|
Memorandum from Transport for Greater Bristol Alliance
Transport in the South West 1.Summary - Local Bus and rail services are not adequate for future needs - Funding as well as powers under the new Local Transport Bill is necessary for councils wishing to set up Integrated Transport Authorities - Government transport policy should prioritise public transport schemes over new major road building - Government policy of airport expansion should be reversed as it makes a nonsense of our other efforts to reduce Co2 emissions from transport - DfT rules on funding and tendering should be overhauled in order to promote new tram technology - Government funding is needed for research leading to new bus/tram technology using bio-fuels and a methane grid -More Government funding for cycling and walking is needed as sustainable transport modes over short distances and for Smarter Choices measures to reduce car use. 2.The TfGB is a Bristol based alliance of 25 environmental, community and transport groups. You can see the full list of supporting groups and our manifesto for local transport on our website. Our area is the West of England which includes our local authority Bristol and three other local councils North Somerset, South Gloucestershire and Bath and North East Somerset. 3.Our main aim is the promotion of sustainable transport - including bus, rail, tram, ferries integrated with strong policies for encouraging cycling and walking supplemented by Smarter Choices measures to reduce car use. We oppose airport expansion and major new road building because increasing air and car travel leads to more C02 emissions. This conflicts with the Government's stated policy of containing global warming. We also oppose the policy of urban extensions to our city to be developed between now and 2026 proposed in the Government's Regional Spatial Strategy due to the inability of our current public transport system to cope with this scale of development. Our group is part of the Save our Green Spaces (SOGS) Alliance. We believe that good spatial planning and development can lead to reduced car use, improve the economic prospects of public transport and lead to increased cycling and walking.
Whether transport in the South West is adequate to meet the demands placed on the region 4.We would say our public transport system is poorly equipped for the likely demands of the next 20 years as we see them - economic instability and unemployment, rising fuel prices and the need to reduce greenhouse gases. We believe that the Government's primary aim of reducing congestion is no longer relevant for long term transport planning due to reduced economic activity and development. 5.All the long term underlying trends as we see them lead to a reduction in car use and a rise in the importance of other modes particularly those that are not reliant on fuel prices as alternatives to the car. Local rail is at capacity at peak hours and the bus network has reduced in size due to a cycle of cuts in services, fare increases and lack of investment in off board ticketing. 6.What the priorities should be for improvement 1. The introduction of an Integrated Transport Authority to plan, improve and integrate local bus and rail services. We have been campaigning for the past 3 years to persuade our local councils to set up an ITA. In July 2007, Bristol City Council voted unanimously to do this. The first stage of the process of setting up an new ITA under the Local Transport Act 2008 is the carrying out of a review of current powers and working arrangements. We are urging the other three councils in the West of England to agree to a review. The findings of the review and the cost of setting up an ITA should be public. 2. A rail strategy for the West of England which will involve opening two lines and a number of stations and a plan to reach a half hour clock service over the entire local network . This will start with funding two local rail schemes 1. the Greater Bristol Metro which will improve services on the Weston to Yate line and 2. the reopening of the Portishead line - which will to Temple Meads. These schemes are already in the RFA programme. They should be to be brought forward and the proposal for the South Bristol Link Road dropped. In a time of economic constraint public transport should be our priority. 3. Government policy to expand airports in the South West should be reversed because the scale of the resulting increase in C02 emissions dwarfs all our collective efforts to reduce global warming. Bristol International Airport's own figures show emissions resulting from their proposed expansion growing by 2.46 times by 2019 from 329283 (5.9m pax) to 810322 (10m pax). Ground emissions from transport increase by 1.49 times 4. The decision to choose a bus based Rapid Transit system for the West of England should be reviewed and an open tender allowed between a BRT and a Ultra light rail tram (UK energy efficient technology which will eventually run on locally produced bio-fuels from waste). The DfT should change the currently unfair DfT regulation which funds a BRT at the rate of 90% but a ULR tram at the rate of only 75% even if both schemes cost the same. This is preventing the development of UK tram technology and financially penalises a local authority which innovates. The DfT rule which does not allow a tender between two technologies which could inform a local authority decision on which technology to choose should be abolished. Without such a change, innovation in public transport is far less likely to occur. 5.A new bus strategy for the next 20 years is needed with proposals for transport interchanges, changes to bus services and ticketing which will reduce congestion and speed up buses We have fragmented and poorly integrated bus network and subsidy arrangements, poor enforcement of bus lanes, inadequate local travel information and we need integrated and eventually ticketless ticketing to speed up bus journeys. 6. A long term programme for continuing to encourage Cycling after the Cycling City funding which runs out in 2011/12. 7.How these priorities should be reflected in the upcoming Regional Transport Strategy The strategy should state that the priorities for the next 20 years should be 1. The development of public transport including bus and rail as funding priority over new road schemes. 2. The 100% funding of public transport schemes and particularly innovative schemes in order to kickstart new technology. Even a 10% contribution is hard for a local council to find now that development has largely ceased and Section 106 money far less. A new tendering process which allows the cost of different technologies to be compared in practice rather than in theory. 3. Some funding for the development of the use of locally produced bio-fuels in transport as in France. 4. More money via Cycling England for additional Cycling demonstration towns and cities in the South West to be created. 5. One off Government set up monies for councils to wish to become ITAs as this is major reorganization of transport working for a local council. Without some financial help, the Local Transport Act is likely to suffer a similar fate to the previous Local Transport Act 2000 whose provisions have largely been too difficult for councils to use and has been unsuccessful at achieving the envisaged transport improvements. What the costs of these improvements would be and whether the region can afford them 8.We have been involved in the Regional Funding allocation process and believe it to be a lottery which has more to do with horsetrading between councils than the sensible allocation of money to sustainable transport. We are pleased that for the first time , the RFA funding round this Spring did allow rail schemes to be put forward because our two local schemes were popular and relatively cheap.However, after a considerable amount of lobbying the first scheme Portishead was put into the period commencing 2014 and Greater Bristol metro for 2019. We now understand that that the RFA funding is likely to be cut with only the South Bristol Link Road and the BRT ( both of which are locally unpopular and we oppose) to be carried out as they are first on the list. 9.If the DfT allows councils to change priorities, it would be possible to bring forward our rail schemes which will particularly serve existing residents. We believe that transport improvements such as the setting up of an ITA and the development of new ticketing technology need to be funded separately from the RFA . Whether the current arrangements for prioritizing, approving and funding infrastructure are effective and appropriate 10.They are not. The case for major schemes is a game played according to rules most of us in TfGB believe are nonsense. The logic of the BCR system is that the most funding should be given to cycling and walking schemes as they record BCR rates of 13+ while other schemes are judged to be a success if they reach 2+. Howeverwe don't see any Cycling money awarded as part of the RFA process . 11.The DfT seems to take an extremely long period of time dealing with major scheme applications. We have a very graphic example last year of how fast some transport decisions can be made. Cycling England asked for expressions of interest from cities and towns wanting to become Cycling demonstration towns and cities in December 2007. By June 2008,all the applications had been considered and the decisons on funding made. 12.One major problem with the length of time applications take is the inability to change tack when economic circumstances change. Often public opinion turns against a scheme that has been submitted to the DfT after very sketchy, superficial consultations which do not look seriously at the long term economic success of a new technology or the technical problems of a particular route which later emerge and cause a scheme to fail. A lot of wasted effort could be avoided if more local work was done on schemes prior to their submission. Whether the region is doing enough to promote environmentally friendly transport 13.Definitely not. Road Schemes receive more funding in the South West than public transport (though this is changing). There is no policy to promote new fuels or new technology. There is not enough funding for the most sustainable modes, cycling and walking. The Government needs to increase revenue subsidy to both local bus and local rail services. Smarter Choices measures needs a separate funding stream as this is not included in the RFA. The role and the effectiveness of regional bodies 14.Our group has had no direct dealings with SWRDA or South West Councils so we are unable to comment We lobbied the South West Regional Assembly and its members on the two local rail schemes mentioned above. The roles and effectiveness of the Government Office of the South West 15.We have had no direct dealings with GOSW. The ability of the Government to influence private sector transport providers 16.Past Governments have created a deregulated privatized bus and rail sector which receives a much lower revenue subsidy that in the European cities whose quality of public transport we aspire to. The system led to a dysfunctional monopoly in Bristol which has only recently been opened up by a second major bus operator working in conjunction with the University of the West of England. Through the franchise process, the Government has the ability to influence rail operators. However the same is not true of buses. The powers in the Local Transport Act 2000 to improve services using Quality Contracts and Quality partnerships were unused by local councils and PTAs as they were unworkable. It remains to be seen if the Quality Contract and Quality partnership provisions in the Local Transport Act 2008 can be implemented at no extra cost to the Government or local councils. We believe they cannot.
|