Reports:
10 Year Transport Plan - second assessment report
Chapter Three: Agencies and Structures for Delivery
Delivery of the 10 Year Plan itself falls largely to the
main delivery agencies, the Highways Agency for the
strategic road network, Local Government for the
local road network, light rail and local transport and
the Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) for the heavy rail
network. The 10 Year Plan review will clearly need to
consider the relationship between these agencies as
well as the integration between transport delivery
and the emerging regional spatial strategies that are
the responsibility of the Regional Planning Bodies. It
will also need to make sure that all transport services
are delivered to meet the accessibility needs of
existing and potential travellers (including older and
disabled people) over the next 30 years.
Strategic Road Network
Improvements to the strategic road network are
being addressed through the targeted programme of
improvements as well as additional schemes arising
from the recommendations of the various multi-modal
studies. Just under half of the 10 Year Plan road
widening target (by length) is already in the Highways
Agency programme with 9% completed. The
programme also includes 11 major junction
improvement schemes from a 10 Year Plan indicative
target of 80. During 2003/04 there will be eight new
schemes starting and nine being completed.
However it is encouraging to note that as well as new
schemes, there are innovative demand management
initiatives coming on stream in the near future,
notably the first phase of active traffic management
trials (including ramp metering) due to begin in late
2004 on the M42. CfIT welcomes the introduction of
these measures, and is keen to see them rolled out
as quickly as possible to other parts of the network.
Local Government
In terms of delivery, London has been a success story,
with rising bus patronage and cycle usage as well as
the successful introduction of the world's largest
congestion charging scheme. The success of London
has been at a significant financial cost that will need
to be taken into consideration, both in developing
London's transport strategy further and in assessing
what lessons can be applied in other urban areas
more generally. In this respect, it is vital that revenue
raised from local congestion charging is hypothecated.
Both Brighton and York have also enjoyed increased
bus use. The introduction of Park and Ride services
in York has been particularly successful, contributing
significantly to an 8% fall in inbound peak hour
traffic flows. In addition, the development of a
successful Quality Bus Partnership, working with
the majority of bus operators in the city to create
a network of 10 minute frequency services on all
arterial routes, has seen a history of decline turned
into 14% growth on these routes.
In Brighton, bus patronage has increased by
approximately 50% over the last 10 years. Against
a national background of declining bus use, this
growth results from a partnership between the
city council and the major bus operator.
Elsewhere, the picture is far less conclusive. Aside
from some notable exceptions (such as Oxford and
Cambridge), bus patronage continues to decline and
in spite of substantial investment in measures for
pedestrians and cyclists, local authorities have little
confidence that this will lead to an increase in the
use of these modes. CfIT research shows that nearly
half of all local authorities are already falling behind
in delivering their Local Transport Plans. Worryingly,
over a third of authorities indicated that they used
less than 90% of their available funds for transport
for the year 2001/02.
The Commission welcomes the year-on-year increase
in funding from central government to local authorities
through the Local Transport Plan. Excluding London,
funding has more than doubled in the last three years
from £746m in 2001/01 to £1,591m in 2003/04.
In most cases, this has yet to be translated into better
delivery at the local level. CfIT's recent survey of local
authorities found that while 78% of local authority
transport heads are now happy with the level of
capital funding they receive thanks to additional
Government money, 62% are concerned that some
of the cash is being diverted to education and social
service budgets under new funding arrangements.
The appropriate balance needs to be drawn between
the need for local authorities to deliver in relation to
national targets and the desire to devolve responsibility
for target and objective setting down to the local level.
CfIT is committed to the principle that transport
funding should be tied to the delivery of successful
outcomes and in this context is concerned at the
recent Government's policy statement about new
freedoms and flexibilities for top performing local
authorities. This indicated that local authorities
classified overall as "excellent" by the Audit
Commission (although not necessarily excellent in
transport) would no longer need to prepare service
plans to meet Whitehall Department's requirements,
such as a Local Transport Plan or Annual Progress
Report. At the same time, CfIT is aware that current
processes do not always make it easy for local
authorities to implement schemes by introducing
such things as mandatory appraisal criteria for the
assessment of major schemes, which add to the local
authority burden.
CfIT view: the review of the 10 Year Plan provides
an opportunity to re-examine local transport funding
mechanisms to ensure that they allow local authorities
to plan and deliver sustainable programmes of work.
Appropriate incentives are needed to ensure that
authorities place the same importance on transport
as an area of expenditure as the Government, by
rewarding those that set (and meet) stretching targets.
Challenge for the 10 Year Plan review
How will the Government ensure that money
provided to local authorities for transport contributes
towards meeting national targets?
Rail
The 10 Year Plan forecast that rail patronage would
grow, predicated partly on network upgrading and
partly on improvements in service provision (journey
times, punctuality, reliability etc). It has become clear
since Hatfield that these improvements will take longer
and be more costly to secure. Indeed, the 2003 SRA
Strategic Plan recognised the difficulty facing the
industry in that although the target remains 50%
growth in passenger kilometres by the end of the
10 Year Plan period, the SRA's current forecast is
for something between 25-35%.
Cost escalation is a major threat to continuing
investment in the rail system. The industry will have
to look afresh at how it operates and bring costs
under control if it is to compete for public funds and
to attract private investment for improvements in
the future. Over the first three years of the SRA's
Strategic Plan, operation, maintenance and renewals
expenditure costs are expected to be £13.7bn, some
£3.7bn more than forecast by the Rail Regulator at
the last periodic review. The success of Network Rail
will be determined by how well it gets to grips with
delivering the upkeep/maintenance of the rail network
while reducing costs. The Commission is still to be
convinced that it can do this.
Despite the generally negative media coverage of the
railways, the passenger experience is more balanced.
The latest figures from the National Passenger
Survey indicate that 73% of passengers are either
satisfied or very satisfied with their rail service and
satisfaction with punctuality and reliability of
services has risen to 69% (up 5%). In terms of
redevelopment, during 2002 work was completed
information systems. The last year has also seen the
introduction of new rolling stock on the c2c London
to Southend line and on Virgin Cross Country and
West Coast Main Line services. Since the introduction
of the new trains, c2c passenger satisfaction rating
has gone up by 50% and passenger numbers on
Virgin Cross Country services have increased by 40%.
While these are welcome initiatives, service quality
overall in the rail industry is below the expectations
of the 10 Year Plan and needs (and is getting)
urgent attention from the rail industry.
Improvements such as those outlined above need
to form the basis from which the industry improves
service quality even further.
CfIT supports the SRA's and Government's current
focus on getting the existing network and services
up to scratch and in driving efficiency up and costs
down. However, in the longer term the Commission
believes that there are areas of the transport market
where rail has the advantage over other modes and
a very bright future. With this in mind it will be
examining the economic, social and environmental
case for purpose built high-speed rail lines in the
UK connecting our main cities.
Rail is particularly good at catering for high speed
inter-city travel and at delivering radial commuting
in our larger cities (particularly London). It is essential
that these services are enhanced and reinforced,
both through investment in upgraded infrastructure
and services and in their better integration into the
wider transport networks. Growth in rail patronage
will largely come about from investment in network
capacity (coupled with investment in rolling stock
and more aggressive marketing of off peak services).
Money for this investment can only come from one
of two sources; the public purse or the fare box. In
the areas where rail has an advantage as discussed
above, the rail industry will have to face the difficult
issue of what to do about rail fares.
Facilitating interchange at key nodes (with cars,
Light Rapid Transit (LRT) and bus services, cycling
and walking) has a significant role in playing to rail's
strengths and in maximising its contribution to wider
transport policies. The Merseytravel initiative to take
over management of the local rail franchises through
a 25 year £3.6bn contract is an encouraging step in
the right direction.
In other urban areas, consideration should be given
(and research undertaken as necessary) to the
conversion of the heavy rail corridors to either joint
running with LRT or for use as dedicated links in LRT
networks. The Sunderland Metro project involved the
upgrade of 14km of heavy rail infrastructure for joint
running of passenger, freight and light rail between
Newcastle and Sunderland as well as 4km of new build
light railway between Sunderland and South Hylton.
In rural areas, CfIT is encouraged by the success of
community rail partnerships (CRP) in developing
local rail services. Such initiatives need sufficient
support to assess their long-term potential in
delivering improved rural access and in dealing with
rural social exclusion. For example, passenger
ridership on the Sudbury branch, promoted by the
Essex and South Suffolk CRP, has increased by 76%
since 1995/6. On Anglia's Bittern Line, passenger
numbers have grown by 120% over the same period.
Rail freight enjoyed growth of approximately 50%
between 1994 and 2001 and were this trend to be
continued through to 2010 rail freight would achieve
growth of almost 53%. However, not only is this well
below target, but there are reasons to suggest this
trend may not continue. Growth in recent years has
been primarily in coal, with some additional growth
in construction materials. These are not the sectors
on which an 80% growth in rail freight can be based,
nor do they necessarily meet the objective of
removing freight traffic from the road system.
CfIT view: it is vital that cost escalation in the rail
industry is brought under control and that the public
receives good value for money on rail investment.
However, there are areas of the transport market
where rail has the advantage over other modes and
that there is a bright future for rail. In planning for
the longer term, the policy focus should be
concentrated in these areas.
Challenge for the 10 Year Plan review
How do we get the best from the rail network?
Government Structures
Since the ITWP was published, the responsibilities for
land use planning, transport, the environment and
local government functions have been split between
three Government departments - Department for
Transport, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
(ODPM) and Department for the Environment Food
and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). There are benefits from a
department with a clear focus on transport delivery,
but the much wider role for transport in delivering
cross-Government objectives make it important that
it avoids the narrow focus of the past, seeing itself
solely as an infrastructure provider.
The introduction to the 1998 DETR Annual Report
stated "In bringing together the former Department
of the Environment and Department of Transport we
are seeking to ensure greater coherence and a more
integrated approach to policy on the environment,
transport and regional affairs. I cannot stress how
much importance I attach to securing integration
between the policies, services and functions of the two
former Departments." The ODPM Select Committee
said in its 2002 Annual Report that since the
separation of the former DETR in 2001/02 "there
has been a loss of coherence between transport,
planning, housing, regeneration and environmental
policy". The Commission shares these concerns.
The relationship between implementation of land use
policies (particularly the location of traffic-generating
activities and services) and transport policy, needs to
be symbiotic rather than service led, as it has been in
the past and still is frequently. The transport
consequences of land use planning decisions
(and public policies) can no longer be seen as an
afterthought. This is fundamental to delivering the
White Paper objectives.
The recent White Paper on Sustainable Communities
is a clear example of a policy that can be achieved
only with the assistance of transport infrastructure
and services planned in advance (probably delivered
up front, albeit as part of a wider package of
measures); and through focusing resources on
providing sustainable access to key services within
areas of growth. This will also require assessment of
transport options against wider outcomes than has
happened in the past. The primary impact of transport
infrastructure provision and service improvement as
currently assessed is in time savings for travellers
(alongside safety benefits).
What is important, given the diverse range of
outcomes intended by the integrated transport policy,
is how these time savings are used by travellers and
what actual benefits (economic, social or
environmental) flow from such behavioural changes.
If, for example, time savings are used only to facilitate
longer journeys to carry out the same activities,
where is the added value in terms of the economy,
or for social inclusion? In fact such a response (and
there have been indications over the last few years
that this is a significant response to some improved
transport links) is likely to lead to more car
dependency and higher levels of social exclusion.
In providing for sustainable communities, the role for
transport is more about enhancing travel within the
growth areas, than travel to and from the growth
areas (although this is obviously necessary). These
requirements to a large degree are over and above
those set out in the 10 Year Plan. As a consequence,
the Commission considers that in reviewing funding
for the 10 Year Plan, the funding implications of the
various policy initiatives that have emerged since the
plan was published should be explicitly recognised.
Decision makers need to have to hand better
information about the impact of investment options
on quality of life indicators (access to essential
services for the socially excluded; health; the
proportion of trips that can be served effectively by
public transport, cycling and walking; urban renewal
and regeneration; housing densities; re-use of
brownfield land etc) as well as economic indicators.
It is pleasing, therefore, that the DfT is committed to
reviewing its appraisal criteria to ensure that the wider
outcomes of transport investment are considered.
Currently, two pieces of legislation are passing
(or have passed) through Parliament, the Planning
and Compulsory Purchase Bill and the Regional
Assemblies (Preparations) Bill (now law). The former
in particular is of direct relevance to integrated
transport. It proposes a change to the current
planning system by removing county structure plans,
leaving the Regional Spatial Strategy (including the
Regional Transport Strategy) as the only overarching
statement linking land use and transport at the
regional/sub-regional level. The Commission is
concerned at the proposed breaking of the link
between transport and land use planning, as there
is a clear need for these two planning functions to
be kept together at the strategic level. It is also
concerned about the ability of Regional Assemblies,
relating to their locus (or lack of it) as far as delivery
is concerned.
The benefits of a strong role for regional transport
planning, with sufficient leverage to ensure delivery,
are set out within CfIT's European Best Practice
Report[8]. Case studies undertaken as part of the
research showed that in Germany for example, the
Lander system has a strong influence on the quality
and co-ordination of public transport. In addition,
work undertaken for CfIT on the organisation,
planning and delivery of transport at the regional
level[9] showed that the greater emphasis on the
regional tier of government in other European
countries delivers significant benefits.
The 10 Year Plan contained a number of Public
Service Agreements (PSAs) set in the context of the
Government's spending review in 2000. These targets
set out what people could expect public services to
deliver. The current set of PSAs, revised as part of the
2002 Spending Review, relate to desired outcomes
across transport encompassing the strategic road
network, rail, local public transport, LUL, safety and
air quality. As part of the 10 Year Plan review, an
issue for Government is to what extent these have
been developed to support integration as set out in
the ITWP and whether they need to be more widely
based to deliver integration, particularly across
Departments. This will include consideration of the
extent to which these incorporate the commitment
that public spending on transport is conditional on
access for disabled people being included.
CfIT view: the creation of DETR was positive in terms
of the integration of transport, planning and land use
and was integral to the development of the ITWP and
delivery of its objectives. Since the break up of DETR,
a key component in the ability of Government to join
up its policies has been lost, and there is a danger
that individual departments may become less coordinated.
In order to address this, CfIT recommends
a review of the current departmental PSA targets, to
ensure these are sufficiently widely based to deliver
cross-cutting objectives.
A strong role for regional transport planning is
essential to bridge the gap between the national
strategic planning and delivery at the local level.
Challenge for the 10 Year Plan review
Are the existing Departmental arrangements and
PSA targets effective in ensuring that transport plays
its role in delivering the Government's cross-cutting
objectives? Are there lessons on regional structures
and functions to be learnt from Europe in delivering
integrated transport at the regional/local level?
8: European Best Practice in Delivering Integrated Transport, CfIT Nov 2001.
9: Organisation, Planning and Delivery of Transport at the Regional Level, CfIT Aug 2002.
[ Previous ] [ Contents ] [ Next ]
