Afternoon:
8°c
IT is hard, just now, to discern anything like a joined-up transport policy in the Government's approach to rail, road and air, still less a transport policy that squares with what it is also saying about the environment.
A few days ago the Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon declared that the Government planned to make the “best use” of the national transport networks. Yet it has now, as we report today, cut billions of pounds from its infrastructure spending on rail.
Network Rail thought it had £29.1 billion to spend on upgrading signalling, tracks and stations — a reduction from the £30.5 billion it had originally planned for. This has now been reduced to £26.7 billion. Meanwhile, within six weeks, ministers should be making a decision about whether to approve a third runway at Heathrow, a £13 billion project.
Mr Hoon is assuring his colleagues that they should be “free to express different judgments” about the environmental impact of a third runway.
He himself seems to favour expansion — with increased restrictions on noise and emissions — although there are rumours that he may also back high-speed north-south rail links as a sop to northern backbenchers.
Yet such an upgrading of the network would still fall well short of a comprehensive programme of investment in rail. Economically, it is by no means evident that this sort of piecemeal approach, at the same time as expanding airports, is appropriate. Certainly, it does not make any obvious environmental sense or square with the Government's tough new targets on carbon emissions.
The world has moved on since the Government's white paper on a third runway in 2003. What contractors are going to sign up for a third runway given that the Tories are opposed? What would the impact of an expanded Heathrow be on Gatwick, which BAA is being obliged to sell off? As a transport policy, this divergent approach to rail and air is contradictory and unconvincing.
After the Games
Yesterday's Commons debate on the sporting legacy of the Olympics was characterised by some timely plain speaking. Kate Hoey, Boris Johnson's Commissioner for Sport and a Labour MP, pointed out that the Government failed to plan for the legacy right at the outset and did not think through the sporting afterlife of the big Olympics venues. She also pointed out that pools and sports clubs are closing even while the Government talks about the Games bringing about wider sporting participation.
Unfortunately, Culture Secretary Andy Burnham did not inspire much confidence during this debate, again repeating the tired promises that all schoolchildren will be offered at least five hours of sport a week by 2012 - a worthy target that is hard to square with current reality. His Conservative counterpart, Jeremy Hunt, who initiated the debate and made a spirited case, reminded him that Britain won the Olympic bid specifically by promising to use its hosting of the Games to get more young people involved.
Yet Government promises on sport are rarely seen through: for instance, there is a £22 million funding gap in its promise of free swimming for all children. Mr Burnham needs to make funding for elite sport conditional on specific commitments from recipients that they will go into schools to promote sport, as the best have promised this newspaper's 2012 legacy campaign they will do. Ministers have a long way to go to convince us that a sporting legacy is guaranteed.
And celebrating...
Escapism. The latest James Bond movie opens to a muted reception from the critics. But whatever the flaws in Quantum of Solace - too much violence, too little humour - there is still a great deal to be said for escaping from the humdrum routine into a very different world of high stakes, high glamour, beautiful girls and a thoroughly disreputable villain. Bond is more than a film with lots of car chases - it's a timely retreat from reality.
Reader views (1)
The transport policy is whatever the road/airport lobby say it is, and there will be a third runway at Heathrow regardless of what is being said now by either party. Rail comes unfortunately a distant third in terms of transport priorities, don't hold your breath for any high speed lines before 2025.
- John Buckeridge, Harrow, 30/10/2008 16:47
Report abuse
