Last summer's Transport White Paper was a watershed in transport policy, recognising that we can no longer place cars at the top of the transport hierarchy.

And now the Scottish Parliament will have powers to tackle Scotland's transport problems.  But MSPs must remember their constituents whose lives do not revolve around the motor car. Think of the single mother trying to do a week's shopping with her children in tow. Think of the pensioner whose trips to meet friends are restricted by the sporadic nature of the local bus service. Think of the child whose personal safety is threatened by the busy road outside his or her house. Think of the 38% of Scotland's households that have no access to cars.

Everyone agrees about the need to invest in health and education. But although the same  applies to transport, the Scottish Parliament can choose to direct funds either towards further road-building, or to channel investment towards the more sustainable modes - walking, cycling and public transport.
 

So how do the parties' manifestos match up?

The manifestos recently published by the Scottish political parties - with the noticeable exception of the Tories who remain wedded to road-building - show that attitudes to transport policies have indeed changed.

But although the parties' policies have generally improved (the Tories excepting!), some gaps remain. We have evaluated the manifesto content based on what we think is crucial to transform transport:

• A programme to reduce the volume of traffic on the roads
• A roads policy that is focussed on maintenance and management of the existing network
• Commitment to ringfencing ("hypothecation") of revenues from local charges into local sustainable transport
• Promotion of traffic calming and the enforcement of speed limits
• Commitment to investing in walking and cycling
• Sustainable land use planning: reducing the need to travel

Senior members of the parties were presented with these challenges at our August 1998 conference 'Transport policy on the road to Holyrood', so they've had eight months to sort their policies out!

We haven't used commitments to public transport as an indicator - as support for public transport is for many politicians like "motherhood and apple pie." However we note on page four some of the parties' specific commitments in this area.

On the rear of this briefing, we also comment on how the parties match up to the debate on rural transport and discussions over fuel tax, and see what they've got to say on the issue of freight.

Our conclusions

The Greens come out best. They are the only party to commit to traffic reduction and are keen to promote policies that would reduce the need to travel. They are also keen to see the National Roads Directorate abolished!

The Lib Dems come out best out of the "major" parties, the lack of a national traffic reduction target being their major failing. They come out as the party most keen to invest in public transport, and for freight to be shifted to rail and sea.

Labour's manifesto was insufficiently detailed, with reference to its ongoing roads review and new planning guidance aimed at reducing the need to travel being strangely missing. While its Transport White Papers of summer 1998 were very well received, the lack of new measures in its manifesto doesn't auger well for those already frustrated at the slow rate
of progress!

The SNP comes out as having the most improved policy. Its acceptance in principle of road user charging is certainly a wise move. The vagueness of its policy on roads is a matter for concern, although the party has recently proved adept in practice in opposing destructive
traffic-generating schemes such as a M74 Northern Extension.

The SNP has potentially the best rural transport policy, exhibiting as it does a much greater integration with rural development policy: this however has been spoiled by its recent opportunistic comments on fuel taxation - its comments being more akin to Tory reaction.

The Socialists have the most credible policy on roads and are very keen on public transport. They do however need to fill in some of the gaps in their policy - and spell out how their renationalisation programme would work!

The Tories' transport policy is embarrassing. Even at the height of its road-building fixation a decade ago did they produce policy as crass as this! They listened. Then they went back to unthinkingly promoting road-building.

our tests for transforming transport:	Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party	Scottish Green Party	Scottish Liberal Democrats	Scottish National Party	Scottish New Labour	Scottish Socialist Party
A programme to reduce the volume of traffic on the roads.	Nothing. Not surprising given their fixation with road building.	Good. A 'Scottish Transport Department' to set "targets for national and local traffic reduction."	Good. A 'Scottish Transport Department' to set "targets for national and local traffic reduction."	Nothing. Also rather vague on encouraging modal shift: "should also seek to encourage a move away from car use" (manifesto, p.13).	Nothing. One of the principal failings of Labour's Transport White Papers was failing to set national traffic reduction targets. They have again shied away from doing so.	Nothing. Their "cheap subsidised fares" might do the trick, but they don't say how it'd be paid for.
A roads policy that is focussed on management and maintenance of the existing network.	Nothing. They do however want to build many new roads. They fail to state how these would be funded, or what effect they would have on the environment.	Nothing mentioned. Maybe there won't be any roads under the Greens!	Nothing. Fails to mention roads!	Nothing on roads maintenance. Rather vague: suggests a review of "road developments" that would be prioritised towards "vital economic purposes."	Nothing on roads at all! Odd given that the Scottish Office is currently conducting a roads review - supposedly looking at all transport modes.	Very good. Committed to "A halt to new motorway construction and use of the roads budget to maintain and repair existing roads."
Commitment to ringfencing revenues from local charges for local sustainable transport.	They are opposed to congestion charging or parking taxes. Odd that the "party of the market" rejects market principles for use of road space!	Very good. All revenues from road user and parking charges to be spent on public transport (manifesto, p.5).	Very good. Committed to legislation for road user and non-residential car parking charging, with revenues raised spent on public transport (manifesto, p.26).	Good. Road user charges to be spent on "transport alternatives" (p.13). However will support charging "only when plans for public transport alternatives are underway."	Committed to legislation for road user charging and workplace car parking. However not clear whether money raised will go to sustainable transport: unlike in England!	Nothing mentioned. Public transport is to be state-owned so the extra revenues are presumably not needed!
Promotion of traffic calming and the enforcement of speed limits.	Nothing. Everyone will be driving their car on the new motorways presumably!	Nothing specific. However, traffic reduction to "make walking and cycling a more healthy and pleasant experience"(p.4).	Good. Committed to supporting traffic calming schemes (p.26).	Nothing mentioned. A disappointing omission.	Nothing mentioned. Odd given the ongoing Speed Policy Review and Labour's promotion of 20mph zones.	Nothing mentioned. A disapointing omission.
Commitment to investing in walking and cycling.	Nothing. Obviously no money left after their new motorways are built.	Very good. Committed to "reclaim our streets" for pedestrians and cyclists (p.4).	Good. Committed to supporting "pedestrian zones" and "safe cycling routes" (p.26).	Not bad. Will "encourage" local authorities to implement cycling strategies and Safe Routes to School.	Good. Committed to "extending support for cycling and walking" and developing Safe Routes to School.	Good. Committed to "national and local networks of properly-maintained and safe cycle tracks."
Sustainable land use planning: reducing the need to travel.	Nothing specific: their new roads would do nothing to help. They do however oppose "ribbon developments" and aim to protect the greenbelt (manifesto p.31).	Very good. Green planning policy "will reduce the need to travel", with "out of town shopping centres, which undermine local services, halted" (p.4).	Quite good. "Wish[es] to reduce dependence on cars" (p.25).	Nothing mentioned. Another key policy area sadly ignored.	Nothing mentioned. Odd given the Scottish Office's excellent recent guidance on the issue, NPPG17. Where has the oft-mentioned policy integration gone?	Nothing mentioned. Another disappointing omission.

Public transport investment

We had thought that everyone would want to support public transport. We were wrong!

The Tories are the only party not to make any commitment towards public transport: their roads-only transport policy is laughably out of date.

They listened. Then they ignored everybody and went back to their old policies.

The Greens are the complete opposite, making 'better public transport' one of their key campaign commitments.

They see rail as "the centre-piece of a national transport policy" with priority given to provision to the Borders and the Highlands. They are also keen to promote rights for people with disabilities in accessing public transport.

The Lib Dems want to "boost the railways." This would include electrifying main lines and re-opening some stations and lines - such as the Waverley line to the Borders. They are also the only party to promote light rail systems - seeing this as suitable for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

The Lib Dems draw credit from their promotion of road space reallocation towards buses and cycles. They also want to see a "first class travel information service" and a national concessionary fare scheme for pensioners and people with disabilities.

The SNP wants to see new 'Scottish Public Sector Trusts' work towards electrifying the Edinburgh to Aberdeen train line and reconstructing the Waverley line, as part of their plan to encourage people "away from the roads and on to rail and other forms of public transport."

The SNP also promote a "nationally-funded concessionary fares scheme for the elderly, disabled, students and the unemployed." They do not however say how it would be funded.

Labour says that its biggest challenge in transport is "to create a high quality, accessible and affordable public transport system." While its three-year £90 million Public Transport Fund is certainly a step in the right direction, its annual budget of £30 million is less than the cost of one mile of a M74 Northern Extension in Glasgow that a number of Labour politicians are actively promoting. But at least Labour has put costs to its  transport proposals - unlike the other parties.

Labour is to be congratulated for its encouragement of road space reallocation, stating that it would seek to extend Edinburgh's 'Greenways' bus priority lanes elsewhere. It is also committed to a national public transport timetable.

The Socialists are the party most keen to promote public transport in all its forms - through a "publicly-owned system." [I'm not sure this will go down well with our membership though! Ed.]

They also want to see re-opening of closed railway lines, "cheap subsidised fares for all", free travel for OAPs and full accessibility for people with disabilities. How this Nirvana is to be reached isn't stated though!

Rural transport - and fuel prices

The recent debate has centred on the impact of fuel prices on remote rural areas where car dependence may be more pronounced. The Government's current fuel strategy, the Fuel Duty Escalator, a recommendation of the 1994 report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, acts to increase fuel prices by 6% above inflation each year. The Escalator aims to encourage more fuel efficient vehicles, better maintenance and more efficient driving styles, in order to meet the UK's binding commitments to tackle climate change emissions.

TRANSform Scotland however notes the adverse impacts of the current fuel strategy on remote rural areas and recommends replacement of the Fuel Duty Escalator with an Urban Area Fuel Surcharge. We argue that this would better target fuel use in urban areas where pollution and congestion problems are worse. Any fuel policy must however seek to make users pay at point of use for their impact.

The Tories claim that the price of fuel in rural areas "has had a devastating effect on our rural areas where the car is a necessity" (p.6). They do not however offer any alternative: their commitment to a "campaign for fair petrol prices throughout Scotland" is vague. Nor do the Tories note that the current Fuel Duty Escalator was introduced by the previous Conservative Government.

The Tory claim that £2 billion is raised in car taxes from Scotland but "only £295 million [is] spent on transport" (p. 6) is grossly inaccurate and misleading - as even some cursory research would have shown.

The Greens, perhaps surprisingly, say little on fuel issues. They do however commit to "promoting pollution and energy taxes."

The Lib Dems want to abolish the Skye Bridge tolls; they also want to retain Caledonian MacBrayne's ferries in public ownership, with further investment in CalMac and the Northern Isles services. They also want to promote free car parking at 'rural transfer points' with "fast, reliable bus and train links."

The Lib Dems pledge to "review petrol pricing, and tackle overcharging by petrol companies" (p.16). They will seek "EU derogations from fuel duty for Scotland's remoter areas." We think they mean progressivity in taxation according to location - which we broadly agree with.

The SNP want to keep Caledonian MacBrayne in public ownership, and to consider using Public Sector Trusts to develop its services. They are also keen to encourage post buses.

Their policy on fuel prices is interesting. They pledge to "introduce a system of monitoring rural and diesel pricing, assist rural businesses by means of extending the rural rate relief package, support rural public transport initiatives and bring pressure on fuel companies to consider national pricing" (p.15). This integration between transport and rural policy is absent from the other parties' policies, and is to be welcomed. Their recent public comments on the fuel policy - denouncing fuel tax as "Labour's poll tax" (Scotsman, 21/04/99) - have however been less than measured.

Labour commits to supporting CalMac and other island links. They also plan to spend £4.5 million a year for three years on rural buses, community transport and rural petrol stations.

Labour says nothing on fuel prices. It is presumably in support of UK Labour policy on the issue.

The Socialists say nothing on rural transport except that they would abolish the Skye Bridge tolls.

Freight - and the truckers

For too long the freight market has been distorted in favour of road haulage. The coverage of the recent antics of the truckers has missed the essential point that lorries do not pay for the damage they cause. Often the neglected area of transport, those parties that tackle freight should be given credit.

Road hauliers who are so keen to argue for a 'level playing field' would do well to ponder the full implications. A report by Oxford Economic Research Associates earlier this year found that heavy goods vehicles only cover 70% of their full environmental and social costs, or 59% if one includes interest payments on the capital value of the road network. That represents a shortfall in road haulage taxation of around £2.5 billion annually.

Law-breaking is widespread within the road haulage industry. This makes it more difficult for rail freight to compete for long distance hauls which could otherwise be shifted off the road network. The last survey of HGV speeds by the Department of Transport found that 91% of articulated lorries exceeded their 50mph speed limit on dual-carriageways.

The Tories claim that "Labour has already hit hauliers" with fuel tax increases. The Tories' opportunism in re-asserting itself as the political wing of the truckers is unfortunate but not unsurprising given the shambles of their transport policy.

The Lib Dems, the Greens and the Socialists give welcome support to encouraging freight off the roads and on to rail. The Lib Dems are also keen on direct sea links to the continent from Scotland.

The SNP also encourage freight to be moved from road to rail.

However, the SNP is keen to promote air freight (they aim to "liberalise the air cargo licensing regime") This is completely counter-productive. It is bizarre that the SNP should want to encourage freight movement on to rail - presumably because of its lesser environmental impact - but also to encourage freight by air, the most environmentally destructive mode of transport!

Labour commits itself to move freight from road to rail, singling out further use of the Freight Facilities Grant.

TRANSform Scotland - the campaign for sustainable transport
72 Newhaven Road, Edinburgh, EH6 5QG
tel: 0131 467 7714; fax: 0131 554 8656
e-mail: campaigns@transformscotland.org.uk
web: http://www.transformscotland.org.uk

TRANSform Scotland is the national sustainable transport campaign, bringing together 55 organisations - including transport operators, local authorities, environment and conservation groups, chambers of commerce and local transport campaigns.

Published April 27th 1999. Briefing written by Colin Howden. Additional research by Daniel Mittler.