Transport
Transport investment should be targeted towards tackling congestion hotspots and public transport bottlenecks in city regions, such as congestion on the Oxford Road into Manchester city centre, to connect people with jobs.
Devolving funding to city-regions, under a visible and accountable Metro Mayor, would help ensure transport budgets are spent where they will have the biggest and best impact on local economies.
Given the vulnerability of transport funding in the expected post-2011 public spending squeeze, a national road pricing scheme on the country’s motorways and major A-roads could be introduced to maintain transport investment.
Reactions
Stephen Hammond MP
David Howarth MP
Peter Hendy, Transport for London
“The Mayor of London recently said ‘we can all think of small cities that are lovely to live in – tranquil and green and blessed with efficient public transport. And then we can think of big cities that are global economic powerhouses – teeming with the noise , energy and ambition of millions of people. I want London to have the best of both worlds.’
So our plans for the future seek to make London a place that brims with opportunity, and talent and economic activity of all kinds. Investing in its transport infrastructure is key to this success, not only investment in essential large public transport infrastructure schemes but also in more modest proposals to improve the urban realm and encourage more walking and cycling. Whatever the current economic difficulties, investing in our cities is crucial for our future prosperity.”
Norman Baker MP
Steve Norris
David Begg, Editor, Transport Times
“I have argued for some time that road user charging, a political hot potato, will come back on the agenda. The country is broke and charging is a potential source of revenue that could help maintain transport spending.”
Have Your Say
Comment on this manifesto
High speed rail or local connections - what's more important?
Share with colleagues
Download this manifesto
Tell us what you think
4 Responses to “Transport”
Leave a Reply
Key Facts
Congestion carries a huge economic cost to the UK- between £10 billion and £20 billion a year. Costs range from an estimated £1.2bn in Central London to £70million in Cambridgeshire
Congestion increased between 1999 and 2006 in four out of the 6 major English urban areas outside London. The ‘per kilometre’ use of Britain’s roads is double the European average.
A national road pricing scheme would yield around £20 billion a year after administration costs. This would amount to almost double the amount of money currently invested in transport infrastructure.
Public transport is a poor relation in the major city-regions outside London. Bus trips per person have declined by over 25% in Tyne and Wear and almost 20% in Merseyside over the ten years to 2008, while they’ve risen by over 50% in London.
Investment in urban transport networks delivers £3 of benefits for every £1 of public money invested. Small scale investments, such as improving a busy junction, can produce benefits in excess of £10 for every £1 spent – while integrated tickets and information integration also deliver benefits of over five times the cost.
Join us at party conferences to debate our policy recommendations. We’ll be part of the Urban Hub at Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem conferences, including a series of fringe panel events on City Transport – further details at http://www.urban-hub.org
Comment by Centre for Cities, September 16, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
Northern Rail is the largest franchise, and covers all of the northern conurbations yet has received no new diesel trains and not a single mile of new track or electrification since 1997, indeed we have had our trains swapped for the boneshaking and unsafe Pacers which were built for rural lines in Wales and the west. Things were little better before 1997 so a return to Conservative government can be hardly likley to signify change. This means in practice that standing on trains is less of a concern as we cannot even get on them leaving Manchester and Salford. So we are forced to pay 65p a mile to drive to work (AA) when people in London have entirely new, safe and comfortable trains and lines which cost a fraction of this to use. Is it any surprise that the northern economies lag so much behind London? You are right to cite Oxford Road, which is a disgrace, with many superannuated, polluting buses thundering along in competion with each other, when the traffic could be so much better handled by a high capacity continental style tramway.
Comment by Dr Jim Ford, September 18, 2009 @ 11:40 pm
I feel that congestion charging and road pricing as your main policy is a bit lame. Puts all the focus on cars and managing cars. We know that such scheme have limited long term effect and not sufficient revenues to really make a difference. They cost a lot upfront. In recession-hit urban Britain there is a great opportunity to really promote Travel Choice / sustainable travel, i.e. a fresh approach to bus-based public transport with adoption of carbon and pollution efficient vehicles, reconfiguration of routing, new ticketing systems (in Paris 50% of a travel card is a mandatory benefit, which is not compensated by cash equivalent if you do not take it up – this makes an enormous difference). Moreover, your manifesto should promote investment in engendering a culture of walking and cycling.
I agree that under a broader agenda of supporting cities and towns during recession large scale, capital hungry schemes should not be centre stage. However, think at the time lag between when Crossrail was first conceived and the day the first passenger will board. Strategic high volume public transport should be investigated now and firmly associated with the growth/ regeneration agenda.
Comment by Martina Juvara, Colin Buchanan - Urban Design October 16, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
The trouble about trying to cure congestion by improving roads is that unless you ‘lock in’ the improvements by charging, the generated traffic washes away all your efforts (the ‘free ice-cream on a hot day effect’). If, however you charge according to congestion caused, people and businesses will relocate to avoid your charges by moving out of congested areas (ie cities and towns). This has the perverse effect of creating even more congestion as more travel demand is generated, and less of it is capable of being served by public transport. It also undermines the capacity of cities to offer agglomeration benefits.
There is no solution to this conundrum within the field of transport alone: the main driver of increasing transport demand is locational choice, and transport is only one component of this. If you are really bothered about congestion, urban regeneration allied to radical public transport improvement is likely to be more effective than the kinds of road improvements advocated by Eddington (and Dermot Finch) and supported by current appraisal methodologies.
The money needed to finance this, to act as a restraint on traffic growth, to tackle carbon emissions and to deliver a local income source could be raised by a supplementary ‘Green’ tax on fuel (much easier and cheaper to collect than congestion charge, and less politically explosive than a conventional fuel tax increase). If this was earmarked for relevant local uses it could finance the kind of joined-up action needed and give the rhetoric about devolution a much-needed element of reality.
The rate could be set nationally, to avoid border-hopping, or regionally to reflect different problems and needs – eg a higher rate in the SE, reflecting its greater needs and ability to pay (and perhaps influencing future locational choices)
Comment by Alan Wenban-Smith, Urban & Regional Policy November 16, 2009 @ 5:05 pm