Friends of the Far North Line responses to "Scotland's National Transport Strategy"

CONSULTATION QUESTION 1.

Are 'facilitate economic growth', 'promote accessibility', 'promote choice and raise awareness of the need for change', 'promote modal shift', 'promote new technologies and cleaner fuels', 'manage demand', 'reduce the need for travel', and 'promote road safety' the right goals for transport in Scotland?

A1   Broadly, yes. However some of the objectives are mutually exclusive. For example it is hard to reduce the need for travel at the same time as facilitating economic growth, if one of the main engines for economic growth in many parts of Scotland is increasing tourism. Care has to be taken that a "one-size-fits-all" policy is not unthinkingly applied across the whole of Scotland. The legitimate transport needs of cities and of remote rural or island locations must be seen as being quite different. What is right in one place may well be wholly inappropriate in others. As a small nation, Scotland has a chance to focus on this kind of different-ness which has been hard to achieve in a UK context.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 5.

Do we have the balance of investment right between spending on new and existing infrastructure and other non-infrastructure activities and between different modes of transport? If not, how should it change over time?

A5   As a matter of principle it is surely right to focus initially on making the best use of existing infrastructure. Transport providers, regardless of mode, are well aware of where the pinch points are, and are likely to have made representations about the need for improvements over many years. There is no shortage of desired (albeit not all necessarily desirable) lumps of transport spending. Transport Scotland's primary task must surely be to examine these and to prioritise them as a matter of urgency. Care must be taken to ensure that there is a degree of even-handedness between transport modes, and between different parts of Scotland. Once there is seen to be progress towards the achievement of the first tranche of these pinch point improvements, thought can be given to expansion, as distinct from maximisation of the existing infrastructure. This policy should treat road and rail projects as running in parallel, not as competing with one another. Air and ferry projects are less likely to be seen as "either-or".

While all this is happening spending on non-infrastructure activities should continue.

When questions arise about the degree of "public support" (ie. subsidy) individual modes enjoy, care must be taken to compare like with like. It is wrong to ignore, for this purpose, the fact that road freight haulage makes no payment towards the cost of upkeep of the roads (other than a very broad acknowledgement that HGVs pay much higher VED than private cars). Rail freight, on the other hand, pays a known access charge. We do not suggest that this should be changed, but desk-top exercises designed to arrive at a workable public policy with regard to different modes must include this item. Failure to do so will almost always produce a bias towards road haulage, and therefore towards greater expenditure on roads. Neither road nor rail should enjoy an in-built bias of this kind when public policy is being formulated.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 6.

To what extent should transport spending be targeted specifically at areas with significant potential for regeneration? How should transport spending be balanced between regeneration areas and other key areas, such as rural Scotland?

A6   The objective of regeneration does not appear in Q1, nor do we think it should. Regeneration is not a specific policy objective; economic growth is. All areas of Scotland have some potential for economic growth, and in most some improvement in transport will assist the process. Giving special treatment in transport policy to areas where "regeneration" is possible gives a focus on areas where, by definition, there has been decline. Correcting this is properly a matter for government action, but not particularly through transport policy. Transport spending should be decided on the basis of transport need, and this will be determined by a wide range of inputs, one (and only one) of which is regeneration potential.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 8.

Do consultees consider that there are issues relating to cross-border connectivity by rail and road, and within devolved competence, that the Strategy should consider?

A8   Cross-border rail services and connectivity need to be improved so that rail passenger services become more competitive with air services and to offer an alternative to the congested cross-border road links. These cross-border road links could become less congested by an increase in rail capacity for freight services.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 9.

What view do consultees take on whether there is a need for a faster Scotland to London rail service, to provide an alternative to flying in the long term?

A9   There is a need for considerably faster rail services between Scotland and London with simple and clear ticketing procedures and interchange facilities to transport links beyond London and to Europe.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 11.

What are the issues relating to the management and maintenance of the road and rail networks over the long term that the Strategy should address?

A11   Capacity on the rail network needs to be substantially increased by examining, within Scotland, the "quick win" improvements that utilize existing infrastructure by reinstating double track and appropriate signalling. There are obvious examples on the Highland main line to the Central belt, the Inverness to Aberdeen line, and the far North line between Inverness and Tain.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 12.

What should the NTS say about freight, bearing in mind that a freight strategy is under development? In particular, what should the NTS say about meeting the different needs of freight and passengers on the road and rail network, and how to balance these competing demands?

A12   The freight strategy should inform the preparation of an overall transport strategy. Freight is vital to the economic well-being of the Scottish economy and cannot be left to one side. Transport Scotland will need to balance competing demands for road, rail, ferry and (to a lesser extent) air services between passengers and freight consignors. Heed must be paid to complaints from any particular sector that its demands are not being heard. Some sectors have a much louder voice than others, but fairness is not found by listening to the loudest. Machinery is being put in place (the proposed Public Transport Users' Forum, for example) which will capture the needs of passengers. Care must be taken to ensure that all parties have access to Transport Scotland in articulating their case.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 32.

How do we make rail more attractive for people, and therefore allow them to make the choice to take the train rather than use their car?

A32   The trains must offer:

1. the same degree of comfort and ambience as a modern car in relation to the seating, lack of noise, view and climate control
2. demonstrable security to the passenger from other passengers and adequate observable storage of luggage
3. ease of purchasing tickets at sensible prices with a clear and understandable indication of inter-connectivity with other public transport services (which must be provided) so as to compete with the spontaneity of car travel which takes travellers directly door to door

Stations must provide secure and adequate parking facilities for cars and bicycles.

While we are attempting to achieve the above there must be aggressive marketing to ensure that the car driver is made aware that the train does offer a viable alternative by underlining the fact that families can travel together without the driver being stressed, that comfort breaks can be taken while on the move, and that - for air travellers - there is the removal of the time wasted in travelling to isolated airports, airport security and the time spent checking in and waiting for luggage.

Effecting modal shift for passengers is more complex than it is for freight consignors, as the bottom-line cost is much less dominant as an influence on behaviour. Nonetheless there is a range of initiatives which could be used to achieve modal shift. Because of the heterogeneity of passengers, there is considerable scope for inventive pilot schemes in different parts of Scotland across different transport modes. The recent provision of free bus travel for people over 60 and for disabled people is likely to mean abstraction of rail revenue. A statement that this was expected to be around 4% across Scotland is likely to mask some very much higher levels of abstraction in some areas. A pilot scheme of free, or greatly reduced, rail travel in these areas would yield useful data about the possibility of achieving modal shift by direct subsidy. Where modal shift is taken to include shift from private car to, say, rail the picture is even more stark as journey times become a dominant issue.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 34.

Do you consider that we need to change the cost of public transport fares and, if so, what changes should be brought in?

A34   Radical changes have recently been introduced with the abolition of fares for those over 60 or disabled using buses anywhere in Scotland, and in a more limited way relating to ferry and air fares in the Highlands and Islands. Rail is likely to be a major loser from this (see response to Q32 above). The decision to exclude rail from the scheme is curious given that it is Government policy to promote choice and social inclusion.

Thinking holistically and in the longer term, rail is safer and more environmentally friendly than buses and likely to be increasingly cost effective as oil becomes scarcer and costlier. Rail has been seriously handicapped by decades of under-investment and it is penalised by a different Government philosophy which thinks in terms of "subsidy" rather than investment and of track and infrastructure costs in contrast to the continued provision of roads as almost a "free good" to bus, car and lorry operators.

With fuel resources getting scarcer, road congestion increasing rapidly, gross under "policing" of compliance with regulations (especially safety) in contrast to highly regulated rail safety, there is anything but a level playing field between rail and road. The Executive has begun to tackle some of the issues of under-capacity in track and rolling stock, but much more needs to be done to price rail journeys in a competitive way to attract passengers off the roads with enough seats and services to service the demand. In particular, the cost of single fares on First ScotRail should be about halved to a more realistic level. Introduction of a (Swiss-style) national railcard for all frequent travellers is long overdue.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 35.

If you support lower fares, would such reductions need to be funded by tax revenue, or are there schemes which consultees consider could pay for themselves through modal shift ( i.e. because more people would be travelling, albeit paying somewhat lower fares)?

A35   A considerable increase in the number of rail journeys should be expected with more reasonable fares and a national railcard. Such long overdue measures would likely be self financing or better.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 36.

How can we promote integrated ticketing between different operators?

A36   If it can be done in Switzerland, why not here? Government needs to make this a flagship policy. Operators should be given a year to come up with acceptable schemes voluntarily. Hopefully, they would see that this was in their own interests as well as being very beneficial to all passengers. If the voluntary way does not work, passengers have a right to expect the Government to dictate an effective scheme in the national interest. It is after all Government policy to shift travel away from private and on to public services. That is the right policy and the Government should not shirk from carrying it through.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 37.

How do we promote additional modal shift from road freight to rail and waterborne freight?

A37   Modal shift for passengers and for freight consignors is likely to be achieved by differing means. For freight consignors the bottom line is clear, and is the only thing that matters. If Mode A is cheaper (cheaper including at lower cost as well as being at least as reliable) than Mode B. Mode A will get all the business. Modal shift is remarkably easy: make Mode B cheaper. If Mode A is road haulage and Mode B is rail, one way of achieving this would be for fuel costs to increase substantially. Volume of scale would tend to mean that unit fuel costs would increase less on rail-borne goods. At some point Mode B would become cheaper. Fuel costs are largely outwith the control of government, but grants can be put in place (within strict limits) to achieve ends of which government approves. Modal shift is one such, if climate change policy responses are brought into the equation.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 38.

How do we ensure that people are safe, and feel safe, on public transport, at stations and bus stops, and while travelling by foot, bike or car? For example, what needs to be done to tackle anti-social behaviour on public transport and on our roads?

A38   Passenger safety can be increased by effective education and really effective enforcement. This is part of a wider social malaise which needs leadership from Government and a willingness to ensure that opinion formers such as broadcasters and newspapers act much more responsibly than is currently the case. Pride in Britain and a willingness to look after each other need to be fostered.

There should be more investment in CCTV, perhaps with a third central monitoring unit site being opened in the Highlands to complement those already in operation in Paisley and Dunfermline. CCTV should be fitted to all rolling stock at the next reasonable opportunity.

All stakeholders should seek significant increases in the number of British Transport Police officers stationed in Scotland. With the Scottish legal system requiring two witnesses to any criminal act the BTP force is effectively spread twice as thinly as it is in England and Wales.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 42.

Where are the potential gains in terms of new transport technology in Scotland? How do we capture the potential economic benefits of developing them in Scotland? What, if anything, is the role for the public sector in supporting the development of such new technologies?

A42   Development of an effective and flexible new signalling system for the rail systems in the Highlands is an urgent priority. The Radio Electronic Token Block (RETB) system currently in use is outdated, unreliable and incapable of necessary expansion. There is no replacement in prospect, only a possibility which might be developed by about 2014. This is an appalling state of affairs which is holding back potential new traffic particularly in the booming Inner Moray Firth area. Perhaps the enterprise networks could identify and encourage potential solutions.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 55.

What issues should be considered in implementing the NTS following its publication later in 2006?

A55   The general implementation plans set out in the document are realistic and we support them. However, there is a danger that too much energy is spent on "equality-proofing" the strategy. As far as we aware there is no discrimination in transport provision against people of different races, sexes, sexual orientation or beliefs, and committing resources to monitoring possible failure in these categories is wasteful. Disabled people and elderly people, however, do have different needs from transport providers, and it is right to commit significant resources to ensuring that their needs (often different from, and sometimes in direct opposition to, those of able-bodied and younger passengers) are, if not always met, at least fully considered in any planned expenditure. No one group's needs can be allowed to trump another's - Transport Scotland's task is to make equitable decisions based on the fullest possible information.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 57.

Are the indicators outlined for each transport goal useful? If not, what alternative(s) would be preferable?

A57   Broadly yes, but there should be no presumption that each of the indicators has equal weight. Transport Scotland should arrive at a set of weights which are generally acceptable across the board, and publish them. A broad consensus is desirable. It is important that indicators should be measured on a regional basis. Trends in the Highlands will always be masked by what goes on in the Central Belt if pan-Scotland figures are used.

In addition to the indicators suggested we would like to see some method by which the capacity and physical of the infrastructure is measured, for both road and rail.

CONSULTATION QUESTION 65.

Do consultees have any views about the timing or scope of reviews of the NTS?

A65   There is a danger of digging the roots up to examine them. A four-year review seems sensible, coinciding as it does with the political time-scales at national and local level. This should not preclude revisiting the current document should some unforeseen event occur (not, one hopes, the sudden quintupling of oil prices, but something of that kind). From time to time it must be expected that the parties forming government (nationally or locally) will change. Given that this is only likely to happen in 2007, 2011, 2015 etc. there is scope for setting the best time in that repeating four-year cycle for the review process to start. The obvious time would seem to be June 2011 and every four years thereafter, allowing for a new administration (of whatever political colour) to set whatever policy targets it wished to achieve. Thus the first policy strategy should run from now until, say summer 2012, with the second strategy starting to be formulated in June 2011 for implementation a year thereafter, and so on. This is equally true of national and regional policy objectives. Naturally some of the changes are likely to be less wide-ranging than others, but provision must be made in the timetable for occasional large shifts in policy priorities in the event of political change.