Transport and Regional Spatial Strategies Chris Shepley TRICSRTPI

Transport and Regional Spatial Strategies Chris Shepley TRICS/RTPI Transport and Development Conference 20/11/2007

What is a Regional Spatial Strategy? o o o Introduced in 2004; replaced RPG Incorporates Regional Transport Strategy Produced by Regional Assemblies (Mayor in London)

What progress has been made? o Almost all now been through Examination in Public o An impressive achievement o General quality – a good start

What happens next? o Review and Alteration – c 2010 – mainly about housing but some about transport o But – “Sub national Review” – goes to RDAs o Not everyone thinks this is a good idea o Relationship to Regional Economic Strategy

The soundness tests o o xii of them. Relevant ones include: Whether it is “spatial” – takes into account related policy initiatives and programmes relevant to meeting region’s economic environmental and social needs Whether consistent with national policy Satisfactory Sustainability Appraisal

More soundness tests o o Whether consistent with other strategies and surrounding regions Whether robust and credible evidence base Whether realistic, including about the availability of resources Whether clear mechanisms for monitoring and implementation

PPS 11 guidance on Regional Transport Strategies (Annex B) o 1 “Better integration between transport and spatial planning is critical to the development and delivery of an effective RSS. Transport policies need to reflect and support the aims of the spatial strategy and land use planning needs to take account of the existing transport network and plans for its development. This integrated approach should help deliver more sustainable transport patterns and identify locations for. . development. . in areas of high public transport accessibility”

More… o “Transport issues should not be considered in isolation from spatial planning considerations. RSSs will only be credible, authoritative and deliverable if transport considerations are fully factored in. . from the outset”

More… o o Should provide a regional and sub regional context for the preparation of LTPs and LDDs Identifying investment and management priorities. In the first instance making best use of the existing network.

More… o o Avoid wish lists of projects that are unlikely to be affordable or are not viable. Affordability will be a crucial issue Key role in steering LTPs on where demand management measures might be appropriate

“Towards a Sustainable Transport System” o o Not much mention of all this! But Annex A refers to relationship between land use and transport in context of climate change

How do RSSs perform so far? o o o 1 Are objectives and strategy clear? Do they bring land use and transport together? 2 Is the balance between highways and public transport covered well? 3 Do they deal with demand management adequately? 4 Are the “wish lists” useful? 5 Is the funding in place for implementation? 6 Is the transport industry adequately engaged?

1 Objectives and Strategy o o o Most have fairly general objectives Generally RSS does tackle the links between land use and transport – eg concentrates development in urban areas. But variable (“I found very little correlation” – one Inspector) “Minimise the need to travel” (London 2003) “Reduce the need to travel by car” (London 2007) “Reduce the need to travel, especially by car” (Panel)

1 Objectives and Strategy o o “As it stands the RTS could be seen as no more than a set of well meaning platitudes with little guidance or proposals of its own” (Y&H) “Motherhood and apple pie plus a list of schemes” - an Inspector

1 Objectives and Strategy o “. . the priorities listed … make no reference to securing a shift towards more sustainable modes of transport; or reducing the adverse environmental impacts of transport; or improving access; or easing congestion. We consider these to be important factors, which should guide future investment decisions” (NW)

1 Objectives and Strategy o “GO criticised the lack of a coherent, objective based approach. . . In particular it was put to us that while the RSS Transport Strategy was devised around the premise of supporting economic regeneration it did not go further than this and identify specific problems that are preventing the achievement of these wider objectives” (NE)

1 Objectives and Strategy o “Welter of studies and information has contributed to a lack of a clear strategic focus, which is at the heart of many of the criticisms of the RTS” (Eof. E)

2 Balance o o Almost all Panels very critical here Almost all felt that highway schemes were too prominent:

2 Balance o o “We question whether the policies are sufficient to convey the prominence the RTS needs to give to bringing about a major change in travel behaviour” (Eof. E) “There appears to be a consistent emphasis …to bias investment towards increased road capacity … We are not convinced that the proposals…reflect the proper balance. In our view there is a need to shift the balance away from major road proposals” (NE)

2 Balance o “The committed schemes and the schemes included in the RFA programme appear to have a bias towards highway proposals…we consider that the RTS objectives should imply an increasing shift away from schemes that increase highway capacity towards schemes that will secure increased use of more sustainable modes of transport” (NW)

2 Balance o “…not drawn together and presented as a convincing strategy to increase public transport usage…RTS should be able to show that with limited space on the roads public transport should offer reliable seamless travel…which also offers environmental benefits” (Y&H)

2 Balance o “It seems that the Assembly and Local Authorities have only limited influence over investment in (or the operation of) public transport services. We consider that in order to relieve congestion and overcrowding a very high priority should be given to improvements to the Manchester rail hub, to the development of rapid transit solutions in major urban centres, and additional capacity on heavily used bus routes. We hope these measures will be given higher priority in investment programmes and the next review of RSS” (NW)

3 Demand Management o Almost all Panels very critical here too o “Pious aspirations” – an Inspector

3 Demand Management o “…without demand management congestion will threaten regeneration and economic delivery and continue to add to climate change. The RTS currently provides little more than a summary of national policy…this may be useful in setting the context but does not give a strong guide for LTPs” (Y&H)

3 Demand management o “…dominated by outcomes which are likely to be met by infrastructure investment; the outcomes which could be met by management measures are very few…we would have expected to see more public transport outcomes…and demand management measures” (Y&H)

3 Demand management o o “There is an increasing need to place a restraint on the use of the existing capacity…demand management will reduce the number of unnecessary journeys and encourage lower emission alternatives” “We conclude that there is a need for a system of …priority setting which more adequately reflects the contribution which public transport and demand management can make” (Both NE)

3 Demand management o o “We recommend a strengthened policy (new policy T 3) on demand management” (Eof. E) “We consider there is scope for strengthening the message about demand management…as well as the significance of climate change as a driver of transport policy” (SE)

4 Wish lists o o Panels had great difficulty in dealing with these Very long lists “Simply a regurgitation of existing pipeline schemes” – one Inspector Schemes which have been around for up to 75 years.

4 Wish lists o o Loss of Structure Plans not yet worked through Need to place more emphasis on very clear strategy and priorities in RSS so schemes can be considered at local or sub regional level

4 Wish Lists o “…guidance in PPS 11 calls for RTS to identify investment and management priorities in broad terms only and focus on general outcomes…. . despite the wealth of documentation and detailed submissions on some proposals most of the schemes have not been examined by the Ei. P in the degree of detail necessary to create a clear commitment to them. (cont)

4 Wish lists o …… We are not in a position to pass judgement on…every specific scheme……. it follows that mention of schemes in the RTS could not be taken to convey approval or a presumption about the outcome of proper assessment and determination…” (Eof. E)

4 Wish lists o “A number of representations were made about the manner in which priorities were determined and about the relative merits of the listed schemes. However it would not be appropriate for us to reassess the work…we do not have the evidence on which to evaluate the relative merits of a multitude of transport schemes” (NW)

4 Wish lists o “We are not in a position to pass judgement on the transport, economic, social and environmental implications of every proposed scheme” (SE)

5 Funding and implementation o o o A very critical area for Panels, not just in transport. Implementation Plans. Very little information generally. Not really sorted out (SE best) Wide variety of funding schemes – RFA CIF TIF GAP LTP etc Clear need to shift from modal to holistic Timing – to 2011 (perhaps to 2016 soon) – but RSS is to 2026

5 Funding and implementation o o o All of this is different in London When will similar powers be given to others? Many implementation problems related to Local Government system. Not fit for purpose. Sub regions etc.

5 Funding and implementation o “Funding is perceived to be the greatest weakness…confidence is undermined because of fragmented arrangements for delivery. The RTS only collates the priorities and spending schemes of others; it is not the lead for transport investment planning. The funding streams run through local regional and national levels; it is therefore difficult to ensure a proper integration…according to regionally perceived priorities” (Y&H)

5 Funding and implementation o “The strategy needs to address different components of the strategic transport networks, which are subject to very different planning and funding regimes” (Eof. E)

5 Funding and implementation o o “. . rail investment decisions fall outside the RFA. It is not clear how they will be influenced by the RSS/RTS” (NW) “…unlikely to be the level of resources available to support all of the proposals in the submission draft” (NE)

6 Involvement of the Industry o o Role of the Highways Agency – not always seen as constructive Role of bus and rail industries

6 Involvement of the Industry o “Nor was it possible to secure representation of the bus industry at the Ei. P, despite the crucial role of bus travel in delivering the RTS objectives…” (Eof. E)

To be fair o “It is important not to judge the RTS too harshly. EERA have sought to make the best of a difficult job and would no doubt share the dissatisfaction of others that more has not been achieved in the circumstances” (Eof. E)

One other point in passing o The Planning Bill o MIPs and the IPC o Not everyone is keen on this o But smaller schemes often more important.

Does the Planning System Help or Hinder Transport Integration? o o o Daft question It is the only means by which it can happen A start has been made. Get in to it and get on with it