Why Britain needs a proper transport strategy to end a catalogue of failure

A few years ago, I wrote a short book called Are Trams Socialist?

The title had been given to me by the publisher, and it wasn’t really about either trams or socialism. Instead, it looked at the past century or so of transport history and argued that there has never been a transport policy.

In other words, we have never had a government where ministers would sit around the table and say: “Well, what shall we do about transport?”

There has been the occasional attempt, such as John Prescott’s ten-year plan issued in 2000, or the Eddington review a few years later which (incidentally) argued strongly against the need for a high-speed line, suggesting instead a whole host of smaller local investments.

But since then, there has been absolutely no thought about what a good achievable transport system would look like, although I bet there are a few transport ministers since then who wish that Eddington’s words had been heeded.

Which brings me neatly to the current lot. Labour has just ‘celebrated’ its first year in office, and certainly its transport ‘policies’ (or lack of them) have backed up the argument in my book.

There have been a few good measures (and a few bad ones), but there has been a total absence of any theoretical underpinning of where it wants to go with transport.

So, let’s look at the good and the bad. And before selecting a similar number of positives, let’s pick out ten missteps.

The first three are all about schemes which would definitely not be proceeding if there was anything like a coherent strategy about sustainable transport. And the maddest of these is the plan to build a third runway at Heathrow.

Remember, there is a railway connection here. One of the reasons why HS2 was given the go-ahead in the early 2010s was as a counterbalance to the scrapping of plans for the third runway.

Now we seem to have a government that supports both HS2 and Heathrow expansion on the basis that it is good for ‘growth’ - the watchword of this government.

The environmental arguments against Heathrow expansion are dismissed with notions that there will be sustainable sources of aviation fuel and that other reductions in greenhouse gases can be found.

What’s more, it is unlikely that even the owners of Heathrow and the airlines actually want what would be a very expensive runway that will require moving the M25, and which will increase the cost for passengers of using the airport.

The same environmental arguments can be made against the expansion of Luton and Gatwick Airports - and even more so against the government’s support for the Lower Thames Crossing, for which there is a whole host of railway improvements that would offer a much better alternative.

Add to this the delusional idea that sustainable aviation fuel is feasible (I did a podcast on this, showing the futility of trying to develop alternative aviation fuels).

Then (number five), there is the equally crackpot idea that driverless cars of any kind offer a viable solution to transport problems.

Ministers seem to have ‘drunk the Kool Aid’ on this, suggesting in a particularly bonkers press release that widespread adoption of these cars would create 28,000 jobs - without mentioning that it would displace thousands of taxi and bus drivers if it ever came to fruition.

Then come two issues about railways. The lack of any strategy about what to do about rail capacity north of Birmingham (or more precisely Handsacre Junction) is an egregious dereliction of duty.

HS2 cannot be left as the Acton to Aston shuttle, which creates a useless line that will cost more than £100 billion. The scheme only makes sense to continue further north, and yet there has been silence on this issue.

Number seven is the omertà on rail freight, whose potential is stymied by a lack of ambition.

Two other failures are the absence of regulation on e-scooters and e-bikes.

Those food delivery riders on hotted-up illegal e-bikes are going to kill/injure lots of people before anything is done about them.

There has also been a lack of action on the long-standing issue of pavement parking - a risk to many people who have to walk into busy roads to avoid parked cars.

Finally, there is the failure to increase fuel duty - a policy which stretches back more than a decade, which in turn means there is no money for many sustainable projects. It’s a sadly lengthy catalogue of failure.

Now, here’s the good news. Firstly, the very sensible idea to merge train operations with the infrastructure and create a unified railway organisation (though please drop the Borisonian Great and just call it BR).

Secondly and thirdly, buses could enjoy a revival thanks to the franchising plan and the continuation of a maximum fare cap (though again, shame that went up from £2 to £3).

Number four is the accompanying promised big investment in urban mass transit - much of which will be spent on railways, which supports the notion of devolution.

Next, in contradiction to the support for the mad road scheme under the Thames, the Stonehenge scheme has thankfully been ditched - as has the very damaging Arundel bypass, which would have damaged a wonderful area of countryside.

As for HS2, at least there is a plan to finish the Birmingham section, which (although I have long opposed the whole scheme) is now unavoidable, as otherwise all the crazy amount of money would have been totally wasted.

At least some time in the late 2030s we will have a new railway. And then - surely, eventually - it will be extended.

Other good railway news is that South Wales is receiving an amazing boost for its network of local train services - a real game-changer.

Number eight is that right from the start the damaging train drivers dispute was resolved, although perhaps former Transport Secretary Louise Haigh was a bit generous in not extracting a bit more from the unions, something that some of the members have even admitted to me privately.

Another good move is to fund WiFi improvements on trains. This is much needed, as I am writing this on an LNER train on which I simply cannot receive or send emails owing to the patchiness of the WiFi.

As I have often argued, WiFi on trains is now as essential as toilets and windows - a basic part of the train offer.

And finally, although nothing to do with railways, well done for negotiating a deal with the American administration to enable upmarket cars such as Land Rovers and Jaguars to avoid the huge tariffs that were threatened. That was clever diplomacy by Sir Keir Starmer et al.

As I have stressed, it is a mixed picture. Some of these measures would be worth shouting about from the rooftops, but in many respects transport is a microcosm of the wider failings of the Labour government.

There has been no clear messaging about the good news, and no coherent long-term thinking about how to go about changing the country, moving away from the chaos of the previous government.

Transport could (and should) be a vanguard of its policies. And yet instead, it is (as ever) a forgotten appendix to other policies with no attempt to develop genuine progressive ideas.

I think, sadly, that Louise Haigh actually ‘got it’ in terms of recognising the need for radical change. But I have little hope that her successor does, given plans for third runways and terribly expensive motorways under the Thames. Let’s hope I am wrong.