|
South West Regional Select Committee Inquiry into transport in the South West Evidence
from
Summary · From our perspective here in Wiltshire we feel that transport policy in the South West is largely determined by the County Councils who in many cases seem determined to pursue transport planning based on their own historic priorities rather than on any meaningful interpretation of current government transport policy.
· There may be sufficient sustainable transport aspirations suggested in Local Transport Plans for local authorities to gain approval for these plans from central government. However often the sustainable proposals are quietly dropped or watered down and this may not be reported in the Annual Progress Reports which are submitted. Targets which are set for sustainable transport goals are often lamentable low, in order to make them easily achievable, and this seems to pass without comment.
· Regional bodies seem unable to communicate government transport priorities effectively to the local authorities. Instead it seems that the local authorities are setting the agenda and this is being accepted by the regional bodies.
Detailed Submission
1. Introduction 1.1 1.1.1 We are a local group, based in Salisbury Wiltshire, of the national Campaign for Better Transport who have been helping to create transport policies and programmes that give people better lives since 1973.
1.1.2 Our campaigns involve promoting improvements to rail and bus services, helping reclaim the streets from the car through traffic reduction, and fighting the government's plans for road building and increase in aviation traffic.
1.1.3 We were known as
2. Responses to the questions 2.1 Whether transport provision in the south west is adequate to meet the demands placed upon the region; 2.1.1 The group do not have enough region-wide knowledge to address this point, but would comment that reducing the need to travel (for people and goods) must underpin any transport/planning strategy for the region. Also that tram/light rail needs to be the way forward in the larger SW conurbations.
2.2. What the priorities should be for improvement; 2.2.1 We believe the priorities should be: · Rail and bus/coach for longer journeys · Measures to encourage walking/cycling for shorter journeys · Tram/light
rail for the larger urban areas such as · Better integration between the different modes · Better maintenance of existing transport infrastructure
2.3 How these priorities should be reflected in the upcoming Regional Transport Strategy; 2.3.1 The Strategy needs to focus on rail rather than road corridors and also ensure that the small scale transport measures which will be so important in delivering modal shift at the local level are actually delivered.
2.4 What the costs of these improvements would be and whether the region can afford them; 2.4.1 We have no specific expertise in costing transport infrastructure and will leave this exercise to others. We believe money should be directed from road building projects towards sustainable transport solutions.
2.5 Whether the current arrangements for prioritising, approving and funding infrastructure projects are effective and appropriate; 2.5.1 Our own experience has been that the current arrangements for prioritising, approving and funding infrastructure projects in the South West are not transparent or open. In particular it is unclear how environmental considerations are being taken into account.
2.5.2 At the time of RFA1 at the end of 2005 we
became aware that the prioritisation of transport infrastructure schemes in
RFA1 seemed to be based largely on the bias and prejudices of local authorities
seeking to promote their own schemes, with scant regard for the bigger picture
or environmental criteria. The
2.5.3 We had reason to hope that things would
improve for RFA2. The Secretary of State's letter which accompanied the
proposed changes to the
2.5.4 A process with any degree of transparency should mean that all debates on what is being considered, scoring frameworks used, emerging priorities etc be made widely available, in order that there can be public comment on the process and on any seeming bias or omission on the part of local authority scheme promoters. This is particularly important given the geographical spread of the region and also when the scheme promoters are often the very people who are also involved in assessing the priority of schemes.
2.5.5 We were disappointed to find that, for example, key papers relevant to Transport Paper C, discussed at the South West Regional Transport Board meeting on 29th January 2009, were not available on the website in sufficient time prior to the meeting for regional stakeholders to see what was proposed or submit comments (directly or via the representatives on the Board). This lack of timely information hardly gives the transparent process we were promised.
2.5.6 Regional stakeholder meetings have been held - there was an integrated stakeholder forum on 17.10.08 & a transport regional transport forum 28.11.08. However it is not clear how or whether the outcomes from these meetings contributed to the RFA2 prioritisation exercise.
2.5.7 'Expressions of Interest' proposing transport packages for regional funding were submitted by Wiltshire County Council (and perhaps others) for consideration as part of RFA2 but these were not made available on the web.
2.5.8 The four expressions of interest (EoI) which the then Wiltshire County Council submitted to the region for RFA2 were Yarnbrook/West Ashton Improvement, Chippenham, Salisbury & Trowbridge RSS Growth Packages. Although these were included in WCC's final LTP Annual Progress Report for 2008 none of these had been mentioned in the draft APR which stakeholders were invited to comment on by WCC. In the case of the Salisbury RSS Growth Package, the contents of this had not even been shared with the local councillors and transport portfolio holder on Salisbury District Council.
2.5.9 There is no evidence that the environmental impact of proposals in terms of carbon emissions, sustainability, landscape, and biodiversity is being dealt with in RFA2 in a systematic and consistent way. There are do not appear to be any publicly available score sheets or frameworks for scoring schemes against regional policy and guidance.
2.5.10 The upshot of the RFA2 process described above is that once again it seems that local authorities have taken the opportunity to promote their favoured schemes, often road-based and leading to increased traffic and CO2 emissions, in a prioritisation exercise which has largely taken place away from the public eye. The whole concept of expanding road capacity is becoming increasingly outdated as we move towards building a sustainable transport system and reducing our carbon footprint, but it does not seem clear that this has been fully taken on board by those involved in the RFA2 process in the SW.
2.6 Whether the region is doing enough to promote environmentally friendly transport; 2.6.1 We believe that much more could be done to promote environmentally friendly transport in the south west. There is both a top-down and a bottom-up aspect to this.
2.6.2 From the top-down approach we feel that studies which have been conducted to look at regional transport issues have been biased against environmentally friendly solutions.
2.6.3 From the bottom-up approach there are instances where environmentally friendly transport measures are proposed in Local Transport Plan. However there seems no requirement to report on failures to deliver and it is not clear that there is any regional mechanism for monitoring what is in fact being delivered on the ground. While these schemes may each be small the combined effect of a failure to deliver a number of these is, we feel, significant.
Regional transport studies 2.6.4 Regional corridor transport studies such as
SWARMMS (the
2.6.5 Thus SWARMMS took as a premise that the A303
past Stonehenge would be dualled[1]
and proceeded to recommend, in May 2002, "a significantly upgraded A303 road
corridor (to dual carriageway standard from M3 to
2.6.6 Following cancellation of the Highways
Agency Stonehenge scheme in December 2007 further improvements to the A303 were
put on hold. Since dualling of the A303
at
Sustainable transport measures in the Local Transport Plan 2.6.7 Local Transport Plans 'steer the development of national transport policies at the local level'[5]. It is therefore crucial that sustainable transport measures should form an important part of these. However we give some examples below where sustainable measures have been promised but not delivered and where targets set are so unchallenging that, even if achieved, they will not deliver any meaningful modal shift.
Cycling 2.6.8 The consultation response to WCC's draft LTP2 showed that 34% of respondents thought the £2.529 million to be allocated to cycling was 'too low', 37% thought it was 'about right' and 25% thought it was 'too high' (the remainder being 'don't knows'. Despite this the LTP proceeded to conclude that 'there was a small balance in favour of the assertion that the provisional LTP2 funding of £2.549m to cycling was 'too high' and the amount was cut to £1.956m in the final version of LTP2. [6]
2.6.9 Wiltshire County Council has never completed
the necessary safety audit work to publish a cycle network for
2.6.10 While the Council reassured Government that 'there is enormous potential to encourage cycling for everyday activities such as journeys to work' (WCC LTP2 p. 37) they then proceed to show how little they intended to try to achieve this potential by setting a target to increase cycling by 2010 by only 2% from the 2003 baseline. Unsurprisingly 44% of respondents to the draft LTP thought this too low, but no change was made.
Station Interchange 2.6.11 An improved station/bus interchange formed
part of the Salisbury Transport Plan incorporated into LTP1, when it was stated
that improvements would be made to the access to the railway station from
Real time bus information 2.6.12 The real time bus information system based around Salisbury formed part of LTP1, with the LTP1 delivery report stating that "Real Time Passenger Information displays have been installed in 62 bus shelters and on 18 flags bus stops in Salisbury City, as well on four interurban corridors radiating from Salisbury", although admitting that "Implementation of RTPI took longer than planned due to a variety of technical, planning and data related issues arising from the complexity of the project and the need to coordinate the activities of a large number of partners."[9]
2.6.13 One might assume from the LTP1 delivery report that the RTPI system was satisfactorily installed and working. This was not in fact the case, with a Transport Survey Action plan put to WCC Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee on 18.1.2007 reporting that a survey of passengers to establish perceptions of RTI had not been completed because "ongoing problems with RTI data and hardware that have so far prevented sustained operation of system in real time mode".
2.6.14 The perception among our local group members who are regular bus users is that the RTI system is seriously flawed and has failed to provide a satisfactory robust service since it was installed. However this is glossed over by the local authority's reporting of the matter - in the 2008 Annual Progress Report for instance: "In terms of the Salisbury Urban Traffic Control system, measures have been implemented to improve the functionality of the system as the result of extensive monitoring", and there is talk for the future of "A range of ITS initiatives including an extension of the coverage of real time information and car park guidance systems".
2.7 The role and effectiveness of regional bodies, such as the Regional Development Agency and South West Councils, in identifying and addressing transport issues; 2.7.1 We have had no direct involvement with either of these bodies and are not aware of their role in relation to transport issues.
2.8 The role and effectiveness of the Government Office for the South West in delivering national transport policy within the region;
2.8.1 We have had some rather unsatisfactory exchanges with GOSW during the LTP1 period regarding our perception of the failure of Wiltshire County Council's Local Transport Plan to deliver national transport policy. Some examples of the concerns which we raised and the responses we obtained from GOSW are given in 2.8.2 - 2.8.4 below.
2.8.2 In February 2002 we raised the issue that WCC had ignored the wishes of stakeholders by directing more money towards new road schemes in the final version of LTP1 than they had in the draft despite the fact that new roads were consistently bottom of the priorities across the different stakeholder groups. We felt that new roads were being considered as a first rather than a last resort by the council.
2.8.3 GOSW responded that "It is ultimately for the County Council as the local highway authority to decide which transport projects it wishes to include in its Local Transport Plan .... The accountability of the County Council in terms of its response to the views of local people is through the electoral process"[10]. As regards our assertion that new roads were being built as a first not last resort we were told that we would be able to suggest alternative solutions when draft orders were published, and that "there will be a public inquiry ... which will enable local people and organisations to put the case for alternative solutions".
2.8.4 We also pointed out that the majority of the 48 actions requested by GOSW in the December 2000 Settlement letter were not addressed by the County Council in their 2001 Annual Progress Report. GOSW responded that "We did not expect all the actions to be addressed immediately". However many of the actions not addressed had specifically requested inclusion in the 2001 APR.
2.8.5 From the responses received in 2002 we were given the impression that GOSW did not see it as their role to interfere in the transport priorities being selected by the local authorities. It also seemed that GOSW did not wish to actively chase progress on sustainable transport measures which were being proposed in the Local Transport Plan.
2.8.6 We do appreciate both that the examples quoted above are some years old, and that GOSW was in a particularly difficult position regarding the two road schemes (now both abandoned) which had been proposed as part of the Salisbury Transport Package, since it was one of the partner organisations on the steering group for that package. Nevertheless it still remains far from clear how the thrust of government transport policy is carried forward at local level, especially when there is a long-standing commitment, and considerable financial investment, in historic road schemes.
2.8.7 The persistent attempts by Wiltshire County Council to develop inappropriate road schemes has cost the taxpayers of Wiltshire dearly in the past decade. At 31.3.2009 £7.5 million had been spent on the following road schemes which have now been abandoned:
2.8.8 We would contend that, had GOSW or other regional bodies better directed Wiltshire County Council's transport policy, large amounts of money could have been spent on more sustainable transport measures which would have brought benefit to Wiltshire residents.
2.9 The ability of the Government to
influence private sector transport providers. 2.9.1 This is not something on which the group has the expertise to comment.
[1] SWARMMS
Corridor Plan: [2] SWARMMS
Corridor Plan: [3] Email from Margaret Willmot to Tracey Williams, Assistant Planning Manager Wiltshire & Swindon, GOSW, 22.1.2008 [4] Email from Tracey Williams, GOSW to Margaret Willmot 8.2.2008 [5] [6] [7] Letter
from Phil Tilley, Wiltshire Councy Council, to [8] [9] WCC Transport Plan 2001/02 - 2005/06, Delivery Report, page 74
[10] Letter
from the Director of Regional Policies, Enterprise & Skills, GOSW to |