Local Transport Plans (LTPs) are the key documents local authorities produce setting out their intentions for transport. LTPs are in effect a bid for funds from the government. Council’s have been asked to produce them by Spring 2024. They are raring to go.
There is only one problem. The Department for Transport (DfT) hasn’t yet issued guidance as to what LTPs should contain.
Back in June 2022, a senior official at the Department for Transport told Local Transport Today that the new guidance would be published “in the autumn” and would set out in one place “all the DfT’s objectives for local transport”.
Yet the Autumn - and then Christmas - came and went. No guidance appeared.
A representative from the Department spoke to a Transport Planning Society event at Steer’s offices in early February (2023). She emphasised that having LTPs in place was essential to being able to convince the Treasury to agree to multi-year funding settlements. On timing, all she could say was that the guidance would be arriving “shortly”. She did though, confirm, that guidance on the quantification of carbon reduction would be included. You can see her full presentation, here.
So why the delay?
From what I have heard, there are two main reasons.
One is HS2. The UK’s second high speed rail line will run from London (or somewhere very near London), to … somewhere else (tbc).
While much about HS2 is still unclear, one thing is very, very certain. It is massively expensive. Current estimates have costs close to £100 billion.
For comparison, the DfT’s entire capital budget is usually around £15 billion a year. The cost of HS2 is so massive that small percentage increases can wipe out the budget for anything else.
The other problem is even more fundamental. I helped to write a local authority’s Local Transport Plan recently and I was really struck by the lack of coherence at the heart of government transport policy.
The government has a suite of policies - net zero, decarbonising transport, clean air, walking and cycling (“Gear Change”) and buses (“Bus Back Better”). All point in the same direction - increasing use of sustainable modes while reducing car use.
Yet, the government is still talking about investing money to give motorists “the modern, safe and uncongested roads they deserve” (they refer to road schemes benefitting cyclists and pedestrians as well, but they are still basically road schemes).
The lower Thames Crossing is a case in point. Phil Goodwin has expertly picked apart what he calls “the running flaws and unresolved tensions in the road and environmental strategies for England as a whole”. He documents the nervousness that National Highways seems to have in talking about their own scheme or identifying its economic benefits. He highlights that the plans are not currently compatible with the government’s own next zero targets.
To be fair to the government, the dichotomy between the desire to meet general environmental objectives and support for particular road schemes reflects a division that is evident in public opinion. Nevertheless, the division - which runs right through the heart of government - leaves it open to challenge in the courts by way of judicial review.
The Welsh government has faced this problem head on. They have taken the brave decision to resolve it by abandoning all major road building projects. But it seems unlikely that the English government would be prepared to act so boldly. The political consequences of the Welsh government’s decision will be interesting to see.
In the meantime, we will have to continue to sit tight and wait. Given that there is due to be an election in 2024, things could quickly get even more complicated.
Comments