Loading...
 

Norman's Notes

Norman Bradbury's news and comment

Transport activists roundtable meetings

REGIONAL transport activists roundtable 4/9/07

Dr Mike Mitchell, head of the rail group at the Department for Transport has invited NGOs to comment on the Rail White Paper.

Transport activists believe there is too much stress on economic issues rather than the environment.

The DfT has invited 10 environmental groups to a seminar on transport and the environment but Railfuture and CTC are not included.

There is growing interest in congestion charging. Even Manhattan is interested and there is evidence that fears of work place parking charges having a detrimental effect on business are unfounded.

The cost of the Bexhill-Hastings relief road has gone up to £98million from the original estimate of £47million. Including the cost of a link road to a new development, the total cost is now £114million.

CORE transport activists roundtable 12/9/07

Transport 2000 has rebranded itself the Campaign for Better Transport. The DfT Transport & Environment seminar with Ruth Kelly discussed biofuels and the European Trading Scheme for aviation. The DfT is taking responses to the Eddington and Stern reviews seriously and seems to be accepting that dealing with transport and environmental issues may not be so costly as had been supposed.

An activists group met Graham Pendlebury, the DfT official responsible for environmental and international affairs.

Phase 2 of Dr Jillian Anable's paper will soon be published. It counteracts the view expressed by Stern that tackling transport’ s contribution to climate change is too difficult to tackle.

CBT are again hosting Climate Clinics at party political conferences. They will focus on bringing road and air costs in line with bus and rail, improving rail and bus links and establishing a carbon reduction fund.

Appraisal of road and rail schemes unfair: TAR groups have met with the Government and stressed that rail and bus schemes will always take second place to road schemes due to the way economic benefits are measured and the lack of social and environmental values.

The aviation tourism deficit is now estimated to be £l7billion a year. CBT have launched a new website at Better Transport.org.uk which will include transport statistics.

Transport taxation group 14/9/07

A study by Keith Buchan has found that since 1983, average lorry payloads have fallen from 14•1 tonnes to l1.75 tonnes while lorry weights increased.

30% of Heathrow passengers are on transfer flights. Aviation forecasts are based on oil prices falling to 42 dollars a barrel. The DfT now prices a tonne of C02 at £84 but Stern indicates the true cost is £280 per tonne.

Norman Bradbury 18/9/07


No title specified

CORE Transport Activists Roundtable 25 April 2007

Submissions to the Draft Climate Change Bill should be sent in by 12 June 2007. The Bill seeks to achieve cuts in carbon dioxide sufficient to limit climate change to no more than +2 degrees centigrade and to ensure that governments stick to the plan.

A 60% cut by 2030 is not going to be enough and it is felt the Bill should be more ambitious. Cuts will have 5 yearly budgets but there could be problems if there is a change of government and the previous administration had failed to achieve their budget objectives.

It is thought that an independent study should decide what the target reductions should be for each period. The Bill targets are —3% year on year and the Bill is supported by 200 Labour MPs.

This target is considered to be inadequate, especially as it does not include international aviation and shipping. However, the Bill says there needs to be an international accounting system to include aviation and shipping.

Submissions should be sent to DEFRA and should focus on raising target reductions and the inclusion of aviation and shipping.

Dr Jillian Anable is to be asked to develop her paper on Transport and Climate Change but will need funding to do this.

ROAD PRICING: The RAC has suggested a voluntary pilot scheme, similar to the Norwich Union Pay As You Go insurance scheme. This could be set up in such a way that volunteers would get fuel duty rebates to compensate for road charges.

It has been suggested that in-car speed limiters could be more acceptable to public opinion than road charging.


Transport Activists Group meeting with Sir Rod Eddington 11 April 2007

There were seven TAR members in attendance and Sir Rod was accompanied by four DfT officials from his team. r

The agenda items we wished to discuss were:—
1) Climate change
2) Monetising environmental impacts
3) Land use planning
4) Small schemes
5) Key inter urban corridors - road and rail
6) International Gateways and tourism.
7) Major infrastructure projects and Planning

Much of the time was spent discussing planning issues and the difficulties of monetising environmental and other impacts such as landscapes. We expressed concern for the proposed “Presumption in favour” for major projects.

We made the point that the claimed economic benefits for international gateways had not taken account of the negative impacts of tourism.

On rail, Sir Rod acknowledged the importance of rail to the economies of major cities, particularly London, but he seemed less enthusiastic about rail’s role for long distance inter-city routes where there were existing road and air links. He agreed it was unclear what effect road charging would have on rail demand.

We agreed that Maglev should not be regarded as a practical inter-city mode as it lacked the ability to connect into existing rail networks whereas high speed rail routes could do so.

We also made the point that high-speed rail had achieved significant modal switch from air, with 71% market share between London and Paris for example, and could reduce the need for short haul flights.

Sir Rod said that when he referred to high-speed rail he included Maglev. He also said that, although he came from an aviation background, he had tried to be modally agnostic and he was quite happy for rail to take market share from air. It was clear that he regarded rail costs as the chief barrier to investment, saying that “you could never reopen closed rail routes for example

We challenged this view, mentioning the likely reopening of the East—West route between Oxford and Milton Keynes and the obstacle to further progress to the East with the approval for a boating lake across the track bed.

We mentioned that the primary objective of a new North—South high-speed route was to create more capacity on the existing network for regional passenger services and freight, which we did not think he had given sufficient attention. He took exception to this, pointing out the number of rail served ports etc they had visited.

Sir Rod did concede that, compared to roads, rail had a number of benefits including environmental, safety and land use. This was considered to have been a useful meeting and his team seemed interested to hear our comments.


Core transport activists roundtable 7 March 2007

ROAD CHARGING: There is still no clear plan as to how road charging would be implemented on a national basis or when. Chris Grayling has said the Conservatives would scrap plans for a national scheme.

Revenue neutrality could be achieved by paying back revenue by reducing other taxes. Polls have shown that if revenue from road charging is used for public transport improvements, a majority are in favour of it.

It has been suggested that the best way to put the case for road charging is to demonstrate what would be likely to happen without it. Work place parking charges, as proposed in Nottingham, could be an alternative to road charging along with other measures like traffic calming.

CLIMATE CHANGE: A paper by Dr Gillian Anable deals with the Government’s defeatist attitude to dealing with transport’s contribution to climate change and its misguided faith in technological solutions that will remove the need for behavioural change which climate experts say will be required if carbon dioxide reduction targets are to be met.

There will be a Sustainable Communities Bill rally on Monday 26 March 2007 at Methodist Central Hall, Westminster. Concerns include closures of Post Offices and local shops.

Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander is holding a number of rail summits that are designed to focus on the rail White Paper.

The DfT is to be reorganised thus:— City and Regional Networks (including road charging), Rail and National Networks, International Networks and Environment, Safety and Logistics and Corporate Resources.


Regional transport activists roundtable 20 February 2007

Road User Charging: It has been noted that several proposals for road charging schemes are being promoted to fund road building projects. There seems to be little evidence of road charging being used to fund public transport schemes except in Manchester, Nottingham and the West Midlands.

There is a consensus that public transport improvements should proceed ahead of, or simultaneously with introduction of road charging and that revenue from charges should be used to fund public transport. Opposition to road charging is largely based on fear of surveillance but the mobile phone already identifies people’s movements.

The Highways Agency appear to be sympathetic to introduction of road charging.

Rail Franchising: DfT Rail proposals for the new East Midlands franchise services are giving cause for concern. Splitting and joining Nottingham-Corby trains at Kettering will reduce capacity and lengthen journey times for London to Nottingham passengers. Market Harborough would see its train service cut by 50%. Through journeys between the East & West Midlands will be made more difficult by the need to change trains.

84 Tonne Lorries: The DfT is currently studying proposals for 60/84 tonne lorries but an Early Day Motion (EDM73O) has been lodged by Kelvin Hopkins

Buses White Paper: There is a lack of reference to Bus Users UK views or involvement with the consultation. There is still little prospect of bus-rail integration except in conurbations where some form of bus regulation might be re-introduced.

The use of hard shoulders on the M42 is to be introduced but will coincide with speed reductions.

Road Schemes: The M6 widening has been costed at £29billion for about 51 miles of road. This equates to about £28.5million per lane mile. The scheme to dual the A3 at Hindhead is estimated to cost £371million for little more than four miles of road (1.2 miles in tunnel).

Road lobby carries on polluting

A joint letter is being prepared by transport activists about issues of concern related to the Barker and Eddington reviews and proposals for a Planning Commission.

According to Rebecca Lush of Road Block, there is a lot of worrying details in the Eddington review.

An electronic petition containing 90,000 signatures in opposition to road pricing has gone to the PM. There is concern that the public have been misinformed by the media about road pricing and the potential benefits. Transport activists believe it is best not to launch a pro-road pricing campaign at this stage but to build up a case for it over time. Transport 2000 will be addressing this through the regional Growing the Railways campaign meetings.

A bank that has closed in Leicestershire has been calculated to have caused some 1.4million extra car miles per year. In Surrey people are signing a petition objecting to proposed closures of accident and emergency wards at a number major hospitals in the county. More motoring miles will result from the closures

Caroline Watson of the Environment Agency knows all about the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation which starts in April 2008. This will require 2% by volume of fuel to be sourced from biofuel and will rise to 5% by 2010/11.

However, there is concern that at present there is no standard related to the quality or source of such fuel. The Environment Agency is working on guidance for biofuel quality standards. Sugar Beat, for example, offers almost no carbon savings at all.

Under current rules, only the large oil producers like Shell and BP will be incentivised to use biofuels but small companies like Fina will be under no obligation at all. The process of refining biofuels from crops, whether or not natural gas has been used in the process, determines the level of carbon savings, as does the transportation of it. The UK is the first country to implement use of biofuels in this way which is only a first stage.

There is concern that carbon trading would provide few benefits. It can be seen as nothing more than a diversion that would do little more than shift emissions from one source to another. Friends of the Earth are doing some work on this.

Transport activists will be meeting the Department for Transport to discuss the Rail White Paper.

Norman Bradbury 20/01/07

Core Transport Activists Roundtable 13 December 2006

There was much discussion about the Eddington and Kate Barker reviews.

The Eddington review was thought to be generally disappointing with little that was not already well-known and understood. Essentially, the message seemed to be to make more use of what you already have, road charging was a good idea but some road building and airport expansion should go ahead.

There was little mention of modal switch to combat global warming or the need for land use planning to reduce the need for travel. High-speed rail was down played as largely unnecessary as there were already high-speed links by air from London to Scotland.

The Barker review was considered to be dangerous, particularly from an environmental, traffic generation and social inclusion viewpoint. More out-of-town development should be given the green light and building on green field land approved. Planning procedures should be simplified to speed approval for schemes that provided an economic benefit, as she sees it.

Hugh Ellis will prepare a joint letter from Friends of the Earth concerning the planning issues contained in the Eddington and Barker reviews. It is thought that a number of Department for Transport officials are privately very concerned about the Barker review and its negative effects related to traffic generation and damage to town centres.

Concern is again growing about funding for regional TAR groups. It was suggested the Department for Transport might be approached for Regional TAR work funding and a national event involving all organisations involved with TAR.

Transport Taxation Group 7 December 2006

There was some discussion about Chancellor Gordon Brown’s pre-Budget statement. It was noted that while airport duty had been doubled, aviation zero rating for VAT is now worth a net benefit to the UK aviation industry worth £2billion a year.

It was agreed a joint letter would be sent to the Treasury responding to Mr Brown's statement including reference to the gross distortions arising from the inclusion of revenue from road fuel tax related to transport schemes.

Note from Norman Bradbury to Rail Minister Tom Harris after a meeting with Railf


Dear Mr Harris
1) Bridge Strengthening:

Thank you for your letter of 2nd November ref. TH/024715/06 and for your reply to Paul Burstow MP concerning this topic.

I was aware that the costs of work in connection with bridge strengthening was shared between local authorities and Network Rail but going from reports in the transport press, there does not appear to be a standard contribution from either party with Network Rail being reported to have paid the lion’s share of the costs in some cases.

I am therefore surprised to find that there is no obligation upon Network Rail to provide funds other than to maintain road bridges to be able to carry 24 tons.

This poses a question related to the lack of a level playing field for road and rail funding. Why should the rail industry still be required to maintain public road bridges to any standard when this should logically be the sole responsibility of highway authorities and similarly, why should the railways be burdened with the full cost of operating and maintaining level crossings for the safety and benefit of road users as well as measures to protect rail users from a growing number of irresponsible road users?

2) Closure Procedures:

My main reason for writing on this occasion is to express our deep concern about measures contained in the Railways Act 2005 Provisions for Closures and Minor Modifications.

In March 2006, on behalf of Railfuture, I submitted a response to the consultation on these provisions drawing attention to a number of concerns which I am aware are shared with a large number of stakeholders including Passenger Focus. A copy of our submission can be made available if you wish to see it.

Now that the DfT has completed its deliberations over this consultation, it would seem that only one concession to objections has been made which now places greater responsibility for closure decisions upon the Office for Rail Regulation but with the proviso that non-quantifiable benefits must also be considered.

However, the guidance still specifies the catchment area from a station as 800 metres from non car owning households in urban areas. This is inadequate as there is ample evidence of rail users walking a mile or more to a station.

Annex D still reaches the wrong conclusion in deciding that Option 3 (station closures and reduced service) would be the preferred choice due to a number of incorrect assumptions used in the modelling.

For example: Option 4: Strangely, the guidance claims there is no evidence to show that Community Rail Partnerships have increased passenger numbers but assumes there would have been some cost reductions.

In reality, precisely the opposite has happened with some quite dramatic passenger growth on CRP lines including 192% on Norwich- Sheringham and 170% on Oxted- Uckfield services. The Association of Community Rail Partnerships has well-documented evidence of CRP performance throughout the country which could have been provided had the DfT enquired.

On the other hand, costs have not yet been reduced simply because maintenance procedures more appropriate for lightly used routes have not been implemented to date.

It is clear that Option 4 would have been the preferred choice had this information been used.

Option 2: (Route closure and bus replacement) The guidance suggests that only two single-deck buses costing £197,000 at 2004-05 prices would be required to replace an hourly train service. It also wrongly assumes the bus would take 57 minutes to complete a 47 minute journey by rail when in reality it would be more likely to take 65 to 70 minutes.

In any case, a three-minute turnback period would be insufficient to allow for out of course delays and natural breaks for on-board staff and therefore three buses would be required to provide an hourly service.

Furthermore, the guidance fails to note that the service life of buses is less than half that of trains on average and therefore six buses would be required to replace two trains over their service life.

The guidance also overlooks the quite significant additional road maintenance costs that would be caused by modal shift to the car and particularly buses.

These factors would significantly affect the BCR for Option 2 and put it even lower down the pecking order.

Given that past studies have shown that only about one third of rail passengers would switch to replacement bus services while most would switch to the car, thereby increasing road congestion, pollution and accident risk, it is perhaps surprising that Option 2 was considered at all except to show that it would perform poorly.

The guidance acknowledges the importance of mothballing closed rail routes but also says the value of land for alternative uses should be considered. Such value is at best speculative.

Most outrageously from an environmental view point, the guidance states that where a long-distance rail service is affected by a closure, aviation can be considered a suitable alternative. This suggestion almost beggars belief.

The condition that closures may be considered where the BCR for retaining a service falls below 1:5 remains in the guidance in spite of calls for the BCR to be reduced to 1:1 since any figure above this would imply that a quantifiable benefit exists.

Furthermore, the inclusion of the value of fuel tax revenue generated by a rail closure will create conflicting interests. For example, if the Chancellor were to restore the fuel tax escalator in order to cut carbon emissions, a fresh wave of rail closures would become attractive to the Treasury which would in turn produce a negative environmental impact.

Turning this on its head, given that aviation fuel is tax free, there must be a strong case for replacing air travel with more rail services rather than less of them, but this strangely does not seem to be on the Government’s balance sheet.

We believe that the purpose of this guidance was intended to make rail closure proposals more transparent and fair but judging from the anomalies identified above, it would seem that it has also been designed to make closure proposals easier to justify and implement.

Given the apparent disregard for the views of consultees, one feels obliged to query the purpose of this consultation.

Finally, we also note with dismay that, in spite of a large number of objections, the DfT is to press ahead with its proposed cuts to Cross Country services from the North West to the South coast and South West.

At our meeting in October, you asked if we thought the Government was trying to lose an election? In view of the foregoing, we feel increasingly that we could be forgiven for thinking the answer is yes.

With this in mind, we would ask for a further meeting with you to discuss these concerns at the earliest opportunity in the new year.

I look forward to your reply

Writing on behalf of Mike Crowhurst, Railfuture national chairman


Yours sincerely


Norman Bradbury


Secretary, Policy Lobby & Campaigns Committee

TRANSPORT TAXATION GROUP 29 September 2006

On behalf of the group, Stephen Joseph had written to Chancellor Gordon Brown on issues related to the pre- Budget report.

It was suggested rail fuel should be separated from red diesel fuel so that increases in duty did not impact on rail costs and that incentives needed to help the industry to switch to low sulphur diesel should be introduced. The Treasury is now looking at rail fuel duty and talking to the industry.

Aviation issues were discussed and the difficulties of imposing taxation without European Union and international agreement were significant. VAT on air fares, for example, would be difficult to apply since not all flights were over UK air space.

Air passenger duty is the only measure presently available but Gordon Brown froze this in his last Budget. Meanwhile, Britain has been urged to put pressure on the EU to look at VAT on air fares.

It was also pointed out that because aviation is zero-rated rather than exempt, the industry is able to reclaim VAT on purchases which now amounts to £1.8billion per year of tax lost.

There is now hard evidence that a majority of public opinion is in favour of restrictions on air travel and new research indicates a passenger travelling by air is responsible for up to 11 times more carbon dioxide emissions than those travelling by rail.

Tax allowances of 40p per mile for company car use is now thought to be fuelling extra car use.

The sale of cars has slowed but the sale of light vans has sharply escalated. This is thought to be related to tax advantages.

Evidence is emerging that internet shopping is generating traffic because deliveries are being made over long distances rather than from local shops and businesses.

CORE Transport Activists Roundtable 6 September 2006

Martin Jones, head of roads strategy division at the Department for Transport gave a talk on progress on road charging. A feasibility study dealing with practical problems has been released. There would be economic benefits through time savings, even under a revenue neutral system. The environment would benefit through reduced pollution.

It was noted that road charging was not seen as a hot election issue and it was decided to proceed with a regional scheme to prove it would work.

Due to reluctance by the regions it was decided to include road charging in the Transport Innovations scheme and several proposals have now emerged. Manchester Metro extensions have been approved largely as a result of a road charging scheme having been proposed. Legislation is now in place permitting introduction of pilot schemes.

Satellite technology is seen as the long-term objective for a national scheme.

As pilot schemes would impose an additional charge on existing taxation, commitments would be made to improve public transport. This needs to be pre-planned in order to counter media claims of motorists being milked.

Climate change issues would be dealt with after road pricing had been introduced rather than bolt on too many objectives to start with as would a charging mechanism to discourage “gas guzzlers” etc.

The point was made that climate change is an issue of growing public concern and could be used to grow public acceptance of road pricing but DfT research does not indicate strong opposition from public opinion, however.

Climate Change and the Environmental Audit Report

Voluntary agreements are not working and vehicle excise duty amendments and the fuel tax escalator are being reconsidered. Local rail and bus services are seen as vital for a sustainable agenda and it is suggested aviation should be tackled through airport taxes.

There is a lack of knowledge about carbon dioxide emissions from new road schemes and pressure is building for a new policy on road speed limits.

The new Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander has shown real concern about climate change issues. T2000 are due to have a meeting with him on 16 October 2006.

Denise Carlo has twice written to Colin Challen MP seeking a chance to do a presentation to the All Party Climate Change Group but has had no reply to date.

George Mombio is reported to have said that all freight should go by rail but all passenger trains should be scrapped and passengers transferred to road coaches!

Comprehensive Spending Review meeting with TAR group on 5 September 2006 discussed the need for spending on measures to combat climate change. It was clear the DfT is still not engaged with climate change issues.

Barker 2 Review: Transport 2000 has challenged the suggestions for relaxing planning restrictions for out-of- town planning applications and related economic issues.

Ports Consultation: A joint TAR submission highlighted the need for funding for rail access to ports.

All Party Parliamentary Climate Group meeting 19 July 2006

This meeting was addressed by Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser and Lord Oxborough, former chairman of Shell Oil.

Some worrying forecasts for the future were discussed. For example, it is known that the planet has experienced extremes of hot and cold periods and the relation of carbon dioxide levels during those periods is known going back for millions of years.

The polar ice sheets have disappeared during hot periods but atmospheric carbon levels have been fairly stable between 220 parts per million in cold periods to 280 parts per million in hot periods.

The relationship between man’s activities and atmospheric carbon levels is fairly obvious because the level has increased sharply over the last 200 years and now stands at 380 parts per million and is now rising at 2 pts/m per year.

It is thought that if carbon dioxide levels reach 450 parts per million the Greenland ice sheets would melt and these alone would cause sea levels to rise 5.5 metres.

Most carbon dioxide growth is coming from China and India. China is building a new coal-fired power station every five days and they do not use de-sulphurisation or carbon capture equipment. Energy reserves from coal are far greater than that from oil but demand for oil is sharply increasing due to the booming economies of China and India. Indeed, if car ownership in China reaches the same level per head of population as America, the entire current world production of oil would be insufficient to satisfy the Chinese motorist alone.

The scale of the problem of how man’s contribution to C02 production can be scaled down is cause for serious concern and action is becoming very urgent if catastrophic climate change is to be avoided for future generations.

Alternative fuels from food production waste were discussed but it is clear that producing crops purely for bio fuels is a very inefficient use of farming land and technology alone will not solve the problem and behavioural changes will also be essential.

All Party Parliamentary Climate Group meeting 13 July 2006

This meeting was arranged to announce the conclusions from a consultation on the desirability for All Party Consensus on Climate Change issues.

Put briefly, the conclusion was encouraging as it was clear that not only was consensus desirable but that it was essential and achievable, at least to some degree.

Speakers from the three main parties were: Elliot Morley (Labour), Peter Ainsworth (Conservative) and Chris Hune (Lib Dem). All were optimistic and it was evident that some consensus has already been agreed. It seemed to me that Peter Ainsworth was the best speaker and gave most encouragement. There was applause when Ainsworth said: “We must do something about aviation."