An industrial view of a public policy puzzle

THE LONG-AWAITED report from the group led by Juergen Maier commissioned by Transport Secretary Louise Haigh when in opposition, has come as something of a disappointment to anyone hoping to see the full shape of the new Government’s transport strategy emerging, or even a comprehensive vision for the two subject areas it has specifically addressed - rail and urban transport.

Perhaps too much has been expected from what emerged confusingly from an original invitation to Maier to just consider issues in rail transport infrastructure investment for the prospective new government. Extending that to look comparatively at road infrastructure investment too might have been logical, but simply bolting on ‘urban transport’, by which sponsors Urban Transport Group seem to have defined as ‘public transport,’ has left an even more mixed bag of issues for Maier and his panel to advise upon.

Even the final definition of the review as “into the challenges and opportunities for UK’s Rail and Urban Transport Sector” suggests a partial view of both the subject area and the perspective the review should take on it. “Opportunities for the Sector” (rather than the needs of the nation or the users) seems to have translated into a somewhat strange mixture of proposed outcomes for the industry and its suppliers. It all seems very unlikely to give the now Labour Government “a clear roadmap to seize this moment and drive significant economic, social, and environmental benefits in partnership with the private sector” as Maier himself suggested on its publication. Perhaps the clue to its real intentions is the reference to the potential role of the private sector and how that may now play out for a government itself short of spending power.

The report is certainly very partial in illuminating new ways forward to what is a very challenging policy area, subject to multiple pressures and expectations. It takes the not unexpected perspective of an life-long industrialist frustrated about the progress in building infrastructure and modernising systems for both the development and creation of transport capacity. It has the tone of someone ‘wanting to get things done’ but is very limited on expressing a basis on which those things should sensibly, affordably, and most beneficially be prioritised and funded.

In the context of the new government’s dire warnings about the public finances, some of the recommendations would seem extremely ambitious, if not extravagant, and more focused on the needs of the transport supply industry, looking for certainty, scale, and simplification of process. Indeed, in many ways it presents an industrial strategy for transport, rather than a transport strategy.

Even in this context, it seem to be very tentative where the topic of urban transport is addressed, which does not get the detailed attention given to rail. Arguably, rail investment is the easy one to tackle as a sector , it unavoidably requiring heavy engineering for both track and trains and a supply side that depends on a reliable order book and work plan. Urban transport in contrast comprises a complex and varied set of ingredients, less infrastructure-dominated. These range from some elements of heavy rail, light rail, tram and emerging new technologies for rapid transit, buses, cycling, walking and various established and innovative methods for ‘new mobility’ and freight distribution and delivery. Roads are part of that equation too, although not apparently any part of the report’s agenda. Roads are obviously a significant element in urban transport and even more so in inter-urban transport, for which this particular report was only invited to look at rail. That was probably prudent, as the new government certainly does have a clearly stated rail policy it could build upon , but nothing similar yet, at least, for roads.

Certain assumptions are embedded in the report – one of which is that there is a hard-wired link between transport provision and economic growth, and the belief that more investment in the nation’s transport infrastructure can only be a good thing.

Report sponsors, the Urban Transport Group, might be forgiven for feeling a little disappointment at the limited focus on the detail needs of its member authorities’ areas in the report, given that they managed to extend its original brief on rail infrastructure to the wider transport needs of urban areas.

In fact the report steers well clear of applying any details or numbers to either specific schemes or the allocation of funding it would like to see within an affordable national transport spending plan.

Certain assumptions are embedded in the report — one of which is that there is a hard-wired link between transport provision and economic growth, and the belief that more investment in the nation’s transport infrastructure can only be a good thing.

There are nonetheless some areas of process and recommendations for better ways of doing thing within the report that may be helpful in their own right. In particular it tackles ways of delivering transport infrastructure projects more quickly , sustainably and more economically. Review advisors Arup have created a framework for this: ‘Greener, Faster, Cheaper’. This recommended approach is designed to address the perennial challenge of infrastructure projects being delayed and over budget, while also ensuring priorities on net zero and sustainability are achieved.

This dimension of infrastructure development seeks to embrace best existing practices. It emphasises early planning, outcome-based programmes and strategic reforms, contrasting with traditional asset-focused, process- driven approaches. The report may also assist Government and its agencies to better understand the perspective of its suppliers and their need for a solid and reliable pipeline of work. Its suggestion of a private finance ‘playbook’ might help the investment sector better connect with and support public sector priorities.

All in all the report looks more like a set of thoughts on certain parts of the transport challenges facing a new government , but without a real take on the overall strategic vision and balancing act Louise Haigh and her colleagues are now having to deal with. As such it is unlikely to find a memorable slot amongst the very many reports on transport, for and by Governments, over the past few decades for saying anything really new or insightful.

Peter Stonham is the Editorial Director of TAPAS Network

This article was first published in LTT magazine, LTT898, 5 September 2024.