Written evidence from South Yorkshire
Passenger Transport Executive (TE 35)
INTRODUCTION
1. This response is submitted by the South Yorkshire
Passenger Transport Executive. We plan, procure and promote public
transport across South Yorkshire, encompassing Sheffield, Rotherham,
Doncaster and Barnsley. We also lead on strategic transport issues
across the city region in support of the South Yorkshire Integrated
Transport Authority.
2. This response is focused on issues are of
particular concern to South Yorkshire and Sheffield City Region.
SYPTE have also input into the pteg response, which is
focused on the generic views of metropolitan cities outside of
London.
3. We welcome this examination of the relationship
between transport and the economy. Our draft "Local Transport
Plan 3" for the city region is strongly focused on transport's
role in supporting economic growth. In this response we will outline
the evidence that has guided the development of our strategy in
addressing the questions posed.
Have the UK's economic conditions materially changed
since the Eddington Transport Study and, if so, does this affect
the relationship between transport spending and UK economic growth?
The relationships between transport and economic
growth examined by Eddington hold. However, the macro-economic
context means transport spending is at risk and should be focused
on interventions supporting economic growth in areas hard hit
by the recession.
4. Macro economic conditions and forecasts of
growth have clearly changed in recent years. However, we see no
evidence that any structural changes in the economy have occurred
that have altered the relationship between transport and economic
growth as set out in the Eddington Report.
5. However, as the response to the recession
is on cutting the public sector deficit through, among other things,
reduced public spending, it appears inevitable that funding for
transport be further reduced.
6. We have identified a shift in priorities for
businesses, from reducing congestion, to improving the reliability
of our transport networks. Research undertaken for the Yorkshire
and Humber Chamber of Commerce[100]
identifies that, 83% of businesses that took part said the region's
inadequate transport capacity had a direct negative impact on
them. The figure for Yorkshire & Humber (83%) is higher than
any of its neighbouring regions and above the national average.
7. We are concerned that a reduction in funding
to deliver transport schemes that support economic growth will
slow recovery, particularly in South Yorkshire, where there are
a number of transport schemes that are needed to unlock development
and support regeneration. The more these interventions are delayed,
the more expensive they become.
8. As local transport funding is not "protected"
either by longer term agreements (as with Network Rail), or political
power (as in London), we are extremely concerned that we will
be disproportionately affected by such cuts. Our funding streams
have already suffered a 40% cut in our in-year funding (£10.7 million
down to £6.3 million).
9. There is a real imperative for balancing the
economy so that areas hard hit by the recession, such as South
Yorkshire, experience investment and grow the private sector.
Public investment on strong value for money schemes is essential
to provide the conditions for private sector growth. This is
particularly important given the persistent funding gap that exists
between low levels in the North (including the Midlands) against
much higher levels per head in the South East (including London)
on transport spending[101].
What type of transport spending should be prioritised,
in the context of an overall spending reduction, in order best
to support regional and national economic growth?
We strongly support investment to maximise economic
returns and promote private sector growth, in those places where
transport would make a real difference. In South Yorkshire our
evidence suggests investment in unlocking unique strategic sites
is critical, as well as linking people to jobs.
10. Our LTP3 strategy has based its interventions
on: (1) supporting regeneration, (2) linking people to jobs, and
(3) improving connectivity. We very much see transport as an
enabler of economic growth in South Yorkshire.
11. For re-generation there are two specific
examples to evidence from a South Yorkshire perspective. The first
is an example where existing planning conditions prevent development
without better connectivity. This is the case in the Lower Don
valley (next to the M1 in Sheffield/Rotherham) where without interventions
to relieve congestion on M1 junction 34, development cannot take
place. The solution involves some road infrastructure and a bus
priority system to serve the sites and labour catchments. The
importance is in the nurturing of a manufacturing and precision
engineering hub that is of national significance. This in turn
will grow and attract in new business, and support apprenticeships
and up-skilling in these critical sectors for the national economy.
12. It is the uniqueness of the regeneration
opportunity that must be recognised when considering how transport
can support economic growth. A good example of this is the Doncaster
- Robin Hood airport growth corridor. Private contributions will
provide much of the funding for the road needed to unlock this
corridor, as would be expected given the commercial opportunities
it presents for an inland rail freight interchange, housing and
employment. However, to fully cover the costs, some public investment
is required. So public investment in transport is essential to
lever in substantial private sector investment.
13. Bluntly without transport investment these
unique strategic economic initiatives will fail. We feel these
are the types of investments that should be prioritised to maximise
economic growth opportunities in areas where public sector dependency
is currently high.
14. However, we are also very mindful of the
importance of linking people to employment and training,
particularly where unemployment or low skills levels are focused.
Our worklessness research[102]
has investigated the extent to which a spatial mismatch between
skill levels and jobs exists. Whilst job seeker claimants are
largely based around the centre of districts, more often than
not jobs are further outside and can be difficult to reach by
public transport. The main occupations where a spatial mismatch
was found include elementary occupations, process plant and machine
operators and secretarial and administrative occupations. The
challenge is to secure sufficient revenue support to facilitate
connecting workers to these opportunities, and then identify how
to deliver this connectivity in the most cost effective way.
15. Alongside this, improving the connectivity
for the Sheffield City Region (SCR) to national and international
gateways, especially by rail, has been shown to be a priority
as it has significant benefits for productivity[103].
Our research into the benefits of High Speed Rail[104]
identifies that a route to the East of the Pennines would deliver
an estimated c.£60 billion in standard transport benefits
and a further £2.3 billion of productivity benefits.
16. The priorities identified here have provided
the focus for the development of our draft SCR Transport Strategy
(available at www.southyorks.gov.uk). Alongside the three areas
for action, our LTP3 strategy also identifies our obligation to
ensure sustainable growth, and that we reduce carbon emissions
through better planning and targeted interventions. It is vital
that funding opportunities, such as the Regional Growth Fund,
prioritise schemes that are linked to an agreed strategy and are
targeted for areas where the need is greatest.
How should the balance between revenue and capital
expenditure be altered?
Government should give more flexibility to local
authorities to determine the balance between capital and revenue,
and give more freedom so that authorities can maximise efficiency
and effectiveness of revenue streams.
17. The creation of a Local Enterprise Partnership
(LEP) provides the opportunity to allow local decisions on the
balance between revenue and capital spending. The local stakeholders
know best how and where investment can have the greatest impact.
18. Our Draft SCR Transport Strategy presents
a focus on making best use of the assets we have, and acknowledged
that substantial revenue is needed to maintain our assets. We
also know we can get the most from our transport network by investing
in traffic management, another initiative that is revenue hungry.
19. We want to focus funding for the provision
of public transport service on improving access for people to
employment and skills (as discussed above). And we want to continue
with other initiatives to help people back to work and training
(such as smarter choices travel planning and initiatives such
as "Wheels to work"). All of these small scale interventions
help with the economic recovery but require more revenue than
capital.
20. Within existing revenue streams we would
also wish for more flexibility to increase efficiency. For example
we feel strongly that if BSOG (a payment made to bus operators
largely on the basis of their fuel consumption), were given to
PTEs, we could work in partnership with operators to get more
from that revenue support - for example if it was spent on bus
priority and punctuality measures, customers would benefit, and
operators would benefit from increased patronage.
Are the current methods for assessing proposed
transport schemes satisfactory?
No - the current methods are too complex, remain
biased against public transport, and fail to take sufficient account
of health, economic and other benefits. If the full benefits were
incorporated, the case for increasing the proportion of government
spending on transport would be stronger.
21. Current appraisal methods tend to bias against
public transport, and modes such as walking and cycle. For example,
because Government methods assume people who use public transport
value their time less than people who drive.
22. Current methods underplay the practical economic
benefits. We would like to see the "wider economic benefit"
analysis, developed as a result of the Eddington study, be formally
included in appraisal to lock-in economic analysis. We would also
like to see this improved and made less deterministic - methods
need to be found to capture the transformational nature of some
transport schemes.
23. The process is also very centralised. We
wish to see scheme assessments decentralised to those authorities
with the capabilities to do it, as now happens in London. Methodologies
are currently overly complex and need to be rationalised. As Local
Enterprise Partnerships will need to be able to prioritise effectively
and appraise value for money, we would welcome more partnership
between authorities and Government in determining appraisal methods.
In South Yorkshire we are developing a "centre of excellence"
in appraisal to be able to undertake this role for transport schemes.
24. We would like to see central government methodological
requirements proportionate to its contribution, and a more fixed
timetable set out for appraisal and approval, so that schemes
are not subject to the current uncertainties. As it stands Government
cannot give any commitment to progress small schemes any faster
than larger ones through its processes.
How will schemes be planned in the absence of
regional bodies and following the revocation and abolition of
regional spatial strategies?
In our experience schemes have always been planned
and promoted locally, not regionally. ITAs are well placed to
join up planning and decision making previously undertaken by
the Regional Spatial Strategies.
25. The promotion of transport schemes has always
been from the bottom up, with the drive coming from local authorities.
The LEP model will provide the mechanism to build on this and
will bring private sector expertise to the planning of schemes.
This combination of public and private sector input will ensure
realistic schemes are proposed that focus on economic benefit
and have clear links to the Transport Strategy.
26. The importance of regional planning was in
managing development patterns, and ensuring unsustainable development
patterns were avoided. There is a gap now that the RSS has gone.
However, ITAs are well placed to assist. For example in South
Yorkshire we are leading the way through our Land Use Integration
(LUTI) techniques to achieve the same result at a city region
level.
27. LUTI is a tool that is used to highlight
the "sustainability" of development locations through
public transport/active travel accessibility mapping. Importantly,
all the planning authorities in South Yorkshire are signed up
to the process and its guidance, and of the role of the PTE in
undertaking the technical work and monitor progress.
28. The approach taken by SYPTE, and partners,
in developing this tool needs to be embedded into all planning
decisions. This has already started to happen in South Yorkshire,
with partners in East Midlands looking to follow in due course.
This will ensure sustainable land-use patterns are established
at the outset of development planning, whether at a local, regional
or national level.
September 2010
100 Yorkshire and Humber Chamber of Commerce (2010)
Reconnecting Yorkshire and Humber. Back
101
Transport spending per head is £642 in London compared to
£241 in the North and Midlands. Back
102
ARUP (2010) Economic Structure of Sheffield City Region. Back
103
Centre for Cities (2010) On Track. Back
104
Sheffield City Region and Leeds City Region (2010) High Speed
Rail, Summary Report. Back
| 
