Written evidence from the Chartered Institution
of Highways and Transportation (CIHT) (TE 66)
The CIHT is pleased to have the opportunity to submit
evidence to the House of Commons Transport Select 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?
The economic recession commenced in the second quarter
of 2008 and proved to be much deeper than expected and has impacted
on a global basis. There had been some earlier signs that there
was an imminent recession but the Eddington Report was produced
when there was much greater optimism about the economy.
The downturn in the economy does not however, affect
the relationship between transport spending and economic growth
and Eddington's conclusions remain essentially valid. If anything,
the global nature of the recession has highlighted the need for
individual countries to achieve a competitive edge in order to
attract international investment from other competing parts of
the world. An essential component of this is an effective, efficient
and reliable transport infrastructure.
There does appear to have been a small shift in activity
since Eddington and there has been a strong emphasis on the development
of land and facilities associated with our ports and airports
as owners seek to realise the value in both the land and the connectivity
of these sites. In order to realise the benefits there is a need
to improve the transport infrastructure in these areas.
The development and improvement of our inter-urban
links and the reduction in congestion in the regional road network
remain fundamental targets for investment. Key elements of this
essential investment continue to be those that will give good
access to ports and airports as well as between major centres.
The other area of growth activity is in the waste
and energy sectors. This consists of the transport of waste to
the newly planned disposal and treatment centres, the growth
of the transport of fuels to energy generation sites and the need
for transport of people and materials to the sites when under
construction. Transport infrastructure is key to these developments
and all principal transport modes can be effective in these areas.
The UK is now emerging from the recession with a
small level of growth being generated by the private sector. It
could be the public sector's role to support the private sector
by providing the framework needed to allow business development
and economic growth. The recession has shown that reliable infrastructure
is a permanent requirement through good times and bad and must
be supported by an adequate level of investment.
Without proper investment the infrastructure will
not perform to the necessary standards and economic growth opportunities
will go elsewhere in the world. The benefits of infrastructure
investment will depend on how effective it is in supporting complementary
private sector investment which delivers economic growth. The
appetite of the private sector to make these investments has changed
since the Eddington Study and so there is a need for more integrated
planning between the public and private sectors.
2. What type of transport spending should
be prioritised, in the context of overall spending reduction,
in order to best to support regional and national growth?
The fundamental requirement is to avoid the transport
infrastructure deteriorating to the point where it becomes inefficient,
unreliable and the costs of maintaining it become unaffordable.
Adequate maintenance of the existing assets must therefore be
the top priority.
Funds should also be made available for infrastructure
improvements which will encourage and support economic recovery
and growth. Eddington set out some objectives which investment
should be aimed at supporting. These include:
- supporting business efficiency;
- encouraging investment;
- developing labour markets;
- encouraging competition; and
- developing trade.
These continue to provide a robust set of objectives
which will be largely delivered by having a reliable and efficient
network. The form of the investment will differ depending on the
regional circumstances. For example, in London and the South East
there are currently major investments in the rail network with
the East London Line, Thameslink, CRTL, Crossrail and the London
Tube and stations upgrades. These are appropriate for the South
East because of the difficulties in making improvements to the
highways network. Elsewhere in the UK it is more practical and
it would generate more economic benefit to focus investment on
the highway infrastructure.
The CIHT Transport Manifesto "2010 and Beyond"
sets out the following priorities that we believe should be the
main order in which transport spending is prioritised:
(1) Maintaining and safely operating the network;
(2) Making better use of that network; and
(3) Making targeted infrastructure improvements.
With a deteriorating highway network and the need
to ensure the highest safety standards in road, rail and air,
it is essential that the first priority has to be in the maintenance
of the existing infrastructure. The real cost of delays due to
poor quality infrastructure and the cost of accidents are high.
A further deterioration of the network can only exacerbate the
situation as well as putting more pressure on the police and
rescue services at a time when they will be subject to close financial
scrutiny.
Increased capacity through making better use of the
existing network through upgrades such as the managed motorway
programme, improvements to the rail network and signalling, and
small improvements to our airports can all deliver greater capacity
at relatively low cost. Smooth flow rates rather than direct capacity
increases will bring benefits in terms of journey reliability
and accident reduction.
Improved information systems and through-ticketing
can also deliver a more efficient use of the existing infrastructure,
allowing users to make better-informed choices and, while not
necessarily affecting large numbers in terms of percentage use,
will bring about a degree of modal shift.
The priority for capital investment should be where
demand is clearly exceeding capacity and where there is no reasonable
alternative option. Greater consideration should also be given
to investment planning which allows the private sector access
to better value labour markets and land prices to make the UK
more competitive on a national basis.
In recent years we have seen a considerable increase
in the use of technology related projects to make better use of
existing assets such as electronic message signs and speed control
on the motorway network. These may not be as expensive as the
construction of new assets but they are not low-cost solutions.
In addition, as with any technology systems they have high maintenance
costs and their lifetime is limited. Caution is needed to ensure
that investment in technology solutions is not considered as a
replacement to investment in the core assets.
3. How should the balance between revenue
and capital expenditure be altered?
The optimal balance between revenue and capital expenditure
can only properly be considered if it takes account of whole life
costs and value. One of the keys is likely to be a relaxation
of the very rigid rules defining the two and ensure decision makers
are able to use whatever resources are available to them to deliver
the most cost effective solutions and greatest whole life benefits.
A major problem is that infrastructure management
and improvement continues to be considered and planned in very
short time horizons that are linked to the Government's spending
review cycles which in the past have been three years. The Coalition's
plan to increase this in future to a four year cycle will only
have a small improvement for infrastructure investment planning.
Clearly in the short-term the priority has to be
on revenue expenditure in order to maintain the infrastructure
assets in a reasonable condition. The Government should however,
recognise that there is a permanent requirement to maintain and
improve the country's assets and this should be supported by a
long-term asset management plan with committed expenditure. Long-term
planning would allow more effective and efficient use of the available
resources. It would allow long-term relationships to be developed
with the supply chain which would drive efficiencies and deliver
continuous improvement to be achieved.
In the current fiscal climate there is however the
need to carefully consider the current revenue funded subsidies
for different transport modes, at present there is no relationship
between these and they have evolved independently over time as
new political policy ideas or in response to public/media pressures.
The overall benefits being delivered, including environmental,
by these subsidies need to be evaluated and used as a way of informing
future decisions on this aspect of any spending reductions.
4. Are the current methods for assessing proposed
transport schemes satisfactory?
The current method does not provide a total solution
but they are the best available as considerable work has been
done in recent years to improve them, particularly on the back
of developments in multi model and environmental assessments,
which now include carbon impacts. The real benefits of journey
time assessments are in debate, there is clear evidence that some
of these benefits translate into longer commutes rather than time
savings with the consequent planning and development control issues
that this causes.
Having said all that, transport scheme assessments
have long been recognised as probably the best developed tools
across all government spending programmes, so a better return
could be obtained by focusing on better assessment of other government
spending areas rather than investing time and resources on trying
to improve what are good, if not perfect methods for transport
schemes.
A major issue seems to be that there is no national
strategic transport plan to provide a robust basis for coordinated
regional and local plans. At the strategic level the national
planning of highway, rail, air and water transport investment
is not effectively joined-up. This is compounded by the bureaucratic
and lengthy procedures involved in making strategic planning decisions.
There is the additional risk, as we have recently
seen, that changes in Government will result in changes to the
planning structures and systems which result in abortive work,
additional cost and uncertainty. Strategic infrastructure planning
and planning approvals should be separated from the political
framework although the Government would have to retain responsibility
for funding arrangements.
The new Local Enterprise Partnership's have the potential
to give better consideration to the needs within cities or regions.
Emphasis should be given to how available monies can be best applied
if spread thinly rather than on major schemes, with the major
schemes treated separately and, as with Crossrail, Forth Replacement
Crossing and HS2, having to make a case within both a local and
a strategic setting.
5. How will schemes be planned in the absence
of regional bodies and following the revocation and abolition
of regional spatial strategies?
CIHT believes that this will be carried out with
great difficulty and will require close collaboration between
Local Authorities. The Government needs to support collaborative
working through appropriate funding incentives but it will be
difficult to identify national priorities without desired national
transport outcomes. CIHT is willing to work with the UK Government,
devolved administrations and local authorities to develop transport
outcomes and assist in their dissemination and implementation.
Alternatively, CIHT in collaboration with other organisations
is willing to develop a forum where local authorities can come
together to discuss and collaborate on transport issues in the
future.
September 2010
| 
