Political party transport policies heading into the general election

[whole diary]

[grahame]

One of the biggest influencers on rail is government policy ... and we have an election coming up in May that's said to be one of the most open in years.  In our "frequent posters" club - that's an area that's open to members with 10 (*) or more posts to their name we already have ongoing discussions, but additionally it may be worth running a "thread" here in which members post selected policy statements and comment from the politicians to help inform our wider audience too.

Starting off, a much reported interview from the Labour shadow transport secretary

Changes to rail ownership could be brought in under an elected Labour government, says Michael Dugher, shadow transport secretary.
"I'm adamant that the public sector will be running sections of our rail network as soon as we can do that," said Dugher, in his first extended s public discussion since being appointed by Ed Miliband.

"I'm also adamant about putting the whole franchising system, as it stands today, in the bin. We're going to have a proper review, we're going to rip up the old model of franchising and I want to see more public control in terms of the running of the railways," he added.

He also promised to centralise a "passenger voice" by disbanding the Rail Delivery Group, which consists of train operating companies, freight companies and Network Rail.

In the same interview with The New Statesmen, Dugher flagged problems with bus regulation at Stagecoach and dismissed the idea of a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

Concluding on rail privatisation, he said: "We are dealing with the consequences of one of the worst decisions that any government has made."

This quote from Sharecast

Chris Grayling, a former Conservative Shadow Transport Spokesman, writes:

TRANSPORT
Transport marries together a number of central themes - it must be affordable, green and drive growth across the UK^▸ (United Kingdom). As cost-of-living is Labour^s strong suit, they have been quick to offer passengers help, including an annual cap in fare rises (maybe a rail fare freeze) and a legal right to the cheapest ticket. To support hardworking people, Conservatives may lend motorists a hand with an extension of the Fuel Duty freeze. The Lib Dems, meanwhile, have focussed on sustainable transport solutions and improving cycling safety.

This Parliament has seen intense scrutiny of successive governments^ ability to deliver significant infrastructure projects. Labour^s game-changing proposal for an independent Infrastructure Commission was not shot down by the Treasury and with HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) showing just how difficult the political life of a project can be this is the policy to watch.

And there is more to come. The decision on aviation capacity in the South East will not be made until after the 2015 General Election, and no one (as yet) has come up with the goods on funding the much needed investment in the UK^s road network. After the floods caused substantial disruption for constituents across the country expect the resilience of the UK^s transport infrastructure to beat the forefront of MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament)^ minds.

That's on his web site [here] and includes the interesting attached diagram comparing parties - a light bulb is "idea", a tick "pledge" and an equals sign a "priority".

Looking around for a Liberal Democrat policy statement on transport / speech by a spokesperson, in an admittedly brief look I've found it to be wrapped within wider issues through log documents rather than produced stand alone, and would welcome a follow up on this thread to redress the balance. Both Norman Baker and now Baroness Kramer have been / are ministers at the Department for Transport, and their activities give some indication of the way the Liberal Democrats work / think, though of course their activities also reflect the policies of their partners in coalition.

For UKIP, I was able to find their Policy Statement which includes a Transport section:

Transport

^ We will scrap HS2.

^ UKIP opposes tolls on public roads and will let existing contracts for running toll roads expire.

^ UKIP will maintain pensioner bus passes.

^ UKIP will require foreign vehicles to purchase a Britdisc, before entry to the UK, in order to contribute to the upkeep of UK roads and any lost fuel duty.

^ UKIP will ensure that speed cameras are used as a deterrent and not as a revenue raiser for local authorities.

The Green Party's Transport policy can be read [here] - an old document but updated late last year. 

With Members of Parliament representing Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland parties likely to be returned to Westminster, possible new coalition partners, and with votes on matters that effect English transport (including in the Thames Valley, South West, and South Wales) we have further potential policies and political activities which bear looking at.


* - Threshold may vary without notice

[TaplowGreen]

..................and in common with virtually all their other policies (Health, Education etc) Labour give absolutely no idea how it's all going to be paid for.

[JayMac]

The Conservatives haven't exactly been forthcoming with reasons for how the country can afford HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)).

[Rhydgaled]

The Conservatives haven't exactly been forthcoming with reasons for how the country can afford HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)).

And, according to that diagram/chart thing, they seem to be very private-transport focused. Both Labour and Lib-Dem have in their sector of the chart either a freeze on rail fares or an end to above-inflation rises. The Tories' section says "Extend the Fuel Duty Freeze & maximum fines for parking expenses" and "Commitment to invest in road infrastructure". The same Tory disregard for the climate is true on energy as well, both Labour and Lib-Dems apparently have as a priority "2030 decarbonisation target" but the Tories do not. That said, I'm generally unimpressed with Labour's policies regarding the climate; I believe they still support airport expansion for example.

[Fourbee]

I would be interested to know roughly how much would it cost to provide free bus travel to everyone nationwide (assuming current service levels, patronage etc. to make the calculation simple).

There are some figures on page 7 of this document for 2009-2010
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/750/750.pdf

If I read it correctly, outside of london operating revenue for that period was ^3.4bn with ^1.8bn covered by the farebox (so an extra ^1.8bn would have made the buses free for everyone in that period).

AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know) The current political appetite is to reduce the subsidy paid to operators, not increase it (hence the general chopping of bus services seen recently) so it's never likely to happen. It's an idea I would like to see (even if I haven't thought it out properly!).

[ChrisB]

You certainly haven't.....the majority of taxpayers would be paying for something that they'd never use.

Buses are limited (very) in where they can take you at a speed you'd actually put up with.

The cost to each taxpayer would be more than the fares likely to be paid by the majority without increased subsidy - hence actually increasing the cost to most.

[chrisr_75]

You certainly haven't.....the majority of taxpayers would be paying for something that they'd never use.

Buses are limited (very) in where they can take you at a speed you'd actually put up with.

The cost to each taxpayer would be more than the fares likely to be paid by the majority without increased subsidy - hence actually increasing the cost to most.

Most of us currently contribute towards a rail system that few outside the major conurbations use regularly and primarily subsidise season tickets (compare price per mile for a commuter season ticket, versus a long distance service). I saw some figures recently, which I will not quote as I can't recall the exact numbers, and it was a shockingly low proportion of commuters do so by train, given the amount of public money that is pumped into a (largely privately operated) system.

Taking your point regarding bus subsidy, maybe it's time to remove all subsidy from the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company)'s?!

[ChrisB]

That's a better argument :-)

If one were to be able to put up with the resultant road congestion, especially in London, it's a valid point of view. But the congestion would win.

[Rhydgaled]

I would be interested to know roughly how much would it cost to provide free bus travel to everyone nationwide (assuming current service levels, patronage etc. to make the calculation simple).

There are some figures on page 7 of this document for 2009-2010
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtran/750/750.pdf

If I read it correctly, outside of london operating revenue for that period was ^3.4bn with ^1.8bn covered by the farebox (so an extra ^1.8bn would have made the buses free for everyone in that period).

AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know) The current political appetite is to reduce the subsidy paid to operators, not increase it (hence the general chopping of bus services seen recently) so it's never likely to happen. It's an idea I would like to see (even if I haven't thought it out properly!).

You certainly haven't.....the majority of taxpayers would be paying for something that they'd never use.

Buses are limited (very) in where they can take you at a speed you'd actually put up with.

The cost to each taxpayer would be more than the fares likely to be paid by the majority without increased subsidy - hence actually increasing the cost to most.

Actually, it depends how the service is tended, and perhaps on the details of specific bus services. Ironically, it may be cheaper for taxpayers to provide free bus travel for everyone than continue with the current suituation. See the Chester 'Free Bus' suituation, articles here (scroll down to the article 'More on the Chester station bus fiasco'), here and here. In short, the council used to pay ^38,000 to provide a free service. Then a bus operator started a commertial service charging passengers replacing the free service, which the council estimated would cost them ^100,000 a year in reimbursment for concessionary travel passes.

[ChrisB]

So why not keep the free bus running at the lower cost?....

[stuving]

So why not keep the free bus running at the lower cost?....

Maybe a little more scepticism is in order about things you read in the press or on line...

Note that the news is from 2011.

^38,000 isn't anything like the full cost - so most of the previous subsidy for the free service came from the rail operators. That is what has been withdrawn, and an increase in government subsidies, to partly replace that loss, is not surprising.

In the absence of the full cost figure, let's resort to the back of an envelope. The latest average cost per mile of operating a bus outside London was about ^3. This service ran 10 one-mile circuits per hour most days, which would be ^30. However, such a short urban service is bound to cost more than that average - maybe ^40-50 per hour. Note that's for two buses.

Over ten hours per day and every day of the year that comes to about ^170,000, though with a wide margin of error. Now ^1 for a five-minute half-mile trip always did seem a bit steep. It would be interesting to know what has happened to ridership since the change - I'll bet paid trips are nothing like the number implied by that 450,000 (12 per one-way trip on average) less concessions. As it's still running it must cover its costs, even if it is done mostly with concession refunds.

The "estimate" of ^100,000 for concession subsidy looks more like a wild guess, even if it did come from CWCC. Note their words:

Cheshire West and Chester Council will now pay considerably more than the original partnership contribution ^ up from ^38,000 to an estimated ^100,000 a year ^ because it will fund older people and people with disabilities who live in the Borough and are entitled to concessionary fares.

If they are talking only about Borough residents, that's not ENCTS^▸ (English National Concessionary Travel Scheme) - which is paid by central government (at least in theory). In most places people use their ENCTS pass unless it's in the peak hours when it's not valid, as the local add-on is more limited or cumbersome to use. However their local one works, that figure does look high - as well as suspiciously round.

In any case, such a short trip (half a mile) which most people could walk in 10 minutes could only be called important for those who do find that difficult - i.e. bus pass holders (or some of them). So once a third-party subsidy for all comers is withdrawn, a government subsidy targeted at pass holders is going to cost a large fraction of the original cost.

[Rhydgaled]

So why not keep the free bus running at the lower cost?....

If I'm reading the story correctly the new service was registered commertially by the bus operator. In such circumstances, the local authority is forbidden to subsidise a competing service.

That said, stuving makes some interesting points which I was not aware of (the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) funding in particular).

[TonyK]

If I'm reading the story correctly the new service was registered commertially by the bus operator. In such circumstances, the local authority is forbidden to subsidise a competing service.

You are, and it is. There would, though, be nothing to stop the other parties to the former subsidy agreement - the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) - from running a new free service at their own expense, at least AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know).