Reports:
10 Year Transport Plan - second assessment report
Executive Summary
1: Introduction
2: The Importance of Transport
2.1 Our dependence on transport
2.2 The facts
2.3 Transport and quality of life
3: The Tide of Events
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Past trends
3.3 More recent events
3.4 Future trends
3.5 In summary
4: The Scorecard
5: The Role of Government
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Current transport policy
5.3 Pricing, taxes and tariffs
5.4 Development of road user charging
5.5 Institutional frameworks
5.6 Integration across departments
5.7 Progress on planning and implementation
5.8 Appraisal
5.9 Summary of the role of government
6: The Multi-Modal Studies
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Emerging issues
7: Primary Modes and Delivery Agencies
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Rail
7.3 National roads
7.4 Local measures
7.5 London
7.6 Concluding remarks
8: The Way Forward
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Delivery of integrated transport
8.3 Clarification of policy
Appendix A: Land Use and Car Dependency
Appendix B: Current Policy on Demand Restraint
Appendix C: Road User Charging
Appendix D: Appraisal
Appendix E: Multi Modal Study Progress
Appendix F: Some Local Authority Examples
|
This Report has also been made available in Adobe Acrobat format for downloading.
The Adobe® Acrobat Reader® can be freely downloaded.
Viewers with visual difficulties may find it useful to investigate services provided to improve the accessibility of Acrobat documents - www.adobe.com/accessibility/index.html
|
Executive summary
The 1998 Integrated Transport White Paper was a land-mark policy statement,
setting out a new vision for transport. The primary concerns were the detrimental
impacts of transport on the environment and the growing problems of congestion;
both could be linked to the growing and often indiscriminate use of the private car.
In future, the emphasis would be on offering choice; transport would be considered
as a whole, and sustainable solutions would be derived from a complete range of
possible options. Transport would be for everyone, improving social inclusion and
job opportunities through high quality access facilities and good information.
Improved bus and rail facilities would play a central part in meeting our future
transport needs as would walking and cycling. Carefully targeted road capacity
increases would be implemented once other options had been properly examined
and their impacts fully taken account of; the emphasis for roads would be on
improved maintenance, management and safety. Overlaying all of this would be a
closer integration of transport and land use and, critically, a review of pricing such
that individual behaviour would be based on the full weight of external costs.
In July 2000, the Government published Transport 2010; The 10 Year Plan, a route
map to take us to the vision set out in the White Paper. It demonstrated a welcome
commitment to improving all types of transport, rail and road, public and private.
Total expenditure over the period was expected to be £180 billion, including £120
billion of capital investment. To give the vision substance, targets were given for a
number of important outputs and outcomes: rail patronage was to increase by 50%,
rail freight by 80%, bus patronage by 10% and inter-urban road congestion reduced
by 5%. Public funding for transport would be conditional on provision for disabled
access.
Progress to date
Although we are just two years into the 10 Year Plan there is sufficient information
to measure progress and to discern trends. Most importantly, it is possible to take
an early view as to the likelihood of the Government's vision being attained.
We have identified twenty-five targets that are either stated or are implied within the
Plan, of these seventeen are currently being pursued successfully whilst six are
behind and for two others it is too early to tell. Clearly this is good news, and there
are positive stories in many of the delivery sectors. However, several of the targets
are simply to implement monitoring, and whilst this has been done, the results do
not necessarily show an improvement. Furthermore, not all the targets are of equal
importance, and Government has concentrated on the reduction of congestion and
pollution and increased safety.
Whilst Government has already accepted that the congestion targets will not be
reached, air quality and safety are positive results. The number of people killed
and injured on our roads continues to fall sharply; the 2002 figures illustrate that
numbers are 17% below the 94-98 average base line compared to the 40%
reduction target by 2010. Air quality has improved nationally, giving the second
lowest level of pollutants in 15 years; but in the urban centres significant numbers
of people remain exposed to pollutants from road transport.
Whilst it is pleasing to see the positive results, it is also important to look beyond
the headline figures with some degree of disaggregation in order to appreciate
whether the improvements can be sustained. When this is done, and the issues
that determine congestion are examined, a less positive prognosis emerges.
- Road traffic levels have continued to grow, and at an increasing rate in the
last two years; contrasting with a reducing rate of growth between 1996
and 2000.
- Rail patronage continues to increase slowly. The unacceptably high cost
base of the rail sector limits the scope for large infrastructure investment
schemes to increase capacity. However, we understand that analysis of
capacity utilisation has identified a number of lower cost opportunities to
increase capacity.
- Similarly, rail freight growth has been limited in recent years. Freight
facilities grants were suspended for a period due to funding constraints but
have now resumed. Major gauge upgrades to ease the passage of modern
containers north from Felixstowe and Southampton have been deferred
pending additional funding, although Felixstowe to Nuneaton via London is
progressing.
- Local authorities are falling short of spending their transport allocations due
to skill shortages and local pressures from other sectors on the Single
Capital Pot and are therefore making varied degrees of progress.
- Whilst there are good examples of local authorities implementing Bus
Quality Partnerships, this is not as yet on a sufficient scale to make a major
impact on regional or national conditions.
- Whilst bus patronage has increased overall, that increase is dominated by
the contribution of London and a few other areas; patronage continues to
fall in many areas.
- London has made significant progress, against media expectations,
through congestion charging, the expansion of bus services and the
provision of new buses, and has achieved a significant increase in cycling.
However, there will be high costs, and long timescales, associated with
improving underground reliability and increasing capacity on services.
Thameslink 2000 has been delayed, which will have a significant effect on
the SRA's ability to reduce overcrowding in the corridor, and will impact on
the achievement of employment growth in the Mayor's Plan for London. A
decision on Crossrail is expected in the near future.
- Government continues to expand the roads programme. In December
2002, 10 new schemes were added to the targeted programme of
improvements and announcements made about widening schemes for the
M1 in the East Midlands and M6 between Birmingham and Manchester. A
further 4 new schemes, valued at £677m, were announced in April 2003.
Whilst both announcements were accompanied by a list of local public
transport schemes and other measures, in the majority of cases these were
distinct from the road schemes rather than part of an integrated solution.
In December the Government published its own self assessment, Delivering Better
Transport. Whilst illustrating that initiatives were being taken across the field, it
stated that for various reasons, the outturn of its Plan is likely to result in an 11 to
20% increase in congestion on all roads by 2010 (compared to an increase of 27 to
32% without the Plan) rather than the reduction targeted in the 10YP.
In January 2003, the SRA stated that it thought a 25 - 35% increase in rail
passenger usage would be achievable by 2011, rather than the 50% increase
proposed in the Plan. The latest changes to rail fares policy, announced in June
2003, appear to be a delicate balance between raising more revenues for the
industry and pricing off excess demand. On the face of it, the changes might be
expected to inhibit growth in passenger usage. However, the application of the
additional revenues to improve services, and the possible introduction of a national
rail discount card may counter the direct effects of the increased fares, encouraging
greater use of spare off-peak capacity.
Whilst a slippage in the attainment of goals is regrettable, and the need for
additions to the roads programme is recognised, there is concern that major
highway improvements are being pursued in advance of other initiatives and
policies that will protect the additional capacity. It is all too evident from past
trends, and from the work of the multi-modal studies, that major highway
improvements on their own will not solve the problems of congestion on the UK
highway network. As the ITWP set out, an integrated package is needed.
The missing links
Indeed, within the transportation profession, and the country at large, there is
growing doubt about the Government's commitment to all aspects of an integrated
transport agenda. In particular, Government policy on how it plans to reduce the
growth in traffic has, until the last few weeks, seemed less than clear. The
concern that there would be a potential policy vacuum within which the delivery
agencies are required to develop and implement schemes has been relieved to
some degree by the Secretary of State's intention to examine a national charging
system.
Prior to these very recent pronouncements there was, evidenced through the lack
of support from Government for the London charging scheme, a lack of
commitment to the issue of demand restraint. Indeed, the announcement of a large
programme of road schemes emanating from the multi-modal studies, with little
reference to the supporting public transport schemes or demand restraint
measures, had reinforced this view. Decisions on the remaining Multi-Modal Study
recommendations are awaited with interest heightened by the renewed debate on
charging.
Nor is it clear whether the various Government Departments are delivering the
'joined-up' thinking which was such a strong part of the White Paper. This interdepartmental
integration is important in reducing the need to travel and facilitating
the use of public transport rather than increasing car dependence as a result of
'centralisation' on out of town sites. Health and Education authorities and the
planners of local authority leisure facilities do not appear to be giving adequate
thought to the transport implications of their actions when they develop new
centralised facilities, often out of town and usually in the name of internal efficiency.
Transport professionals have all too often left to pick up the pieces of decisions
taken in other sectors that appear to be taken without due regard to the
consequences for access by public transport.
The latest report from the government's social exclusion unit identifies this lack of
integration across government departments as an issue and proposes measures to
tackle the problems. Clearly, this is a positive and welcome step, and it should be
recognised that such integration will provide benefits to many parts of the
population, not just the socially excluded.
The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recently announced its Sustainable
Communities Plan, containing proposals for four major new growth areas in the
South East. The plan states that the supporting infrastructure will be considered as
part of the review of the 10YP. However, the transport minister has informed the
select committee that there would be no special funding for the growth areas. This
evidence of a lack of integration, particularly in relation to a plan for sustainable
communities, is a clear indication that practice has not kept pace with intention.
At the local level, Local Transport Plans and Annual Progress Reports were
introduced as the means of delivering coherent transport plans and progress.
Some authorities have made good progress in delivering packages of integrated
schemes and policies which have had an impact on behaviour. There is evidence
that relatively small scale schemes implemented as part of a package can be very
effective. In this context, the abandonment of the requirement for LTPs for local
authorities rated 'excellent' appears, in current circumstances, to be a retrograde
step; particularly when the assessment of the quality of the authority is not based
on performance on transport issues.
Where do we go from here?
Government's efforts to progress with schemes to cut congestion and the HA's
achievements in terms of delivery are praiseworthy. However, the Government's
Progress Review has confirmed that congestion will get worse before it will get
better. This is a result of the lack of restraint on traffic growth, and the
consequential lack of behavioural change. Without effective restraint it is not clear
how the behavioural change, the need for which was so strongly argued in the
1998 White Paper, is to be accomplished.
We are left with the conclusion that, if transport is to play its part in delivering the
quality of life that the country needs and deserves for the 21st century, then
integrated transport, incorporating behavioural change and demand restraint, as
well as infrastructure provision, is the essential way forward.
To achieve this we believe that government must:
- confirm its commitment to integrated transport, outline what that will
comprise and reassess intermediate and final targets for both outputs and
outcomes;
- clarify its policies with regard to traffic reduction to ensure that they are
aligned with other policies emanating from the White Paper;
- embark upon a thorough investigation of the benefits, drawbacks,
practicality and acceptability of a nationwide system of road user charging,
and take on the role of persuading other political parties and the public of
the need for such a system;
- demonstrate the essential 'joined up thinking' between Government
departments that has been emphasised by the recent report from the
Social Exclusion Unit;
- work to ensure coordination between delivery agencies such that solutions
may be implemented in an integrated fashion; and
- commit to funding the longer term programme.
[ Previous ] [ Contents ] [ Next ]
Return to: 10 Year Transport Plan - second assessment report index
