Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence

Supplementary memorandum by DTLR (TYP 28A)


1.  How much of the £18.5 billion of public investment expenditure in rail has already been allocated to current projects?

  Currently around £8.1 billion remains contractually uncommitted out of the total public investment budget of £18.6 billion. Commitments have been made for nearly £7 billion of network grants (covering the October 2000 Regulatory settlement and the 2 April 2001 agreement between Government and Railtrack); £3.5 billion for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link; and around £30 million for freight facilities grants.

2.  Can you please provide a list of the performance indicators that are being used to assess progress towards the Plan's objectives?

  A list of performance indicators currently being used within the Department to allow us to assess progress against the targets and objectives in the Plan is attached.

  As Willy Rickett noted in his evidence to the Committee, the indicators on this list are used internally for providing regular advice to Ministers on progress with the 10 Year Plan. This is a selective list: data are collected and published on many other matters that are relevant to implementation of the 10 Year Plan and its objectives. Nor is it definitive: other indicators are still under development, and we expect to be adding to or amending this list over time. For many of these parameters the amount of data available at this early stage on progress since the Plan came into effect is still quite limited, but we will be including the most up-to-date information we have when the first review of the Plan is published later this year.

3.  Details of historic trends in rail and bus fares (regulated and unregulated) from 1995 including the latest estimates of the figures for this year

BUS FARES 1994-95 TO 2000-01

  Bus fares in England outside London are unregulated. The DTLR local bus fares index shows that they have increased by around one third over the last six years (see table 1), slightly more in the metropolitan areas than in the shire counties. In real terms, the increase has been 14 per cent in the Met Counties and 12.5 per cent in the Shires.

  In London, fares were regulated originally by London Transport and since July 2000 by Transport for London (TfL). The rise in fares has been 22 per cent in cash terms, 3.4 per cent in real terms over the same period. Fares fell by 2.9 per cent in real terms in 2000-01.

  These trends look set to continue this year.

RAIL FARES 1994-95 TO 2000-01

  Rail fares indexes showing regulated and unregulated fares separately do not exist at present. An index is being developed by the Strategic Rail Authority covering all types of fare, it should in due course be able to show changes in regulated and unregulated fares separately.

  The rail fare index published as part of the Retail Price Index (RPI) represents all national rail fares and London Underground fares.

  Table 1 shows the rail fares index used in the RPI and a separate index for London Underground fares, from London Transport, and, more recently, TfL. The all rail index has increased by 21 per cent in cash terms and 3 per cent in real terms over the last six years. In 2000-01 the all rail fares index fell by 1 per cent in real terms.

  The index of London Underground fares increased by 26 per cent over the last six years in cash terms and by 7 per cent in real terms.

  The RPI index contains three types of rail fare:

    —  unregulated national rail (including through travel to destinations served by light rail or London Underground services, and to attractions where the travel cost includes the cost of entry);

    —  regulated national rail; and

    —  regulated London Underground fares within Travelcard Zones (singles and season tickets).

Regulated National Rail Fares

  Around 40 per cent of ticket revenue is from regulated fares. Increases have been capped at RPI minus 1 per cent since January 1999. In 2001, this allowed increases up to 2.3 per cent outside London on Saver tickets and weekly season tickets. In London, the arrangement has more flexibility and is linked to performance. The cap is RPI minus 1 per cent, but with a range of + or - 2 per cent according to performance. The actual average increase allowed in 2001 was 1.3 per cent, or RPI minus 2 per cent.

  The London area cap applies to a "basket" of fares, which includes season tickets.

Unregulated National Rail fares

  Unregulated fares are a matter for individual train operating companies who set the level of these according to their own commercial criteria.

4.  Details of the assumptions made about the timing of the introduction and the number of local road user charging and workplace parking levy schemes which led to the estimate of £2.7 billion of revenue funding being available in the Plan.

  The assumptions made in developing the 10 year plan were as follows:

Outside London

  Local authorities would introduce eight road user charging and 12 workplace parking schemes in 20 of the largest towns and cities in England from 2004-05 onwards. (No assumption was made about precisely which towns and cities these would be.)

  The net income from these schemes would rise to £300 million per annum by 2010-11.

  Tot total amount raised over the Plan period would be £1,350 million.


  The Mayor is currently aiming to introduce road user charging before the date assumed in the Plan (2004-05).

  The Plan assumed that net income from charging in London would rise from £110 million in 2004-05 to £248 million in 2010-11.

  Total amount raised would be £1,521 million.


  Total amount assumed to be raised from charging schemes was £2,686 million.

5.  A note, outlining the division of responsibilities for Inland Waterways with DEFRA, including the extent to which inland ports are also the responsibility of DTLR and DEFRA.

  The Department of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is generally responsible for inland waterways in England and Wales, acting together with the National Assembly for Wales in the case of Welsh waterways. The Scottish Executive is responsible for those in Scotland.

  DEFRA has an overarching responsibility for the waterways but is also specifically responsible for navigation, water quality and supply, flood defence, countryside, and fishery issues.

  DEFRA sponsors British Waterways (in England and Wales), and the Environment Agency, providing grant-in-aid towards their activities. It also appoints members of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council (IWAAC), a statutory body set up to advise the Government and British Waterways about the use and development of the latter's waterways for recreation and amenity purposes.

  The Department for Culture, Media, and Sport is responsible for heritage, tourism and sports issues as they relate to the waterways.

  The Department for Transport Local Government and the Regions is responsible for freight transport and regeneration aspects on waterways. It is also responsible for ports (including inland ports) and walking and cycling along towpaths. The limits of ports are defined in each individual case, there is not a universal definition.

  The two Departments work closely together in ensuring that the freight potential of inland waterways is fully exploited.

6.  Confirmation of whether the model is capable of assessing the impacts of policies to encourage people to live closer to where they work and whether this was examined in the development of the Plan. In addition, please provide details of the analysis of the effects of different housing location decisions.

  The National Transport Model currently being developed includes the facility to assess the transport impacts of concentrating housing and employment in urban areas.

  Household and employment location are inputs to the model. Within the model, the availability of more jobs closer to where people live results in shorter average journeys to work. More retail employment closer to where people live results in shorter average shopping trips, and similarly for other trip purposes. Changes in the mix of trip lengths and destinations then affects use of different modes of travel. For example, shorter journeys are more likely to be made by walking or cycling, and journeys to urban areas are more likely to be made by public transport and so on.

  We do not attempt to model the process by which people decide where to live. The process by which they decide how far to travel for each trip purpose is modelled as a response to the time and money costs of the travel opportunities that exist.

  The initial version of the model used for development of the Plan did not have the capability of modelling these effects. A small traffic reduction factor was included, based on experience of working with local traffic models, to represent the likely impact of "urban regeneration" policy.


February 2002

previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2002
Prepared 27 May 2002