Further written from the Campaign for
Better Transport (TE 79A)
This short submission updates our original submission
to the Select Committee, in light of the announcements which followed
on from the comprehensive spending review.
LOCAL SUSTAINABLE
TRANSPORT FUND
SHOULD PRODUCE
INNOVATIVE RESULTS
1. We welcome the Government's decision to make
a separate fund available for sustainable interventions at a local
level, particularly in that it supplies revenue funding. Whilst
this will not make up for the sizeable cuts in other funding,
it should encourage local authorities to trial new approaches,
particularly where their application for a major scheme has been
rejected (or where they had been working up a scheme but had not
submitted a business case before the deadline).
HIGHWAYS AGENCY
PROGRAMME IS
A WELCOME
SHIFT TOWARDS
MANAGING CAPACITY
2. We welcome the Secretary of State's decision
to prioritise managing existing trunk road and motorway capacity
over adding new capacity. Not only is this less costly, but, by
smoothing traffic flows, it has the potential for long-term benefits,
whereas road widening tends towards short-term gains offset by
long-term deterioration as generated traffic outstrips the new
supply.
3. We are pleased that the coalition has recognised
that the A14 Ellington to Fen Ditton did not represent the best
solution to congestion on the A14. We welcome the decision to
cancel the project and to instead embark upon a proper, multi-modal,
consideration of the Felixstowe - Midlands road-and-rail corridor.
We hope that this will provide some useful opportunities for local
people to feed in their suggestions for lower-cost, more sustainable
solutions, such as upgrading the Felixstowe-Nuneaton rail freight
line.
4. We are concerned about the decision to fast-track
the A556 Knutsford to Bowdon road scheme. This road carries serious
environmental impacts, both in local terms (it would have a severe
impact on local green spaces) and nationally (in terms of greenhouse
gas emissions). It is nowhere in planning terms, having had no
draft orders published, nor undergone a public inquiry; indeed,
the Highways Agency has only just announced a preferred route.
We cannot believe that construction will have started, let alone
finished, by 2014-15, and therefore cannot understand why it is
being considered for funding in this spending review period.
LOCAL AUTHORITY
PROGRAMME OFFERS
FALSE HOPE
TO COUNCILS
5. Whilst we support the Government's plans to
reassess the programme of local authority majors, we are concerned
that the current programme encourages councils to continue spending
money developing projects which stand next to no chance of receiving
funding.
6. For instance, the development group has £600
million attached to it, but contains 22 schemes, several of which
require central Government contributions of over £70 million
apiece. The likelihood of, for instance, the £100 million
Hastings - Bexhill Link Road, being approved in this spending
review period is minimal. However, instead of admitting as much,
the Government has offered false hope to councils, who will have
no option but continuing developing their scheme.
7. This is particularly applicable to schemes
in the pre-qualification group. In theory, schemes in this category
could be elevated to the development group. In practice, however,
the development group is over-subscribed (see above). We do not
believe that any schemes could be brought forward from the pre-qualification
group, because competition for its limited funds is already fierce.
8. It would have been preferable for the Government
acknowledge that many of the schemes in the development and pre-qualification
groups are not going to be built. This would have created political
space for councils to rethink their proposals; to return to first
principles and explore more affordable and sustainable solutions.
CHOICE OF
SUPPORTED SCHEMES
IS QUESTIONABLE
9. We have particular concerns about two of the
schemes that the Government placed in the supported group. The
first, the Heysham M6 Link Road, is being promoted by Lancashire
County Council. The council plans to totally redesign it, and
has said that this will result in material changes. It would therefore
require a new planning application and public inquiry. Any revisions
would need to be completed by the end of the year, giving the
council around seven weeks to totally redesign a major scheme,
consult the public, ascertain the costs, benefits and wider social
impacts.
10. We fear that this timescale is too short,
affords no time for consultation and is likely to result in substandard
work. We also cannot understand how DfT plans to decide whether
to approve the road by January. Analysing a major scheme business
case normally takes around six months, but it took DfT and Lancashire
CC five years to conclude the business case for this scheme. We
simply do not believe that this can be done properly in the time
currently allotted. Instead, this scheme, and any others which
are being completely rethought, should be considered as part of
the development group.
11. We are also sceptical of the benefits attributed
by Halton Borough Council to the Mersey Gateway Bridge. Professor
Wenban-Smith has highlighted a number of major inconsistencies
in their business case, including that there will be no benefit
to anyone, save the toll operators, for the first fourteen years.
We are also concerned that efforts to reduce central Government
contributions will result in further, substantial, PFI costs,
and that assumptions of the likely toll charges are wildly optimistic.
We enclose a copy of his short briefing, which, we believe, is
a perfect example of how the flaws inherent in the current appraisal
system operate.
APPRAISAL NEEDS
SERIOUS REFORM,
NOT TINKERING
AROUND THE
EDGES
12. There is serious confusion as to which version
of the Department for Transport's WebTAG guidance is in use. Over
a year ago, the previous Government began revising WebTAG and
NATA. However, because the proposed changes were not enacted before
the pre-election purdah, many sections of WebTAG currently exist
in two forms: an out-of-date original, and a reformed version
in draft. Worryingly, it is those areas which were felt to be
most urgently in need of reform which are disputed, because those
are the sections where changes were proposed and new versions
consulted on.
13. Given this confusion, there is a real need
for the Government to clarify how it appraised transport schemes
in the comprehensive spending review, and how it plans to appraise
them when it decides which schemes should go ahead next year.
Despite blanket media coverage of the comprehensive spending review,
including in the specialist press, we were given little insight
into what methodology was being employed to compare transport
schemes, let alone how spending on transport was compared with
spending on defence, health or education.
14. In our main submission, we outlined the case
for reforming transport appraisal. The Government has continued
to suggest that this long-awaited reform is imminent. Their Investment
in Local Major Schemes, published concurrently with the Secretary
of State's more detailed post-spending review announcement, promised
"to take forward the commitment in the Coalition Agreement
to reform the way decisions are made on which transport projects
to prioritise. The appraisal of local major schemes will be consistent
with these proposals."
15. Transport appraisal is not an exact science.
You will have already heard several experts outlining different
ways in which they would reform the current system, as well as
the difficulties which reaching agreement as to the optimum system.
However, what is not in dispute are the myriad flaws in NATA and
WebTAG, and the need for urgent reform to ensure that schemes
which perform well in the appraisal process are those which best
fit Government policies.
16. We believe that there is an urgent need for
a comprehensive overhaul of transport appraisal, tackling issues
of time savings, valuation of externalities, do minimum comparisons,
treatment of fuel duty revenues, etc., all of which we outlined
in more detail in our main submission. This is likely to materially
alter benefit-cost ratios, which are still dominated by time savings
and fuel duty revenues. We believe that getting appraisal right
must be central to the Government's plans for the coming year,
so that the package of schemes which emerges out of the development
group can be properly assessed for their benefits, costs and fit
with Government policies.
RAIL FARE
INCREASES WILL
RESTRICT LABOUR
MARKET AND
PRICE PEOPLE
OFF THE
RAILWAYS
17. We are very disappointed at the decision
to increase the cap on regulated rail fare rises from RPI+1% to
RPI+3% from 2012. Using the Office of Budget Responsibility's
RPI forecasts, this will lead to fares being 31% higher by the
end of this Parliament in 2015. This is against a historical real
term increase in rail fares of 55% between 1998-2008 (compared
with an 18% real term decrease in the cost of motoring).[76]
18. There is a danger that this will be price
people away from jobs in many city centres, restricting the labour
market. Season tickets are already twice as high as other European
countries and this situation will only get worse, affecting the
competitiveness of London and other cities.[77]
19. Sample season ticket rises by 2015 include:
- ¾ Milton
Keynes to London: £5,026 (increase from 2010 price: £1,194).
- ¾ Gillingham
to London: £4,995 (increase from 2010 price: £1,187).
- ¾ Luton
to London: £4,229 (increase from 2010 price: £1,005).
- ¾ High
Wycombe to London: £3,605 (increase from 2010 price: £857).
20. There are also risks that could arise from
failing to protect flexible fares. We understand that Virgin is
planning to abolish all walk-on fares on some peak time services
between London and Birmingham.
21. The Government's forecast is that, as a result
of the change to RPI+3%, there will be 4% fewer trips by rail
than otherwise[78],
most of which would be expected to shift to road transport with
consequent rises in congestion and carbon emissions. This is bad
news for all transport users.
CUTS TO
BUS SUPPORT
WILL FORCE
PEOPLE INTO
WELFARE-DEPENDENCY
22. Bus services are a vital part of people's
lives. They are the most popular form of public transport, and
are especially important in rural areas, and to people on low
incomes. They have featured prominently in the Government's welfare-to-work
strategy, with Works and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith
suggesting that jobseekers should "get on the bus" and
look for work.
23. But bus services are under threat from three
sides. Firstly cuts to local authority revenue grants have put
pressure on local authority tendered services. Somerset County
Council have just approved cuts to bus subsidies that they predict
will lead to a 50% reduction in bus services across the county,
with severe impacts on rural isolation and local businesses.[79]
North Yorkshire County Council are proposing severe cuts to evening,
weekend and holiday services and have reduced the times when concessionary
passes can be used.
24. Secondly, changes to the valuation of average
fares in the concessionary fares formula will cut the amount spent
to provide concessionary fares. This would penalise longer-distance
rural bus services and services in the larger cities that do not
have integrated transport authorities. The DfT's impact assessment
suggests that this could result in 2.4% fewer trips by bus.
25 The third blow to bus services will be the
cuts to bus service operators grant of 20% from 2012. If this
is combined with moves away from being based on mileage, this
could again affect rural bus services more. The Department for
Transport estimate that the 20% cut to BSOG could result in:
- ¾ Fares
increases and service mileage reductions of around 2% in rural
areas.
- ¾ Fares
increases of around 1% and service mileage reductions of around
2% for small towns.
- ¾ Fares
increases and service mileage reductions of around 1% for larger
non-metropolitan towns.
- ¾ Fares
increases of around 2% and service mileage reductions of around
1% in metropolitan areas.[80]
26. In combination, these cuts (which might appear
relatively small in isolation) are likely to combine to form a
triple whammy from which bus services, particularly in rural areas,
will find it difficult to recover. The impact of these cuts will
be especially felt by those out of work who are looking for a
job. Two thirds of job seekers do not have a driving license or
access to a car.[81]
Research by the Social Exclusion Unit discovered that 38% of job
seekers found transport was a major obstacle to their finding
work.[82]
People should be getting on the bus to find a job, but that depends
on there being a bus to use in the first place.
PLANS FOR
LORRY ROAD
USER CHARGING
AND RAIL
REFORM NEED
FURTHER WORK
27. We are disappointed that the Government has
opted for a simple vignette system for lorry road user charging.
We believe that there are sizeable benefits in a slightly more
complex model, as suggested in our recent report, Lorry Road
User Charging—A Way Forward for the UK. We looked at
a number of different models, and concluded that the simple time-based
model, as supported by Government, would not meet wider objectives,
would raise enforcement issues, could run into EU limits on charging,
and be costly to implement and run.
28. We are concerned that plans for rail restructuring
would hinder rail freight without significantly benefiting the
rail industry. The Government is currently considering regional
sectorisation and vertical integration, but rail freight works
best with a national network, because this tends towards an integrated
network which can compete with national road freight. We believe
that the impact on rail freight of these proposals should be better
considered to ensure that rail freight remains competitive and
a viable solution to trunk road and motorway congestion, greenhouse
gas emissions and air quality issues.
UK NEEDS TO
DEVELOP TRANSPORT
WHICH SUPPORTS
A SUSTAINABLE
ECONOMY
29. In conclusion, we believe that getting transport
right will be critical to engendering the conditions for a sustainable
recovery. However, UK transport policy continues to fixate on
long-distance movement of goods and people, rather than developing
sustainable economic communities in our towns and cities.
30. Whilst the ability to move goods and services
is important, it risks prioritising spending on inter-urban routes
at the expense of our urban areas. As has been apparent for some
while (it is cited in Eddington, for instance) at least 80% of
congestion in the UK is in urban areas. But the majority of transport
spending remains focused on inter-urban connectivity: bypasses,
link roads, motorways, high-speed rail, intercity rail, etc.
31. Reversing this trend should be a vital goal
for the coalition, in order to reverse the decline in our towns
and cities by making them attractive places to live, work and
shop; accessible to people, regardless of car ownership and income.
November 2010
76 RAC Report on Motoring 2008. Back
77
Fares and Ticketing final study report, Passenger Focus, 2009 Back
78
Hansard, 10 November 2010, c335W Back
79
2011-12 to 2013-14 Medium Term Financial Plan: Summary of Service
Proposals, Somerset County Council Back
80
Hansard, 2 November 2010, c702W Back
81
See http://www.dwp.gov.uk/consultations/2010/21st-century-welfare Back
82
Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion,
Social Exclusion Unit Back
| 
