Written evidence from the Local Government
Technical Advisers Group (TAG) (TE 19)
1. SUMMARY
1.1 TAG has given written and oral evidence to
a number of House of Commons Transport Committee inquiries and
also responses to consultations by Government/The Department for
Transport and the Eddington study itself. We have included with
this evidence a few of the most pertinent submissions to give
further explanation to our submission outlined below.
1.2 The threads running through our evidence
are that:
- Transport expenditure for the economy, environmental
or carbon reduction reasons needs to be directed towards policy
objectives in an integrated way.
- We have been concerned that for many years that
transport expenditure is far too closely assessed on the basis
of somewhat spurious cost benefit analysis; we believe it needs
to be directed much more towards delivering agreed policy outcomes.
- The balance needs to be shifted from capital
(infrastructure) towards revenue and from big schemes towards
smaller not least to make the best use of our considerable UK
infrastructure.
- Road and public transport congestion and particularly
reliability are important issues, but these are unlikely to be
solved by major infrastructure investment and can often be exacerbated
by adding road capacity.
- The future transport solutions are likely to
lie in more electronic communications, smarter choices, public
transport improvements and incentives to companies and individuals
to change behaviour.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 In our covering letter we thank the House
of Commons Transport Committee for the invitation to submit evidence
and we would be very pleased if asked to appear before the Committee
to give further evidence and answer any questions. Although we
have been before to Committee on several occasions on a wide range
of issues, in the covering letter we also describe TAG's role,
membership and expertise. Of particular relevance, we last appeared
before this committee on The Major Road inquiry. that appears
to lead up to this presently convened inquiry.
2.2 We would also draw attention to submissions
we have made to the Eddington Inquiry and the Department for Transport
over the past few years on a number of issues that are highly
relevant to the present inquiry. For information and further background
we believe it may be helpful to the committee, even at this relatively
early stage, to have copies of some of the previous submissions
made by TAG. These are:
(i) TAG submission to the Eddington Inquiry made
in January 2006.
(ii) Our very recent submission to the magazine
The Surveyor, in response to their request on how best to meet
the fiscal situation for transport expenditure generally.
(iii) Our submission to the Department for Transport
on their NATA Refresh review of scheme appraisal.
(iv) TAG response to Government Consultation
On Delivering A Sustainable Transport System (DaSTS)
(v) Press notice and letter on strategic planning
to Eric Pickles by RTPI and 28 other bodies including TAG.
2.3 We are aware of the government's response
to your latest Major Roads Inquiry and it appears to us that to
some extent this government response seeks a view from the House
of Commons Transport Committee on how priorities should be changed
in view of the latest fiscal situation.
3. GENERAL COMMENTS
RELATING TO
THIS INQUIRY
3.1 There are some areas which are highly relevant
to this latest inquiry but would appear at first sight not to
be linked to the issues to be addressed.
3.2 The most important of these is the issue
of the effective management of total traffic on the road network.
We believe TAG and the House of Commons Transport Committee are
at one that this is a fundamental part of the policy before any
roads priority or assessments or investment are even considered.
Road pricing and congestion charging have been supported by TAG
for many years, and our reading of your past reports and indeed
Eddington stress this is a fundamental issue or a "no-brainer".
We also note that this whole subject area has been addressed
by yourselves.
3.3 In some areas road pricing or congestion
charging would not necessarily produce the best or most cost effective
traffic result for the local economy; effective management of
all parking, including removing the tax subsidy to workplace parking,
that presently exists and is not available for those using sustainable
transport, is another powerful tool.
3.4 Supporting policies on land use, sustainable
transport, integrating all modes of transport and delivery of
effective public transport are also fundamental to the subject
of Transport and the Economy. Relating to these, we await the
outcome of the Competition Commission revue of bus services and
how government might get more effective public transport for the
level of public expenditure that is made in this area. Also, in
any cuts or rationalisation of other services (e.g. health and
education), it is important that savings in such services do not
result in additional burdens on the transport systems or make
access to such services more difficult for certain sectors of
the population.
3.5 Another area that might not at first appear
relevant to this study, but is also fundamental is the sustainability
issue dealt with so well by the Stern Inquiry. On Stern it is
interesting to note that he recommends that strong action to reduce
emissions must be viewed as an "investment". Stern
also stressed that the economic costs of inaction on C02 are far
greater than the economic costs of continuing as normal. While
there is much talk about "Peak Oil", he did appear to
imply that there was an abundant supply of fossil fuels and if
all were to be used the damage to the planet could be catastrophic.
He stressed the importance of consistent policies on carbon change
and the dangers of over investment in long lived high carbon infrastructure.
3.6 TAG fully accepts that a good transport system
is a precondition of long term economic growth of any country,
however within the densely developed areas of Britain there is
a real danger that excess or hyper-mobility will or is already
damaging the economy and long term future of the U.K. This is
both from excess congestion and more C02 and other pollutants
than the U.K. and the world can handle. With the advent of IT
to assist tele and video conferencing and working from home, electronic
modes of communication can take some of the role of physical transport
and could indeed lead to a reduction in the need for the present
level of infrastructure, and in particular road infrastructure.
3.7 Our understanding of the Eddington report
was that the worst congestion problems existed in urban areas
- as we all know these can only really be resolved by a reduction
in traffic volumes and not by road construction. Public transport,
sustainable modes and road pricing (by publicly acceptable means)
are key to reducing urban congestion. With lower volumes of traffic
required to meet the economic requirements of urban areas there
is indeed some pressure removed from the inter-urban road network.
A significant part of the traffic on the inter-urban road network
is long distance commuting into the urban areas; the removal of
some of this traffic could reduce the need for inter-urban road
enlargements as well.
3.8 Connections and support of freight movement
generally are perhaps key to the economy. However at present road
freight transport does not pay its full costs for the damage it
causes to the road system; furthermore the present extent of road
network available also encourages unnecessary traffic. In our
submission to Eddington we pointed out that some low value items
such as potatoes grown in Kent were being packed in Somerset,
this does not sound like a sensible use of the transport system.
While connection to ports and international trade is extremely
important, there should be some scope to remove some unnecessary
freight traffic; therefore the third area of road congestion problems
on routes to ports might be solved by a reduction in car commuting
traffic and removal of low value added freight movements.
3.9 TAG does recognise that there is still a
need for some road construction particularly to access potential
new economic areas, opening up brown field sites for new industry
etc. There are also some peripheral areas of Britain that need
to be inter-connected to support the local economies; however
there is a danger when providing extra road capacity from a weaker
area to a stronger area that an improved transport system actually
damages the weaker area. The key issue is to de-link economic
wellbeing from transport; there is already evidence that this
is happening in parts of the country and can go further.
4. RESPONSES
TO THE
QUESTIONS RAISED
BY THE
HOUSE OF
COMMONS TRANSPORT
COMMITTEE.
1. Have the U.K.'s economic conditions materially
changed since the Eddington Transport Study and, if so, does this
affect the relationship between transport spending and U.K. economic
growth?
4.1.1 The U.K.'s economic conditions have materially
changed since 2006-7. We have had the world recession promoted
from the banking industry which appears we are coming out of.
However it has left a large public debt and we understand the
present fiscal priorities (as described in the Department for
Transport's response on the Major Road Inquiry), mean that large
scale investment or spending on transport has to be cut substantially.
This situation stresses even more the importance of making the
best use of our existing assets and therefore increases the importance
of measures to limit traffic volumes (including congestion charging/road
pricing - so strongly recommended by Eddington), maintenance and
anything that moves people and goods more economically and with
less infrastructure.
4.1.2 TAG's submissions to Eddington, on road
pricing to the previous House of Commons Transport Committee,
on the Government's consultation on Delivering A Sustainable Transport
System (DaSTS) (as attached) and indeed on many other consultations
and inquiries including Local Transport Planning Process and funding
of schemes are all highly relevant and have gained in importance.
4.1.3 The net result we believe means that we
need to maintain and expand expenditure on maintenance, on smarter
choices, on public transport and small scale schemes. We also
need to reduce wherever possible overheads on providing these
essential services by reducing the intense complexity of the bureaucratic
systems and one obvious candidate is the assessment of schemes
and Local Transport Plans. This is discussed further under
point 4 below and in our submission to The NATA Refresh process
as attached.
2. What type of transport spending should
be prioritised, in the context of overall spending reduction,
in order best to support regional and national growth?
4.2.1 As stated above we believe that economic
growth can be fostered with less reliance on transport movement
and more reliance on IT, local movement in urban areas, particularly
by sustainable modes, and by some small scale road construction
to open up potential growth areas. However an absolute fundamental
is reducing the total amount of traffic on the road network to
release space for essential traffic, particularly by reducing
long distance car commuters and less necessary freight traffic.
4.2.2 The priorities for transport spending should
be probably safety, before anything else, followed by road (and
other infrastructure) maintenance, smarter choices, public transport,
cycle and other small scale schemes. Such a strategy will provide
for essential traffic supporting economic growth without further
major construction and best support regional and national economic
growth. Our attached submission to The Surveyor magazine gives
further explanation on this.
3. How should the balance between revenue
and capital expenditure be altered?
4.3.1 TAG has commented frequently that more
funding is needed for revenue expenditure including those items
just mentioned, e.g. safety, maintenance, smarter choices. While
it is possible to classify major maintenance and to some extent
planned maintenance as capital, earlier and regular interventions
are far more cost effective. As these are normally considered
as revenue it supports the argument that spending should be moved
significantly towards revenue and away from capital.
4.3.2 Other priorities we have identified such
as Smarter Choices and public transport also require predominantly
revenue expenditure to make full use of existing capital assets.
Furthermore, as mentioned above, Stern considered that spending
to reduce CO2 should be considered as an investment
(in the future). In principle we should not be investing in more
capital unless we can maintain and look after and properly use
our present capital assets.
4. Are the current methods for assessing proposed
transport schemes satisfactory?
4.4.1 In a word, no!
4.4.2 TAG has been critical for many years over
the importance given to the so- called cost / benefit ratio as
part of the assessment of any individual scheme and particularly
major road schemes. There have been substantial failures in the
present methods to deliver schemes that meet agreed objectives
of either central or local government. The cost / benefit ratio,
which is largely based on time savings for peak hour car traffic,
is given a very large weighting in the assessment of schemes;
furthermore much of the so called benefits in the calculations
appear from periods well in the future when modelling is even
less reliable than earlier on.
4.4.3 Our submission to NATA Refresh (as attached)
is probably still just as relevant today although we understand
that some of the issues are now been tackled, e.g. that there
was a benefit from burning more carbon in the calculations! While
TAG in principle agrees with the original five points of NATA
as a basis for assessment these being:
- Integration - ensuring that all decisions are
taken in the context of our integrated transport policy;
- Safety - to improve safety for all road users;
- Economy - supporting sustainable economic activity
in appropriate locations and getting good value for
money;
- Environmental Impact - protecting the built and
natural environment; and
- Accessibility - improving access to every day
facilities for those without a car and reducing community
severance"
the weight given to the fallacious economic assessment
(which should perhaps only be a small part of the third bullet
point above) effectively takes over in the assessment of almost
all major road and many other schemes.
4.4.4 The complexities and lack of understanding
of how the benefits accrue in the calculations is totally opaque
to all but specialists. The work involved in the assessment of
schemes, many of which are very unlikely to see the light of day,
uses up substantial resources that could be better spent delivering
small scale traffic schemes, bus priorities, or the revenue expenditure
required for smarter choices. Furthermore each revision to the
methodology appears to generate even more work and less realism
in the resulting figures. It also removes from politicians, local
or national, the ability to query what are the real advantages
and disadvantages of the schemes.
4.4.5 That said we recognise that the Treasury
would like to know it is getting good value for money. Making
local people more responsible for their expenditure by handing
more of the budget over to local authorities and regional bodies
would ensure that this is more likely to be achieved rather than
the present system of bidding for Central Government funds by
ever more large scale analysis, which is largely meaningless.
There is a substantial industry in chasing funding which is an
unnecessary overhead.
5. How will schemes be planned in the absence
of regional bodies and following the revocation and abolition
of regional spatial strategies?
4.4.6 TAG has joined with a number of other bodies
in a submission to Secretary of State Eric Pickles on possibilities
to replace the regional strategies (as item 5 attached).
4.4.7 One of the problems of transport is peripheral
areas. Regional prioritisation will obviously remove the peripheral
areas between each local authority, and so give a more consistent
transport picture across a larger area. It is also necessary
to have joined up networks, which can only really be delivered
by organisations at a higher level. At present we are not convinced
that Department for Transport head office or for the countries
of the U.K. have necessary abilities to co-ordinate the activities
of several hundred local areas, however whatever areas and administration
systems are set up there will always be peripheral areas that
need a co-ordinated approach and indeed some of our members from
outlying areas (eg the north east, the west country and the north
west) report that the transport investment in such areas does
not meet the needs as well as others.
September 2010
| 
