Further written evidence from the Transport
Planning Society (TE 44a)
1. The TPS has now considered the details of
transport's contribution to the Comprehensive Spending Review
(CSR). We wish to give the Committee an immediate response, but
clearly the DfT process of finally selecting individual major
schemes will take until the end of next year. However, we feel
that there are important issues raised at this stage to which
we wish to draw the Committee's attention.
POSITIVE ASPECTS
OF THE
TRANSPORT REVIEW
2. First we welcome the Local Sustainable Transport
Fund (LSTF), in particular the revenue content. Block grant is
being reduced but the LSTF will help to protect high value low
cost work, such as Smarter Choices, which requires a committed
long term revenue stream. In this sense, the emphasis on capital
spending elsewhere in the transport statement might be, at first
sight, a cause for concern. Revenue expenditure can be extremely
effective in reducing congestion and enabling, for example through
workplace travel planning, patterns of commuting which are both
sustainable and attractive to employers and employees alike. The
evidence of this is now extensive and well documented.
3. We also welcome the clarity of the major scheme
timetable and three pool approach. It is often the case that it
is politically easier to include or leave a major scheme, which
may be financially unrealistic or otherwise past its sell by date,
in a capital programme rather than to remove it. However, this
can be very damaging. Sometimes schemes need to be dropped for
areas to "move on" to devising more cost effective and
realistic solutions to their transport problems.
4. We welcome the fact that highway maintenance
has been cut less than average - 4.5% reduction over the period
for the HA and similar for local authority capital maintenance.
This is to be achieved through savings in the cost of delivery
and spread of best practice. Our members are very concerned to
protect existing assets and we encourage the Government to assist
local authorities further than the £3 million set aside for
2011-12 and 12/13 in delivering these savings, for example where
transition costs to a co-operative approach with other authorities
are needed. In this area, and others, we welcome the proposal
for a Green Investment Bank and wish transport to be fully represented
in its programme.
5. We have yet to gather a full response from
our regional and national branches and this will reflect the final
outcomes of the Pool and LSTF decisions. We are still assessing
the potentially damaging impact on bus services of the CSR and
welcome the Committee's decision to hold a separate Inquiry into
this issue.
APPRAISAL AND
PRIORITIES FOR
THE FUNDING
PROCESS
6. Given the profession's strong criticisms of
the current transport appraisal methods, we support the confirmation
that it will be reviewed. Transport requires a robust process
but one which is proportionate to the scheme being appraised.
We support transparency in the approach itself, but also in how
it is reformed. Thus we are concerned that the progress made to
engage with the profession, for example through the NATA Refresh
informal advisory group, appears to be on hold.
7. As well as detailed comments on the Highways
Agency (HA) evaluation criteria in paragraph 12 below, we suggest
that, in relation to the specific schemes in the three pools,
overall priority for major schemes should be given to:
- ¾ public
transport in city centres and links to the wider city regions;
and
- ¾ management
of the strategic network.
We note many schemes of this type in the list and
would wish to see these progress. London is benefitting from major
public transport investment and its system of integrated planning
and ticketing. The economies of major cities outside London have
a wider impact in their city regions and need to be supported.
Motorway management is an extremely cost effective approach with
early delivery and potential for further development.
8. We also note that there are a few schemes
in the Pools which were part of the general RFA inter-authority
scheme "bargaining" which led to some criticism (clear
in our member survey) of the regional arrangements and their failure
to produce a genuinely strategic view. In this sense it would
be helpful to clear the decks for the new approach.
9. While having no strong favourite, most members
also concluded that a strategic view was needed, to sit between
local and national agendas. This must be a concern and two examples
spring immediately to mind.
10. The first is the lack of consistency in parking
standards between neighbouring authorities. Parking control is
still one of the key tools in demand management and greatly enhances
the cost effectiveness of Smarter Choice schemes. The two are
natural partners. There is a real fear among planners and transport
planners of a "race to the bottom" in terms of relaxing
such controls. PPG13 originally called for Regional Transport
Strategies to ensure that this did not occur. Local economies
can be harmed by such a lack of strategy, and national objectives
on reducing congestion and avoiding climate change, to give two
important examples, will be undermined. In the development of
corridor studies and Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects
(NSIPs) we consider that a consistent approach to parking across
regions will be required.
11. The second example is the lack of an obvious
champion for regional rail schemes in England between local authorities
and the national RUS process. This is compounded by the fact that
even the PTEs, representing the major city regions, no longer
co-sign franchise agreements. Our members showed strong support
for local rail improvements, contrasting with their modest support
for High Speed Rail (HS2).
12. In relation to the HA Major Scheme four criteria:
Value for money—we
are concerned by the emphasis on time savings, rather than reliability,
and that there is no caution over justifying schemes through the
use of very large numbers of small savings (for which there is
little evidence of any value). Major schemes should by definition
be expected to create significant absolute savings (for which
there is some evidence of value) on individual journeys. Freight
operators in particular usually call for reliability as their
key requirement.
Strategic value—the
use of the term "bottlenecks" does not seem to fit with
the idea of strategic approach. It is important that removing
one does not simply create a new one. We appreciate this may have
been used for the rapid CSR process, but would not wish to see
it gain future currency. In the NSIP process a corridor approach
will be essential and congestion needs to be managed and reduced
comprehensively. The principle is that strategic projects should
sit within a strategic policy framework.
Deliverability—we
agree that uncertain costs and benefits should count for less
in any appraisal. For example, schemes which depend upon benefits
in the second half of the appraisal period (30-60 years from opening)
should be clearly identified and removed from the pool.
Non-monetised aspects—the
recognition that there are likely to be significant factors of
this type is welcomed. We support a proper and comprehensible
description of such factors, which is as numerate as possible
even if there is no monetisation. This is far preferable to the
inclusion of more speculative money values in the formal analysis.
13. We note that in one instance (A14) a major
scheme is to be removed from the programme and multi-modal study
of alternatives is to be pursued. Our view is that such alternatives
need to be based on assessing all the elements of transport demand
and how they can be met or managed. There will be local areas
which will have to finally relinquish a particular scheme which
has tended to dominate their thinking for a number of years. They
will require resources to develop and design smaller scale and
more cost effective packages and we would like to see the Government
make financial provision for them to do so. It should be made
clear that this will only be used for genuinely new work, for
example leading to a bid to the LSTF.
MAINTAINING PROFESSIONAL
RESOURCES
14. This naturally leads to a final concern in
relation to the CSR, the future of the profession itself. Promoting
best practice, developing skills and sponsoring debate is at the
heart of the TPS.
15. There are two aspects to the maintaining
of transport's professional resources. The first is the need for
continuing research on a diverse but robust basis. It must be
a concern that two bodies have already been affected by Government
cuts. One is CfIT, which was not wholly a research body but commissioned
a significant number of studies which tended to cover topical
concerns. A more recent casualty of great concern to the TPS is
the withdrawal of funding by DfT and ESRC from the UK Transport
Research Centre, an organisation just launched after several years
of tortuous and resource intensive negotiations between DfT, ESRC
and academia.
16. While learned societies, including TPS, will
feel an extra responsibility to maintain standards and promote
debate in the "age of austerity", this cannot substitute
for properly funded research. This is especially true for understanding
why people and goods travel, for personal or business reasons,
and what influences their decisions. To give an example highly
relevant for this Inquiry - economic impacts - analysts need to
fully understand the two way nature of the effects of infrastructure
building. Transport planners are well aware that decreasing the
travel cost between a well off area and a less well off area may
overheat the well off area rather than cause an exodus from it.
This is as true for HS2 as major trunk roads. Do we really know
how this works in the UK economy? In terms of congestion, travel
planning still needs more research and development but also monitoring
to provide the data we need. We know it works, but could it provide
even greater benefits?
17. Cuts in such programmes may seem easier because
they are less visible but we contend that lack of such understanding
could lead to the wrong sort of investment and thus inhibit the
recovery and future growth. They tend to be very low cost compared
to infrastructure spending itself and we strongly oppose cutting
them without putting alternatives in place.
18. In our first submission we pointed to the
low priority given to HS2 in our member survey. This needs a robust
assessment in terms of how it will really impact on the UK economy
(see paragraph 16 above) and whether it will divert resources
away from more cost effective (often demand management) schemes,
essential research and innovation, or the need to maintain our
skills base as well as physical infrastructure.
19. Thus our final point is that the profession
must be able to continue to both retain and develop the skilled
human resources required for recovery. It is no secret that transport
planning companies have been hit very hard by both the recession
and public expenditure reductions. While there have been substantial
job losses in the sector, many consultants have sought to cushion
the extent of these by introducing part time working and other
strategies. Although many have continued to invest in training
the staff they are retaining, the TPS annual survey of UK students
on transport Masters courses has shown a two thirds reduction
in part time students sponsored by their employers. Experience
from past recessions in the industry has shown that few of those
who leave the profession in a downturn return. Having led the
Transport Planning Skills Initiative to address the severe skills
shortage that occurred in the early 2000s, and subsequently done
much to improve the standing of the profession, including the
provision of a professional qualification and a professional development
scheme, TPS is very concerned that a skills shortage will re-emerge
as we move out of recession and financial austerity. It considers
it essential that the Government recognises the need for adequate
skilled professional resources to plan for efficient and sustainable
transport policies, systems and services, and its key role in
ensuring they are available now and in the future.
November 2010
| 
