Further written evidence from the RAC Foundation
(TE 41A)
1. Since we drafted our submission in September
there have been important developments.
2. The RAC Foundation welcomes the sentiments
expressed by the Government in relation to transport in the Spending
Review: for instance
"… the Chancellor pledged … to maintain
investment in new and existing infrastructure that will support
a growing economy … hard decisions about priorities that
have allowed us to secure the investment in vital transport infrastructure
that will support the national recovery" (Transport Spending
Review Press Notice)
3. This is consonant with the principles set
out in the Eddington Transport Review. It was also good that the
Government protected transport capital expenditure.
4. However, we note that whereas the average
capital spend on rail over the four years is to increase by 20%
(compared with the 2010-11 baseline) the average capital spend
on the Highways Agency is to be cut by 35%. Highways agency resource
spend is to reduce by 23% and local government transport resource
spend is to reduce by 28%. (All these figures are in cash terms
and will be further eroded by the effect of inflation)
5. Many of the schemes to be delayed or withdrawn
by local government are capital or maintenance programmes for
roads: some of them large schemes. Other public transport activities
will also be badly affected; particularly local bus services.
6. Meanwhile the Government has committed £750
million over the four years to preparation for High Speed Rail
(which will not open for more than 12 years)
7. So, within a protected transport total rail
has done well and national and local roads and other public transport
have done badly.
8. In view of the fact that the railways carry
about 7% of the nation's passenger miles and a similar proportion
of freight it would be interesting to hear how the Government
squares the rail:road balance in the Spending Review with the
claims they have made to be supporting a growing economy.
9. We welcome and agree with the Secretary of
State's general endorsement of current appraisal techniques (subject
to further refinement) "We have the best appraisal system
in Whitehall, there's no question about that. The Department for
Transport's appraisal system is more objective, more quantitative
than anything else across Whitehall…" (Local Transport
Today, 12 November 2010)
10. In announcing the Spending Review the Secretary
of State said "the 14 [major road] schemes confirmed today
will make a major contribution to the development of Britain's
economy. For every pound invested, there will be over £6
worth of public benefits. On some schemes, this figure will be
higher than 10 …" (Investment in major transport schemes,
Oct 2010)
11. These very high rates of return to road investment
are not unexpected: they reflect the acute shortage of road capacity
that they will relieve. It would be reasonable to ask the Secretary
of State for the corresponding rates of return for the road schemes
that have been excluded, and for the rail and local public transport
schemes that have been included and excluded.
12. We note that the stated reasons for promoting
High Speed Rail have now changed to "radically reshape the
UK's economic geography: connecting this country's great cities
and international gateways and helping to bridge the North-South
divide that has, for too long, limited growth outside London and
the South East". These motives are new and not consistent
with the principles outlined in the Eddington Transport Review.
It would be helpful to have a clear statement from the government
of the evidential support for the proposition that High Speed
Rail would, in fact deliver against these objectives. It would
also be helpful to have a statement of the latest appraisal of
benefits in relation to the costs of High Speed Rail for comparison
against national and local transport schemes (many of them public
transport schemes) that have been excluded in order to release
the funding made available to High Speed Rail.
13. The RAC Foundation strongly welcomes the
recently published "National Infrastructure Plan 2010"
by HM Treasury and Infrastructure UK. It can only be right that
some central body is taking an overall, strategic view of the
likely infrastructure needs over the next decades, including transport.
In particular, we endorse the insistence that Transport Ministers
should publish a National Policy Statement for surface networks
(ie road and rail). There can be no evidence-based discussion
of the merits of High Speed Rail, roads or other transport investments
before there has been a statement of the problems to be solved
and a proposal about how particular investments might help solve
them. It is disappointing that there is no firm timetable for
publishing this.
December 2010
| 
