TAPAS.network | 21 March 2024 | Editorial Opinion | Peter Stonham

Exceptional transport changemakers are rare - but we need them badly now

Peter Stonham

LEE WATERS is stepping down as Welsh Transport minister after five years, and will be much missed.

He has been arguably the most important political transport post holder in the UK since Ken Livingstone was the London Mayor – at least in the eyes of those looking at things from a professional perspective.

Waters made things happen – mostly for the better – taking the bull by the horns on a raft of difficult issues – from urban speed limits and road building to the principles of transport appraisal – as Livingstone did with public transport fares and integrated payment systems, and road user charging, amongst other matters.

There are disappointingly few other candidates amongst the ranks of politicians for genuine change-making achievements in transport, probably now including Greater Manchester and West Midlands Mayors Andy Burnham and Andy Street – both of whom deserve credit for the good things they have advocated for transport in their areas, and their use of political muscle and connections to actually get them done.

Look back over the years, and we could probably find a few UK Transport Secretaries who really made a difference too, but not many. The current generation probably won’t remember Barbara Castle, but she forcefully grasped the need for fundamental restructuring of urban transport back in 1968. Worth a mention too are John Prescot and John Gummer who memorably took a broader view of transport within planning and development – though neither, interestingly, were actually transport secretaries, but held a wider Environment brief. Others can fairly be said to have made a decisive impact, if not necessarily a good one, for instance Nicholas Ridley with the bus deregulation and privatisation he drove forward in the 1980s.

Some local political leaders have meanwhile really got to grips with transport on their patch, though were not national figures, but deserve acknowledgment for pushing forward innovative and controversial policies for periods of time in places like York, Bristol, Reading, Nottingham and Leicester.

It has to be said, nonetheless, that the challenge in compiling this list of suitable candidates for accolades is illustrative of just how rare significant political leadership is for achieving real change in transport, and how few the really effective examples are.

It is probably true that the experience internationally is similar, with a handful of leaders, national and local, having earned a reputation as genuine ground breakers, but as the exception, not the rule.

So what makes those people stand out? And what was it that made Lee Waters one of them? What was it, then, that informed him, inspired him, drove him, and helped him get good things done?

He had a clear vision, some valuable detailed background subject knowledge – and a willingness to enhance it by tapping into the sector’s leading thinkers for help. Plus the resolve and energy to drive himself and his professional team forward. But that was a double-edged sword too, because he asked for more than was really possible from the limited number of officers working on national transport delivery in Wales, and the space normally allowed for transport amongst other political concerns. He fought his corner strongly, and probably caused grief to both political and professional colleagues by asking them to prioritise in ways that others they reported to might not have agreed with. He characterised this struggle for capacity and capability as a lack of bandwidth.

Fortunately Waters also could draw on some fairly strong political support within the Welsh Labour Government – particularly his immediate political boss, Julie James, holder of the Climate Change brief under which transport most recently sat, and his ultimate political patron, First Minister Mark Drakeford. Indeed, the arrival of a new First Minister probably signalled to Waters that his pathway forward on unfinished transport policy implementation might be about to become much less comfortable – if he survived in the role at all. Many within the Welsh Government have probably been thinking the old maxim that ‘a period of silence would now be appreciated’ on transport, in the wake of the controversies brought by the 20mph urban speed limit’s implementation, and the cancellation of a large number of the road schemes previously planned in Wales.

In an article in this issue, LTT’s Welsh transport correspondent Rhodri Clark, looks carefully at what Waters did and did not achieve, what part of it is most enduring and unlikely to be unpicked. In this regard, the revisions to the WelTAG appraisal framework that Waters brought forward are perhaps the most significant professional recast of fundamental principles to be applied in transport decision-making in recent times – and not something that would generally be expected to be politically-led.

Many would surely argue that something similar is urgently needed at Westminster level too. Particularly in the light of the forensic and critical examination of two major projects – the A428 dualling, and Lower Thames Crossing – by two of our regular contributors, Professors Phil Goodwin and David Metz, in this issue. They demonstrate how questionable it is that these propositions for road schemes have been put forward and driven through under the current less than transparent and technically convincing scheme review and examination process.

Two very significant pieces of national transport ‘process engineering’ are currently meanwhile being tabled for revision – the NNNPS and the NSIP that underpin decisions on major schemes. Arguably their significance in defining the landscape for transport decisions over the next few years has not sufficiently interested either the majority of professionals or politicians as it should.

It would be fair to suggest that this kind of contentious scriptwriting would not have been likely to get past Lee Waters so easily. Indeed, he was uniquely admired for his ability to lead on both the political and professional perspectives of transport policy, and properly consider the contributing elements within transport appraisal that lead to schemes passing or failing tests of acceptability and value for money actually in line with the avowed policy values and priorities of the Government in office. Hence his need to re-write WelTAG.

In the shaping of a clear transport agenda for a likely new UK National Labour Government, would not Waters skills and experience bring great value? Work is now underway by the group led by Jurgen Maier asked by Shadow Transport secretary, Louise Haigh and Leader, Sir Kier Starmer, to prepare a new framework for transport investment. In doing this, it would be really sensible – and helpful – if as well as a wishlist, and statements of the desirability of creating new infrastructure to drive the economy forward, Maier and his group would tackle appraisal practice and cost-benefit BCR calculation too. That would not only underpin the Labour mantra of ensuring fiscal responsibility and living within available resources, but help achieve a congruence between proposing projects, and how they fit into a bigger picture view of the social, economic, and environmental values of the prospective new government.

The same messages about having a suitable underpinning framework are to be found in another important contribution in this issue by professor Glenn Lyons, presenting the innovative thinking behind the concept of Triple Access Planning, and the benefits it brings. Such thinking seems well ahead of any current practice in DfT transport appraisal advice, and might well be something that an incoming government could provide support to embrace in reshaping how it wants transport decisions to be sensibly considered.

Sadly, though, it seems unlikely that the idea of Triple Access Planning could make it into an Election Manifesto of any would-be Government any time soon. Though it might well need to be, in order get the status it would need to change thinking within the entrenched processes of a government department like Transport. On second thoughts, though, if someone like Lee Waters was the person holding the transport portfolio, that change might even really be possible....

Peter Stonham is the Editorial Director of TAPAS Network

This article was first published in LTT magazine, LTT888, 21 March 2024.

d2-20220516-1
taster
Read more articles by Peter Stonham
Forecast: Stormy
PUBLICATION BY DfT of a new set of National Road Traffic Projections — interestingly renamed from the previous ‘Forecasts’ — crystallises a range of issues bubbling away to a prospective boiling point in respect of the horizons that those concerned with transport and mobility should realistically be working to.
A Climate for Change?
ANOTHER REPORT from the experts, another apparent shrug of the shoulders from most of those who might usefully really take its worrying message on board. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has now published its latest guidance on what the world must do to avoid an extremely dangerous future.
Consequences of the war could further hasten transport change
THE WAR IN UKRAINE has already shaken the world order to its foundations, and we still don’t know just how far further the consequences may go. But all the signs are that beyond the human catastrophe, the economic and social implications are likely to be profound and enduring. Higher domestic and industrial energy prices were already a fact of life and transforming home heating costs. Now they are set to re-model the transport equation too.
Read more articles on TAPAS
Blue sky, or mission-led? Setting the right research agenda
When budgets are squeezed, and priorities are set, some things are always going to be seen as more desirable - or expendable - than others. And that depends on your point of view. This can apply at both aggregate overall levels, and in more detailed areas of expenditure like research and development. Especially so if it is funding about conceptual and behavioural matters with ‘soft’ or uncertain outcomes, that is being considered.
Rowing Backwards: The New Politics of Decarbonisation
There has been a substantial reaction to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s policy changes to the Government’s approach to achieving Net Zero, most specifically the commitment to end fossil fuel car sales in 2030, extending the deadline to 2035. But he also sought to present a different way of thinking about the broader policies on the trajectory to the 2050 Net Zero deadline. TAPAS asked Professor Greg Marsden to comment on the implications.
Some warning signals for the government’s plan for Rail Reform
Professor Stephen Glaister was chair of the Office of Rail and Road from 2016 until 2018 and has studied and commentated on rail industry issues and different ownership and delivery models. Here he looks at the Government’s rail reform plans, and where outcome expectations may be optimistic with particular potential problems in the framework for ultimate control and decision-making.