This week, industry bodies will lobby the government over parking taxes and road pricing as councils finalise their transport plans. By Amanda Seidl
This week, the RICS and the British Property Federation launched a joint initiative to lobby the government on its proposed transport policies, soon to be embodied in local transport plans.
The British Council for Offices, the Association of Town Centre Managers and the British Council of Shopping Centres are also part of the lobbying effort.
“We are keen to support the aims of the government’s transport policy,” says William Tew, parliamentary officer of the RICS, “but we need to raise our concerns about the implementation of those policies.”
The lobby group is writing to Richard Caborn, the minister for the regions, regeneration and planning, to express its concerns about congestion charging and parking taxes in particular which, it believes, have the potential to damage town centres by creating extra costs for consumers and occupiers. “The focus of government policy should be accessibility to competitive locations,” says Tew.
Concern over anti-congestion measures
With just two months left before the government’s deadline for provisional local authority transport plans to be completed, there is growing concern about implementing many of the government’s suggested ways to cut road congestion.
Last month the DETR, somewhat belatedly, published its definitive guidance on local transport plans (LTPs). This guidance emphasises the government’s promotion of road-user charging and workplace parking charges as part of a package of measures to tackle congestion and pollution. It states: “Charging and levy schemes are intended to support the objectives of an LTP in two ways: by providing a new traffic management tool and by creating a new and additional income stream to fund improvements to local transport provision.”
But, as the guidance points out, legislation to empower councils to introduce charging schemes is not guaranteed time in the 1999/2000 parliamentary session. If it is not included in the following Queen’s Speech, it is unlikely that the measures will be approved before the next General Election.
“Road pricing and parking charges are expected to form a major part of local transport plans, yet the legislation to enforce them is not yet in place,” says Tew.
The process is further complicated by preparations for the regional development agencies and the ongoing review of regional planning guidance. In London, transport planning has effectively been put on hold by the local authorities pending the election of the Greater London Authority next year.
Transport strategy: low priority
Even where regional guidance is being prepared, transport strategy has not been a priority. The public inquiry into the draft RPG for the South East began last week but the issue of road pricing was only included at the last minute following pressure from interest groups.
According to Vince Christie of the Local Government Association, councils are concerned about the practical delivery and management of the new transport plans. “It’s a learning experience for the DETR as well as for local authorities,” he says. “It’s a new way of thinking, so there will be some difficulties at first.”
The LGA is about to survey its members to see how they are progressing with their transport plans and to assess what problems they face in implementing the new policies. “It will be difficult to build in income from road pricing or charging schemes when the legislation is not in place,” admits Christie.
In spite of government encouragement, some councils are already shying away from compulsory road pricing and workplace car parking in their draft transport plans. In Birmingham (see p60) the council has decided against any road pricing schemes. “We ruled out road pricing because of the practical difficulties of administering it,” says John Chatman, leader of Birmingham council’s transport committee.
Schemes unpopular in rural areas
For many county councils with large rural populations, charging schemes are considered too controversial. County land use and transport officer Lee Herrington says: “The county has taken the view that charging would not be appropriate given local circumstances.”
Public consultation by Cambridgeshire county council revealed a general antipathy towards road pricing and workplace parking charges among respondents in the county (see p60). The council has ruled out road pricing but is considering the use of charging for workplace parking in Cambridge to reduce congestion in the city.
In Birmingham, the business community is opposed to the council’s proposed levy on workplace parking, which would raise £20m for public transport in the city (see p60).
The proposal has already created tension within the council and is unlikely to be adopted unless surrounding authorities impose similar charges. Solihull, Walsall and Dudley are reviewing charges. The Black Country held its consultation two weeks ago and Coventry will hold one shortly.
Councils’ ambivalence towards the more radical measures suggested by the government’s guidance are not surprising, given the lack of a clear timescale on key policy decisions, says Richard Lambert of the BPF. “It is ludicrous that the government is pushing councils to complete their transport plans when the definitive guidance came out only last month and so many policies are yet to emerge.
“So much of what is contained in the transport White Paper is still in the development stages, with pilot studies and research yet to be completed,” he says.
Formal approach to Richard Caborn
The new forum of property industry groups intends to make a formal approach to Richard Caborn in the next two weeks, setting out their members’ concerns over the implementation of the government’s integrated transport policy. “We will make the point that there’s too much piecemeal policy-making going on and that it’s hard to see how it all slots together,” says Lambert.
Although the group supports the government’s aim of integrated transport, it believes that the political desire to achieve progress in the short term could undermine a long-term shift in travel patterns. “The government’s timescale is too optimistic. It takes time to change travel patterns,” says Tew.
|
Bristol The carrot-and-stick approach The carrot-and-stick approach is brought up frequently when councils talk about transport policy, and Bristol is no different, writes Stacey Meadwell. The city council has £102m allocated over the next five years to reduce car journeys into the city centre by 10%. Its aim is a balance between providing alternatives and reducing the appeal of driving. Roads in the city are being realigned to help buses move more freely; proposals include additional park-and-ride and bus priority schemes. There are also plans to identify safe routes for use by schoolchildren to reduce the number of school runs. Alongside the public transport improvements are restrictions and reductions on car parking, particularly in residential areas such as Clifton, an area favoured by car commuters. Some £3.5m of the budget has been earmarked for a light rail transit system, the first branch of which is to operational by 2003. However, the scheme is expected to cost £105m, leaving a sizeable gap to be plugged by the private sector. Despite council optimism over the opening time of the first line, it does highlight gaps in the government’s overall transport plans. According to Richard Rawlinson, divisional director for traffic and transport at the council, the government itself will be ooking for additional channels of funding for the LRT. Although the transport consultation document is full of alternatives to car use, any reference to new or improved roads is notably absent, something that concerns the CBI. Sue Boyd of the CBI’s Bristol office points out that economic development in the south of the city, which has been overshadowed by the north, is dependent on improved roads. The £102m budget makes provision for road and path maintenance but little more, yet the council claims to be reviewing historic road proposals with a view to deciding whether they need to be reinstated. If a new road scheme was to be proposed, it seems that the council would have to look into finance once again. Focus, p74 |
|
Birmingham Road pricing takes a back seat Councillors in Birmingham appear to lack both the political will and support from business for road pricing and workplace charges, writesAnita Howarth. Councillor John Chatman, leader of the transport committee, explains: “We ruled out road pricing because of the practical difficulties of administering it. There is no simple cordon or physical barrier like a river to use, and the technology for it, we feel, has not yet been proven. As far as workplace parking charges go, we are consulting on it as part of our five-year transport plan.” There was formal consultation last week on charges levied at a rate of £1 per day per space. The estimated £20m pa generated would probably go towards extending the Metro line between Snow Hill Station and Five Ways. But the Conservative minority would like contributions from businesses to be voluntary and limited to occupiers along the proposed Metro route. This could be the most likely option, given that key sections of the business community are unhappy about further compulsory charges. Carolyn Hannah, assistant director of the CBI, says: “Workplace parking charges could undermine the success of the city centre, based as it is on strong legal and financial services that need clients and customers to have access to the city centre.” Nick Williams, director at FPDSavills, warns: “There is a limit to how much businesses can pay before the local economy is undermined. Car parking charges would amount to a third tax on local business in addition to rates and commuted payments.” The other concern for business is highlighted by Tory transport spokesman Bob Harvey: “The problem is that unless it is introduced for the whole of the West Midlands, the policy could just drive investment and business away from Birmingham, especially if the charges were introduced into Birmingham and not Solihull.” Both Conservatives and Labour agree on this point. Chatman says: “We are committed to proceed only if there is a good measure of support from the community and there is a co-ordinated effort with the seven local authorities throughout the conurbation.” Harvey concludes: “It is such a controversial issue that it may be a long time before car parking charges are introduced into Birmingham.” |
|
Cambridge Urban ideals versus rural realities As a county with one of the country’s fastest-growing populations, Cambridgeshire faces the problem of balancing the needs of a large rural population with the economic development of Cambridge as a regional centre. “The emphasis of the plan will be on removing traffic from the city centre,” says Graham Hughes, planning officer for Cambridge city council. Co-ordinating transport to form an integrated network is the county’s top priority, followed by road safety and protecting the environment. But the county is also keen to reduce traffic, particularly commuter traffic to and from Cambridge, on main roads such as the A14 and in market towns. In its consultation documents, the county asked for the views of local residents and businesses on using road pricing and workplace parking charges to raise money for improvements. “A charge of £100 for each workplace parking space in Cambridge could raise £4m annually to spend on transport in that area,” the report states, adding that similar charges could be used in the market towns. Hughes believes that the local authorities have ruled out road pricing in the first LTP. Geoff Bruce, head of the county environment and transport department, says that the authority is still investigating the possibilities of levying workplace parking charges. “Because there has not been time to do full public consultation since the guidance was issued in November, the LTP will set out the broad strategies,” says Bruce. However, the Cambridgeshire LTP, like many other county plans, will set only general principles for the area and it will be left to the districts to produce detailed plans outlining the implementation of those policies. “These will set out how we intend to seek partnership from developers,” says Hughes, who expects a plan for the southern corridor to be the first to be drawn up. |
