Member News
By Joe Chapman - 29th September 2010
Investment in transport infrastructure is the one area where the business community disagrees with the coalition government's projected spending cuts, a Labour fringe event heard today.
"We don't do enough to evangelise about the benefits of infrastructure,"Adam Marshall said in an event sponsored by the Association of Train Operating Companies.
Marshall, from the British Chambers of Commerce, said that investment in Britain's rail and road network is good value for money and doesn't get the recognition or publicity it deserves.
He warned against the likely cuts being introduced in the Comprehensive Spending Review and said that short-term decisions on infrastructure spending, influenced by economically pressing times, wreak negative longer-term consequences which the UK could sorely do without.
Marshall also discussed the "sclerotic" planning system in this country, the way in which it delays new transport projects from coming on stream quickly and alienates the business community expected to invest in them.
He also attacked the new planning regime proposed by the Tories, saying that it could worsen progress on national infrastructure and that the loss of the Infrastructure Planning Commission was unwise.
Speaking for the Labour Party, Willie Bain argued that rail spending should be a national priority in the midst of a Comprehensive Spending Review and that, though the trains should not completely escape the reality of the cuts, a Labour Party still in power would have focussed more heavily on cutting road transport investment amid difficult economic times.
The shadow transport minister said under New Labour, investment in the railways doubled with record numbers of rail passengers since 1946.
Bain said if transport investment gets slashed there is likely to be a negative effect to areas such as social justice, the environment and economic prosperity.
However, he said the UK needed to do more on its rail network, particularly in terms of rolling out and extending High Speed Rail, and that countries like France and Germany remain "far ahead" in this respect.
"The railways are value for money," said Michael Roberts.
The Association of Train Operating Companies' chief executive added that more can be done in terms of creating cost efficiencies and coordinating the work between operating companies and Network Rail.
He added that over the next twenty years his organisation still wants to double the number of rail passengers.
However, Roberts did also criticise elements of Network Rail, advocating that more powers should be given to its directors at a regional level and that breaking up the organisation, into a body of 8-10 regional units, would create "comparators" across the organisation which introduced greater competition and forced up accountability.
Echoing the sentiments of Roberts, well-renowned transport consultant Professor David Begg sought to demonstrate the good track record of rail transport in this country and said that more should be done to promote it.
He reffered to statistics since 1997 that display car ownership levels have gone up by 1/3 whilst car usage has only increased by 8 per cent - and that part of this must be attributable to the rail network.
And he argued that the north of England has missed out in terms of rail transport investment in relation to the devolved areas and that were regions like Leeds and Manchester to work more holistically, and to receive greater investment, significant returns could be gained.
"If we could knock -off 20 minutes in the journey time from Manchester to Leeds", he said. "The economic benefits would be worth around £6bn."
In terms of finance, Begg said that rail transport investment could be enhanced by the government getting "tougher on revenue spend".
Prioritising the need to spend on the UK's infrastructure over other areas and by radically overhauling tax policy with a far greater emphasis on green taxes.
Begg endorsed Chris Huhne's recent call, at the Liberal Democrat confernece last week, that at least 10 per cent of tax revenue should come from green taxes.
"Labour should emulate that," he said.
Speaking from the audience, Kelvin Hopkins MP (Lab, Luton North) said "our railways cost 40 per cent more than on the continent " and that the reason for that was in the difference between their public ownership and the UK's privatised, fragmented system of rail operation. He called for re-nationalisation.
Disagreeing with this statement, Marshall said that rather than place the blame at the door of the operators, the problem is more with UK's inefficient and costly planning system and that this should be tackled as a priority.
Whilst stopping short of calling for re-nationalisation, Bain said that the UK should investigate models in mutualism and whether or not cooperatives could be encouraged to bid for rail franchises.
In other comment, Marshall said that rail fares should be looked at and questioned the gulf in prices between purchasing advanced tickets and tickets on the day of travel.
Roberts insisted that the average price for a single rail journey of £5, as reported by the rail regulator, is a reasonable price to pay.
The panel also discussed first class train travel and the reality that many first class carriages remain empty whilst standard coaches are often overcrowded, particularly at peak times.
Robert sought to champion the innovative ways in which train operators are devising their ticketing prices, with companies like Virgin arranging small cost increases for quick upgrades.
On High Speed Rail, Marshall said that Britain is slipping further behind international competition, with the Chinese moving ahead at a pace previously unseen across the world.
He again called for a national consensus on rail infrastructure, to speed up the modernisation of the network.
Bain expressed his concern that HS2 plans, as now being recalibrated by the Tories, might not include extension to Sheffield and the East Midlands.
"That is unacceptable", he said.
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.