3 Transport
Transport funding in the East
Midlands
37. The Government Office for the East Midlands
set out the level of transport funding for the region:
For 2009-10 to 2018-19 the region is allocated £2.1
billion for regional and local transport schemes, 10% of the national
total of £20.8 billion, the seventh highest share of the
eight regions. Annual expenditure by the region is limited by
DfT, although the Department is allowing the region to overspend
in early years to accommodate the simultaneous construction of
the A46 and A453 schemes, with an additional £174 million
being allocated by DfT to the region as part of the Fiscal Stimulus
package to bring forward and accelerate the construction of the
A46 scheme.[32]
38. In addition, other transport projects funded
by capital budgets have been delivered in 2008-09 and others were
planned for 2009-10.[33]
39. Figures provided by the East Midlands Regional
Assembly show that in 2007-08 transport spending in England was
£315 per head and in the UK was £334 per head, compared
with £203 per head in the East Midlands (65% less than the
UK figure).
40. The East Midlands Regional Assembly argue
that there are underlying reasons for this underfunding. Funding
allocations for major transport projects are "determined
largely by current population size" with "no direct
account being taken of traffic growth, infrastructure deficit
or future population growth."[34]
The Assembly assert that "this methodology does not benefit
the East Midlands, which is projected to have the fastest growing
population in England, and which until recently also had the highest
level of traffic growth." EMRA argued that other factors
have meant the East Midlands receives less finding than it should
have: the region's three major cities are dispersed; underinvestment
in the region's railway system; the uneven distribution of expected
population growth which is expected to impact higher in areas
with less well-developed road and public transport systems; the
relatively poor record of the region's local authorities in obtaining
grants from the Community Infrastructure Fund for new transport
infrastructure; and the difficulty of funding major transport
schemes from a limited regional budget, for example the A46 Newark
to Widmerpool improvement scheme which could only have been achieved
in phases over 10 years without 'fiscal stimulus' money from Government.
41. TravelWatch East Midlands also expressed
concerns regarding transport funding in the region.[35]
Nottinghamshire County Council expressed two major concerns about
transport in the region: poor connections to London and poor connections
to other regions. The County Council argued there had been an
historic lack of investment in the Midland Mainline resulting
in lower average speeds to London than other comparable routes
and that this had undermined growth in the region.[36]
Significantly, their evidence pointed out:
- That the £69 million allocated
for linespeed scheme for the entire Midland mainline is 25% less
than the £90 million scheme to upgrade car parks at West
Coast Mainline stations; and
- The M1 which runs parallel to the Midland Mainline
is receiving a £1,500 million upgrade between London and
Sheffield—more than 20 times the money allocated to the
Midland Mainline upgrade.
42. The rail companies acknowledged historic
underspend but argued that this was being addressed. Network Rail
stated they have "spent millions of pounds on major renewal
and enhancement projects in the East Midlands to increase capacity,
upgrade tack, structures, signalling, stations and car parks and
improve line speeds".[37]
They also highlighted the investment in 'large enhancement projects'
over the next five years and argued that the Midland Mainline
is one of Network Rail's priority areas for investment.
43. Similarly, East Midlands Trains stated "we
believe the level of investment being made into rail services
in the region is very high by historical standards." They
cited "capital investment totalling £30 million in improving
the region's rail services since the start of the franchise in
November 2007 with a further £22.5 million of investment
scheduled for completion in the first half of 2010." They
added "our plans for the franchise are to invest £90
million in improving rail services in the region."[38]
44. Jim Bamford, Rail Officer, Nottinghamshire
County Council, accepted that there had been improvements but
that the region was merely catching up after years of under-investment:
The region has been catching up and a lot of work
has been done, both on the infrastructure and the train operating
company, to improve things. I know there have been marked improvements
in both respects recently, but essentially our rail services started
from so far behind that I think there is quite a long way to catch
up. In particular, on the Midland main line, in terms of average
speeds and journey times to London, we are basically the poor
relation of the inter-city routes to and from London. That is
not a criticism of the train operating company at all; it is just
a fact that the trains can only go as fast as the track will allow
them.[39]
45. Stephen Abbott, Secretary, TravelWatch East
Midlands agreed "there is some catching up to do" and
that it "is nice to see the money being spent."[40]
46. In response Phil Hope MP, Minister for the
East Midlands said:
There are things such as transport. We are bidding
for electrification, for example, which isn't done by the funding
formula—there is a pot of money for rail. I think it is
my job, which I have been doing, with whatever success, to campaign
for something for this region. If we get it, I guess another region
won't, because it is a single pot of money, and it's just about
demonstrating the value for money, the environmental gain and
the importance to the region's economy in winning that cash. We're
in the middle of that debate at the moment with transport.[41]
47. Nottinghamshire County Council, East Midlands
Trains and TravelWatch East Midlands submitted supplementary written
evidence on two possible short term improvements to the infrastructure
and journey times on the Midland Mainline. These were the provision
of freight loops at Desborough, to allow passenger trains to overtake
freight trains and take full advantage of the proposed linespeed
improvements, and the realignment of track at Market Harborough
to provide a straighter and faster route. The estimated cost of
these improvements was £27.5 million (£10 million at
Desborough and £17.5 million at Market Harborough). Their
submission asserted that:
Even with this additional £27.5 million, the
MML allocation for CP4 would only just equal the £90 million
that is being invested in the West Coast main Line car parks,
and would still be far, far less than is allocated to the other
Inter City routes or to the M1.[42]
48. In response to these suggestions, Phil Hope
MP, Regional Minister for the East Midlands, said:
I don't know the detail of the engineering works
that require doing, but certainly it's a good case of where, perhaps,
relatively small investments in terms of train spend can have
bigger impacts. We have to make the case for that cost-benefit
analysis, because where we make it well we win. In my job I have
to make a judgment about that. As a Minister I can't take up every
small project across the whole region. That's why the Midland
electrification is an appropriate thing to do. In terms of particular
issues like that, local Members of Parliament might get involved
too.[43]
49. We note witnesses' agreement
that transport in the East Midlands has been historically underfunded.
It is unacceptable that the region's funding per head for transport
remains 65% less than the UK's spend per head. We commend the
investment of Network Rail and East Midlands Trains but are concerned
that, due to the historic underinvestment in the region, it will
still lag behind other regions.
50. We urge the Government to
liaise closely with regional stakeholders to take forward schemes
which, with relatively low investment, could mean major improvements
in the transport infrastructure, particularly the Midland Mainline,
in the region.
Electrification of the Midland
Mainline
51. In October 2009, Network Rail published the
Network Route Utilisation Strategy on Electrification. In its
submission to the Committee, Network Rail stated:
Network Rail's recently published Electrification
Route Utilisation Strategy concludes that the electrification
of the Midland Main Line—the main route from London St Pancras
to Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield—has an extremely attractive
business case and could, over the course of 60 years, pay for
itself with the savings made from cheaper running costs and maintenance
outweighing the initial investment to electrify the route. Electrification
also brings considerable environmental benefits including increased
energy efficiency and reduced air pollution.[44]
52. East Midlands Trains made the following observations
on electrification of the Midland Mainline:
East Midlands Trains has been in active discussion
with the Department for Transport and Network Rail regarding the
business case for electrifying the Midland Main Line and associated
routes.
East Midlands Trains welcome the recommendation in
Network Rail's 'Network RUS Electrification' document (October
2009) that the Midland Main Line should be electrified between
Bedford and Sheffield via Derby, plus Trent Junction to Nottingham
and Kettering to Corby. This is an important step in the process
of securing a commitment from the DfT to electrify the route.[45]
53. In December 2009, EMDA published "The
Case for High Speed Rail to the Three Cities". The report
sets out the business case for both a High Speed Rail link to
encompass the East Midlands, as well as for the electrification
of the Midlands Mainline. The High Speed link is seen as a long
term plan, with the electrification seen as the more immediate
short term goal.
54. The report views the benefits of electrification
as follows:
- the journey times will be reduced
by up to 12-14 minutes from Nottingham to London, 8-9 minutes
from Derby and 5-6 minutes from Leicester;
- increased trains operating on the line;
- improved access to the local infrastructure;
- reduced operating costs;
- economic boost to the Three Cities;
- encourage future growth; and
- reduce CO2 emission by approximately
40%.
55. Growth in the number of passengers using
the Midland Mainline would mean service providers will receive
additional revenue which could be reinvested in the region's rail
routes to other parts of the country.
56. In November 2009, the Rt Hon The Lord Adonis,
Secretary of State for Transport accepted that there was a strong
business case for electrification of the Midlands Mainline.[46]
The 2009 Pre-Budget Report stated that the "Government would
continue to evaluate the case for electrification of the Midland
Mainline from London to Sheffield." Similar positive indications
have been made in the past but witnesses argued that now is the
time for the Government to act.
57. When we put this to Phil Hope MP, Minister
for the East Midlands, he said he was encouraged by the support
shown by the Secretary of State for Transport:
I was very pleased to hear him say that electrifying
the Midland main line isn't a matter of if; it's a matter of when.
That, for me, represented a massive win for the whole campaign.
Clearly, he is persuaded of the fact that it is the one remaining
area of track that he would like to see going to the electrification
programme. I think we've been very persuasive about the wider
economic case: the benefits it would bring, the impact on businesses,
the impact on individuals, the environmental impact and so on.
Now it's when rather than if, we should regard ourselves as having
won a major victory.[47]
58. The Minister was unsure when the decision
on electrification might be made, but did set out how he saw his
continuing role and that of regional stakeholders:
The impression I got from Lord Adonis was that he's
keen to do this as soon as he can, given resources within the
Department and the negotiations that he's no doubt having with
the Treasury. I see my role and the role of the whole campaign
in the region as giving him as much backing as possible, to give
power to his elbow when he's making those arguments within his
own Department and with the Treasury. I don't know—that
is the short answer to the question about when he might make the
decision. I think it's our job to do two things. One is to maintain
a general campaign among all the players. Also, specific issues
may need to be addressed [...] I'm talking about the detailed
assessments and costs that you have to deal with if you're going
to electrify the line. The more we can look at these issues, address
them and persuade those we need to persuade that they are fully
understood, costed and put into our proposals, the more likely
we are to get an earlier answer.[48]
59. We commend regional stakeholders
for their work on electrification of the Midland Mainline. We
agree with the Minister for the East Midlands that they should
continue their work to resolve any specific issues that need to
be addressed so that a decision can be made at the earliest possible
date. We urge the Minister to continue to pursue this issue with
colleagues in Government.
60. We urge the Government to
approve the electrification of the Midland Mainline as soon as
possible. This will bring demonstrable major transport, economic
and environmental benefits to the region and the country.
32 Ev52 Back
33
Ev 53 Back
34
Ev 91 Back
35
Ev 94-97 Back
36
Ev 78-85 Back
37
Ev 97 Back
38
Ev 100 Back
39
Q58 Back
40
Q 59 Back
41
Q129 Back
42
Ev 109 Back
43
Q151 Back
44
Ev 99 Back
45
Ev101 Back
46
Transport Committee, Transport Questions with the Secretary of
State, HC 1087, Qq 37, 49 Back
47
Q146 Back
48
Q146 Back
| 
