Written evidence from Kingston upon Hull
City Council (TE 106)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Hull City Council welcomes this opportunity
to contribute to this inquiry and would like to express strong
support for the Government's aspiration to reduce the financial
deficit and prioritise those transport investment schemes which
support economic growth. This submission is structured around
the questions as set out in the inquiry terms of reference.
2.0 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?
2.1 Obviously since the Eddington Report was
written in 2006 we have entered into a major global economic recession
with its associated higher levels of unemployment and lower productivity.
In parallel to this we have also experienced a growing global
environmental awareness with associated aspirations to achieve
carbon reduction targets. In transport planning terms addressing
economic decline and achieving carbon reduction would traditionally
have been seen as mutually exclusive but today we need to be more
creative in investing in transport to achieve "Sustainable
Economic Growth".
2.2 The headline findings outlined in Sir Rod
Eddington's 2006 Study Report are even more relevant in the present
economic climate, these include:
- ¾ The
UK Transport Infrastructure is broadly adequate.
- ¾ We
need to concentrate on improving existing road and rail links.
There is little real need for major new infrastructure (and any
such new infrastructure would inevitable be largely unaffordable
anyway).
- ¾ There
are still some key blockages in the transport system which need
to be relieved.
- ¾ We
should concentrate investment in relieving these blockages especially
where these have a negative affect on International Gateways and
Port Accesses which potentially offer opportunities for maximum
economic growth particularly in the low carbon sectors.
2.3 This last point is now even more relevant
with the prospect of growth in the emerging international renewable
energy sector. This is currently being highlighted by the high
levels of private sector interest in developing major new manufacturing
and maintenance plants for "off shore" wind turbines.
These new plants will, by necessity, need to be located in or
around existing ports. As you will be aware, large areas of suitable
land are available around the Humber Estuary and in the case of
Hull; planning approvals are largely already in place at key sites
within the Port. With relatively modest investments in the existing
Transport Infrastructure we have the very real opportunity to
create a European centre of activity on the Humber, with the potential
for thousands of new jobs. These new jobs would help both the
national economic recovery and also rebalance the local economy
to give targeted relief to an area of the country particularly
hard hit by the recession with some of the highest levels of unemployment
and deprivation and direct exposure to significant public sector
job losses.
2.4 To summarise national spending on transport
needs to be maintained at an appropriate level in order to:
- ¾ Remove
blockages to international gateways to facilitate efficient movement
of goods to reduce transport costs and improve national economic
competitiveness.
- ¾ Improve
interurban links to achieve agglomeration benefits associated
with affectively reducing distances between markets.
- ¾ Promote
schemes which either deliver environmental benefits (reduce transport
related carbon) or facilitate sustainable developments which in
turn contribute to long term national carbon emission reduction.
- ¾ Stimulate
employment and investment both in the construction industry, manufacturing
and in the transport industry itself.
3.0 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?
3.1 In general terms we should be looking to
deliver schemes which:
- ¾ Allow
UK PLC (particularly the North) to enter and benefit from significant
new areas of economic activity including renewables.
- ¾ Promote/support
economic growth (usually by relieving blockages and reducing congestion
on existing routes).
- ¾ Minimise
the environmental impact of travel (reduce carbon emissions, improve
air quality and promote shift to sustainable modes).
- ¾ Improve
Public Health,
- ¾ Address
Social inclusion; and
- ¾ Improve
road safety.
We do however, support the Government in its aspiration
to reduce the financial deficit and prioritise those transport
investment schemes which support a step change in economic growth.
In order to achieve this we now need to work more smartly to promote
schemes which address more than one of the above objectives.
3.2 In a more local context we have worked closely
with partners in neighbouring authorities around the Humber to
identify the type of priority schemes required to address our
joint challenges. These include:
- ¾ Schemes
which improve access to Northern Ports. These will have the dual
advantage of stimulating the struggling economy of the north and
at the same time provide environmental benefits by reducing unnecessary
road travel through congested networks in the south to the Channel
Ports. Good examples of such schemes are the A63 Castle Street
in Hull and the A160 on the South Humber Bank. These schemes have
the potential to help unlock over 10,000 new jobs around the Humber.
Other schemes include Rail gauge enhancements which are essential
to link the Humber Ports to the wider strategic rail freight network
to allow them to take full advantage of their development potential
and to maximise the potential to relieve the already stressed
national highway network.
- ¾ Schemes
which address the general geographic remoteness of Hull and the
sub-region. Better inter-urban links are needed to effectively
reduce travel times/costs and to generate the agglomeration benefits
needed to stimulate the local economy. Examples of schemes which
could deliver on this challenge are improvement to the A164, A1079
and A15. Other schemes could also include the well documented
removal of the Humber Bridge debt with associated toll reduction
which was demonstrated in the Buchanan Study 2009 to have a positive
business case. Although we welcome the recent announcement of
improved services between Leeds and Manchester in the CSR we still
need improvements to passenger rail service frequencies and line
speeds between Hull and Leeds on the Trans Pennine service which
is currently woefully inadequate compared to comparable services
to other cities.
3.3 To optimise the Eddington proposals to maximise
existing infrastructure, in Hull's case this is the re-use of
Alexandra Dock for renewables which will create a quantum change
in economic benefits and employment.
4.0 How Should the Balance Between Revenue
and Capital Expenditure be Altered?
4.1 In these times of funding shortfalls we need
to make best use of existing assets wherever possible. This approach
inevitably is revenue hungry where, for example, highway maintenance
becomes a priority. There would also be little point in delivering
expensive capital schemes if insufficient revenue were then to
be available to cover running costs as is likely to be the case
with prestige public transport schemes and has historically been
the case with the Humber Bridge. On the other hand, in some cases,
early capital interventions to, for example, replace a highway
or structure could lead to overall long term savings in ongoing
maintenance expenditure. Clearly, the relationship between capital
and revenue is complex and what is perhaps required is a more
locally flexible and responsive relationship between the two rather
than the existing largely separate formulaic approach to revenue
allocation. Hopefully, this issue will be addressed by the simplification
of the transport grant system proposed by the Government and through
the recently announced Local Sustainable Transport Fund.
5.0 Are the Current Methods for Assessing
Proposed Transport Schemes Satisfactory?
5.1 We welcome the advances made in the assessment
process in recent years through the "New Approach to Appraisal"
(NATA) which goes some way to giving weightings to environmental
and wider economic benefits/costs which are notoriously difficult
to quantify. However, we would welcome further refinement to reflect
increased weightings to be attributed to schemes which help promote
the green economy or economic regeneration in especially deprived
areas.
5.2 We would also welcome any further refinement
which addressed the issue of car and heavy vehicle "values
of time" being higher than those for green modes (public
transport, cycling and walking). This has historically worked
against schemes designed to promote shift to green modes and has
given "road based solutions" an economic advantage.
We would also welcome any advance in the assessment system to
promote forward funding of essential transport investments needed
to attract major international investors.
6.0 How will Schemes be Planned in the Absence
of Regional Bodies and Following the Revocation and Abolition
of Regional Spatial Strategies?
6.1 It is anticipated that in the future new
major schemes will be generated through Local Economic Partnerships
which will be influenced and led by the Private Sector. It is
envisaged that the LEP will first agree a joint economic strategy
for a functional area. A prioritised programme of transport interventions
needed to facilitate the delivery of the economic strategy would
then follow.
6.2 There will, inevitably, still be a role for
the local authority to work outside the LEP to plan smaller more
local schemes. These schemes would be generated through the Local
Transport Plan (LTP) which we intend in the future to be more
closely aligned and coordinated with the LTP of the neighbouring
East Riding of Yorkshire Council to provide a more meaningful
response to the transport needs across the functioning Hull travel
to work area.
6.3 Some concerns do exist that on occasions
a joint response to infrastructure planning issues will be needed
at a level higher than individual LEPs and lower than the national
level. Examples where this would be sensible include involvement
with the Highways Agency and Network Rail in terms of network
and service improvement changes. To this end the Regional Development
Agencies and the Northern Way have proved useful in the past and
if groups of LEPs come together to agree wider responses it is
difficult to foresee whether they will have the dedicated resources
and expertise to take the necessary lead on the coordination of
national transport planning. This will need groups of local authorities
to create a single voice.
6.4 The potential loss of local knowledge embedded
in the local Government Office is also a cause for some concern
and it is hoped that sufficient resources will be made available
to the DFT central office to be able to respond to the needs of
local authorities and to give informed guidance on transport issues
at a local level.
October 2010
| 
