Eddington’s implications for transport funding

Dr Adam MarshallHead of Policy, Centre for Cities

National Transport Conference, 16 Oct 07

About Centre for Cities

• Non-partisan urban research unit• Incubated at ippr – independent from 1 Nov 07• Work closely with cities, Whitehall, business

• Research focus = cities’ economic performance• 2008 programme = City Growth, City Potential,

Supporting City Economies (series of short reports)

This talk

1. Understanding Eddington

2. Policy developments since Eddington

3. The financial implications

4. What happens next

• Media story: road charging• Real story: transport investment

• If implemented: major re-prioritisation of Britain’s transport budget

• Key beneficiaries: large, economically successful urban areas – GSE and some Northern city-regions

1. Understanding Eddington

Five key recommendations:

1. Invest in existing networks

2. Target investment geographically

3. Target congestion, pinch-points

4. Better appraisal of economic benefits

5. Reform sub-national delivery structures

1. Understanding Eddington

Investing in Existing Networks:• Rejection of need for High-Speed Rail• Prioritise ‘dull but important’ projects –

e.g. New Street, Manchester ‘hub’, M62• Extend metropolitan transport networks

in growing cities

1. Understanding Eddington

Target investment geographically:• ‘Growing urban areas and their

catchments’ = London, Manchester, B’ham, Leeds, Milton Keynes, C’bridge

• Key inter-urban corridors = WCML / ECML, Transpennine, M’ways

• International gateways = access to ports/airports, capacity

1. Understanding Eddington

Target congestion and pinch-points• ‘Widespread’ road pricing – but no call

for an explicit national scheme• Road improvements to reduce

bottlenecks. But a massive new road-building programme?

• What about places where there is little congestion, e.g. Liverpool or Hull?

1. Understanding Eddington

More weight to economic benefits• Better appraisal needed • Include wider economic benefits:

Privileges cities, where agglomeration effects are strongest

• ‘Value for money’ approach to appraisal with economic, social, environmental externalities. Difficult!

1. Understanding Eddington

Reform sub-national delivery structures• Prioritisation of investment – e.g.

through Regional Funding Allocations ( Sub-National Review)

• Bus regulation ( Local Transport Bill)• Better planning procedures for Major

Infrastructure Projects ( Planning WP)

1. Understanding Eddington

Range of co-ordinated announcements:– Lyons Inquiry (March 2007)– Draft Local Transport Bill (May 2007)– Planning White Paper (May 2007)– Sub-National Review (July 2007)– Ports Policy Review (July 2007)– Rail White Paper (July 2007)

… all on-message with Eddington

2. Policy developments

Rail White Paper as an example:• HLOS, 30-yr strategy: upgrade existing nets• Capacity issues: 1,300 new carriages• Addressing pinch-points: New Street Station,

Reading Station, Gtr SE rail networks• ‘Dull but important’ signalling and

infrastructure improvements• Small quick wins: station upgrades

2. Policy developments

Top line:

Eddington is good news for the Greater South East and Britain’s

bigger city-regions…

Why?

3. Financial Implications

3. Financial implications

Eddington investment priorities are URBAN

• Urban spatial focus: urban areas + catchments; inter-urban corridors (e.g. rail); gateways

• Invest in existing networks, tackle pinch-points

• Case for investment: agglomeration

• Integrated city-regional transport governance and investment

• Focus on ‘wider economic benefits’ and ‘value for money appraisal’ =– Stronger case for urban transport improvements,

which generate more agglomeration benefits– ‘Option generation’ – need an economic case as

well as a political case for investment!– Improved BCRs: better chance for gov’t funding,

higher prioritisation within RFAs, etc.

• BUT not all urban areas are likely to benefit

3. Financial implications

• Potential winners:– London, access to London from rest of Gtr SE– Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham city-regions– Smaller, successful cities dealing with ‘pressures

of success’ – e.g. Bristol, Cambridge, York, Brighton, Milton Keynes, Reading, Derby

• Potential losers:– Cities w/o major congestion or access issues –

e.g. Liverpool, Newcastle, Sheffield, Hull

3. Financial implications

• Inter-urban corridors:– Improvements to existing inter-city links– Rail: main lines, Transpennine, longer trains– Road: junction improvements, addt’l lanes – but

any major new road building beyond this??

• Airports and ports:– Money for surface access improvements by road

& rail – e.g. Manchester Airport, port of Liverpool

3. Financial implications

ROAD AHEAD:• Formal DfT response to Eddington – move

into implementation phase• Local Transport Bill – Nov/Dec• C-TIF allocations – Dec ?• Planning Bill, Local Gov’t Bill – early 2008• NATA ‘refresh’ – 2008/09

4. What happens next?

4. What happens next?

• If Eddington’s logic is implemented in full:

– Geographically concentrated investment– Focus on ‘packages’ of small schemes– ‘Invisible’ improvements– Ever greater prioritisation of limited ££

But can this agenda win over politicians – ever mindful of public opinion?

Questions or comments?

Adam Marshall020 7470 6119

a.marshall@ippr.org