TPS members support new methods of pricing, greater emphasis on management and maintenance, and radical reform of transport appraisal.

As part of its engagement with members, TPS has conducted a membership survey with particular emphasis on the impact of the recession.  The results were used in the TPS submission to the Select Committee on Transport, attached to this release.

Initial analysis of the survey shows the following top priorities:

• travel behaviour change (61.2%)
• road maintenance (56.5%)
• walking and cycling (55%)
• non-high speed rail capacity (52.6%)

Only 18% identified high speed rail as a priority, and major trunk road schemes were even lower at 9%.  Only 10% supported grants for electric cars.  There was little variation between members in different regions.

New sources of funding for transport were, however, strongly supported.  While national road pricing scored well (average 3.16 out of 5), top priority was given to increasing the level and scope of aviation taxes, scoring an average 3.49.  A national parking space levy scored almost the same as national road pricing (3.15).

Unexpectedly in the pricing group, the strongest support was for Lorry Road User Charging at 3.18.  Overall this suggests that schemes which have a chance of being put in place quickly and simply are favoured by practitioners in the current climate.

Locally, charging developers a transport levy was most favoured (3.72), followed by workplace parking levies (3.30).  Interestingly, charging for all parking spaces (including retail) scored almost as well (3.27).  Support was weaker for local user pricing (2.83) or local road tolls (2.40).

In relation to testing for value for money, only 2% considered the current methodology satisfactory.  Forty one per cent thought major reform was needed, and 28% supported minor reforms.  An interesting finding was that 21% felt that decisions were made politically and that elaborate appraisal was not needed at all.

In terms of the reforms needed, top priority was representing carbon in appraisal (67%) closely followed by Smarter Choices and non-time saving economic costs and benefits (both 65%).  Representing the health disbenefits of motorised modes was also identified as a missing element (56%).  Individual comments noted the need for links with land use planning and economic benefits, but others called for current methods to be simplified.

The realistic mood was further supported in the responses on investment, with one exception.  Despite being wary of “grand projets”, local schemes which would create a step change in transport, for example through urban rapid transit, may need to be pursued.  However, these need to reflect genuine local needs, for example in the context of new development and regeneration, but also arising from travel planning initiatives.

In terms of governance, previous regional bodies did not fare well, with only 24% believing that they had improved transport decision making.  There was no clear winner in terms of what should replace them.

The most favoured way forward, but not a clear majority view, was to develop new, devolved arrangements (36%).  However, 21% thought that local government should get on with making its own arrangements, but by contrast 19% thought that central government should take the lead in producing regional strategies.

This snapshot of transport planners’ views is part of the TPS’ ongoing work with its members to respond to the challenges of the recession and to make an input to Government decisions on transport spending.  A new web forum is being set up to help develop a rapid response to the Spending Review on October 20th.