Transport and Regional Spatial Strategies

1
Transport and Regional Spatial Strategies

• Chris Shepley
• TRICS/RTPI Transport and Development Conference
  20/11/2007

2
What is a Regional Spatial Strategy?

• Introduced in 2004 replaced RPG
• Incorporates Regional Transport Strategy
• Produced by Regional Assemblies (Mayor in London)

3
What progress has been made?

• Almost all now been through Examination in Public
• An impressive achievement
• General quality a good start

4
What happens next?

• Review and Alteration c 2010 mainly about
  housing but some about transport
• But Sub national Review goes to RDAs
• Not everyone thinks this is a good idea
• Relationship to Regional Economic Strategy

5
The soundness tests

• xii of them. Relevant ones include
• Whether it is spatial takes into account
  related policy initiatives and programmes
  relevant to meeting regions economic
  environmental and social needs
• Whether consistent with national policy
• Satisfactory Sustainability Appraisal

6
More soundness tests

• 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

7
PPS11 guidance on Regional Transport Strategies
(Annex B)

• 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

8
More

• 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

9
More

• 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.

10
More

• 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

11
Towards a Sustainable Transport System

• Not much mention of all this!
• But Annex A refers to relationship between land
  use and transport in context of climate change

12
How do RSSs perform so far?

• 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?

13
1 Objectives and Strategy

• 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)

14
1 Objectives and Strategy

• 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 (YH)
• Motherhood and apple pie plus a list of
  schemes - an Inspector

15
1 Objectives and Strategy

• ..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)

16
1 Objectives and Strategy

• 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)

17
1 Objectives and Strategy

• 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 (EofE)

18
2 Balance

• Almost all Panels very critical here
• Almost all felt that highway schemes were too
  prominent

19
2 Balance

• 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 (EofE)
• There appears to be a consistent emphasis to
  bias investment towards increased road capacity
  We are not convinced that the proposalsreflect
  the proper balance. In our view there is a need
  to shift the balance away from major road
  proposals (NE)

20
2 Balance

• The committed schemes and the schemes included
  in the RFA programme appear to have a bias
  towards highway proposalswe 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)

21
2 Balance

• not drawn together and presented as a
  convincing strategy to increase public transport
  usageRTS should be able to show that with
  limited space on the roads public transport
  should offer reliable seamless travelwhich also
  offers environmental benefits (YH)

22
2 Balance

• 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)

23
3 Demand Management

• Almost all Panels very critical here too
• Pious aspirations an Inspector

24
3 Demand Management

• 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 policythis may be useful in setting the
  context but does not give a strong guide for
  LTPs (YH)

25
3 Demand management

• dominated by outcomes which are likely to be
  met by infrastructure investment the outcomes
  which could be met by management measures are
  very fewwe would have expected to see more
  public transport outcomesand demand management
  measures (YH)

26
3 Demand management

• There is an increasing need to place a restraint
  on the use of the existing capacitydemand
  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)

27
3 Demand management

• We recommend a strengthened policy (new policy
  T3) on demand management (EofE)
• We consider there is scope for strengthening the
  message about demand managementas well as the
  significance of climate change as a driver of
  transport policy (SE)

28
4 Wish lists

• 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.

29
4 Wish lists

• 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

30
4 Wish Lists

• guidance in PPS11 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 EiP
  in the degree of detail necessary to create a
  clear commitment to them. (cont)

31
4 Wish lists

• We are not in a position to pass judgement
  onevery 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
  (EofE)

32
4 Wish lists

• 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 workwe do not have the evidence on
  which to evaluate the relative merits of a
  multitude of transport schemes (NW)

33
4 Wish lists

• We are not in a position to pass judgement on
  the transport, economic, social and environmental
  implications of every proposed scheme (SE)

34
5 Funding and implementation

• 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

35
5 Funding and implementation

• 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.

36
5 Funding and implementation

• Funding is perceived to be the greatest
  weaknessconfidence 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
  integrationaccording to regionally perceived
  priorities (YH)

37
5 Funding and implementation

• The strategy needs to address different
  components of the strategic transport networks,
  which are subject to very different planning and
  funding regimes (EofE)

38
5 Funding and implementation

• ..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)

39
6 Involvement of the Industry

• Role of the Highways Agency not always seen as
  constructive
• Role of bus and rail industries

40
6 Involvement of the Industry

• Nor was it possible to secure representation of
  the bus industry at the EiP, despite the crucial
  role of bus travel in delivering the RTS
  objectives (EofE)

41
To be fair

• 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 (EofE)

42
One other point in passing

• The Planning Bill
• MIPs and the IPC
• Not everyone is keen on this
• But smaller schemes often more important.

43
Does the Planning System Help or Hinder Transport
Integration?

• 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