Resources

Objection reference: TWA/02/APP/03/OBJ/396

Document reference 396/0/4

Transport and Works Act 1992

Application for the proposed River Tyne (Tunnels) Order

Notes to the ‘Proof of Evidence’ submitted by the North East Combined Transport Activists Roundtable (NECTAR). 

1

My name is Martin Murphy and I am presenting proof of evidence on behalf of NECTAR, the North East Combined Transport Activists Roundtable.  My evidence is set out in Document 396/0/1 and summarised in Document 396/0/2.

1.1

##

In view of the extensive reference to the Tyneside Area Multi-Modal Study (known as TAMMS) earlier in the Inquiry, I should add to the written statement in 396/0/1 that I represented NECTAR on the Steering Group throughout the duration of TAMMS.  Rather than go over that ground again, I have now lodged Document 396/0/3, the NECTAR comment on the TAMMS Report, as submitted to the Government Office for the North East. 

I intend also to address relevant aspects of the Inquiry proceedings to date, together with the rebuttals published by the PTA, at the appropriate places in my evidence.  For convenience, I have provided written copies of what I expect to say in these respects, in this document, which I have referenced 396/0/4.

The numbers 1, 1.1 etc in this document relate to the numbers in the NECTAR proof of evidence.  The ## mark indicates that the note follows the text of the immediately preceding paragraph number.

2.1

##

In Mr Henderson’s rebuttal (Rebuttal TWPTA 4F, Paragraph 1.5) of my evidence, he suggests that in deriving a 4% growth rate in the way he describes, I am not comparing like with like.  Quite so and I will return to that later.  Here the key concern is the 1½% which is derived by comparing like with like; Mr Henderson states (Rebuttal TWPTA 4F, Paragraph 1.8) that ‘between 1999 and 2006 total traffic is forecast to grow by around 1.4% and between 1999 and 2021 by significantly less at around 1.1% per annum’.  This is clearly far below the 1½% publicised by the PTA.  Incidentally, since all are agreed (TWPTA4, Table 6.1) that some 80% of the traffic through the tunnel is local car traffic, I do not accept Mr Henderson’s suggestion (Rebuttal TWPTA 4F, Paragraph 1.7) that trunk road data are more appropriate than general traffic data.

2.2

##

Mr Henderson in his rebuttal (Rebuttal TWPTA 4F, Paragraph 1.9) states that ‘with the new crossing, traffic is forecast to grow at 3%pa from 1999 to 2006’.  During this period, of course, whatever the outcome of this inquiry, there will be no new crossing.  Furthermore, the graph published by the PTA suggests almost no growth over this period.  After a ‘big bang’ leap on opening the proposed new crossing the PTA graph records a forecast growth rate of almost 4% (3.75%) until 2016 and that’s the 4% which I have said has not been justified.  Taking the figures to 2021 gives growth rates of 2.7% after the big bang or 3.6% including the big bang.  I am forced to conclude, therefore, that either the graph published by the PTA is significantly misleading or the data are in such doubt as to affect decisions which may be made.  The cause for NECTAR’s concern is evident.

2.3

##

It is clear that the new rules issued by the Treasury would lead to the effect described by Mr Henderson (Rebuttal TWPTA 4F, Paragraph 1.10).  The NECTAR point is that such an effect might be of particular benefit to public transport projects.

2.4

##

The NECTAR concern is deepened by the knowledge which this inquiry has highlighted, showing that the options to manage traffic growth rely on a study undertaken in the early 1990’s.  The Treasury changes above, the rapidly advancing knowledge of the practicality and import of charging regimes and the discrediting of the predict and provide approach are but three of the major changes since that time.  I suggest, therefore, that work carried out over a decade ago cannot reflect the realities of the present world in which, for example, congestion charging has been so successfully implemented in London. 

It seems significant to NECTAR that Mr Henderson and more particularly Mr Simpson agreed in questioning that the only real solution to congestion was some form of road user charging.  I have perhaps more faith in the will of the political process to implement such change than they do, but it will be relevant to observe the fortunes of Mr Livingstone at the next election for the Mayor of London!  However, this very week, the Commission for Integrated Transport has again been pressing the point that well designed demand management measures will be an essential component of the delivery of long term benefits for transport network users.

2.5

##

To reinforce the NECTAR point, it has already become apparent that the baseline toll is now £1.55 at 1999 prices and Mr Chism reported in questioning, that this escalated to £1.7 at current prices; and this is before any detailed design work, before the resolution of traffic forecasts and before contract negotiations with would-be concessionaires!  In his rebuttal, Mr Miller suggests (Rebuttal TWPTA 1C, Paragraph 2.2) that ‘the TWPTA has considerable influence over the initial toll levels’; perhaps so, but definitive influence the PTA does not have. 

2.6

##

Indeed, Mr Miller in his rebuttal (Rebuttal TWPTA 1C, Paragraph 2.3) has conceded NECTAR’s point by stating not only that it will be possible to increase tolls by more than the retail price index but also by spelling out the mechanisms by which this can be achieved!  NECTAR consider it to be seriously misleading to have suggested in mid 2002 that the maximum toll would be £1.55.  Suffice to say that the evidence to this inquiry has shown that the claim has been dramatically breeched; the toll is now at £1.70 and rising.  Already the toll is well within the range quoted for a bored tunnel (£1.35 to £2.00, Update 6, June 2002), thus putting a clear question mark against the choice of the more damaging, submerged tube construction method.

S3.1

##

I am pleased to note the extensive acknowledgement of the SACTRA work in both Mr Henderson’s and Mr Tunnell’s proofs (TWPTA 4 & 13).  Moreover, NECTAR acknowledges that the PTA has now initiated the process of developing and presenting an economic impact assessment (Rebuttal TWPTA 13B, Paragraph 1.32).  I propose, therefore, to use the summary proof in 396/0/2 for this section of my evidence.

S3.2

##

Mr Tunnell appears now to have concluded that a new crossing may contribute to access to the A19 corridor, this being just one of the numerous parameters which he suggests contribute to job growth (Rebuttal TWPTA 13B, Paragraph 1.8).  Moreover, he invites comparison of the A1 and A19 to demonstrate the difference which accessibility makes to decision making by investors (Bullet 6, Rebuttal TWPTA 13B, Paragraph 1.8).  In this context, Appendices C3 and C4 of his proof make particularly interesting reading.  In the last 5 years, when the existing tunnel is claimed to have been significantly congested, almost all the significant investors appear to have chosen the A19 corridor.  Indeed, there are no investors listed for the A1 in Tyne and Wear and almost non in the wider area.  Line 7, Peugot is noted to have been an error resulting from the use in good faith of unchecked data supplied by others; the Ryton mentioned is now known to be in the Coventry area.

Moreover, in Paragraph 4.30 of his main proof (TWPTA13), Mr Tunnell states ‘the analysis of detailed employment trends in the A1 Wards confirms the positive influence of the A1 on employment and investment’.  This of course is the A1 which is said to be so heavily congested that it necessitated the TAMM Study.  In questioning, Mr Tunnell suggested that the Metro Centre was only on its present site because of the A1 then being uncongested.  Others, perhaps more in accordance with contemporary reports, suggested that the cause lay in the grant structure at the time and the point was made that anyway, the tunnel was not then congested.

Evidently, the link between inward investment and congestion at one transport node remains tenuous.

S3.3

##

Mr Tunnell draws on the Humber Bridge experience for his rebuttal (Rebuttal TWPTA 13B, Paragraph 1.28).  It is worth reading in full, the paragraph of his proof, which he cites:

Work by Simon on the Humber Bridge and associated regional development found the results to be mixed.  In this case established firms shed labour because the new infrastructure reduced the labour input required to produce and distribute existing output levels.  However, reorganisation and new opportunities arising from integration of the North and South Bank markets enabled some firms to streamline their operations, enabling others to ultimately expand.  Total employment in the sample of existing firms examined rose only marginally.  At a wider level, however, Simon concluded that the bridge would yield significantly improved regional competitiveness spawning new firms and attracting others from outside, thus generating a more dynamic economy with reduced unemployment.

NECTAR notes that once more the actual experience is at best neutral.  The study was carried out two decades ago and seemingly there is no evidence yet to show that the forecast growth has materialised; it appears that yet again the growth is concentrated in the future.  A clear case of Jam Tomorrow!

S3.5

##

NECTAR accepts that the elegant proof of evidence presented by Mr Tunnell (TWPTA 13) is a most valuable start to the process of compiling an Economic Impact Assessment.  However, NECTAR feel obliged to point out that as a ‘Proof of Evidence’, Mr Tunnell’s document has yet to be subject to the essential public and institutional scrutiny necessary for the credibility of the final document.

4.1

##

Far from removing a barrier, we now know from questioning at this Inquiry, that the toll on the proposed new crossing would be £3.40 return and the bus fare is apparently as yet unknown.  Moreover, the claimed ‘strong transport economic case’ suggested by Mr Henderson (Rebuttal TWPTA 4F, Paragraph 1.12), and the apparently satisfactory benefit to cost ratio (PTA 4, Table 12.1) is entirely dependent on an arbitrary attribution of financial value to personal travelling time.  The process of calculating transport economic benefit in this way, was established to allow comparison between competing road schemes.  As such it was intended to be a relative measure and it is entirely inappropriate for the absolute justification of any one scheme, such as the proposed new crossing.

Mr Henderson has made clear that ‘the possibility that the new crossing might generate additional traffic, however, has been accepted’ (Rebuttal TWPTA 4F, Paragraph 1.12) and NECTAR considers it mischievous of the PTA ever to have suggested that the phenomenon of induced traffic was an invention of the objectors.

4.2

##

NECTAR does not accept Mr Henderson’s view (Rebuttal TWPTA 4F, Paragraph 1.13) that ‘the true impact of the scheme is more appropriately assessed by comparing the scheme flows for 2021 with the situation without the scheme in the same year (Do Minimum)’, albeit the traffic increases which that comparison yields are severe enough.  NECTAR is of the view that the true comparison would be with a ‘do something else’ option such as public transport improvements and road user charging.  That said it seems to be stretching credibility beyond breaking point to suggest that traffic through the tunnel could increase from 35 000 to 55 000 vpd, of which 80% is local, without a major effect on all the roads in the locality.  The extra vehicles, some 60% extra, have to start and finish somewhere in the locality!

4.3

##

NECTAR is concerned that no specific response to this situation has been made.  As already noted the claim that only on two roads would traffic increase is not credible and the reality will inevitably be an increase in risk for all and for children in particular.

5.2

##

We now know from Mr Henderson, that the measured average delay is only some 4 to 6 minutes on peak-time journeys through the existing tunnel and 1 minute or less at inter-peak times during the day (PTA 4, Table 6.2).  Moreover, we established in questioning that the intention was to provide only 2 buses per hour through the tunnel for an undisclosed part of the day; a gap between buses of 30 minutes.  Of course, as Mr Henderson argued, public transport users are more disciplined than motorists and work to a timetable.  Such discipline, however, does not negate the fact that to arrive at work on time may in reality mean the bus user arriving 25minutes or so early (to avoid being 5 minutes late), nor does it negate the fact that just missing a bus results in a wait of nearly 30 minutes.  By comparison, an average wait of 6 minutes by motorists wishing to access the tunnel at peak times, seems quite reasonable.  To reinforce the point, the maximum measured delay in the survey reported by Mr Henderson (PTA 4, Paragraph 6.9) was less than 12 minutes.

5.4

##

NECTAR does not accept that ‘all of the work that Mr Murphy suggests should be done to assess real alternatives to increasing road capacity has been done as part of this study’ (TAMMS). (Rebuttal TWPTA 4F, Paragraph 1.18)  In its response to the TAMMS final report (Document 396/0/3) NECTAR said at Paragraph 8:

The possibility of a new Tyne crossing being built is contentious to say the least and is subject to a Public Inquiry.  It is unfortunate that the consultants have pre-empted the outcome of that Inquiry by including the new Tyne crossing in both of the hybrid scenarios developed, simply because they considered it ‘likely to proceed’ (Section 6.1).  The consequent failure to explore alternative approaches in any depth represents a major flaw in the Study process.  The proposed new crossing would involve vast construction damage together with extensive environmental damage and significant marine pollution.  The draft source report states ‘There would be the loss of land and property including the Riverside Park, commercial and industrial properties, community facilities and a public house.’  The omission of these consequences represents a serious flaw in the Study Report.

No doubt the note on TAMMS which the Inspector has requested will make it clear but it is pertinent to note here, that the chosen Hybrid was recommended before either Hybrid had been costed.  NECTAR said at Paragraph 2 of Document 396/0/3 that:

The Report states that there was ‘almost unanimous agreement’ that the concepts in Hybrid 2 should not be further investigated; the Report does not say that this decision was taken before the cost of either Hybrid had been established and that the decision was consequently of doubtful validity.  The costs of the recommended measures, set out in Table 7.1 of the Report, have not been subject to effective scrutiny and indeed, the Highways Agency indicated to the Steering Group that the costs of the road building schemes are likely to be higher than those presented.  It consequently remains the NECTAR view that the concepts in Hybrid 2, without the proposed new Tyne crossing, would offer a much more cost effective and affordable solution to the perceived problem of congestion on the A1 and A19 in the Study area.

Indeed, Mr Parker, Director General of Nexus, the operating arm of the PTA, writing in the Newcastle Journal newspaper during the course of this Inquiry, makes the point that ‘frankly, there have been very few ‘sticks’ and those that have existed have been puny.’  He later goes on, ‘Where the ‘stick and carrot’ options have really worked in terms of dramatically increasing the market share of public transport – in places such as Brighton, Oxford and York – a comprehensive strategy of car restraint measures, park and ride, networks of bus priorities … have been adopted’.  Evidently, NECTAR is not alone in its views.

Much was made in the presentation of the PTA evidence to this inquiry of the fact that the PTA’s Project Orpheus does not currently include a new metro crossing of the River Tyne.  Whatever the rights and wrongs of that issue, NECTAR suggests that it would be curious indeed, if the PTA management, anxious to establish its proposed road tunnel as the only credible solution to its perceived problem, should also propose to build a metro tunnel!  NECTAR sees the lack of a dedicated public transport, river-crossing proposal, as one consequence of the conflict of interest which has resulted from giving the PTA responsibility for the road tunnel.

NECTAR has been interested to note the great emphasis which the presenters of the PTA evidence have placed on the PTA’s expenditure on public transport.  Mr Miller in his rebuttal (TWPTA 1C, Paragraphs 2.6 to 2.9) summarises various projects with a total proposed expenditure price tag of more than a billion pounds.  This picture of public transport everywhere, is, of course, largely irrelevant to the Inquiry and is in stark contrast to the harsh reality of the two buses per hour intended for the proposed new crossing.

Similarly, NECTAR has noted the effort made by the proposers, to demonstrate that the proposed project has Government support either directly of through the Highways Agency.  To date, however, Government support does not appear to have been strong enough to release any financial contribution!

6.1

#part#

In this respect it is vital to note the concerns set out in the Prospective Health Impact Assessment published by Northumbria University.  This independent report, now a core document of the Inquiry, is considered by the South Tyne Star on the front page of its 13 March 03 issue to ‘highlight fears over everything from greater stress levels to poorer air quality to increased noise.’

##

NECTAR has noted Mr Fenwick’s assurances in questioning, that the valuations concerned would be done by a valuer appointed by the PTA but remains concerned that the Guidelines (PTA11 Appendix D) are cast throughout in terms of ‘The PTA must be of the opinion’.  It seems wholly unreasonable that the perpetrator of the problem should then be able to act as judge and jury in claims for compensation for the damage that same perpetrator has caused.  Moreover the combination of distress needed to have a claim even considered: (PTA11 Appendix D, Paragraph 7) ‘We will not normally offer to buy your property unless we are of the opinion that it will be seriously affected by BOTH diminution in value AND (PTA emphasis) noise arising during the construction period or during the first year following the opening of the New Tyne Crossing to traffic’, appears totally unreasonable.

6.2

##

Indeed, Mr Thurlow in responding to questioning, made explicitly clear that both the proposed method of construction and the choice of the southern portal location had been made on the grounds of cost rather than consideration for the communities affected.  Update 6 in June 2002 equates lower cost with lower tolls for motorists, so in reality, it is clear to NECTAR that the PTA is prepared to sacrifice communities in order to reduce costs for motorists.

6.3

##

NECTAR is concerned that the appraisal summary tables, which ought to have been at the core of the study process, were only produced after the event, namely, in Mr Simpson’s proof of evidence (TWPTA 3).  Mr Simpson was presented to the inquiry as having conducted an independent review of the proposal.  However, NECTAR notes that in the questioning of Mr Simpson and others it was established that the data in the appraisal summary tables was provided by those directly involved in preparing the present application for the proposed new crossing order.

6.4

#(First part)#

Interestingly and indeed significantly, the PTA appears not to have rebutted NECTAR’s view in this respect.