1 September 2004

Report by Norman Bradbury:

The following subjects for transport activists over the coming year were selected: climate change, promoting "smart growth" and sustainable communities and social equity.

It was agreed climate change would be taken first with the first meeting arranged for 12 October 2004 with a guest speaker. Comments would be collated by Tony Bosworth and be submitted by 1 October 2004.

A change of name from Transport Activists Round Table to Transport Round Table has been proposed. No decision was taken but those absent from the meeting would be canvassed first. It was agreed the acronym TAR should remain.

Transport 2000's Stephen Joseph circulated copies of Whitehall Update (see below). There was concern that the Department for Transport seems to focus on accessibility issues being solved by buses with little attention to rail, walking and cycling.

It looks increasingly likely that escalating road costs may result in withdrawal of some road schemes but there was concern that other budgets might be raided to keep them on course.

The draft local transport plan guidance is very weak on climate change issues and there is no provision for traffic reduction targets.

Much of the work of the Countryside Agency will pass to a new Landscape Agency,

Time savings and related economic benefits claimed for the Birmingham northern relief road are being used to justify the M6 "expressway" toll road even though it is much too soon to assess induced traffic growth, both on the existing M6 and the relief road. Denville Coombe is doing some work on this for DEFRA.

Campaigning against the Bexhill-Hastings link road is very active in the area with meetings arranged during September. Ironically, Michael Howard is due to make an environmental speech in Hastings also in September!

It was suggested the roads transport activists roundtable should widen its approach to campaigning to include issues like climate change, economic benefits claims and Road User Charging.


Stepen Joseph's News from Whitehall

This is short this time - the main decisions were announced in July, and then people have been on holiday. However, there are some things to say:

General

Shortage of transport money dominates, given continuing high cost of the railways. This is the real reason for the rejection of the light rail schemes, and should also, if we're lucky, do for some of the worst local and national road schemes.

In general the impression I have is that congestion now dominates the DfT objectives and everything else is secondary . A Treasury official said that DfT was the least responsive Government department on sustainable development ("They just don't get it") in the spending review, while climate change, despite the target, will not be taken seriously by them if they can avoid it.

As congestion is not a rural problem, rural transport gets similarly downplayed (except in relation to accessibility). The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is putting pressure on DfT on liveability, public spaces etc, in the wake of being given a new PSA target on this, on the grounds that dealing with streets/roads will be critical to achieving this PSA. This should be a useful lever for the walking and cycling groups.

Railways

It's becoming clear just how sketchy the Rail White Paper is. There are lots of unanswered questions, notably how the DfT is going to organise itself. Will there be a Strategic Rail Agency, like the Highways Agency, or if not how will rail franchising be organised?

How will the Government insulate itself from blame for every leaf on the line? Still lots of thinking being done on this. Several SRA functions - sustainable development, regional planning frameworks, strategic planning in general - have no clear destination or future.

Equally sketchy is the fate of the regional Rail Passenger Committees, on which the central Rail Passengers Council is supposed to be recommending action to Government (but on unclear criteria).

Local transport plans

Draft guidance came out in July, for comment by October (but thought to be more or less a done deal).

Good points: tough on major road scheme bids, emphasis on outcomes rather than outputs, pressure for strategic approach rather than scheme-based bidding, strong on demand management (at least in places), emphasis on accessibility and accessibility planning.

Weak points: climate change, road danger/speed management (missing almost completely), road traffic reduction, rural transport, public transport integration/networks, revenue funding, public consultation, rail (emphasis strongly on buses). Transport Innovation Fund and Community Infrastructure Fund (for the growth areas) still sketchy and to play for.

Roads

Decisions all postponed till September at the earliest. Shortage of money (see above) may fix some schemes.

Taxation

Transport Taxation Group met DfT/Inland Revenue people in August. We put pressure on for new higher VED band(s) and much bigger differentials (if they are not going to touch fuel tax), also more on workplace travel plans and separate business rate assessments for car parking (which is apparently possible under new valuation system).