Delivering change requires more than words

There has been a lot of talk about “delivering change” with the Government publishing a number of new strategies and guidance recently and as we approach elections in May. Why should we believe what politicians say, you might think, when we’ve been promised change before? The last time was in the 2024 General Election, yet transport policy and funding remains largely unchanged, even with improvements at the margins, such as simplified zebra crossings, pavement parking, etc.

The early signs were good

With Labour we thought there would be a fundamental shift in direction on transport, particularly a move away from roadbuilding into more beneficial transport investments. Initially that seemed to be the case when a number of highly contentious and damaging road schemes were cancelled, such as the A5036 Port of Liverpool Access Road through Rimrose Valley Country Park, and the A303 carving up the World Heritage Site at Stonehenge. However, after Louise Haigh’s departure as Transport Secretary, Rachel Reeves pushed through the Lower Thames Crossing ‘smart’ motorway on the premise of ‘growth’. Yet its economic case is poor and it undermines many other government priorities.

Roads and more roads

In March we had the publication of the third Roads Investment Strategy (RIS3) pledging £27bn for strategic roads. While renewals (the replacement of old roads and structures that are falling apart) are afforded more money than previously, which is welcome, over £6bn is still pledged to increase capacity on the strategic road network up to 2031. This includes £165 million to support growth and housing, i.e. more car based housing developments, and a pipeline of 13 new large road schemes (most justified by facilitating more development). Meanwhile many better value public transport schemes are stuck in the sidings for a lack of funding.

A lack of joined up government

Aside from funding it is at the intersections of policy and departments that things tend to fall down. And housing and transport is a key failure. Ever since the arrival of John Prescott in government in 1997, there have been attempts to promote more active travel and public transport and reduce car use in new developments. Yet other than modest success with Planning Policy Guidance Note 13, limiting car parking and promoting more sustainable transport, we have gone backwards since the 1990s / early 2000s.

In the latest iteration of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), consulted on earlier this year, there were plenty of good words on reducing car use and promoting active travel and public transport, and the siting of new development. But look at the small print and a lack of any of these sustainable transport improvements is not a reason to refuse planning permission. Therefore, unless a developer is so minded they can do pretty much what they want and get away with it.

At the same time a failure to have sufficient land for new housing, as determined by some unthinking algorithm, is often a green light to a development free-for-all. Local planning authorities are then often powerless to refuse applications even when sited in areas poorly served by public transport or that are primarily car-based. This means that our planning system is facilitating ‘cowpat’ developments, where housing is plonked down in the middle of the countryside with little or no access to local services or high quality public transport. As a result, homeowners have to drive everywhere for everything, causing local gridlock.

Words are not enough

In April, the government published its new integrated national transport strategy, “Better Connected”. It is full of good ideas and ambition, but weak on detail and resources to deliver. On housing it talks about designing new development that has good active travel and public transport and requires fewer cars (as does the NPPF), but then champions a road scheme that has enabled more housing. 

It expresses concern about transport poverty, yet there are 11 million people in England at high risk of Transport Related Social Exclusion. Its solution is to create another measure of transport poverty, rather than take immediate action. Yes there was a welcome freezing of regulated train fares this year, but many turn-up-and-go fares remain extortionate. Perhaps more relevant to those in poverty, the £3 bus fare cap is too high to make travel affordable (if they have a bus to use in the first place). With the current Iran war, sending price shocks around the world, many countries have reduced fares or made public transport free, but not in this country.

Alongside “Better Connected” the government published new Local Transport Plan guidance, for the first time in 17 years. Again, while the words are mostly good, there are real questions as to how it will be enforced and resourced and therefore how effective it will be in delivering change.

A failure to invest in alternatives to roads

The consequences of the failure to invest in alternatives to road building is most clearly seen in Wales. The controversial M4 ‘relief road’ was cancelled 7 years ago, but the lack of investment in promised rail solutions has led to a resurgence in calls for a new road in May’s Senedd elections. Despite Wales being a world leader in sustainable transport policies and properly engaging with climate change in its decision making (rather than pretending roadbuilding can have a free pass) there is a danger things will unravel unless the Welsh government can give people hope things will improve. Certainly, there are mitigating factors such as a lack of funding from the UK government, but this cuts little ice with a population that has seen few improvements, especially around Newport, and is desperate for change.

This risks being the case in England, where Labour has cut many road schemes for being unaffordable but is failing to invest in alternative solutions. How long before another road emerges to threaten the World Heritage Site at Stonehenge or a new port access road in Liverpool? If people are left to cope with bad traffic, they will revert to calling for bigger roads. At the same time, Labour is pouring money into the Lower Thames Crossing ‘smart’ motorway. Just two years of funding for this road could provide funding for Ely and Haughley junctions. This is a transformational scheme that would unlock key blockages on the rail network, improve passenger services and remove hundreds of thousands of HGVs from our roads every year. When public funds are put into bigger roads, generating more congestion, better value public transport or active travel schemes are denied funding.

Another example of this can be seen in Derby where a scheme to increase capacity on the A38 has the go-ahead while electrification of the Midland Mainline was shelved in the spending review. The cost of the road has rocketed from around £200 million to over £600 million and proceeding with it will cause more problems than it solves. Just think what £600 million could do for active travel and public transport in Derby. It would be game changing and is what a bold Labour government should be doing if it really wanted to deliver change.

Trust is broken

Equally, not many people are fooled by Labour’s claims to be prioritising road maintenance, especially when they are having to swerve around potholes on a daily basis. With a £25bn backlog in local road and bridge maintenance the figures speak for themselves. Without committing significantly more funds to properly maintain our roads rather than patching things up, Labour risks sealing its own fate.

Politicians and civil servants seem to have learnt to talk the talk on transport, but they have mostly failed to walk the walk. This is not a recent issue, it is something that has been around for decades, but is now coming to a head. People are fed up with being told one thing and then given something else, or worse, nothing at all. That anger is growing and fuelling distrust in established parties and politicians in general. That’s what makes it likely we will see big changes in who runs Wales and Scotland and many local authorities after 7 May.

Will the new crop of politicians deliver the change clamoured for, or will they too fall foul of further disappointments? Only time will tell, but they will need to cut through the noise and focus on what will deliver the most benefit to the most people. Shaving a few seconds off a motorist’s journey with a bigger road isn’t it.