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
Comprehensive evaluation study provides new transport planning resource
How the Elizabeth line has impacted on the transport system in the capital is being carefully monitored by Transport for London, but its significance in terms of transport planning is wider. Peter Stonham looks at the short and long term evaluation framework and the outputs it will deliver.
All change for the trains and buses - but will it deliver?
PUBLIC UTILITY OR PRIVATE ENTERPRISE' is an issue of both very philosophical and practical dimensions After the Second World War, the 1945 Labour government took the view that the railways should be state owned and run, and nationalised them- and that was how they stayed for Fifty years, under governments of both colours, albeit with not-inconsiderable pruning under the Beeching plan of the early 1960s. That ownership model meant a considerable public body- the British Railways board- was required, not to mention a matching division of people in the controlling government Ministry.
A world away from what’s needed
ANYONE LOOKING at the graph from the new report by the International Transport Forum, ITF, that looks at the pathway to decarbonisation in transpoort across the world will probably find it rather familiar. The UK equivalent of that yawning gap between aspiration, necessity and reality is something we have covered in TAPAS extensively in recent months, particularly the work of Professor Greg Marsden, who has closely studied the UK’s trajectory towards achieving net zero in transport.
Read more articles on TAPAS
It’s not the methods, but the purposes of CBA, that need re-appraisal now
DETAILED COMPLEX ANALYSIS of the rationale for building major infrastructure like transport is a recent phenomenon. Until barely fifty years ago, decisions were either made by private investors on the basis of expecting a profit (or sometimes as a statement of personal ambition), or by public authorities undertaking ‘Civic Works’. The latter were done by those believing they were paving the way to a better, more advanced society, or dealing with obvious problems such as disease and death from poor sanitation and the need for supply of clean water to drink, the provision of gas and electricity for power, and safe and reliable roads on which goods and people could move.
Uber thinking goes beyond taxis
FROM ITS BEGINNINGS in the early days of the last decade, Uber was clear about its plans for long-term disruption to the transport system - and of a willingness for self-disruption too. Keen observers recognised the company’s long-term goal was more than simply helping users ride in other people’s cars. It sought the eventual ability and role of letting those looking for travel facilities book any option within its app. It was not the only startup with a vision of a fully tech-enabled transportation future of this kind, of course.
Hypermobility, the damaging addiction of modern life
OUR MODERN WORLD is just a couple of centuries old . The presence of mankind upon our planet around 300, 000 years . So can it be entirely logical to just add response after response in transport interventions on top of where ‘modern man’ has ended up in just 200 years of technological trial and error (and all the problems that has brought) , but ignore the basic character and needs of the people it is all supposedly for?