The performance of the Department for Transport - Fleet News

Processed: 26-02-2010 19:09:54 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB Job: 442441 Unit: PAG1Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 112 December 2009 Rt Hon Lord Adonis and Mr Robert DevereuxQ85 Graham Stringer: They are additionalpassengers and it is a good thing. It gets a lot ofelderly people out of the house who otherwise wouldnot have been but it does obscure the sort of privatecommercial side of the business. You have said youwill reflect on that. Last time we talked about busesyou said you would consider using the Bus ServiceOperator Grant for greater incentives. There isalready an environmental incentive within that. Iunderstand the PTE Groups are asking for theBSOG to be transferred in their areas so that theycan deal with through-ticketing more easily. Wouldit not be a good idea to transfer that money to themso that they could direct the money to incentivise thebuses in their areas?Lord Adonis: Yes. We are, as you say, reformingBSOG to make it much more eVective at drivingworthwhile improvements such as fuel eYciency.There is a significant element now in the reformedBSOG for fuel eYciency, and also smart ticketing,which is another important priority we have too. Weare looking at further changes beyond that and I amhappy to consider any suggestions that theCommittee might wish to make in terms of furtherchanges that we might make in due course, but Icannot make any commitments at the moment.Q86 Graham Stringer: This, I suppose, is a questionto Mr Devereux. During the passage of the 2008Local Transport Bill, now an Act, we had a lot ofdiscussion about bus monitoring. How manyresources does the Department expect VOSA to usefor monitoring buses at the present time?Mr Devereux: That is a question which I would liketo reply to in writing. I know what the VOSA budgetis; I am not sure I know exactly how much of that isbeing spent on looking at buses. It is a smaller partof the operation than looking after HGVs andoverseeing the whole of the MOT element for cars.It is not at the top of my head. I am sorry.This is an embargoed advance copy.Not to be published in any form until00:01 on Thursday 4 MarchQ87 Graham Stringer: Maybe you will write to theCommittee.Mr Devereux: I will.Q88 Graham Stringer: Thank you. My final point isthe section about the London congestion charge inthe Report. You point out that there is less traYccoming into the centre of London since thecongestion charge was introduced. You do not pointout that congestion is almost at exactly the samelevel as it was when the congestion charge wasintroduced, but I just want to add that—unless youwant to disagree with that?Lord Adonis: I think our best response to that is, thatis a matter for the Mayor.Q89 Graham Stringer: I was leading into a question.What I was going to ask was, what have you learnedfrom both the London congestion charge within theresponsibility of the Mayor and the debate about theGreater Manchester congestion charge? What isyour response to those, one scheme up and runningand one completely rejected by the population?Lord Adonis: Perhaps if I could deal with Londonfirst, because, as a Londoner, I lived through thewhole experience. It is not clear to me that, if youhad had a referendum before you introduced thecongestion charge in London, it would necessarilyhave been won. There were acute concerns about awhole range of issues: whether the technology wouldwork right through to the principle of having acongestion charge at all, which would have been veryhotly debated and it might not have proceeded.However, I think once the political leader, KenLivingstone, had taken the decision and introducedit, a consensus was quite quickly developed that thiswas the right thing for London, so much so that atthe last mayoral election both of the principalcandidates supported the congestion charge; theissue was whether it should be extended, and ofcourse, the new Mayor has decided not to extend it.In explaining why that is the case, I think it isbecause the benefits quite quickly became apparentto Londoners. As you say, there is a debate aboutwhat has actually happened to congestion itself butthere was a significant decrease in numbers of carscoming in, and certainly most realistic observersthink the congestion would have got a lot worse hadthe congestion charge not come in. It also, of course,released funds for the improvement of publictransport and was part and parcel of a verysignificant new investment in London publictransport. So it was seen as part of a wider package.My reflection on Greater Manchester and thereferendum there is that clearly, the residents ofGreater Manchester were not persuaded that thebenefits would outweigh the costs as they saw it. Partof the reason for that is that the benefits were clearlyprospective whereas the costs which they faced weregoing to be immediate. The issue which then needsto be faced is whether or not, first of all, the tradeoVof benefits and costs was an appropriate one forthat particular scheme, but also there is acommentary on political leadership, whether it isappropriate to hold referenda in such circumstances,where it is diYcult to project the benefits. That issomething on which I think councils will wish toponder in future cases.Q90 Chairman: You have a target of increasing buspassengers by 10%. It has been achieved but it hasbeen achieved because of increases in London, notelsewhere. What action is going to be taken tochange that? Does that give you concern?Lord Adonis: That is correct; it has been achievedbecause of the huge increase that we have had in buspassenger numbers in London, and we are keen tosee bus passenger use increase outside of London.That is part of the reason, for example, why wepassed the Local Transport Act, which gives localauthorities enhanced powers to be able to givepriority to buses, to forge partnerships with buscompanies, and we hope that that will lead to asignificant increase in bus passenger numbers.Q91 Chairman: Have you any other proposals tohelp that?