Regional Funding Allocations:
Developing the Process

Freight on Rail is pleased to respond to this consultation on Regional Funding Allocations (RFAs)

The members are as follows: - Rail Freight Group, EWS, Freightliner, RMT, ASLEF, TSSA, AMICUS, Network Rail and Transport 2000

1. We were disappointed that rail schemes were not included in the first round earlier in 2006 and believe strongly that rail should be included in future rounds so that there is an integrated approach to transport funding in the regions.
    
2. There was a serious lack of clarity about whether rail could be included in the 2006 bids. Authorities were not told by the Department in the Spring of 2006 that they could or should include rail in their RFA bids. The Government Offices for the Regions were telling authorities that it was not appropriate to include rail in the first round, even though a few authorities did actually include rail schemes.
    
3. Therefore it is crucial that the guidelines are clear in future rounds of RFAs. Local and regional authorities should be able to prioritize rail freight schemes. they should be able to choose to fund rail freight schemes and shift funds to rail freight from road schemes and public transport schemes if that is the best way to reduce road congestion, reduce accidents and emissions pollution.
    
4. There are a significant number of rail freight schemes which could benefit regions from RFAs such as loops, small gauge enhancement schemes into ports and terminals.
    
5. We welcome the TIF funding schemes and the fact that six rail freight projects have been taken forward for detailed business case assessment. We recognize that TIF is a useful mechanism for funding cross regional rail projects which benefit a number of regions. It is however not a substitute for regional funding.
    
6. Modal shift to rail can also reduce road maintenance costs. 
   
   Research commissioned by Freight on Rail this year, shows that the case study county council, which spends a typical amount on its road maintenance, could be saving as much as £770,700 on road maintenance each year because certain goods in its area go by rail rather than road. The research makes a strong case for local authorities to encourage more freight to go by rail, particularly where they have significant bulk, waste or port traffic in their regions, even without taking into account the significant additional environmental, social and congestion benefits of rail freight. Lorries cause significant damage to the roads, which has to be paid for by taxpayers. Transferring freight to the railways reduces this cost. The damage done by heavy vehicles increases with approximately the fourth power of the axle load. Using the fourth power law, one axle of 10 tonnes (HGV scale) is 160,000 times more damaging to a road surface than an axle of 0.5 tonnes (car scale). This is why road surface maintenance is generally taken to be almost exclusively attributable to the heaviest vehicles.
   
   Allocated maintenance expenditure
   
   All figures are per year for 2004/05

HGV: vehicle movements	HGV: Millions of kilometres	Maintenance Savings based  on SLM values
268,800	9.922	£770,700

The sample county had a budget in excess of £15mn for 2004/05.
SLM= Sensitive Lorry Miles
Source: commercial data for flows; DfT Sustainable Distribution Fund for SLM rates per mile
Note: SLM includes some capital costs not included in County maintenance
Due to commercial sensitivity only summary figures are given in the report.

7. There should be a formal consultation process with both the Rail Freight operators, the Rail Freight Group and Network Rail. The Route Enhancement Managers and the Route Freight Managers within NR should be consulted.

Philippa Edmunds email Philippa@freightonrail.org.uk; Tel: 020 8891 1058 18th October 2006

which has a membership of 1.2 million, joined Freight on Rail in July 2006