The Local Government Technical Advisers Group
The Local Government Technical Advisers Group Evidence to the
Institution of Civil Engineers
National Needs Assessment
1.0 Introduction
1.1 The Local Government Technical Advisers Group (TAG) is a professional
association, incorporated in 1995, serving all levels of local government covering the
whole range of technical services. Our membership includes authorities with highway
and transport responsibilities, including Transport for London, London Boroughs,
Metropolitan, Unitary and District Authorities and many with responsibilities for economic
development and land use planning. Many of our individual members are Chartered Civil
Engineers.
1.2 TAG is particularly active in the areas of transport, flood and coastal management
and waste management.
2.0 Summary
2.1 TAG welcomes the opportunity to present its views to the Institution of Civil
Engineers and broadly supports the vision and outcomes.
2.2 Regarding transport, TAG has and continues to advocate that the Department for
Transport and Government should formulate a national transport strategy and ensure
that decisions are taken on the basis of the best potential national outcome rather than
isolated views in relation specific modes of transport or specific parts of the networks.
TAG has also raised on a number of occasions concerns regarding the transport scheme
appraisal process and the different approach taken on expenditure and value depending
on whether such public expenditure could be considered as ‘revenue’ or ‘capital’.
2.3 TAG considers that a key issue relating to any decision regarding capacity is the
extent to which productivity is enhanced. We also suggest that rebalancing the economy
and health impacts are major factors. Additionally, we believe greater clarity is required
regarding the meaning of the term “national significance”.
2.4 We acknowledge the comprehensive nature of your consultation, however competing
demands upon local authority resources has limited our ability to respond to each
individual issue and here we will predominantly consider transport related issues.
Nevertheless, we hope that we can adequately address the key issues covering flood
risk management and outline views on energy water etc. For waste TAG does have a
waste topic group but our strength in this area is mainly from Northern Ireland. Relatively
recently ICE Northern Ireland did an infrastructure report to which our colleagues in
waste in Northern Ireland contributed. Please see
https://www.ice.org.uk/getattachment/media-and-policy/policy/state-of-the-nation-2014northern-ireland/SoN-Infrastructure-2014-Northern-Ireland.pdf.aspx
The Local Government Technical Advisers Group
http://www.lgtag.com
1
The Local Government Technical Advisers Group
3.0 Call for Evidence Questions
3.1 Do you agree with our proposed vision and outcomes? What amendments
would you propose?
3.1.2 Broadly yes and we particularly appreciate that any additional investment in
infrastructure needs to be done, ‘efficiently, affordably and sustainably’ and improving
‘services’ are equally important and may avoid the need in many locations to provide new
infrastructure. However we believe that there are two factors that should be added to the
considerations: improving productivity and rebalancing of the economy.
3.1.3 Improving productivity is implicit; however it should be an explicit objective. TAG
considers that, whereas improving capacity for transport can sometimes contribute to
improved efficiency, the current road programme for Strategic Roads is flawed and the
appraisal methodology applied to road investment often overstates the benefits. Just
over a year ago TAG submitted a document and five appendices to the House of
Commons Scrutiny Committee on the Infrastructure Bill – this submission might be
particularly helpful in your deliberations - http://www.lgtag.com/index.php/news/566-tagevidence-to-hoc-scrutiny-committee-on-infrastructure-bill
3.1.4 The construction of new or improvement of existing routes contributes to
increased travel demand and consequentially the time saving efficiency gain measured in
the appraisal process is eroded or fails to materialise. The recent reports regarding the
widening of the M25 having resulted in significant increased levels of traffic again
illustrates the point and consequentially anticipated time saving benefits will have been
reduced on the route. Additionally, the consequential impact of the additional traffic
contributes to area wide congestion and further increased delays on the wider network.
There is significant evidence to support this view (please also see
http://worldtransportjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/9th-Feb-final-opt.pdf and
the listed references).
3.1.5 This issue is exacerbated by the absence of a clear national strategy for transport
investment. Consequentially decisions are made on the basis of single mode or sector
investments whereas alternative or a combination of investments could deliver greater
and better outcomes. Investment in measures that reduce the need for private vehicle
travel should be prioritised and we caution against indiscriminate increases in road
capacity.
3.1.6 Rebalancing of the economy or at least a contribution to rebalancing the
economy should be an objective. Although decisions relating to infrastructure investment
will not necessary in themselves rebalance the economy, it is an essential element of any
strategy.
3.1.7 Currently the economy is dominated by the financial services (FS) sector, which
is also highly concentrated in specific geographical areas, and mainly within the City of
London. Invariably, investment decisions based on GDP will therefore favour those
projects that support the FS sector; this is not necessarily wrong. Additionally, the
delivery cost of projects increases exponentially with the density of the location, albeit
that such costs can be offset by the scale of potential benefits. Consequentially, where
the scale of infrastructure investment, and particularly transport investment, has been
historically highly constrained an increasing proportion of the national budget has been
directed into one specific area and to the detriment of others. Accordingly, a more
The Local Government Technical Advisers Group
http://www.lgtag.com
2
The Local Government Technical Advisers Group
balanced approach is required if the necessary beneficial change to the economy,
including making the British economy more resilient, is to be achieved.
3.1.8 TAG also considers that health impacts should be identified more specifically,
rather than as, say, a potential subset of “wider environmental impacts”. Perhaps most
prevalent at this time, associated with transport, is the issue of air pollution, which is
directly related to traffic volume and therefore capacity and is a particular problem in or
near urban areas. The health impact of noise is also increasingly being recognised and is
an issue where transport capacity is to be considered. Decisions regarding investment in
transport mode also have health implications; broadly, investment in private vehicle
transport will have a negative health outcome whereas non-motorised and public
transport investment will be broadly positive.
3.1.9 In any case we agree strongly that effective demand management strategies are
essential, and if they are not to include road charging on a national scale in the short
term, every effort needs to be given to other appropriate measures, such as:

parking control, limiting available parking; changing the business rating system so
that it reflects costs imposed by certain businesses that have many parking
spaces and generate much traffic;

workplace (and shopping) parking charges;

congestion charging and

other positive methods such as improving public transport and effective travel
planning.
3.2 What will be the main drivers of demand for UK national economic
infrastructure over the next 35 years that we should consider in our assessment?
3.2.1 In the transport field Britain and many other countries have spent a lot of effort in
an often vain attempt to reduce congestion by adding to road capacity. Unless we
educate some of the members of our Institution (ICE), the decision makers and advisers,
the pursuit of congestion reduction by road building will unfortunately continue to be a
driver. We consider health, pollution, climate change, access to jobs by disadvantaged
members of society should be far more significant drivers for capital and revenue
investment in Transport.
3.2.2 Security will remain a key issue and the implications for the transport sector will
be a major consideration particularly for mass transport systems and international travel.
The resulting challenge will relate to the deployment of technologies and adapting our
infrastructure to accommodate new and emerging technologies.
3.2.3 Climate change and weather extremes will continue to be a driver together with
the need to protect society against severe weather events and the need to cater for an
expanded population. Indeed rising ground water levels and tides are also key issues
relating to climate change that not only need infrastructure to try and handle but also put
up the costs of infrastructure.
3.2.4 This winter has again brought home the need for expanded investment in coastal
and river protection, but, like transport investment, proper maintenance and revenue
The Local Government Technical Advisers Group
http://www.lgtag.com
3
The Local Government Technical Advisers Group
expenditure is essential. However, the lessons relating to previous winters, when
snowfall was the major concern, should not be forgotten.
3.2.5 Investment in energy conservation is likely to provide one of the best investments;
this will help the UK reduce its contribution to global warming, minimise the need for extra
power generation and reduce the need for more capacity in the power networks.
However, there is also recognition that investment is essential for the replacement of our
increasingly outdated energy generation and distribution systems
3.2.6 Rebalancing the economy and ensuring there is not a continuing southwards drift
of population will help reduce the need for extra investment in national water provision or
more power networks.
3.3
What will be the main constraints on the UK's ability to provide sufficient
UK national economic infrastructure assets and services over the period and what
solutions or mitigations of those constraints should the UK adopt?
3.3.1
The main constraints are:

Political support and commitment, cross party, and the need to take decisions in
the longer term and in the wider interests of the country

Overall economic performance of the UK economy, including the long-term losses
on balance of payments

Public understanding of the issues

Press and influencers on politicians for short term visible fixes

Availability of revenue funding, and to a lesser extent capital, and the financial
rules favouring certain types or arrangements of funding

Skills shortages
3.3.2 It is agreed that the diversity of the nature of the potential constraints is such that
detailed mitigation strategies need to be developed for each.
3.4
What nationally significant investments in capacity or changes in policy &
regulation should we prioritise to deliver these outcomes and deal with these
drivers of demand?
3.4.1 A clearer understanding of what constitutes “nationally significant” is required.
Many investments required relating to capital or revenue are not of a scale of national
significance, although some are being labelled as such - for example adding extra
capacity to Blackwall crossing of the Thames. This is clearly a London scheme and is of
similar importance for transport users and delays/congestion as the diagonal pedestrian
crossings at Oxford Circus (which is not labelled as a scheme of national importance).
However, it is also accepted that local and regional scale projects can make contributions
to national productivity.
3.4.2 We strongly believe that, for transport and the economy, the required investments
are likely to be local – light rail and tram systems, bus services and priorities, more
facilities for pedestrians etc. Nevertheless, where national and local interests coincide
The Local Government Technical Advisers Group
http://www.lgtag.com
4
The Local Government Technical Advisers Group
there is scope for capital and revenue investments in demand management, park and
ride etc.
3.4.3 The situation is broadly similar for the necessary works on flood prevention,
power networks etc.
3.5
In what areas can demand management or other forms of behavioural
change make a significant impact? What are the blockers and enablers for
realising these opportunities?
3.5.1 Traditional economics suggest that all goods and services are price elastic for
demand, but there is a lag and probably some hysteresis. However, public opinion, the
press and politics are likely to be very strong influencers on what can and can’t be used
in demand management.
3.5.2 We believe that water metering has not been as effective as expected in reducing
demand.
3.5.3 Congestion charging, tolling and parking charges have proved fairly effective over
the years in managing traffic volumes, especially if accompanied by carrots of improved
public transport. It is interesting to note that cheap (or free to ‘pensioners’) public
transport has similarly increased demand and higher peak rail fares do have some
impact on trying to limit peak passenger demand and move some of that demand to
other periods. Integrated travel planning was shown to be very effective, however central
government does not seem to be giving such measures the priority they deserve
commensurate with their potential effectiveness in dealing with excess traffic.
3.5.4 Energy charging again does encourage some reduction in use, but is helped by
the carrots of grants for microgeneration, insulation etc.
3.5.6 The scope, on fluvial and coastal protection for demand management to be
effective, seems very limited.
3.5.7 For changes to take place in the demand for goods and services, culture is also
critical. In the late 1990s there was a bipartisan line on the importance of traffic
reductions; some interesting campaigns, effective leadership from politicians and real
progress was made, at least on energy and traffic demand management. It seems that
much of this has been lost in many areas around the country and by central government.
3.5.8 Effective behavioural change must have leadership, a strong effort at culture
change, sticks and carrots and an integrated holistic approach - with no, or as few as
possible, mixed messages.
3.6
How can greater cross-sectoral decision making be encouraged?
3.6.1 In large organisations there is a very strong tendency to work in silos, budgets are
provided or agreed for specific areas, decisions often made from a narrow point of view.
Better multidisciplinary or cross sectoral organisation is necessary. This tends to be
achieved with smaller governmental units but it is essential that such units have the
necessary understanding or technical support so they are able to make decisions on
facts and evidence.
The Local Government Technical Advisers Group
http://www.lgtag.com
5
The Local Government Technical Advisers Group
3.6.2 Powerful lobbying or vested interest at local or national level also results in less
than optimal decision making on priorities.
3.6.2 Fully open government, with each decision justified and open to scrutiny, will
help. Similarly very local responsibility and democratic decisions on infrastructure where
the whole range of considerations for such infrastructure can be considered rather than
more single discipline organisation that is inevitable with larger bodies.
3.7
What opportunities and challenges are presented by devolution of
infrastructure decision making?
3.7.1 If devolved decisions, on the basis of understanding and knowledge, are made
(across area boundaries when necessary) and sufficient budgets are delegated to
provide a reasonable service, there could be great improvements. Unfortunately recent
history shows the reverse has happened; one of the best examples is that about 50% of
the roads budget is being spent on 2% of the network and a large part of that on fruitless
widening of the strategic road network (see section 3.1 above and other submitted
evidence)
3.8
What new and emerging technologies and disruptive trends should we
consider in producing this assessment?
3.8.1 Invariably, within the lifetime of the projects identified, technology will impact,
however it is difficult to determine the extents of such impacts for future requirements.
Often the introduction of such technologies have their own challenges or barriers, which
may inhibit or negate any benefits. Care needs to be exercised, therefore, when
considering the potential for such impacts.
3.8.2 Current and evolving telecommunication technologies can and will be likely to
play a part in reducing travel demand, however the impact to date has been less than
initially anticipated. However such developments will likely have a significant impact upon
productivity and increase opportunities for social and economic diversity.
3.8.3 The electrification of transport fleets is a further factor that may have only a
modest impact in relation to travel demand, but will likely impact upon energy
requirements and pollution levels!. Further advances in storage and distribution are
essential to improve the viability of wider-scale delivery, these will no doubt occur, but the
timescale is less certain. Additionally, central government’s approach and degree of
support will have influence. In the case of rail, the financing of the electrification
programme and for road, the incentives provided by grants and taxation.
3.8.4 Driverless technology will also be a factor for road transport, however the precise
timescale and nature of the impact are more uncertain.
3.9
How can we improve public engagement in infrastructure decision-making?
3.9.1 Fundamentally, good communication will be key. The messages need to be clear,
concise and relevant and processes well managed, and where possible early
engagement is to be preferred.
3.9.1 The Swiss model of local referenda seems to have some appeal; a piece of
research carried out by an Australian academic has compared decision making in the
UK, Australia and Switzerland, which may be useful for ICE deliberations –
The Local Government Technical Advisers Group
http://www.lgtag.com
6
The Local Government Technical Advisers Group
http://worldtransportjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/wtpp17.3.pdf
If you require any further information or wish to discuss any issue directly please do not
hesitate to contact Martin Sachs, the Secretary to TAG Transport Committee, or indeed
other representatives in TAG who you will find on our contacts page of our website:
http://www.lgtag.com/index.php/contact-us
v29-2-16
The Local Government Technical Advisers Group
http://www.lgtag.com
7