TAPAS.network | 16 May 2022 | Editorial Opinion | Peter Stonham

Not quite what we planned for - but still an asset

Peter Stonham

IF THE PAST is not always a good guide to what will be happening in the future, the present is not an awful lot better.

We live in unstable times, and the current state of the world is not one of comfortable equilibrium, or certainty on which to build our plans.

Not that it ever really was so in modern times, apart from a few relatively brief and tranquil epochs. One thing that looking backwards can reveal, of course, is how we were once anticipating things might pan out – and the closeness of that to actuality.

From such a ‘forecast future’, frozen in time, we can make a reality check to learn how right – and how wrong – we can be. And what we missed. And maybe why.

quotations 5

Those responsible for transport investment are burdened with particularly critical and sticky decision-making about the future.

In the event, the pattern of demand has much changed since the plan was agreed by all concerned – including, critically, the funders – nearly two decades ago. And even since the construction work began in earnest 12 years ago, when the effective point was passed of not going back, or even much modifying what was to be provided.

The substantial sunk costs – and years of disruption too – mean cancellation is hardly an option, financially or politically, for schemes of this kind.

Now we are at the sharp end of the project, and about to see what the user reaction will be. It is pretty certain the nature of travel behaviour, and the economic and social impacts, will be significantly different to those that were set out in the plan.

It was not that the forecasts were wrong – they might well have been right at the time – but that the world, inevitably, moves on in ways that arguably no-one could truly foresee.

So, as well as back-calibrating what it was that we all missed, and how a more ‘agile’ approach might have made it easier to adjust on the way, the challenge now is to make the most of the asset that now exists rather than still striving to achieve the original outcome.

Here again, transport is not very flexible in that regard. Neither the tunnels, track nor trains can be practically re-deployed.

Planning and building them is challenging and rewarding for thousands of people. But now things move to making the most of them, and to come up with innovative ways of presenting new options to potential users and leveraging the opportunity that the asset presents in the current environment.

Perhaps surprisingly, then, there is not much of a tradition in transport of pulling together talented teams to squeeze the best performance from what now exists when such major public projects go live.

For an analogy, we might take the mobile phone; designed to enable us to make phone calls on the move, the use of the devices is now not primarily for people talking to one another at all. But no one bemoans the awful mistake of the original inventors – they opened the door to undreamt of innovation in communications!

The Writer and Philosopher George Santayana, popularly known for his aphorism “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”, also usefully suggested “We must respect the past, remembering that it was once all that was humanly possible.” Wise words indeed. 

Peter Stonham is the Editorial Director of TAPAS Network

This article was first published in LTT magazine, LTT845, 16 May 2022.

d2-20220516-1
taster
Read more articles by Peter Stonham
Time to redefine ‘road safety’?
THE ANIVERSARY of the introduction of compulsory seatbelt wearing 40 years ago usefully prompts some reflections on the changing perceptions and priorities relating to what has traditionally been known as ‘road safety’. As does the fact that a significantly amended version of the Highway Code, introducing the concept of a road user hierarchy of responsibility for the first time, was issued a year ago, as explored in a contribution to this issue from Tom Cohen.
False Dawns familiar for new transport thinking
NEARLY SIX MONTHS into her tenure of the post of Transport Secretary, Heidi Alexander has at last set out some of her policy priorities. It wasn’t in the speech that the Department for Transport communications team had presented as her ‘personal vision’, given to a selected audience at the National Railway Museum earlier last month, which actually contained very little of substance, but in her evidence to a special session called by the House of Commons Transport Committee to examine her plans.
Lessons from the Summit: thinking beyond the transport mantra
TRANSPORT PROFESSIONALS, whose role is essentially that of advisers and experts rather than decision makers, have to a significant extent become unrealistic, and perhaps complacent, in the degree to which they expect those with the authority to implement the ideas which the professionals believe are appropriate.
Read more articles on TAPAS
Why are we hooked on Hypermobility, a damaging addiction of modern life? Let's look harder at our real human needs
Clearer thinking is needed about the overall amount of movement we are doing, and why, believes Professor Nick Tyler. He fears that in just a century of human existence, the better off have become used to the idea of expecting to move where they want, when they want, and how they want to by land, air and sea. Meanwhile those in lower socioeconomic groups are being priced out of this hypermobility market. He has been working to tap into the essence of human mobility needs using a unique, flexible laboratory facility to create unique, real-scale experiences, test environments and study the brain and senses as people interact with their environment - The Person-Environment-Activity Research Laboratory (PEARL)
What is the place for DRT in the wider public transport system?
Each transport mode has operational and economic attributes that define its potential to play a role within the overall mix of options. As technologies and business concepts evolve, the transport options change too. But reality and cost-effectiveness, rather than promotional claims, should define the most appropriate choices in public policy and expenditure on them, argues Professor Peter White. He is concerned in particular about an absence of consistent examination and evaluation about what Demand Responsive Transport can deliver at an acceptable cost.
When the facts change, we should change our thinking – and that’s the case with planning our future transport now
Proper examination of recent transport and travel trends, and the underlying behavioural and economic and social trends driving them, suggests our established institutional policy-making and investment processes are unsound, believes David Metz. A fundamental review of the evidence and professional practice is urgently needed to ensure a better basis for decision-making, he says