22 July 1998
No Deal for Transport
Austin Williams, co-ordinator of the Transport Research Group, is far from
impressed with New Labour's proposed transport policy
New Labour's much-vaunted White Paper on Integrated Transport promised "A New
Deal for Transport". Originally intended for publication in May, it was delayed
and delayed to allow for extended lobbying by contributors to the consultation
process. Virtually all suggestions have been eagerly adopted by the government
for fear of being seen to offend anyone; or worse to be accused of forcing an
unsolicited opinion on the public. Deputy prime minister John Prescott can now
truly boast that "this is a White Paper that everyone can agree with".
Everybody from the greens in Friends of the Earth to the car lovers in the
Automobile Association agree that, in principle, the White Paper was a vital day
for transport in Britain: it was finally agreed by all sides that reducing the
reliance on the private motor car was the key policy initiative. Self-confessed
"petrol-head", Quentin Wilson, of the BBC's motoring flagship "Top Gear"
proclaimed that "nobody can disagree that we have to do something about reducing
the car". But then he went on to argue that the proposals were too hastily
introduced. A curious criticism for such an overdue document. But why is it that
there is such unanimity of approval for this document which, in the words of
Gillian Shepherd, the Conservatives' transport spokeswoman, "contains no
improvement for the travelling public"?
There are two reasons. Firstly, it has long been established that there is no
money available for increased infrastructure, borne out by the governments
comprehensive spending review which allocated the limited transport budget to
highway maintenance projects. By effectively ruling out of the equation any
improvements in road infrastructure (except for private finance initiatives), the
government has asked for alternative suggestions to transport problems.
Effectively, it's like saying that we've come up against the natural limits of
road space capacity and if you want increased public transport it will have to be
at the expense of car drivers.
Secondly, it is the consultative process itself which has drawn everybody into
helping out. Britain's roads, it is argued, are in crisis and, in partnership
with New Labour, we can all play a part in helping out. This is the great British
Dunkirk spirit, in Prescott's disingenuous manner, "we are not asking for great
sacrifices" while enjoining us to do our bit and walk to work. This is
stakeholder Britain.
The White Paper holds the car responsible for everything from children's lethargy
to adult heart disease, from climate change to community breakdown. If the car is
the problem, then fewer cars is the answer, and through instruments like the
Traffic Reduction Act and Local Agenda 21 initiatives, it is incumbent upon local
authorities to reduce the number of cars in their area. Since it is recognised by
everybody that the private motor car is the most convenient form of transport,
the simplest and most cost effective way to reduce numbers is to make the car
less convenient, thus "encouraging" us to use other modes of transport.
This is why recent survey results* indicate that local authorities are
consciously pursuing policies of traffic bottlenecking by introducing bus lanes,
peak time roadworks, cycle lanes and so on to frustrate motorists into
considering other modes of transport. This is what is meant by "restraining the
car", and under the new White Paper, measures such as these will be supplemented
with increased penalties, speed restrictions and bans in certain designated
areas. Prescott predicts raising UKP1billion of extra revenue from these new
taxes on motorists and has managed to cement his friendship with chancellor of
the exchequer Gordon Brown through such blatant policies. Through the policy of
"hypothecation", (direct transfer of revenue to other transport sectors) or
creative accounting as it used to be known, money raised is "pledged" to other
transport sectors. However, it is not the intention to improve alternative modes
of transport. As the White Paper says, "we are making an historic shift in road
investment...by giving top priority to maintaining and managing our existing road
networks". Instead of "predict and provide", we have "patch and repair".
But we shouldn't be surprised. This is an anti-transport strategy. What kind of
policy for transport integration starts with the need to marginalise one section
of the travelling public? More importantly, the White Paper is not just about
making travelling more inconvenient; it's about questioning whether we should
travel at all. The consultation paper posed the question: "What can we do to
reduce people's need to travel?" and the White Paper answers that we need to
assess whether our trip is necessary and whether we can make it by alternative
means to the car; preferably, cycling and walking. Unnecessary trips will be
deemed to be irresponsible.
This is not transport policy, but social policy. It is about encouraging good and
responsible citizenship through the medium of transport. Importantly, the entire
process of involvement, participation and partnership enshrined in the document
is becoming the guiding principle and even overrides what was thought to be the
central plan, i.e. improving the public's travel options. Keen to build on the
unity of purpose surrounding the set of non-policy initiatives set out in the
Paper, the government has announced at least nine other separate consultative
documents on transport, from road safety to bus policy. The process it seems, is
everything, the outcome irrelevant. Everyone will have an opinion, everyone will
be encouraged to participate and everyone will be happy to have been asked. The
fact that nothing will have improved is something that none of the transport
groups seemed to have picked up on.
*"ATTITUDES TO TRANSPORT", TRG national survey released July 20th 1998
The Transport Research Group is an unaffiliated national body based in Newcastle
upon Tyne. It has been set up to challenge the conflictual relationship between
various transport interests so that the best possible opportunities are provided
for the travelling public. For further information, please contact Austin.
Join a discussion on this commentary