|
Scottish spending review & transport: Executive must end double standards in transport delivery In advance of the Scottish spending review announcement due tomorrow, TRANSform Scotland has set out what the Scottish Executive must do on transport if its rhetoric on public transport and the environment is to be matched with spending commitments. TRANSform Scotland accuses the Scottish Executive of having operated "double standards" in delivering new transport infrastructure, favouring an unsustainable road-building programme over measures that would meet its stated objectives of reducing pollution, congestion and social exclusion. Since 1999, the Scottish Executive has made spending commitments in excess of £500 million in new road-building projects [1]. This has not been met by committed spending on new public transport projects: by comparison, committed spend from the Public Transport Fund since 1999 has totalled just £145 million [2]. The Scottish Executive has so far failed to match its policy commitments with spending commitments [3]. It is far from clear how the Executive can meet its stated target of stabilising road traffic levels when its spending commitments are so skewed towards traffic-generating road construction [4]. Colin Howden, TRANSform Scotland Campaign Manager, said: "The Scottish Executive has operated double standards when it comes to funding new public transport and new road construction. A number of new rail projects have stayed in limbo because of alleged funding gaps while new road projects get as much cash as they want [5]. The Scottish Executive must correct the situation whereby new road projects - for example Glasgow's £250 million urban M74 - get funding upfront while new public transport projects - rebuilding Waverley Station, reinstating the rail line to the Borders or constructing tram lines in Edinburgh - have no promises of funding. [6]" "The Scottish Executive has no hope of meeting its targets for reducing pollution if it continues just to throw money into a bottomless pit of road-building. It is about time that Jack McConnell's government showed a bit of backbone and invested in the things that can improve Scotland's transport rather than just making congestion and pollution worse." The Scottish Executive has also neglected spending on the most sustainable modes of transport - walking and cycling, and measures focused on traffic reduction e.g. Safe Routes to School, Home Zones, traffic calming, green transport plans. The low priority afforded to these topics by the Scottish Executive is shown by the decision earlier this year to abolish its Cycling, Walking and Safer Streets Branch (ÒCWSSÓ). Colin Howden, TRANSform Scotland Campaign Manager, said: "Scotland's established public health problems are exacerbated by the pathetic failure of the Scottish Executive's transport plans to give proper funding to the two modes of transport that could actively improve Scotland's health - walking and cycling. Getting more people to make short trips on foot or by bike could also make large inroads into traffic congestion and pollution. The Executive has told people that they must 'Learn to let go' but has failed to provide adequate funds to support this laudable aim." [7] ENDS Notes to Editors: [1] Committed spend on new road-building since 1999: M77 Fenwick-Malletsheugh - £60 million [2] Committed spend on new public transport infrastructure since 1999: The total amount the Scottish Executive has committed to the Public Transport Fund (PTF) - which pays for all new public transport, walking, cycling & traffic calming improvements across Scotland - has been £145 million [reference: 'Scotland's Transport: Delivering Improvements', page 20 - note that the £175 million claimed here includes one round of £30 million made by the Scottish Office before the Scottish Executive was formed]. Hence, the PTF has provided just under £50 million a year in the period 1999-2001. As Begg & Gray (2002) summarised this disparity: ÒThe Public Transport Fund provides around £50 million a year for the whole of Scotland Ð the equivalent of one mile of the M74 extension." [3] Existing spending commitments contradict Labour & Lib Dem policy commitments Neither the Lib Dems or Labour made commitment to a road-building programme in their pre-election manifestos, both did however promise to invest heavily in public transport. [4] Transport investment should help - not hinder - meeting transport targets The Executive's transport delivery report "Scotland's Transport: Delivering improvements" (March 2002) made commitment to an important progress indicator: road traffic levels. We believe that this is a useful indicator as it is a good proxy for the environmental impact of road transport, and in particular climate change emissions. However, the target chosen Ð to stabilise total vehicle kilometres at 2001 levels by 2021 Ð is weak and appears incompatible with the Scottish ExecutiveÕs commitments on climate change emission reduction. The UK Climate Change Strategy target is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2010; it also requires the UK transport sector to deliver 40% of all proposed climate change emission reduction. Therefore even if the TDR target for road traffic stabilisation is met, the Scottish transport sector will not be making an adequate contribution to the UK Climate Climate Strategy. [5] Double standards exist in funding road projects and funding rail projects The Scottish Executive has operated an effective double standard when it comes to delivering road construction and delivering rail projects. While a number of rail projects have been delayed ad infinitum (e.g. Borders railway, Larkhall, Stirling-Alloa-Dunfermline) because of alleged funding deficits (and/or while yet more consultants' reports are commissioned), new road infrastructure projects appear to get a full and absolute commitment to funding irrespective of cost escalation (see e.g. the A1 Haddington-Dunbar project, with 25% cost escalation in the space of two years, 1999-2001). The case of the Scottish ExecutiveÕs road-building programme is particularly striking as this was put in place without proper evaluation: none of the schemes so far approved were evaluated against the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (the launch of which followed the political commitment to the road programme) or through Multi-Modal Studies. See for example, Begg & Gray (2002) who write: ÒThe Scottish Executive ignored its own guidance by approving the M74 extension in advance of the findings of the Central Scotland multi-modal study. This would not have happened in England.Ó [our emphasis] [6] There is an east-west split in funding transport In the Scottish Central Belt, there is an east-west split in transport expenditure. The Scottish Executive has prioritised transport expenditure in the West of Scotland, where local authority aspirations have focused on road-building, over spending in south-east Scotland, where local authority aspirations focus on road traffic reduction, reduction in environmental impacts and the prioritisation of investment in sustainable transport. Motorway projects such as the M74 Northern Extension (a £250 million elevated motorway across south Glasgow) have had design costs and infrastructure costs provided up-front; public transport proposals in south-east Scotland Ð e.g. tram scheme proposals or for a railway to the Borders Ð have been provided with funding for design costs but do not have promises of funding for infrastructure. Committed expenditure on new trunk roads in the Glasgow area alone (£214m towards M74 Northern Extension & £40m+ towards a Glasgow Southern Orbital road) is more than double the expenditure on public transport, walking and cycling in the whole SESTRAN area through the Public Transport Fund (and latterly, the Integrated Transport Fund) between 1998 and 2001 - £113.4m (Transport Delivery Report, pp. 39). [7] Inadequate expenditure on walking and cycling The Scottish Executive claims to have devoted £20 million to "Cycling, Walking and Safer Streets" projects since 1998. This is however a paltry sum compared to that routinely spent on major infrastructure projects. This area is likely to produce outcomes consistent with sustainable transport policy objectives, and at generally very low cost. END OF NEWS RELEASE |