Devolution and transport investment in the UK: Increasing asymmetries

1
Devolution and transport investment in the UK
Increasing asymmetries?

• Geoff Vigar
• GURU
• Newcastle University
• G.I.Vigar_at_ncl.ac.uk

2
Departure points

• Why transport?
• Significance in economic, ecological, social and
  cultural terms
• Financially, transfers of rail franchising to
  Scotland and London biggest single acts of
  devolution (MacKinnon et al 2008)
• Hypothesis England beyond the South East is
  disadvantaged through
• asymmetrical patterns of devolution and
• state selectivity in investment

3
Story 1 asymmetry in formal devolution
4
Sub-national filling-in processes

• Much activity filling-in sub-national scales
• meta regions in England Northern Way etc.
• regions in Scotland, Wales and England thru
  regional transport strategy-making and some new
  authorities
• city-regions in Scotland, Wales and England (an
  aping of the London story?) limited power
  anywhere. NB Local Transport Act 08 in England
• All somewhat characterised till now on their
  weakness in determining both priorities, policy
  and investment and capacity to spend.

5
Policy divergence and convergence

• Limited nature of devolved powers has led to
  large interest in transport in these areas
• All areas invested well above inflation in
  transport since a low in 2000, Scotland
  especially but Wales less than England (2007 CSR
  in England somewhat reverses this)
• But UK transport investment around 0.6 of GDP
  recently (gt0.8 for each of years 1989-95)
• Difference has emerged in what money has gone
  toward
• All 4 devolved spaces have invested in new rail
  infrastructure beyond the mainstream English
  experience
• London has uniquely delivered on road user
  charging and bus investment
• Scotland led on concessionary fares to be
  followed by others

6
Story two asymmetry in England?

• Broadly London has pursued its own policy
  trajectory (in line with UK policy of late 90s)
  it has uniquely delivered on the UK policy
  rhetoric
• How and why has it done this?
• Privileged investment flows
• Demands arising from ltd devolution- no tax
  raising powers led to congestion charge? similar
  drivers have pushed Scottish rail investment

7
UK transport strategy

• 1998 white paper radical wrt demand management
• 2000 Ten year plan / 2004 white paper shows
  retrenchment to pragmatic multi-modalism
• 10 year plan headlines were investment of 60bn
  each to rail, road and local
• This seems even handed but
• rail travel is overwhelmingly concentrated in SE
  England London accounts for 48 and S-E 12 of
  1.2bn annual journey departures
• Rail spend actually 35-45 of spending in 2000s

8
The Big PictureSpending levels (per capita)
2002/03-07/08
9
Rail investment 2000-2014

• Since 2000 big 3 investments have a London
  connection
• CTRL 5.8bn
• West coast upgrade 7.6bn
• South of Thames power upgrade 2bn (inc new
  rolling stock)
• Network Rail has 26.7bn for period 2009-14
  4.4bn of which is was?! to come from
  financial markets
• Completion of Thameslink (5.5bn)
• CrossRail (16bn to completion) 3bn from
  private sector
• 1300 new carriages nationwide
• Station capacity increases focused on London
  (which has the worst crowding) and on cities
  such as Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester (which
  have seen the fastest growth in rail demand)
  para 3.18 DfT 2007. Reading also to be expanded
• Flagship intercity services (new trains!) on
  east coast and great western lines by 2015
• HC Transport Committee calls this tinkering

10

11
So, percentage growth is not concentrated in L-SE
12
In Chicken Town? The experiential aspect
13
Light/ urban rail

• London Underground subsidy (from UK taxes) 1.4bn
  p.a. 2004-09 (mostly capital expansion) for 1bn
  annual journeys subsidy to 7 PTEs 0.4bnp.a. for
  0.16bn journeys
• Jubilee Line extension largest single UK urban
  rail project DLR and Croydon Tram East London
  Line (the lowest of the SRAs priorities)
  creation of London Overground Elsewhere
• Edinburgh, Nottingham, Tyne and Wear funded,
  Portsmouth, Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool denied

14
Buses (Knowles Abrantes 2008)

• Support for buses increased in London by gt5000
  between 1996/7 2006/07 21 in PTE areas
  London consumes 63 of English bus subsidy
• such a level of subsidyis not untypical of that
  found in Europebut very much higher than in the
  rest of Britain (White, 2008 192)
• Fares increased above inflation everywhere,
  lowest in London Scotland highest in Wales
  PTE areas
• Londons ridership increased nearly 50 in this
  time compared with a decline in most areas

15
Road investment

• Roads are of greater significance in travel terms
  in R-O-E than L-SE
• Traffic increased 1 in London 1996-2006 15 in
  England as a whole
• Spend has fallen since mid 90s and in
  longer-term since completion of motorway
  network
• 30 of roads spend goes to L-SE (the largest
  share to London)

16
Air travel

• Most spend is private investment
• Devolved territories have used Regional
  Development Funds to subsidise services
• London airports have largest expansion plans
  centralising effects?
• Generous aviation tax regime disproportionately
  advantages L-SE (65 of pax 80 of freight).

17
BA is no longer 'British' AirwaysSimon Calder
The Independent, 28/10/08

• British Airways has stopped being the UK's
  national carrier and effectively become London
  Airways. The airline still operates flights from
  Manchester, Newcastle, Edinburgh, Glasgow and
  Aberdeen. But, as with the colour options for
  Henry Ford's Model T, passengers' choice of
  destination from these cities is limited they
  can fly to any other city they like so long as
  it is London.

18
To summarise!

• A proportional decline in roads spending has a
  justification but perpetuates uneven development
• Urban transport spending has become more skewed
  toward London
• Rail spend is high as a proportion of transport
  spend and benefits L-SE disproportionately
• Aviation policies also disproportionately benefit
  L-SE?
• London allowed to plan on 5, not 3, year cycle

19
A tentative analysis

• Transport investment is skewed toward London (and
  to a lesser extent the S-E). Scotland has to a
  degree chosen to invest in this sector above
  others
• State selectivity is at work, supporting a view
  of London (The City?) as engine, as golden
  goose (Massey 2007) and that congestion/ growth
  demands in L-SE require special measures
  (Massey 2007) CrossRail as manifestation of
  this?
• Transport investment to stimulate demand is
  possible similarly congestion costs can drive
  relocation of some economic activity

20
Conclusions

• London has experienced a step change (Rye 2008)
  in transport conditions because of
• Genuine authority granted to it thru devolution
  alongside a grasping fo the nettle by the GLA,
  TfL and the Mayor who walked through the door
  opened by devolution
• Previous authority gained by not deregulating
  transport fully in the 1980s has meant that money
  be more easily deployed (and with greater effects
  in London?)
• The existence of the Mayor has given London voice
  to lobby for cash and develop policy in ways not
  available to other places.
• Over and above these issues London is
  significantly advantaged by investment flows from
  the Centre a deliberate state strategy?
• Beyond London, English experience characterised
  by institutional change but little change in
  experience of networks
• More qualitatively, transport beyond London
  retains a high level of centralisation,
  perpetuating colonial relations, and restricting
  the development of governance capacity locally
• And should bear in mind that a progressive
  transport policy should be concerned with social
  as well as geographical equity transport
  spending tends to benefit the hypermobile unless
  targeted implies intra-urban transport, not
  runways and CrossRail?

21
Historic under-investment