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
Time for Total Transport to come out of the DfT’s ‘too difficult’ tray
NEW APPROACHES to how transport is most effectively planned and delivered tend to be more usually developed in modal, technological, operational or geographical silos, rather than all-embracing new paradigms. Changes generally emerge from disruptive new players, particular entrepreneurs breaking new ground and taking risks, technological revolutions, or challenging local political leaders prepared to stick their necks out. These are rarely characteristics to be found in centralised bodies or public authorities — least of all government departments.
Plenty of judgement, but not enough evidence
THE PAST FEW WEEKS have seen a high-profile debate about the effectiveness and benefits of a number of important transport policy measures, most specifically the London Ultra Low Emission Zone, and other Clean Air Zones; 20mph urban speed limits; and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. Alongside this we have had the benefit of detaled analysis of the the Elizabeth Line which provides a best practice case study of monitoring and evaluation with important potential consequences for forecasting the responses to future schemes. 
It’s time to re-appraise appraisal, and Wales shows the way
WHAT A CONTRAST IS EMERGING between the Welsh and English approaches to clearly defining the basis upon which future transport investment decisions should sensibly be made. In this LTT issue we examine the Welsh Government’s lucid and accessible set of plans for how schemes should be drawn up and assessed against clearly stated national policy objectives. Meanwhile, the Department for Transport, whose writ now only runs in England on this policy area, has announced a series of esoteric and impenetrable changes to its complex and multi-faceted transport appraisal guidance, still fundamentally based on seeking to predict what the future holds. 
Read more articles on TAPAS
Good COP, Bad COP: Bunker Mentality at Sharm el-Sheikh
ANOTHER YEAR ON, another COP over — but little evidence of any greater urgency or resolve to make real progress in tackling the challenge of climate change and the need for decarbonisation. It is something that must be an over-riding concern for all those engaged in the world of transport, because of the sector’s major contribution to CO2 emissions. And beyond the direct effects, a raft of other first and second order consequences related to both the natural and industrial pressures brought by transport, travel and movement investment and activity, including the unsustainable implications of current lifestyle behaviour patterns and aspirations.
Choose hope - it’s a decision to take with your eyes wide open about the climate challenge
The new IPCC report on global warming and its likely impacts should force us to decide on how we tackle this existential challenge, believes John Dales. He reflects on how society has a way of not grasping such important looming issues. But he also discovers that there are ways of thinking - and feeling - that can help in making the right decisions in such situations.
Transport is missing clear objectives, more than needing a strategy
DISCUSSION about the need for a clearer national statement about transport policy appears to be gathering pace, a development propelled both by the Transport Select Committee’s new inquiry into Strategic Transport Objectives and a Policy Position Statement just published by the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) regarding the desirability of a national transport strategy for England.