CITY TRANSPORT SEMINAR SERIES

BIRMINGHAM SEMINAR, 21st NOVEMBER 2006

SUMMARY REPORT

Introduction

The seminar – the second of five in a series taking place across England – brought together high-level stakeholders from the public and private sectors, along with transport providers and users from across the Birmingham, Coventry and Black Country city-region.

The seminar was introduced by the chair, Dermot Finch (Director, Centre for Cities), Adam Marshall (Senior Researcher, Centre for Cities), and by Arthur Leathley (Director of Communications, Virgin Trains). Together, they offered a brief introduction to the objectives of the seminar series, and of the Centre for Cities’ wider City Transport workstream, which will continue through 2007.

Seminar objectives

The seminar addressed three themes of importance to the economic performance – and future growth – of Birmingham and the wider city-region:

  • City-regional transport: where next?
  • Managing demand: road-user charging
  • Blue-sky thinking: new directions for airports and air travel

Each of these themes will be discussed in greater detail below. As the seminar was conducted under Chatham House Rules, none of the comments made by participants are directly attributed in this report.

City-regional transport: where next?

This session focused around three principal issues: the governance of transport in the city-region; financial mechanisms for investment in key urban transport priorities; and a perceived disconnect between central government priorities and the needs of the city-region.

There were no substantial disagreements between public- and private-sector participants, all of whom agreed that there was a clear need to reform both the governance arrangements and the financial powers surrounding transport provision in the city-region.

  • Geographical scale of transport authority:radical change is required for Centro-PTA to function effectively across the city-region. The geographical scale at which the PTA/E operates is too small. The metropolitan county boundary – upon which the PTA/E is based – does not capture the true scale of the city-region. Need to broaden PTA/E powers beyond the boundary, and integrate ticketing and transport delivery systems. Need to think city-regionally, and include shire districts in the travel-to-work area beyond the former metropolitan county.
  • Integrated transport planning and delivery:Centro-PTA needs more integrated set of powers in order to deliver. Re-regulation and greater investment are required. Strategic highway powers need to be combined with existing PTA/E powers for integrated transport to work. There is a need to integrate planning, infrastructure provision and delivery across all transport modes – which is not happening at the present time.
  • Bus re-regulation:bus transport is critical in the Birmingham city-region – where it is the predominant mode of public transport. But the West Midlands have the lowest bus subsidy package of all the English conurbations, and there is widespread dissatisfaction with the quality and frequency of existing service. “People look at you funny if you’re wearing a suit on a bus in the West Midlands – it’s very different from London.” If Government wants to see a move away from car use in the city-region, then the bus network requires major change.
  • Governance arrangements for transport: intensive and on-going discussions about the future governance of transport in the city-region. A City-Region Transport Board has been mooted as a replacement for the PTA. From the private sector perspective, any future arrangements must provide strong leadership across modes in order to work. But changes to governance arrangements are “useless” without broader investment powers.
  • ‘Funding gap’ between London and Birmingham:West Midlands stakeholders see a clear ‘funding gap’ between London and other conurbations. Investment in London seen as critical, but frustration that needs of other city-regions are not being addressed by Government at the same time.
  • New investment powers needed: strong sense that new mechanisms are needed for capital investment in the city-region’s priority projects – including New Street Station and the extension of the Midland Metro. Frustration that lack of financial options leads to delay of priority schemes. Mechanisms enabling wider use of prudential borrowing for transport would help city-region to “invest to save”.
  • Hypothecation and transparency:in order to retain the support of the business community, and gain public acceptance, new financial powers (e.g. supplementary business rates) must be hypothecated to public transport schemes. Business needs to be able to see where additional money is going.
  • National vs. local priorities: there is a perceived disconnect between national transport investment priorities and city-regional needs. Track capacity between Wolverhampton, Birmingham and Coventry is a key issue – because limited capacity is divided between national and commuter rail services. Capacity of New Street station also a key priority – redevelopment of the station itself will not address this issue. Local actors want to invest in greater capacity, but this “is not even on Network Rail’s – or the Government’s – radar”.

Managing demand: road-user charging

The second segment of the conversation focused on road-user charging – and the prospects for its introduction in the Birmingham city-region. The West Midlands has secured a Transport Innovation Fund (TIF) pilot scheme, and recently released a Green Paper outlining options for local congestion charging. Discussion focused around four issues: principles vs. practicalities of road-user charging; the need for up-front infrastructure investment in the city-region; political difficulty; and the differences between the West Midlands and London.

  • Principles versus practicalities: widespread agreement that road-user charging in some form is required to tackle congestion. However, the detail surrounding any local charging scheme is a key barrier to implementation. High-level consensus on principles breaks down when discussion of practicalities begins. Additionally, a better case needs to be made to business regarding the costs and savings generated by congestion charging in order to ensure buy-in.
  • No charging without up-front infrastructure investment:c-charging is unacceptable to the city-region without large-scale up-front investment in public transport. Buses especially critical, as “they will take the strain” of any modal shift. Up-front investment is vital if people are to shift away from current patterns of car use. Major investment required – city-region would not accept congestion charging in return for New Street Station improvements alone, for example.
  • Charging as part of a package: congestion charging cannot be seen as a stand-alone measure. In order to gain political and public acceptance in the city-region, it must be pitched as part of a wider package of transport improvements and congestion cutting measures. Additionally, charging schemes must be explicitly targeted at “improving the competitiveness of the city-region” in order to be accepted by business interests.
  • Scale of road-user charging is important: a £5-per-day charge would not deter drivers in the West Midlands – charges need to be high enough to act as an effective deterrent.
  • Political issues:local congestion charging schemes politically difficult. Politicians are reluctant, and fear further loss of public trust. Introduction of road-user charging would be easier with 1) clear statement on how local schemes will relate to national road pricing; and 2) simultaneous introduction of c-charging schemes in several major English city-regions. This would help avoid perceived “threats to competitiveness” and first-mover disadvantage.
  • London experience is unique:C-charging worked in London because there is a clearly defined central area. In a polycentric conurbation like the West Midlands, it’s harder to understand the economic consequences of a c-charging scheme (for example, town centres could lose business to out-of-town retailers). Public transport networks in London were strong enough to cope with modal shift – unlike the West Midlands. Government needs to think harder about these contextual differences when calling for a roll-out of road pricing in other cities.

Blue-skies thinking: new directions for airports and air travel

The final portion of the seminar focused on the role of BirminghamInternationalAirport (and other regional airports) in the city-regional economy. The extension of BirminghamInternationalAirport’s runway to accommodate long-haul services to areas of opportunity was cited repeatedly, along with the need to capitalise on the airport’s strategic location.

  • Birmingham Int’l critical to economic growth: airport considered a key economic driver for the city-region – and the West Midlands region as a whole. Part-public, part-private ownership structure has been important. But investment constraints prevent airport from playing fullest possible role in local economy.
  • Capacity limitations constraining growth: city-region economy constrained by airport capacity. Serious knock-on effects for GVA growth potential. Runway must be lengthened in order to develop the airport into a ‘global gateway’ alongside London airports and Manchester. But private sector financiers unconvinced by business case, and public sector investment constrained by EU State Aid rules. City-region needs government and private-sector help in order to get around these barriers.
  • Long-haul services to areas of opportunity: city-region needs direct connections to Far East, Indian sub-continent and US (beyond New York) in order to boost business growth and investment. Majority of services outside the South East is run by low-cost airlines – which do not deliver economic benefits on the same scale as long-haul services. Investment the key to growth.
  • Build on strategic location: unlike most UK airports, Birmingham International has a good geographical location and solid road / rail access. Need to focus on building customer base in Oxford and Milton Keynes / South Midlands growth area, who would otherwise turn to airports in the South East.
  • Access improvements required: rail services to Birmingham, Milton Keynes, and beyond need improvement. Track capacity issues – with long-distance services competing with city-regional connectivity – again critical.

Adam Marshall

Senior Researcher, Centre for Cities

21 November 2006

For more information about the City Transport seminar series, please contact Adam on 020 7470 6119 or .

1

City Transport seminar report – Birmingham – November 2006