Our ref: OTH/C0826/ID
Date: 5 March 2002

Dear Mr Bowker,

The Strategic Rail Authority Plan

As you will be aware from the West Midlands Rail Summit on 15 February, there is considerable concern in the West Midlands that the SRA Plan does not commit to the implementation of necessary investment projects in our area. The purpose of this letter is to reinforce that view and to press for improvements in the Plan.

As you will know, the investment needs of the West Midlands rail network were clearly defined in the West Midlands Multi-Modal Study. £7 billion is needed over 30 years including £3.9 billion for heavy rail, sufficient only to ameliorate traffic growth. There appears to be no provision for investment of this order of magnitude in the Plan. Whilst Local Transport Plans include rail investment, final decisions are taken by the SRA. I was therefore unimpressed to read your press release dated 15 February, ‘£3.4 million for ‘Turn Up and Go’ Service for Cross City Line’ which contains the comment that "the SRA continues to plan ahead to address the long term capacity issues in the region". What is meant by this? Whilst the £3.4m is welcome, from the point of view of the contents of the SRA Plan, this comment seems an insult.

In 2000, the Government’s own Rail Summit listed New Street Station as the number one bottleneck on the national rail network, yet there is little of substance (eg diverting local trains into new underground platforms) in your plan to deal with this. The Government’s Ten Year Plan aims to increase rail passengers by 50% and rail-freight by 80%. Do you anticipate that the SRA Plan as it stands will be sufficient to achieve these targets without the removal of the New Street Station bottleneck? I consider that this is vital, not just for intercity traffic but for uninterrupted journeys on the cross-city line.

Furthermore, although the SRA plan does not seem to cater comprehensively for the infrastructure needs of the rail network, recent articles in the Financial Times suggest that the resources allocated are not even adequate to cover what is actually in the Plan. The short section in the Plan on funding (pages 24-26) does not provide sufficient information to refute these concerns and there is also no breakdown between capital and resource spending. Will you be producing an assessment of the resources necessary to complete the individual projects in the Plan, identifying any shortfalls in funding for the works needed to meet the Government’s Ten Year Plan targets? What factors are preventing the SRA from developing a nationwide plan that really can ensure that Government targets on increased rail use are met?

I understand that you have stated that the SRA plan is dynamic and will be updated annually to reflect changing circumstances. As it stands, the Plan is not acceptable even if circumstances do not change and I believe there is a need for an urgent revision of the investment designated for the rail network in the West Midlands, if not nationally.

Yours sincerely,

LYNNE JONES MP