Public Transport Funding

Speech by David Ford delivered to Assembly, 22 January 2008 on Tue 22nd Jan 2008

The debate has been interesting, bearing in mind the large measure of agreement from all corners of the House, albeit with certain differences of emphasis. I want to deal with one of the key points that Mr Gallagher raised. The amendment suggested that, somehow, my party's original motion asked for spending to be rebalanced, specifically by taking money away from areas such as rural road maintenance and putting it towards public transport.

Specifically, we did not do that. There are other issues. Indeed, in the past, the Department has been creative with regard to where it has acquired funding for road developments. We only wish that it could be just as creative when looking for money for rail and bus developments in the future. Clearly, there is an issue, which was raised by several Members during the debate, about the needs of rural communities that are not currently being met. It seems to us, as proposers of the motion, that the lessons that have been learnt from the provision of quality public transport are every bit as relevant in rural areas as they are in urban areas.

3.00 pm

Mr Moutray, speaking on behalf of the DUP, talked about the need to target investment to encourage confidence in public transport. It seems that that has been entirely proven. A few years ago, when there was serious investment in the Enterprise service, the number of people who caught the train to Dublin rose dramatically. With regard to issues in my own constituency, such as the Templepatrick Airbus, a small park-and-ride service has had to be expanded three times. By providing a quality regular service, people get out of their cars and use public transport. That is the key lesson - as several people said - that must be taken all the way round.

I was particularly interested in John McCallister's comments. It seemed that he agreed entirely with every word that Stephen Farry had said - and then said that he would support the amendment. He made some key points about the need to reduce reliance on the car and, in particular, about the needs of poorer families in rural areas. Those points were re-emphasised by the DUP's Mr Irwin. Possibly the best bit of Mr McCallister's speech was the intervention by Ken Robinson in which he said all that I might have said - and, possibly, even more - about the need for enhancement of rail services. Therefore, I presume that Mr Robinson, if not Mr McCallister, will support the original motion.

John Dallat made appropriate comments about the need to address issues such as road safety. It is absolutely true that public transport is significantly safer than private transport; however, although it is a key issue, road safety is not exactly the issue that is addressed in the debate.

I welcome the positive response that the Minister gave in his comments. I entirely take his point that the costs of bus lanes and park-and-ride have tended to come out of the Roads Service budget. Significant progress has been made regarding issues such as park-and-ride, and I mentioned the Templepatrick Airbus service. Can the Minister tell us when we will we see a decent park-and-ride that will actually encourage people out of the cars on the M2? In that way, people, like John Dallat, will be encouraged to get on a train or a bus rather than drive through my constituency, causing pollution as they do so.

The idea of providing a 40-car space on the edge of the Sandyknowes roundabout and calling it a park-and-ride does not seem sensible. There have been some ideas that are much more creative. I urge the Minister to ensure that his Roads Service staff are considerably more creative, in conjunction with Translink staff, on that matter. The recent investments in buses and trains are welcome. However, I should, perhaps, caution the Minister for Regional Development against criticising the attitude of the Assembly's first Executive to public-transport funding, since the then Minister for Regional Development is now the Minister of Finance and Personnel, and he may need to keep on good terms with him. I advise the Minister to be slightly cautious who he criticises.

Some of the points that the Minister made about the mid-term review of the regional transport strategy (RTS) are very welcome. We look forward to debates in the House as that strategy is implemented. The Minister made some important comments. Perhaps, he might have said a little more about issues such as climate change and CO2 emissions, which are a crucial part of our original motion. However, he did make some of the points that we need to re-examine. It is clear that the RTS, at its half-way stage, is not up to date with some of the needs that we must address, including such issues as climate change and the need to meet carbon reduction targets - whether 60% or 80% - by 2050. At the moment, the RTS is not even on target to meet a 60% reduction in carbon emissions.

The Minister, quite reasonably, pointed out issues such as the economy. We must be careful not to overemphasise road building and economic benefits. After all, much of the talk about the widening of the Westlink, and the improvement of its junctions, was related to economic need. However, there is clear evidence that, by building roads, we simply crowd them with private cars. It is of no benefit to the economy to have a better road that is crowded with even more cars than would have been there under the existing road pattern. The Scottish Executive, in a study that was undertaken in 1999, concluded that:

"a 'predict and provide' approach, in which road capacity is increased to match forecast traffic growth, is environmentally unsustainable, unaffordable and self-defeating."

In other words, building new roads to tackle congestion is like loosening your belt to tackle obesity.

We must ensure that we get the balance right for economic development, but we must be realistic about what will promote that. Unlimited road building, especially in the major conurbations and the larger district towns, is clearly not the way to promote such development. We must also bear climate change in mind at all times.

The Alliance Party believes that the creative and appropriate use of private funding will make it possible to expand the public-transport budget, as has been the case with the road-building programme on the Westlink and the M1 and M2 motorways. If that occurred, we would not be cutting the budget for rural roads.

There must be real commitment, so that instead of vague generalisations being made about a Belfast light-rail plan - or whatever kind of rapid-transport system might be proposed for arterial routes - a system will actually be put in place in the lifetime of this Assembly. Over the years, there has been too much talk that has gone nowhere.

We must recognise that issues such as social exclusion and labour mobility will be addressed by people's having the ability to travel to work wherever they wish. We must recognise that the benefits that will be created from investment in public transport will enable a much wider use of skills. That will in turn help to develop our economy, and the assumption that that development can be achieved by building more roads that will only get clogged up will be unsustainable. It is rather unfortunate that transport does not appear anywhere in the key goals of the draft Programme for Government, which we will debate next week.

As members of the opposition party - whatever the Minister of Finance and Personnel may think of our rights - we certainly believe that key issues must be addressed. Those include the development of rail access to both the Belfast airports, and the introduction of a full and inclusive park-and-ride system at Templepatrick to help reduce traffic on the M2, which will benefit commuters from the whole of County Antrim as they travel to Belfast.

When new developments such as the Titanic Quarter are planned, consideration must be given to whether a light-rail or a guided bus system would be suitable. I have no doubt that at least one firm in Galgorm would be keen to take some more orders for guided bus systems. It is rather ridiculous that Ken Livingstone's commitment to make use of Wrightbus's skills has resulted in the company doing more for transport in London that it is for transport in Northern Ireland.

We must consider what can be done to make use of existing railway lines, and I am sure that the House would be disappointed if I did not mention the Knockmore line between Antrim and Lisburn. Reopening that line would create the capacity to serve a growing population between two key growth towns, through a secondary growth town, yet that railway line is currently unused.

Several Members mentioned transport poverty. Whatever we do to plan for private-car usage, the needs of a significant number of our population, both rural and urban, who do not have access to a private car will not be alleviated. An attractive alternative to the private car must be offered so that those who have cars do not need to use them every day. Belfast appears to be the only city in western Europe in which Government planners assume that building roads is the solution to a commuter traffic problem in a city of 500,000 people. There is something fundamentally wrong with that approach. Nowhere else in Europe do people think that such an approach works, and it simply will not work here.

Some Members have expressed concern about the effect that the Alliance Party's proposal will have on rural populations. However, the motion in no way disadvantages rural people; rather, it calls for enhanced investment and a shift in balance, and it supports those rural people who do not have access to their own private car. I urge the House to support the motion.

Related Link:

Hansard.