Peer review: Cliff Perry
Former chairman of IMechE
Anthony hits the button with his comments, taking a broadly supportive view but pointing out where the challenges lie. I believe most railway folk will welcome the creation of the National Infrastructure Commission as an opportunity to strengthen common sense, rather than politics, in the way we make important decisions. They will also warm to the appointment of Lord Adonis. So a great start, and the initial remit hits the right targets: transport for both London and the Northern Powerhouse, and Energy.
There are, however, several limitations, as Anthony points out. We can hope that these will be addressed by further work on the Terms of Reference as the Commission delivers and moves on.
Starting with timescale: to make the scale of decisions called for in the North (using a consultative and robust method) before the budget in 2016 means that the Commission is starting ten years too late, and will be heavily influenced by the Transport for the North work and suggestions. Similarly for London, the early Commission output will be heavily based on the TfL model and priorities.
The weakness of relying so heavily on bodies with relatively recent devolved responsibilities is also highlighted by Anthony’s comment about the lack of the “Holy Grail” of a National Transport Strategy. Devolving responsibility in the absence of an overall framework is a high-risk approach likely to lead to sub-optimisation at best and unworkability where we really get it wrong.
Take, for example, the matter of freight for the North, to fuel its industry and serve its population. Unless something is done to influence the market in a significant way, it seems likely that most of this freight will arrive sub-optimally, and need to find its way north through a crowded South East. One specific (Imports from India) was highlighted by the Westminster Energy, Environment and Transport Forum 2015, and is illustrated below.
Planned economic and population growth is creating a substantial capacity challenge for our transport network. London’s population is expected to rise from its present 8.5 million to 11.5 million by 2030, with the UK moving from 62 million to more than 70 million at the same time. These volumes then take our systems into uncharted territories, and may call for a different approach. For example, in the same way that traffic growth has made electrification viable on new routes, so we may need to challenge our current use of mixed traffic railways, and choose to build new dedicated freight routes as well as the planned new high-speed passenger lines.
North American freight productivity improvement has been delivered by intermodal traffic on very long trains with double-stacked containers - highly efficient, but totally incompatible with our current infrastructure or mixed traffic operation. But the development of a National Transport Strategy would seriously consider such options, and the NIC could react accordingly.
It is reasonable to expect a National Commission to have transport planning that is genuinely multi-modal, playing to the strength of each mode. Our access to sea-borne freight is vital for an island dependent on global trade, and longer sea crossings have significant volume potential.
Rail is good at bulk movements (freight and passenger) from node to node; road is vital for low-density distributive tasks, but less competitive over longer distances; air has a niche for high-value, low-density and perishable goods, and long journeys. Understanding the optimum efficiency solutions by mode and traffic will allow coherent analysis of the routeing and facilities required, guiding investment and project design. This is a fundamentally different approach from our current independent planning for ports, regions, roads and rail. We need to decide what our railways are really there for, then make sure they are fit for purpose.
Our dash for diesel and the VW scandal has highlighted the air quality debate. However, even the awareness that road traffic is the major contributor to approximately 29,000 pollution-related deaths in the UK (in addition to its 3,000 accident deaths) is only one specific example of the fact that we have no policy to charge users for the external costs of their activity. Anthony rightly draws attention to this anomaly - properly resolved, it would significantly favour rail. This makes the lack of reference to the environment seriously worrying in the NIC remit.
Also missing is any reference to resilience of transport infrastructure in the face of extreme weather events, and the ability to keep end-to-end capability even though one route may be blocked by event, by maintenance, or by investment projects.
Consultation must also be wide enough to make 30-year decisions resilient to changes in technology. Flexibility in ticketing may bring a significant lowering of the barriers to public transport use, while autonomous vehicles on our roads and the “Platooning” of lorries on motorways may transform perceptions. Basic planning assumptions on the shape of future technology will need to be made and the appropriate infrastructure provided. ‘Intelligent Mobility’ and the ‘Digital Railway’ are concepts that need to be defined, developed and harnessed to deliver better places to work and live in our crowded island.
In summary, the challenges for the NIC are huge, but recognising the need to do something different is the first step away from insanity.
