of the speed of the services if that is taking you into
a centre. One of the key things we point out in the report is
where these existing lines may not actually be the best solution
because it is a question of whether or not they go into the city
centre. I think the case that Stewart is pointing out with regard
to Midland Metro is down through an old railway line and stops
short of New Street Station in Birmingham. The key thing there
is to say it can take you so far in some cases but it might also
then need on-street running just for that final 500 metres, or
whatever it may be, to the centre of the city. We are not saying
that old railway lines are necessarily always bad, we are not
saying that they are necessarily always good, the key thing to
do is to consider how your light rail system connects with where
people live and work and where they travel.
Q105 Mr Stringer: I think it would
have been helpful if you had said it in those terms rather than
the terms that you said it in. What savings would you expect from
the substitution of the commuter heavy rail system, say in Greater
Manchester or Leeds—I know there is not a light rail system
in Leeds—with light rail?
Mr Holden: Do you mean the standards
or is that in connection with your previous question about using
old railway lines or is it around the specification of the vehicles?
Q106 Mr Stringer: You made the point
that in Greater Manchester there is a £70 million subsidy
a year to heavy rail, light rail is running into profit. I just
wondered if you had done any studies that showed what the savings
would be if you substituted those local heavy rail routes with
light rail routes.
Mr Holden: We have not done any
work of that nature.
Q107 Mr Stringer: Just one last question.
You also made the point, and it is an accurate point, I think,
that where there has been modal shift from cars to trams, that
capacity is taken up by other cars but you seemed to see that
as a negative whereas I would see it in terms of regeneration
activity in a city centre creating that extra capacity as a big
positive. Do you not see that that is part of the regeneration
process of many areas, getting more people into the centre?
Mr Holden: Yes, it can be. We
have recognised in other reports, and indeed we had a report out
in the autumn which was looking at issues with regard to road
congestion, road congestion can be seen as a sign of a successful
economy. Where you have got increasing prosperity, when people
get prosperous they want to buy a car, or a second or third car.
It can be a sign of success. The problem is that it causes all
of these other by-products in relation to local pollution and
local congestion. It is a question of whether you see it as a
plus or a negative. I think in the context of light rail, these
systems were set up specifically to help with the congestion,
so if those systems have not been able to do that for whatever
reason then obviously that is an issue for future promoters to
consider when they come to design their light rail systems, the
extent to which congestion can be tackled by light rail.
Mr Stringer: Thank you.
Q108 Ian Lucas: I was just going
to ask about the relationship between integration and competition.
We had an interesting submission from Tramtrack Croydon. We heard
from them that they felt one of the reasons their level of patronage
has gone down is because of bus competition from Transport for
London effectively competing with their services and reducing
the level of patronage. In France and Germany, how do they manage
the tension between competition from other forms of transport,
such as bus services, and integration? Why is it that they are
able to be so much more successful in terms of reaching the levels
of figures that are projected?
Mr Lingard: Of course there is
a greater regulated market on the Continent and they are able
to direct bus services to a far greater extent than we are here.
Bus services are used as feeders for the light rail systems and
the buses go directly to the tram stops.
Q109 Ian Lucas: Without trying to
push you towards a policy pronouncement, if you are suggesting
a level assisting companies in achieving the projections that
light rail schemes initially project then a regulated bus market
might assist. That would be a logical conclusion, would it not?
Mr Holden: Yes, you could make
that conclusion. One of the other things we point out in the report
is the other measures which may be available to local authorities
without needing to resort to changes in the regulation or deregulation
of buses around the use of quality bus contracts and quality bus
partnerships which have not been taken up, but they are based
in statutory powers, the Transport and Works Act, and there is
an issue where local authorities and promoters could take up these
powers to help improve the co-ordination.
Chairman: Mr Holden, you must read the
very interesting report we did on quality bus partnerships.
Q110 Mrs Ellman: Do you think that
the Department for Transport should promote a clearer strategy
for light rail schemes?
Mr Holden: Yes, that is what we
are recommending in the report.
Q111 Mrs Ellman: Do you see any evidence
that they are doing that?
Mr Holden: As I said earlier,
we will be following up during the spring the recommendations
we have made in the report to see whether or not they have actually
formulated a strategy and we will be looking at that strategy
to see the extent to which it addresses the issues that we wanted
addressed.
Q112 Mrs Ellman: Have you made any
assessments at the moment?
Mr Holden: No.
Q113 Mrs Ellman: Do you think the
Department still want to have up to 25 new lines by 2010?
Mr Holden: I think we do say in
the report that the Department now recognise that this is unlikely
to be met. I do know that they have told the Committee of Public
Accounts that light rail does have a future but obviously they
are concerned about affordability and VfM driving down costs and
achieving benefits, so it is really down to the promoters to convince
the Department that their proposals will deliver those particular
things and gain final approval from the Department.
Q114 Mrs Ellman: Do you think that
the Department will still have the same objectives or do you think
they are moving away from them?
Mr Holden: As far as I know they
have not actually withdrawn that aspiration. You may be aware
that they also have a Public Service Agreement, a PSA target now,
which has been changed and they want to increase the use of public
transport, primarily buses, by 12% by 2010, so the contribution
that light rail can make towards the achievement of that target
is obviously rather less if you only have seven systems in place
and all of the growth really will come from buses.
Q115 Mrs Ellman: You think that is
the policy now?
Mr Holden: I think that is probably
a recognition that if they want to try to bring about some kind
of improvement in terms of tackling road congestion that, therefore,
it is likely that buses are going to carry the burden of that
because of the lead times, for example, in terms of getting these
light rail systems in place.
Q116 Mrs Ellman: Are you concluding
that that is now the department's policy?
Mr Holden: On the basis of that
PSA target, yes. The onus between now and 2010 will be looking
for growth from buses both in London and outside, and if promoters
come forward with viable proposals the department will consider
them on their merits and may take them forward.
Q117 Chairman: I want to bring you
back to the business of the cost of diverting utilities. You have
made it very clear that you think the rise is very considerable
but why do you think it is so high? It was 29% for the Mersey
tram, more than double the general project cost risk of 12.5%.
Why?
Mr Holden: We did not unpack it
to that extent. We did not do any detailed work around what were
the drivers specifically of the costs of utility diversion.
Q118 Chairman: Yet you did target
this. You pointed out that the cost of the diversions was enormously
high, that you were not sure it was always necessary?
Mr Holden: Yes.
Q119 Chairman: As far as I can see,
there does not seem to be any compulsion on the utilities to hand
over or even to put this work out to tender or any incentive,
even when they are walking away with another asset. You have made
all that clear and yet you drew no conclusions from it.
Mr Holden: We do draw conclusions
from it. We point out that, one, it is expensive; two, it compares
unfavourably with France and Germany and it is obviously an area
that the department and the promoters need to look at in terms
of questioning whether or not the diversions are necessary and
ultimately who should carry them out. We do make conclusions on
utility diversions as a problem, driving up the costs of light
rail, making it more expensive, and an area for attention.
| 
