DOCSLIB.ORG

Future of Mobility: Governance of UK Transport Infrastructures Technical Annexes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Future of Mobility: Governance of UK Transport Infrastructures Technical Annexes Governance of UK Transport Infrastructures: Technical Annex Future of Mobility: Evidence Review Foresight, Government Office for Science Governance of UK Transport Infrastructures: Technical Annex Professor Alf Baird (Independent) Dr Lucy Budd (Loughborough University) Professor Oliver Carsten (University of Leeds) Professor Iain Docherty (University of Glasgow) Nigel Foster (Fore Consulting) Professor Greg Marsden (University of Leeds) Professor Chris Nash (University of Leeds) Dr John Nellthorp (University of Leeds) Emma Roberts (Fore Consulting) Dr Phillip Wheat (University of Leeds) Professor Peter White (University of Westminster) Dr Tony Whiteing (University of Leeds) January 2019 This report has an information cut off date of May 2018. This review has been commissioned as part of the UK government’s Foresight Future of Mobility project. The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent those of any government or organisation. This document is not a statement of government policy. 1 Table of Contents Method Statement.................................................................................................................. 7 Scope and Boundaries .......................................................................................................... 7 1. MODES .................................................................................................................................. 9 1.1 Domestic aviation ...................................................................................................... 10 1.1.1 Scope ...................................................................................................................... 10 1.1.2 Method .................................................................................................................... 10 1.1.3 Institutional structure............................................................................................... 10 1.1.4 Funding and financing ............................................................................................ 15 1.1.5 Major scheme example: Airport capacity in SE England ....................................... 15 1.1.6 Critical governance challenges .............................................................................. 15 1.1.7 References .............................................................................................................. 16 1.1.8 Annex ...................................................................................................................... 18 1.2 Bus and Coach .......................................................................................................... 19 1.2.1 Scope ...................................................................................................................... 19 1.2.2 Method .................................................................................................................... 19 1.2.3 Institutional structure............................................................................................... 19 1.2.4 Funding and financing ............................................................................................ 23 1.2.5 Appraisal and major schemes ................................................................................ 26 1.2.6 Specific issues in Wales ......................................................................................... 26 1.2.7 Specific issues in Northern Ireland ......................................................................... 27 1.2.8 Critical governance challenges .............................................................................. 28 1.2.9 References .............................................................................................................. 30 1.2.10 Annexes ................................................................................................................ 32 1.3 Freight ............................................................................................................................ 35 1.3.1 Scope ...................................................................................................................... 35 1.3.2 Method .................................................................................................................... 35 1.3.3 Institutional structure............................................................................................... 35 1.3.4 Funding and financing ............................................................................................ 38 1.3.5 Major scheme example: Radlett Freight Terminal ................................................. 39 1.3.6 Critical governance challenges .............................................................................. 39 1.3.7 References .............................................................................................................. 41 1.4 Maritime ......................................................................................................................... 43 1.4.1 Scope ...................................................................................................................... 43 1.4.2 Method .................................................................................................................... 43 1.4.3 Institutional structure............................................................................................... 43 1.4.4 Funding and financing ............................................................................................ 49 1.4.5 Major scheme example: Liverpool2........................................................................ 50 1.4.6 References .............................................................................................................. 52 1.4.7 Annex: Division of maritime responsibilities within the UK Government ............... 56 1.5 Rail ................................................................................................................................. 57 1.5.1 Scope ...................................................................................................................... 57 1.5.2 Method .................................................................................................................... 57 1.5.3 Institutional structure............................................................................................... 57 2 1.5.4 Funding and financing ............................................................................................ 61 1.5.5 Major scheme examples in rail ............................................................................... 64 1.5.6 Critical governance challenges .............................................................................. 64 1.5.7 References .............................................................................................................. 66 1.6 Roads ............................................................................................................................. 67 1.6.1 Scope ...................................................................................................................... 67 1.6.2 Method .................................................................................................................... 67 1.6.3 Institutional structure............................................................................................... 67 1.6.4 Funding and Financing ........................................................................................... 71 1.6.5 Major scheme examples road ................................................................................ 75 1.6.6 Critical governance challenges .............................................................................. 79 1.6.7 References .............................................................................................................. 81 2. SPATIAL DIFFERENCES ................................................................................................... 84 2.1 Scotland ......................................................................................................................... 85 2.1.1 Scope ...................................................................................................................... 85 2.1.2 Methods .................................................................................................................. 85 2.1.3 Institutional structure............................................................................................... 85 2.1.5 Critical governance challenges .............................................................................. 93 2.1.6 References .............................................................................................................. 95 2.2 Transport for the North .................................................................................................. 96 2.2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 96 2.2.2 What modes of transport do they have a role or influence on? ............................. 96 2.2.3 What role do they play? .......................................................................................... 96 2.2.4 What is the legal or other basis of this? ................................................................. 97 2.2.5 How are decisions made? .....................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Risk Landscape in UK Public Policy Discussion Paper [Or Working Paper, Etc.]
    Patrick Dunleavy, Christopher Gilson, Simon Bastow and Jane Tinkler The National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the risk landscape in UK Public Policy Discussion paper [or working paper, etc.] Original citation: Dunleavy, Patrick, Christopher Gilson, Simon Bastow and Jane Tinkler (2009): The National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the risk landscape in UK public policy. URN 09/1423. The Risk and Regulation Advisory Council, London, UK. This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/25785/ Originally available from LSE Public Policy Group Available in LSE Research Online: November 2009 © 2009 the authors LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. The National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Risk Landscape in UK Public Policy Patrick Dunleavy, Christopher Gilson, Simon Bastow and Jane Tinkler October 2009 The Risk and Regulation Advisory Council This report was produced in July 2009 for the Risk and Regulation Advisory Council. The Risk and Regulation Advisory Council is an independent advisory group which aims to improve the understanding of public risk and how to respond to it.
    [Show full text]
  • Future Access Pricing in the Water Sector a Discussion Paper
    Water today, water tomorrow Future access pricing in the water sector A discussion paper www.ofwat.gov.uk Future access pricing in the water sector 2 Water today, water tomorrow About this document This document introduces some of the terminology, concepts and issues we will need to consider in developing a new charging rules framework for access pricing for the water sector in England and Wales. It describes: • what access pricing is and why it matters; • some of the key issues we will need to consider around access pricing; • which costs could be considered in setting access prices; and • the lessons that we can learn from other sectors. The UK Government’s Water Bill, published in June 2013, will extend the role of competition in the sector in England. This will mean new companies will have access to the systems and services provided by monopoly water and sewerage and water only companies. The Water Bill also requires us to prepare rules that monopoly companies will need to follow in setting the prices they will charge for providing access. Contents 1. Why does access pricing matter? 4 2. What are the main issues? 8 3. Which costs should we consider? 12 4. What lessons can we learn from other sectors? 15 5. Next steps 26 6. Further information 27 3 Future access pricing in the water sector 1. Why does access pricing matter? Most people in England and And in June 2013, the UK Together these reforms will Wales receive their water Government published draft encourage: services from one of 19 licensed legislation (the Water Bill) to regional monopoly companies achieve this vision.
    [Show full text]
  • The Carrying Trade and the First Railways in England, C1750-C1850
    The Carrying Trade and the First Railways in England, c1750-c1850 Carolyn Dougherty PhD University of York Railway Studies November 2018 Abstract Transport and economic historians generally consider the change from moving goods principally on roads, inland waterways and coastal ships to moving them principally on railways as inevitable, unproblematic, and the result of technological improvements. While the benefits of rail travel were so clear that most other modes of passenger transport disappeared once rail service was introduced, railway goods transport did not offer as obvious an improvement over the existing goods transport network, known as the carrying trade. Initially most railways were open to the carrying trade, but by the 1840s railway companies began to provide goods carriage and exclude carriers from their lines. The resulting conflict over how, and by whom, goods would be transported on railways, known as the carrying question, lasted more than a decade, and railway companies did not come to dominate domestic goods carriage until the 1850s. In this study I develop a fuller picture of the carrying trade than currently exists, highlighting its multimodal collaborative structure and setting it within the ‘sociable economy’ of late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century England. I contrast this economy with the business model of joint-stock companies, including railway companies, and investigate responses to the business practices of these companies. I analyse the debate over railway company goods carriage, and identify changes in goods transport resulting from its introduction. Finally, I describe the development and outcome of the carrying question, showing that railway companies faced resistance to their attempts to control goods carriage on rail lines not only from the carrying trade but also from customers of goods transport, the government and the general public.
    [Show full text]
  • Home Office Preparedness for COVID-19 (Coronavirus): Management of the Borders: Government Response to the Committee’S Fifth Report
    House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Home Office preparedness for COVID-19 (coronavirus): management of the borders: Government Response to the Committee’s Fifth Report Sixth Special Report of Session 2019–21 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 11 November 2020 HC 974 Published on 13 November 2020 by authority of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies. Current membership Yvette Cooper MP (Labour, Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) Chair Diane Abbott MP (Labour, Hackney North and Stoke Newington) Dehenna Davison MP (Conservative, Bishop Auckland) Ruth Edwards MP (Conservative, Rushcliffe) Laura Farris MP (Conservative, Newbury) Simon Fell MP (Conservative, Barrow and Furness) Andrew Gwynne MP (Labour, Denton and Reddish) Adam Holloway MP (Conservative, Gravesham) Dame Diana Johnson MP (Labour, Kingston upon Hull North) Tim Loughton MP (Conservative, East Worthing and Shoreham) Stuart C McDonald MP (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2020. This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright-parliament/. Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/homeaffairscom and in print by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Home to School Travel and Transport Guidance Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities
    Home to school travel and transport guidance Statutory guidance for local authorities July 2014 Contents Summary 5 Review date 5 What legislation (including statutory instruments) does this guidance refer to? 5 Who is this guidance for? 5 Main points 6 Local authorities’ statutory duties 6 Part 1 - Statutory duties 7 1.1 Sustainable school travel 7 Assessing the travel and transport needs of children and young people 7 Audit of infrastructure to support sustainable school travel 8 Strategy to develop infrastructure to support travel needs of pupils 8 Promoting sustainable travel and transport to and from school 9 Publication of Sustainable Modes of Travel Strategy 9 1.2 Provision of travel arrangements 9 1.3 Provision of travel arrangements: Eligible children 10 Statutory walking distances eligibility 10 Special educational needs, a disability or mobility problems eligibility 10 Unsafe route eligibility 11 Extended rights eligibility 11 Accompaniment 11 Assessing route safety 12 Measurement of routes 12 Timing of assessment of eligibility 12 Qualifying school 13 Travel arrangements made by the local authority or other bodies/persons 13 Suitability of arrangements 14 Part 2 - Discretionary Arrangements 16 Travel arrangements for other children 16 Religion or belief 16 Part 3 - Transport Considerations 18 2 Safeguarding requirements 18 Training and Equalities 18 Bus safety considerations 18 Poor behaviour on school buses/other modes of transport 19 Partnership 19 Part 4 – Policy Changes 20 Publication of general arrangements and policies
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Board Meeting 10Am, Friday 23Rd March 2012
    Executive Board Meeting 10am, Friday 23 rd March 2012 Nottingham City Council AGENDA 1. Apologies 2. Declarations of Interest 3. Minutes of the Executive Board Meeting 16 TH December 2011 4. Financial Report 2011-12 5. EMC Priorities – Business Plan 2012-13 6. EMC Budget 2012-13 7. EMC Membership 2012/13 (Verbal Report) 8. Welfare Reform 9. Transport Investment a) Midland Main Line Upgrade & Electrification b) Local Transport Bodies Consultation 10. Regional Growth Fund and BIS Update (Verbal Report) 11. Affordable Housing Provision 12. Judicial Review and DEFRA Consultation on the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 13. Board Reports a) East Midlands Improvement & Efficiency Partnership b) Strategic Migration Board c) Regional Employers Board 14. Report of the EMC Management Group (discussion to be chaired by Cllr Jon Collins) Item 3 EAST MIDLANDS COUNCILS EXECUTIVE BOARD MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 16 TH DECEMBER 2011 AT LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Present: Cllr David Parsons CBE (Chair) – Leicestershire County Council Cllr Jon Collins (Vice-Chair) – Nottingham City Council Cllr Neil Clarke (Vice Chair) – Rushcliffe Borough Council Cllr Ernie White – Blaby District Council Cllr Chris Millar – Daventry District Council Cllr Andrew Lewer – Derbyshire County Council Cllr Lewis Rose OBE – Derbyshire Dales District Council Cllr Martin Hill OBE – Lincolnshire County Council Cllr Kay Cutts – Nottinghamshire County Council Cllr Roger Begy OBE – Rutland County Council Cllr Linda Neal – South Kesteven District Council Cllr Robert
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming the Green Book to Achieve Better Outcomes from Infrastructure Investment: ICE Discussion Paper
    Reforming the Green Book to achieve better outcomes from infrastructure investment: ICE discussion paper Executive summary If infrastructure is to play a key role in ‘levelling up’ the UK and creating better outcomes for society and the environment, it stands to reason that the appraisal and evaluation processes used to assess projects and programmes should be positioned to enable this to happen. The UK, through HM Treasury’s Green Book, is widely viewed as having among the most mature frameworks for assessing, appraising and prioritising infrastructure investment.1 However, concerns over unequal investment levels throughout the country have resulted in the government conducting a review of the Green Book, potentially leading to a re- evaluation of the methodology and guidance that determines what gets built where, who benefits and how they benefit. With £600 billion earmarked for spend on infrastructure by the end of the decade,2 the infrastructure sector is well placed to leverage investment to create additional social and environmental value and help rebuild local economies affected by Covid-19. As outlined in ICE’s report Covid-19 and the New Normal for Infrastructure Systems, society will expect to get more from infrastructure to support societal resilience and ensure the whole-life benefits of infrastructure investment are spread as widely as possible.3 This shift will drive a requirement for infrastructure to be recognised as a system, rather than as a collection of projects. The same report found strong support for the economic recovery from Covid-19 being a green one and for projects, programmes and investments across the infrastructure sector to be evaluated and prioritised on this basis.
    [Show full text]
  • The State of the Nation Transport 2013 Scotland the State of the Nation Scotland: Transport
    THE STATE OF THE NATION TRANSPORT 2013 SCOTLAND THE STATE OF THE NATION SCOTLAND: TRANSPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A safe, efficient and reliable transport network is essential to our everyday lives - connecting people with goods, services and opportunity. Since devolution, Scotland has had the Our report proposes a series of flexibility to develop its own national recommendations which we believe priorities for transport investment. The can build on the achievements we have presence of a clearly defined national seen to date. These include; actions strategy has helped to deliver significant to improve our links with key external improvements to our transport networks markets, to strengthen existing decision- and infrastructure. making and governance arrangements, and to ensure the future affordability ICE Scotland’s research and engagement and value for money of new and existing identified a general satisfaction with transport infrastructure projects. the condition and performance of Scotland’s transport networks - The state of the nation’s transport although concerns remain. networks are vital to the health and wellbeing of Scotland’s economy. Now is the time to build on our achievements. ABOUT ICE ABOUT THIS REPORT The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) ICE’s State of the Nation reports are is a global membership organisation compiled by panels of experts drawn which qualifies civil engineers, exchanges from across the public and private knowledge and best practice, and sectors. They provide a commentary provides expert advice to government. on the condition and performance of our infrastructure, and are Our Royal Charter binds us to intended to stimulate debate act in the public interest, and our and influence policy makers.
    [Show full text]
  • Llwybr Newydd a New Wales Transport Strategy
    Llwybr Newydd The Wales Transport Strategy 2021 Contents From the Ministers 3 5. Holding ourselves and our partners to account 47 Introduction 5 5.1 Transport performance 1. Vision 11 board 48 5.2 A new evaluation 2. Our priorities 13 framework 48 3. Well-being ambitions 22 5.3 Modal shift 48 Good for people and 5.4 Well-being measures 49 communities 23 5.5 Data on modes and sectors 50 Good for the environment 27 6. The five ways of Good for the economy working 48 and places in Wales 31 6.1 Involvement 52 Good for culture and the Welsh language 34 6.2 Collaboration 52 6.3 Prevention 52 4. How we will deliver 38 6.4 Integration 52 4.1 Investing responsibly 40 6.5 Long-term 52 4.2 Delivery and action plans 41 4.3 Cross-cutting delivery 7. Mini-plans 53 pathways 42 7.1 Active travel 56 4.4 Working in partnership 45 7.2 Bus 60 4.5 Updating our policies 7.3 Rail 64 and governance 46 7.4 Roads, streets and parking 68 4.6 Skills and capacity 46 7.5 Third sector 72 7.6 Taxis and private hire vehicles (PHV) 76 7.7 Freight and logistics 80 7.8 Ports and maritime 84 7.9 Aviation 88 Llwybr Newydd - The Wales Transport Strategy 2021 2 But we won’t achieve that level of physical and digital connectivity change unless we take people with to support access to more local Croeso us, listening to users and involving services, more home and remote from the Ministers people in designing a transport working.
    [Show full text]
  • A Call Against the Decline in Local Bus Services
    A call against the decline in local bus services Resolution Shortlist Briefing Notes A call against the decline in local bus services Over the last decade there has been a massive decline in the number of bus services, particularly of those in rural and semi-rural areas. In order to alleviate loneliness, improve health and wellbeing, as well as promoting sustainable development, the NFWI calls on the Government and local authorities to increase subsidies and work in partnership with bus companies and community transport operators to enable an adequate provision of services. Proposer’s position The proposer would like the importance of a local sustainable bus service, particularly in rural areas, to be more widely recognised. In light of the falling coverage of bus services and the wide-spread impact on communities, this resolution calls on local and national government to take action. The scale of the problem Since 2010, local authorities have faced budgets cuts which have put pressure on the delivery of local services such as health centres, post offices and libraries. Those without access to a car rely heavily on public transport, and the loss of a bus service can reduce access to services and facilities and contribute to social exclusion and loneliness. According to the Campaign for Better Transport, council bus budgets have been cut by 45% since 2010. Local authorities across England and Wales were found to have taken £182 million away from supported bus services over the decade, affecting more than 3,000 bus services in England and 259 in Wales. According to Rural England, about half of people in smaller villages do not have access to any public transport and young people's access to education is being impacted by poor public transport provision.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Ungovernable'? Financialisation and the Governance Of
    Governing the ‘ungovernable’? Financialisation and the governance of transport infrastructure in the London ‘global city-region’ February 2018 Peter O’Briena* Andy Pikea and John Tomaneyb aCentre for Urban and Regional Development Studies (CURDS), Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK NE1 7RU. Email: peter.o’[email protected]; [email protected] bBartlett School of Planning, University College London, Bartlett School of Planning, University College London, 620 Central House, 14 Upper Woburn Place, London, UK WC1H 0NN. Email: [email protected] *Corresponding author 1 Abstract The governance of infrastructure funding and financing at the city-region scale is a critical aspect of the continued search for mechanisms to channel investment into the urban landscape. In the context of the global financial crisis, austerity and uneven growth, national, sub-national and local state actors are being compelled to adopt the increasingly speculative activities of urban entrepreneurialism to attract new capital, develop ‘innovative’ financial instruments and models, and establish new or reform existing institutional arrangements for urban infrastructure governance. Amidst concerns about the claimed ‘ungovernability’ of ‘global’ cities and city-regions, governing urban infrastructure funding and financing has become an acute issue. Infrastructure renewal and development are interpreted as integral to urban growth, especially to underpin the size and scale of large cities and their significant contributions within national economies. Yet, oovercoming fragmented local jurisdictions to improve the governance and economic, social and environmental development of major metropolitan areas remains a challenge. The complex, and sometimes conflicting and contested inter-relationships at stake raise important questions about the role of the state in wrestling with entrepreneurial and managerialist governance imperatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Worcestershire Local Transport Board Framework
    Worcestershire Local Transport Board Assurance Framework February 2013 Find out more online: www.worcestershire.gov.uk/transport www.wlep.org.uk Worcestershire Local Transport Body Assurance Framework 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 2. Purpose, Structure and Operating Principles 2 2.1 Name 2 2.2 Geography 2 2.3 Membership 2 2.4 Status and Role of Accountable Body 3 2.5 Conflicts of Interest 4 2.6 Gifts and Hospitality 4 2.7 Audit and Scrutiny 5 2.8 Strategic Objectives and Purpose 5 2.9 Support and Administration Arrangements 5 2.10 Working Arrangements and Meeting Frequency 6 2.11 Transparency and Local Engagement 6 2.12 Complaints and Whistle Blowing 6 3. Prioritisation of Schemes 7 3.1 Introduction 7 3.2 Prioritisation Process 7 3.3 Scheme Eligibility 8 4. Programme Management and Investment Decisions 10 4.1 Scheme Assessment and Approval 10 4.2 Programme Entry 10 4.3 Conditional Approval 10 4.4 Full Approval 10 4.5 The Transport Business Case 11 4.6 Strategic Case 11 4.7 Economic Case 11 4.8 Financial Case 11 4.9 Commercial Case 11 4.10 Management Case 12 4.11 Value for Money 12 4.12 External Views on Business Cases 12 4.13 Release of Funding, Cost Control and Approval Conditions 13 Appendix A -Articles of Constitution, Financial Regulations, Guide to Worcestershire County Council Constitution, Members' Code of Conduct, Procedural Standing Orders Appendix B - LTP3 Policy List, The Worcestershire SAF Summary, Worcestershire County Council Scheme Appraisal Framework: User Guide 1. Introduction 1.1 Background 1.1.1 The Department for Transport has announced its intention to devolve funding for local major transport schemes to Local Transport Bodies (LTBs) from 2015.
    [Show full text]