Memorandum from Campaign for Better Transport,

Bristol and Bath Travel to Work Area and South West Network

 

1 Introduction

1.1 Campaign for Better Transport groups in the South West welcome the chance to respond on the subject of the Regional Funding Allocation. There are a number of points about the process which we think could be improved.

1.2 The first round, RFA1, brought a disproportionate number of road schemes to the South West. RFA2 moved at least in part to more emphasis on public transport schemes. RFA1 bought the A419 Commonhead Junction, the A30 Merrymeet Junction, A30 Bodmin Indian Queens road scheme, the A38 Dobwells Bypass, the A419 Blunden Bypass and the Barnstaple Bypass. Further roads such as the Weymouth Relief Road are in construction, or wait for funds - the Kingskerswell Bypass, "connectivity" schemes on the A30, and junction improvements on the M5. We are pleased to see the Westbury Bypass finally cancelled as it failed to get planning permission, but consider that its inclusion for regional funding in the RFA in the first place was indicative of flaws in the RFA process. This we come to later.

1.3 RFA2 potentially brings more public transport schemes into play. However the complexities of delivering suburban rail and the prohibitive expense of rail-based rapid transit and other elements of true integrated transport, has meant that many authorities have simply adopted the theme of park and ride. Our members are unconvinced that this emphasis on Park and Rise will really deliver the truly accessible and integrated public transport system that our SSCTs really need. Park and Ride brings its own problems, as for example seen in Oxford, and it assumes that people will travel by car to get about. Park and Rides often mar countryside at the fringe of towns (eg problems with the Bath package) and those without cars or wishing to leave the car at home derive little benefit.

1.4 Another common theme is the use of RFA regional funds to construct new access roads for development at SSCTs. In Truro, the idea is to at the same time, to free up existing urban roads for bus lanes and better walking and cycling. This seems a reasonable way forward, but our concern in other cases (for example the Weston Super Mare package) is that the public transport element is disproportionately small and could be much better worked up.

1.5 A further popular RFA investment theme (for example in Exeter) is major junction improvement to increase capacity, with sometimes the additional intention to speed up buses with a short bus lane. Again, the public transport element is too small.

1.6 Increasing RFA funds are used for bus-based rapid transit. As there is no cash for bone fide European style rapid transit, there is the risk that we will find delivery difficult against public resistance and may not achieve the ridership to make rapid transit a commercial success.

Simply tarmacing over old railway paths to run buses (as in the photo of the Bath rapid transit scheme produced for consultation) does not bode well with the public. We think that rail-based rapid transit or quality hybrid systems are needed for our large urban areas such as Greater Bristol, Swindon, Cheltenham and Gloucester, Bournemouth, Plymouth and Exeter. We realise that the choice rests on cost, but still wonder whether in the long run, crude bus-based systems will be shown to be the right investment.

1.7 In the letter from Secretary of State, Baroness Andrews, which accompanied the proposed changes to the SW's Regional Spatial Strategy in 2008, it was made clear that "more needs to be done to strengthen the region's assessment of regionally and sub-regionally significant infrastructure requirements and priorities and their relationship to RSS outcomes". We maintain that the paucity of funds available to the region, coupled with the lack of expertise and resources that we have, and finally the flawed process of the RFA, means that the achievement of RSS transport and planning outcomes is very difficult, if not impossible.

1.8 Many local councillors - who have a great deal of power in determining which schemes should go forward - are still accustomed to using traditional methods to solve congestion. Councillors in certain places are often not in tune with modern transport concepts and aspirations.

1.9 We are of course concerned that carbon emissions from transport should be lowered. However we are unconvinced that the electric car is going to have sufficient impact and point out that problems of congestion, access, parking etc. will remain - public transport and a switch to rail freight are in our view, essential elements of a sustainable future.

2 Whether transport provision in the south west is adequate to meet the demands placed upon the region

2.1 The Greater Bristol area, Swindon, Exeter, Bournemouth and Poole, Gloucester and Cheltenham and Plymouth are to expand very fast. However none of these places - or their semi rural and suburban hinterlands and satellite towns- have adequate public transport systems to cope with existing, left alone future, demand.

2.2 Many of our urban areas have suffered from under-investment for many years compared to other regions in the country.

2.3 About a fifth of the population in the SW will soon be over 65. Public transport provision for people living in rural areas and urban areas needs to take this into account. Many rural areas (eg North and West Dorset, parts of Devon, and the Forest of Dean) suffer from lack of frequent affordable public transport for access to basic services and basic retail. With the centralisation of services and shops, and the closure of post offices, this is going to get worse.

2.4 It will be a disincentive for companies locating to the South West if they discover that our trains - both interurban and suburban - are badly over-crowded, our buses expensive and often held up by congestion, and that the car-based ugly suburban sprawl associated with the South East and some parts of the Midlands and the North is coming West.

2.5 As a region with sustainable transport and planning at the core of our strategies and RSS we need to advance in a much modern innovative way when it comes to how we lay out new development, including employment areas and new retail.

2.6 A regional transport board with stakeholder, operator, trade union and environment group representation is needed. Equally the WoE partnership needs to the converted to a ITA.

2.7 The selling point of our region is the distinctiveness of its landscape, wildlife and heritage. We are concerned that Natural England is under-resourced to adequately deal with the planning implications of major development and under pressure to allow mitigation where species with even European protection are affected, or precious landscapes at risk. NE needs more resources to input into a sustainable south west.

 

 

 

3 What the priorities should be for improvement:

3.1 Improved suburban rail in the Greater Bristol area (including West Wilshire), and in Exeter (the Devon Metro) and in Plymouth is needed.

3.2 New rolling stock is a high priority for the region. For example, the Cardiff - Portsmouth line needs 44 new carriages to make trains 4 carriages long, to prevent chronic overcrowding right along the line.

3.3 Ensuring the SW conurbations have a modern system of rapid transit to interface with the railway and bus system, with modern high quality vehicles and purpose built rapid transit "stations".

3.4 Electrification of main lines and of the wider Greater Bristol suburban network from Taunton to Cheltenham, Newport to Swindon via Bristol Parkway, Newport (Gwent) to Warminster (Wiltshire) and Frome (Mendip) is a priority for the region.

3.5 More depots for rail services in Exeter and Bristol are needed. We support the depot planned as part of new high speed train service at Bristol Parkway.

3.6 Improvements and new opportunities for rail freight.

3.7 We need much better linkage between the location of future employment, housing, retail and services and public transport provision on a sub-regional basis, so that adjacent authorities work together rather than as separate "islands" (eg Wiltshire and BANES).

3.8 Return of mail services from Penzance, Plymouth, Exeter and Bristol to London, the north and Scotland.

3.9 Buffet cars and sleeping cars for Aberdeen - Penzance

3.10 The expansion of costal shipping and the protection of ferry services; establishment of ferry services across the Bristol Channel to Wales.

3.11 Retention and improvement of a network of regional coach services to London and the rest of UK; modern bus stations at Bridport, Swanage, Weymouth, Ilfracombe, Exeter, Weston, Swindon etc.

 

4 How these priorities should be reflected in the upcoming Regional Transport Strategy

4.1 The revised Regional Transport Strategy has many good policies which are line with the RSS, but there are some areas which might benefit from clarification. A section on the development of rapid transit might be useful, and another on rural accessibility issues for those without cars.

4.2 We need to be careful that no extra regional corridors are added to the current list.

4.3 The RTS might do well to mention the importance of "optioneering" in DaSTS and an evidence-based approach in establishing which interventions to move forward, and more mention of the tie in with our aims to reduce carbon emission would be useful.

4.4 Better cross-referencing between the Transport section of the RSS and other parts of the document might be useful, so that those reading about transport took better account of polices regarding the promotion of town centres, employment locations, landscape and wildlife considerations, and so forth. There is a danger that policies are read in isolation.

4.5 An accompanying guide to the RTS for councillors and planners with examples of delivery and clarification of what policies mean might be useful.

 

5 What the costs of these improvements would be and whether the region can afford them;

5.1 The cost of improvements is well and above the RFA allocation. That said, we believe that some road schemes are only weakly supported by policy, and in some cases run against it. We question the inclusion of Dorset's A338 road maintenance scheme, Dorset's three lane dual carriageway scheme to Bournemouth airport; Devon's Kingskerswell Bypass, and Cornwall's scheme on the A30.  The dualling of the Chippenham Bypass in Wiltshire is not backed by policy and is likely to go counter to the RTS aim of ensuring that the burden of local commuting does not fall on the national route network (the M4 in this case).

5.2 It seems iniquitous that Kingskerswell Bypass is over £120 million where as Swindon is potentially allocated roughly only £30 million in the period 2006-2018/19 for its long needed public transport improvements ("rapid transit"). Similarly Plymouth, which has well thought out plans for public transport in conjunction with housing and employment growth, has barely enough to deliver even a few of the elements of its transport strategy in the next decade.

5.3 Regeneration money is needed from government and the RDA and 106 agreements to bring about transport improvements, including in some cases the vehicles for rapid transit and improved bus routes.

5.4 We believe that the electrification of key routes in the South West is cost effective and that the combined environmental and social benefits far exceed those of improving the connectivity of for example, the A303.

5.5 We believe that local authorities do not have the skills and resources to deliver the polices in the RTS, that councillors do not have the knowledge or understanding to guide delivery. The scene is complicated by lack of impartial review of evidence, and a tendency not to work beyond ones own local authority boundaries.

6 Whether the current arrangements for prioritising, approving and funding infrastructure projects are effective and appropriate;

 

6.1 RFA2 has been better than RFA1 at prioritising schemes that align with regional and national aims, but the process has still suffered from a plague of historic road schemes. The Environment Directors of certain shire counties in particular, still strive to preserve their programme of schemes. This undermines the process and makes a sham of stakeholder consultation.

6.2 The RFA process appears to start with letters to local authorities asking for the schemes. The authorities are asked to list their top three schemes and the aim is then to progress the delivery of these.

6.3 It is hard to be sure that schemes submitted are genuinely regional priorities rather than local aspirations. In some cases they are not. RFA1 tried a scoring framework; in RFA2 this seems to have vanished.

6.4 There was, as far as we can ascertain, no independent scrutiny of schemes in the context of regional policy fit or sustainability, which explains why interventions such as the Westbury Bypass still got through the hoops. Estate agents sell their own houses - all the right words, but what is really on offer? Evidence-based appraisal is the answer.

6.5 The lack of direct participation of Members or stakeholders in selecting the portfolio of schemes confused the whole process and made people suspicious. Lengthy and undocumented meetings with Environment Directors added to the intrigue.

6.6 There was too much emphasis on "delivery" without enough emphasis on how the region or government might "help to deliver". The RFA soon becomes of game of "who can get past the post first" rather than authentic provision of regional transport. It rapidly turns into a kind of Ludo.

6.7 Technical "refreshes" of the RFA programme take place at various stages, but again these are behind closed doors - the results are merely a new spreadsheet is now presented for ratification to Members. The regional officer group minutes need to be public documents. Not even Members of the Regional Transport Board are allowed to see them.

6.8 In general, much more transparency is needed in terms of RFA process, with independent scrutiny of schemes in terms of policy fit, evidence base and worked up alternative options.

6.9 Public participation is another consideration. The meetings of the RTB take place in a room in a Taunton Leisure centre usually on a Thursday. Members of the public or groups from other organisation arriving for the first time might be excused for believing they had come to the wrong place as they make their way through groups of children attending ballet classes and sports lessons. However speakers must surely feel that their long journey is wasted anyway, for they are sometimes allowed only two minutes to speak, and there is no chance for dialogue so that Members can fully understand concerns or vice versa.

 

7 Whether the region is doing enough to promote environmentally friendly transport;

7.1 The South West region was asked to consider the climate change impacts of their package of schemes, but we don't believe this analysis was ever done.

7.2 Some local authorities are making headway in producing strategies for environmentally friendly transport. Plymouth for example has taken on board regional polices and put forward not only better public transport but also removal of car parks, segregated public transport in the form of bus lanes, with a new park and rides. Rapid transit is considered optimal if funds are forthcoming. The West of England partnership is equally on board, as is Swindon.

7.3 The other end of the spectrum is Wiltshire who must regard environmental policy as a hindrance to their original 1980s agenda of road construction. They have no RFA2 schemes at their SSCTs of Trowbridge, Chippenham or Salisbury but instead put down three road schemes on a non-strategic road as priority for regional funds . It may be that councillors in Wiltshire do not believe that climate change is real, or that as a county they are somehow exempt form the responsibilities of doing something about it.

8 The role and effectiveness of regional bodies, such as the Regional Development Agency and South West Councils, in identifying and addressing transport issues;

8.1 The RDA needs to be involved in leading local authorities through better analysis of economic and transport problems with an emphasis on sustainable solutions, in conjunction with GOSW.

8.2 The work of the RDA needs to move from looking into road connectivity old-style, to rail considerations and the implementation of quality rapid transit, show case bus routes and interchanges, all in conjunction with improvements to public realm in town and city centres.

8.3 Failure to do this may forfeit the kind of prestigious and modern city centre developments with associated public transport provision which give vitality to our urban areas and ultimately benefits the region as a whole.

8.4 The RDA needs to work closely with those with transport and planning expertise, and make sure that the RDA's Infrastructure Advisory Group remains populated by stakeholders representing a variety of interests, and adopt an innovative approach to transport matters.

9 The role and effectiveness of the Government Office for the South West in delivering national transport policy within the region;

9.1 GOSW has done well considering its very small transport team. It would however benefit from more expertise on bus, rail and rapid transport; generally it needs more transport resources.

9.2 We have found GOSW very open to discussion on public transport issues and input information directly on a number of occasions.

9.3 GOSW have obviously been "piggy in the middle" on some RFA schemes where transport campaigners have pointed out failings of interventions in terms of regional objectives, policy and community considerations. Yet at the same time civil servants must remain on good terms with scheme promoters. The system should discard inappropriate schemes earlier so that these tensions and difficulties do not build up.

9.4 Many unitary authorities lack public transport resources in-house and schemes suffer in delivery and specification accordingly. A GOSW/ SW RDA budget to educate and inform local authority councillors about modern transport ideas and regional policies and their delivery in straightforward language might be very well spent!