Conclusions and recommendations
1. We
welcome the Secretary of State's focus on using transport to support
and stimulate the UK economy and to reduce the economic disparities
between different parts of the country and we call on him to explain
how his policy will achieve that end. (Paragraph 5)
2. A fundamental conclusion
of the Eddington Transport Study was that a comprehensive and
efficient transport system was vital to the UK's economy. Despite
GDP, traffic volumes and public spending being at levels somewhat
lower than Eddington envisaged, it is clear to us that investment
in the transport system remains a high priority in order to support
economic growth. Congestion on road, rail and air networks remains
a major constraint on growth. (Paragraph 21)
3. The Government
must ensure that where it approves transport schemes designed
to stimulate economic growth and rebalance the economy, they are
supported by convincing economic development strategies. For major
schemes that the Government is promoting itself, such as High
Speed 2, it must work with local and regional bodies to develop
effective economic development strategies that integrate with
its transport proposals. (Paragraph 31)
4. It is disappointing
that the UK's international gateways—major ports and airports—do
not feature more prominently in the Government's strategy for
transport and the economy. We call on the Government to clarify
how it intends to address the needs of businesses for increased
international connectivity, in London and the regions. (Paragraph
41)
5. The Government
must explain the nature of the economic solutions that it is seeking
to deliver through transport spending and how the schemes that
it is supporting will achieve these aims. A detailed set of objectives
and a robust analytical framework are required against which proposals
can be assessed. Large sums of money are involved and difficult
choices have to be made. We recommend that a White Paper be published,
clarifying the Government's objectives for all transport spending
and the criteria it will use for deciding between different claims
on the available resources. (Paragraph 43)
6. No one mode or
one type of scheme is the answer to promoting economic growth
in every part of England. National government is not well placed
to decide what is best for a local area. We support the moves
towards increased local control of budgets and decision-making
and recommend that the Government consider raising the threshold
for government approval and appraisal of transport schemes. (Paragraph
62)
7. It seems likely
that, despite their often high benefits, small schemes, including
sustainable transport schemes, may be cut disproportionately as
a result of the new transport funding arrangement. We will be
watching to see whether the Local Sustainable Transport Fund reverses
this trend. Road maintenance—a spending area where short-term
cuts can increase long-term term costs—is also of concern.
(Paragraph 70)
8. Although the DfT
says that economic appraisal is only one part of the decision-making
process, it is clear that considerable importance is attached
to its outcome—particularly the resulting benefit to cost
ratio. It is, therefore, important that the process should be
as robust and widely-accepted as possible. (Paragraph 86)
9. The DfT needs to
encourage good practice in appraisal so that it makes the right
choices about which schemes to support. We recommend that the
DfT should provide a formal statement in the appraisal process
about the treatment of regeneration benefits; and identify separately
the overall the impacts of a scheme on the 'real economy'. In
addition, the Department should promote more ex-post research
into the wider economic impacts of transport. (Paragraph 87)
10. Decision-making
cannot and should not be reduced to numerical calculation. Value
judgements, political considerations and long-term vision are
inevitable and proper aspects of the process. We welcome the recent
moves by the Secretary of State for Transport towards improving
transparency in the decision-making process for transport investment.
However, more comprehensive information and greater transparency
should be provided in the decision-making process so that both
the technical basis and ministerial judgements are explicit.
(Paragraph 95)
11. We are concerned
that the abolition of regional planning organisations and the
lack of effective strategies at the regional level, at a time
when local authorities have reduced resources, will lead to a
loss of strategic transport planning capacity in some of the areas
where it is most needed. The risks are that major schemes that
cross LEP boundaries, important to the economic development of
a region, may not be adequately investigated or promoted and that
decisions on scheme prioritisation will have to be made by central
government rather than by local organisations which best know
the priorities of their area. This may lead to a worsening of
regional imbalances and poor decision-making. (Paragraph 105)
12. We are concerned
that the role of LEPs in setting priorities for investment in
transport projects is far from clear and may not be resolved until
the end of the Parliament. This risks creating a vacuum which
could impact on the development of strategic transport schemes,
including those that should go forward to the next Spending Review,
planned for 2014. We expect the DfT to engage with the Departments
for Business, Innovation and Skills and Communities and Local
Government to seek to ensure that transport is properly considered
in all LEP arrangements and to engage with LEPs in developing
the stability needed for transport planning and prioritisation
at the sub-national level. We intend to keep a close eye on how
LEPs develop and deliver transport planning functions during the
course of this Parliament. We urge the Prime Minister to take
a personal interest in these issues, as he indicated he would.
(Paragraph 116)
| 
