7 December 2010
Greater clarity was needed in the Government’s transport strategy, and greater investment in its appraisal tools to ensure that the most cost-effective schemes were supported, MPs heard today.
The aviation industry raised particular concerns that they were being demonised by the Government on environment issues, despite offering services that no other sector could provide.
As part of their inquiry into Transport and the Economy, the Transport Select Committee heard evidence from:
· Simon Buck, Chief Executive, British Air Transport Association,
· Michael Roberts, Chief Executive, Association of Train Operating Companies,
· Richard Bird, Executive Director, UK Major Ports Group and
· Nick Gazzard, Member of CILT Public Policies Committee, Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport.
Opening the session, Committee Chair, Louise Ellman, wondered what the highest transport priorities were for the witnesses. Highlighting the three priorities in the Eddington report, Michael Roberts, said that the existing network must be maintained at a high level of quality, and then enhanced to cope with the expected doubling in demand for rail travel.
Aviation Policy
The Government presently lacked a proper aviation policy, Simon Buck told the Committee, warning that this would not be developed for another two years yet. 75% of tourists arrived by air, he continued, highlighting the need for increased air capacity. Moreover, it was time for the Government to change its perceptions to aviation growth and their assumption that increased air travel was bad.
Domestic aviation could not be substituted with another form of transport, Mr Buck argued. He called on the Government for a proper aviation policy, one which recognised the importance of aviation development, particularly in the South East. He felt current thinking was too narrowly focused. Regional airports had a vital role to play, Mr Buck continued. He noted that they had not been invited by the Government to contribute on their plans for the South East.
Rail expansion and high-speed rail
Turning to rail expansion, Mr Roberts noted that passenger journeys had grown by 60% in the past 20 years, and it was expected rail travel would double in coming years. There had been continual rail growth throughout the recession, he told the Committee, arguing that this demonstrated how strong the rail sector was. The recent increase in regulated fares might have some effect, but the net effect was still that rail journeys would increase, he told the Committee.
Liberal Democrat MP, John Leech, felt that rail had done well out of the spending review. He wondered if these resources should be prioritised on high-speed rail (HSR).
The first priority was to improve the existing network, Mr Roberts replied, welcoming the shift to increased spending on rail enhancements. Treating the new high-speed rails as new lines was a false concept, he claimed, explaining that high-speed was about providing capacity to relieve the existing network.
Pressed on the timetable for delivering high-speed rail, Mr Roberts felt the timescale was satisfactory but wondered if the planning system had the capacity to deliver. The affordability of developing high-speed rail would depend on the public sector’s willingness to maintain investment in the network, an assumption which could not be taken for granted, he said. The industry had to improve value for money if rail investment was to be maintained, be this in high-speed rail or normal services.
Mr Bird felt the development of High Speed Rail 2 in response to increasing demand, and in light of the strong international push, was a reasonable response. There were, however, ongoing concerns about whether this was the best allocation of resources, he added.
Transport Planning
Conservative MP, Iain Stewart, wondered how coordinated the Government’s plans were.
Transport planning was improving and the national policy statement for ports, road and rail should help with this process, Mr Bird responded. Network Rail was responsible for reviewing the impact of rail freight on passenger services, he said, adding that they were taking this issue seriously.
Turning to the issue of competition between rail and domestic air travel, raised by Conservative MP Steve Baker, Mr Buck noted that 75 % of routes went over water meaning they could not be replaced by rail. He felt it important to offer the public choice and thought it illogical that the majority of UK emissions were from road traffic yet it was aviation that was seen as responsible for pollution. The aviation passenger tax had a distorting effect, he felt.
Conservative MP Paul Maynard questioned the witnesses on their comments on ‘politically attractive transport schemes’.
The Department for Transport had a well developed appraisal tool, Mr Bird told the Committee. He commended the Transport Secretary’s announcement to revise it further in light of concerns on carbon emissions and international travel. A greater focus on economic objective appraisals would be of overall benefit to the sector, he concluded.
Mr Buck expressed surprise that Heathrow would not be linked to high-speed rail and that there were plans to downgrade links between Victoria Rail Station and Gatwick Airport. This reduced ease and choice in transport, he lamented.
John Leech MP suggested a more strategic approach by Government to help expand ports around the UK.
Turning to regional airports and integrated transport networks, Mr Buck agreed that a properly integrated system was attractive for businesses and regional economies. It might relieve some pressure from the south east and Heathrow to some extent, however, many people travelled to the south east because this was where they lived or wanted to visit, he commented, stating that regional air would not replace all demand in the South East.
Mr Baker wondered if it was possible to perform objective rational economic calculations in the current climate.
More should be invested in research in order to develop accurate assessment models for transport, Mr Gazzard argued. Smaller projects were easy to assess, however, it was difficult to appreciate the wider impacts of larger projects and at present not enough was being spent on this area, he noted. It would then also be possible to assess the cost of funding multiple projects in a more joined up way, he added.
He warned that too great a focus on localism would undermine the effectiveness of some projects and would see Local Enterprise Partnerships vying for similar projects. Again greater research would help in this regard, he suggested.
Highlighting the Eddington report and its ‘cool’ response to high-speed rail (HSR), Mr Roberts questioned the three political parties’ support for HSR. The report had also supported road pricing and warned that the planning system had to be reformed, yet the Government was avoiding road pricing and had created a great deal of uncertainty in the planning system with their recent reforms, he noted. He suggested the Government restate its transport strategy next year to make it clear what their focus was.
Sourced from Dehavilland: www1.Dehavilland.co.uk