Written evidence from London TravelWatch
(TE 64)
1. INTRODUCTION
London TravelWatch welcomes the opportunity to contribute
to House of Commons Transport Committee's inquiry into transport
and the economy. The impact of the recession has been felt in
the transport industry in the form of both reduced revenue and
public funding. We urge that the lessons of past recessions are
learnt: that delaying investment and contracting transport can
result in insufficient capacity when the economy recovers.
London TravelWatch is providing a written submission
to the Transport Select Committee inquiry in its capacity as the
independent transport user watchdog for London, and the watchdog
for rail passengers in the area surrounding London.
London TravelWatch believes that the transport needs
of London and its surrounding area are unique in the United Kingdom.
The region is the economic heart of the British economy and transport
is central to the success and growth of the region, this is illustrated
by the following points:
(1) Central London employment is dependent upon
the availability of transport and London as a whole contributes
between £14.3 billion and £19.4 billion to
the UK economy in the difference between public expenditure and
tax paid.[223]
(2) Public transport in London has a larger modal
share of trips than any other region of the UK.
(3) While there has been investment in transport
capacity over the last ten years the average number of passengers
per train, bus and tram has also risen in the same period.[224]
(4) The subsidy per passenger kilometre for London
and the South East operators is generally lower than the rest
of the UK.[225]
5. Everyday 1.11 million people commute into
or out of London[226],
for most of these journeys public transport is the only viable
option available to them. It is therefore of great importance
to the wider economy that public transport quality and capacity
is invested in and maintained.
2. LONDON TRAVELWATCH
WRITTEN SUBMISSION
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?
London TravelWatch accepts the premise of the Eddington
study that the linkage between transport spending and economic
growth is present provided that the investment is targeted. The
study provides case studies where lack of investment constrains
economic growth in Ireland and India. London TravelWatch argues
that this position is the same in London where without investment
in the capacity of the network as a whole the disbenefits to the
economy will be significant in terms of road congestion and crowding
on public transport. As a result we recommend wider road user
charging to fund increased investment in public transport, walking
and cycling.
The Eddington study also argued for efficient utilisation
of existing transport infrastructure and improving its performance.
In this context we recommend that road user charging is investigated
to reduce traffic congestion, as well as a means to fund improvements
in alternative means of transport. The study recommended a long
term strategic policy approach to transport provision but with
sufficient flexibility to respond to changes in circumstances.
Given the long-term view of the Eddington study, London TravelWatch
does not believe that there have been material changes to alter
the priorities set out by the study.
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?
London's roads
London TravelWatch recommends the retention of existing
congestion charging zones and an expansion of congestion charging,
but with an increasing level of sophistication. In 2010-11 Congestion
Charging is forecast to be £378 million budgeted to
fall by £51 million in 2011-12 with abolition of the
Western Extension Zone.
The increased sophistication could be in the form
of separate zones and GPS technology. This technology could support
more intelligent charging for example by varying operating hours
for specific areas or charging zones. The income from congestion
charging could be used to fund public transport in London, as
well as reducing congestion by encouraging behavioural change
and modal shift.
London's Public Transport as a whole
Current public transport capacity should be maintained
and expanded to meet forecast demand. This may mean additional
bus services to compensate for delayed infrastructure.
London has the greatest dependence on its public
transport network of any region in the UK. The role of public
transport as the only practical means of transport for many commuters
means that it is central to the continued economic growth of London.
Since the first quarter of 2009-10, public transport usage has
grown following a contraction as a result of the recession. This
continued growth of transport demand means that there is still
a need for investment in the capacity of the transport network.
For this reason it would not be in the interests of the passenger
to revisit the schemes already specified in the High Level Output
Statement (HLOS) or TfL London Underground upgrade. This is partly
because of the complexity and time that revision would involve,
but more importantly because passengers need the investment in
the capacity and performance of public transport.
Buses
In recognition of the role the bus plays in London's
transport system, the quality and volume of service should not
be decreased. Buses account for 20% of the modal share of journeys
in London which is by far the largest share of public transport.[227]
London TravelWatch's research into "Bus passengers"
priorities for improvements in London' (2010)
http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/document/4152/get found that
passengers prioritised the following areas for improvements:
1 More buses are on time or within five minutes
of when they are scheduled to arrive.
2 Buses run more frequently at times when you
want to use the bus.
3 Electronic displays showing the correct length
of time until the next bus is due to arrive are available at all
bus stops.
4 The correct route number and destination is
clearly displayed on the outside of all buses.
5 All bus drivers are helpful and have a positive
attitude.
London TravelWatch recommends because passengers'
prioritisation of journey time reliability that bus priority measures
are extended to increase the efficiency of the bus network by
improving journey time reliability. Additional priority measures
also have the potential to reduce the cost of bus operation and
enable them to transport more passengers more quickly.
London Underground and National Rail
The last recession in the early 1990s led to delays
in infrastructure spending which ultimately meant that supply
did not keep pace with demand once passenger numbers started to
grow. Demand in 2009-10 has now started grow following the impact
of the recession. Given the long lead times for investment, delays
would not be in passengers' interest as the levels of forecast
growth, while lower than prior to the recession, are showing an
increasing level of transport demand over the next 20 years.
For London Underground and the national railways,
maintenance and renewals must continue in order that performance
does not decline.
We recommend a gating strategy is developed for London
to systematically increase revenue collection. There are also
substantial benefits for passengers from gating in terms of potential
means to fund increased levels of staffing and the perceived sense
of security at stations. There are a number of strategic gaps
in gating in certain areas such as south east London. However,
a combination of revenue support and the allocation of the London
Travelcard revenue make it hard to justify individual investment
by a single operator. A strategic approach by TfL or the DfT,
however, could capture significant volumes of revenue currently
lost, by looking at gating schemes across entire areas.
How should the balance between revenue and capital
expenditure be altered?
It is the goal of the "Delivering a Sustainable
Railway" (2009) White Paper that the balance of contributions
of passengers should increase and the proportion of tax-payer
funding should decrease over the period up to 2014. For TfL, its
2010-11 to 2017-18 business plan also sees fares revenue forming
a greater percentage of its income.
London TravelWatch is concerned that only 48% of
national rail passengers in the last National Passenger Survey
were satisfied with the value for money of their tickets. This
indicates that passengers are not getting what they deem a sufficient
service given the cost of travel. As a result, we recommend a
strategic fares review in London and the South East to ensure
that passengers get the best value for money and that the system
is fair across the whole region. This review could also be linked
to the role of fares in contributing to the funding of the rail
industry. This review might consider:
- The fairness and value for money of fares.
- Review of the Travelcard boundaries.
- Value for money from the perspective of the passenger
and tax-payer.
- Review of concessions: For example, an end to
the 0930 concession for Freedom Pass as the peak resource requirement
drives the main element of cost, or a limit (albeit generous)
on free children's travel concession.
In a more general sense, a review of the balance
between capital expenditure and revenue should consider the impact
of deferral of capital expenditure on the future ability of the
transport network to cater for demand in the future.
Are the current methods for assessing proposed
transport schemes satisfactory?
London TravelWatch has concerns about the potential
for increased private investment in the rail network to distort
funding decisions in favour solely of financial rates of return
on investment. Affordability is a key requirement but public spending
should also take into account the wider economic benefits of transport.
London TravelWatch has a specific concern about longer rail franchises,
which relates operator investment to extend the franchise beyond
the 15 year maximum. In our experience, operator investment tends
to target more lucrative longer distance passengers at the exclusion
of suburban metro passengers. London TravelWatch would not want
to see operators "cherry-pick" lucrative routes for
investment. We recommend, therefore, wider economic benefits must
also be factored into investment decisions.
In terms of appraisal methodology in the DfT's Transport
Analysis Guidance, there are always weaknesses with any assessment
methods because the future is, necessarily, an uncertain place.
However, in the context of the rail industry the standard forecasting
tool MOIRA is in need of update because its methodology is only
really appropriate for incremental changes to the network. It
is not able to forecast accurately the impact of new journey possibilities
not previously possible by rail.
How will schemes be planned in the absence of
regional bodies and following the revocation and abolition of
regional spatial strategies?
London TravelWatch has contributed extensively to
the Draft Replacement London Plan and its predecessors. Outside
of Greater London, the revocation and abolition of regional spatial
strategies has the potential to make planning decisions less certain
about strategies for employment and housing growth. Both of these
factors have a key influence over the long term requirements of
the transport network. There are therefore challenges that are
created by the absence of regional bodies and revocation of regional
spatial strategies.
3. CONCLUSION
In the context of potential cuts in service provision
and for increased fares or congestion charge revenue, there will
be an impact on those in society least able to afford transport
costs. It is very important that all levels of decision makers
within Government and transport operators seek to minimise the
impact on the people in society who are least able to afford rises
in the cost of transport, and who will be most affected by declines
in quality and quantity of services.
Decisions about transport spending priorities need
to protect the core functions of transport in London and its surrounding
area to ensure that capacity is present both now and in the future.
Decisions about transport priorities should take into account
the potential future impacts on the transport network and not
made on short-term cost cutting grounds.
September 2010
223 Source: Page 102, London's Place in the UK Economy,
Oct 2009, City of London. Back
224
Source: Travel in London Report 2, 2010, TfL. Back
225
Source: ORR Statistics 2008 http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/xls/nrt-tables-ch6-misc-240610.xls
Back
226
Source: Travel in London Report 2, 2010, TfL. Back
227
Page 44, Travel in London Report 2 (2010), TfL. Back
| 
