Richard Johnstone examines the implications of the most ambitious transport infrastructure plan for Scotland since devolution
The Scottish Government’s forthcoming Strategic Transport Projects Review (STPR) will set out the most appropriate strategic investments in Scotland’s national transport network from 2012 until 2022.
The review, which is being carried out by Transport Scotland, has been ongoing since the summer of 2006. It was referred to in the National Transport Strategy (NTS) of December 2006 as being part of the last Executive’s “strategic focus for our networks”, adding that the “consideration of key corridors in the context of this National Transport Strategy”, can provide an evidence base for the types of journeys on each corridor. The NTS “sets the strategic direction for investment”, adding that the “specific details both in terms of policy and the STPR will be set by the level of funding agreed through the spending review process”.
The current Government has accepted that the National Transport
Strategy is a logical, and sound basis on which to proceed with the
STPR, said the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth,
John Swinney. With this process set to conclude – Transport Scotland
says ministers are currently considering the report and an announcement
is expected later this year – what are the aims and aspirations for the
review?
Transport Scotland says that the STPR will complement the National
Planning Framework 2, and will focus on identifying those interventions
that most effectively contribute towards the Government’s purpose of
increasing sustainable economic growth.
It will also complement the
delivery of the three strategic outcomes identified in the NTS:
improving journey times and connections, reducing emissions and
improving quality, accessibility and affordability.
The review is “looking at what the picture of transport might look like
in the future and identifying the issues this creates in terms of
achieving the Government’s purpose, and allowing a range of
interventions, covering a variety of modes across Scotland, to be
judged comparatively on their merits, and prioritising investment to
meet the Government’s purpose and the complementary objectives of the
National Transport Strategy.”
However, the process itself has not been without its critics. Speaking
to the Scottish Parliament’s Transport, Infrastructure and Climate
Change Committee, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable
Growth, John Swinney, was asked by the committee convener, Patrick
Harvie, why a list of the projects that are being considered in the
review had not been published. While Swinney replied that there is no
shortage of projects under consideration in the strategic transport
projects review, others have highlighted the lack of consultation.
The review has consulted five reference groups, which Transport
Scotland outlines as consisting of the following broad interests:
Regional Transport Partnerships; Structure Plan authorities;
Enterprise, Business and Freight interests; Environmental interests and
a Public Transport and Mobility interests.
However, some groups have criticised the process. Colin Howden, the
director of Transform Scotland has said that “a major failing of the
STPR process has been its failure to carry out a fair and open
consultation process”.
He added: “Despite our being the national sustainable transport
alliance, representing a wide range of transport groups, we have not
been involved by Transport Scotland in the STPR process. This contrasts
with the early involvement of a range of industry lobby groups. Given
what we know about who Transport Scotland have been talking to, if the
STPR turns out to be business-as-usual then it won’t surprise us in the
slightest.”
However, Swinney told the committee that “if we published a long list
of projects, we would be in danger of debating and judging what should
be on that list rather than making progress on assessing what major
strategic interventions we could undertake to improve the transport
network and to deliver some of our aspirations for transport
infrastructure, modal shift and other issues.”
Those aspirations, in the context of the outcome of the STPR, are based
on what Transport Scotland calls “a tiered approach to investment”,
with the priorities of: maintaining and safely operating existing
assets; promoting a range of measures, including innovative solutions,
that make better use of existing capacity; and promoting targeted
infrastructure improvements where these are necessary, affordable and
practicable.
The approach of using what already exists and new projects together
does “go hand in hand”, says Derek Elder, the Director for Scotland of
the Institution of Civil Engineers.
You can’t reasonably invest in new infrastructure without having a
regard to what’s already there
You can’t reasonably invest in new infrastructure without having a
regard to what’s already there 
and it really requires to be looked at,”
he said.
He adds: “It is right to look forward to those various infrastructure
projects in transport that need to be prioritised and programmed, but
of course, you can’t ignore what needs to be maintained.”
Elder says that “if I were in the Government I would want to be
circumspect about saying too soon what’s in the pot and what’s not,
because everyone’s got a view, their favorite scheme that they want to
have done”. He adds that it is important to see rail and road projects
as “part of the same continuum”.
“Road and rail are separate, but it’s about how you move goods and
services and people round about the country, and over the last 50
years, we’ve oscillated between road and rail being the object of
concern or object of investment, so I think we really need to see them
as part of a same whole.”
Elder adds that: “it’s a good thing that Government recognise the
importance of transport to the extent that yes, we have probably had
our fair share of reviews, we need good transport links throughout the
country,” a view that is shared by Iain Ferguson, the policy executive
of CBI Scotland, who said that “transport infrastructure is crucial for
businesses in Scotland, whatever size of businesses – whether small
businesses using local roads, to larger businesses [using] road rail
and ferry links as well.”
CBI Scotland has been involved in the STPR process through the
reference groups, and Ferguson says that “as far as I’m concerned, I’ve
been quite happy with the process”. He sees the national priorities as
clear: “We’ve always had a fairly strong view of what a national
project is: in our view, national projects would be projects that would
link the key economic areas of Scotland, whether it be Aberdeen,
Dundee, Inverness, Glasgow or Edinburgh.” He stressed that “for us,
road and rail sit equally side by side”, adding: “For businesses to
have access to roads which are not over populated and have the capacity
to deal with traffic on a day to day basis is very important.
“What we want to see, as far as road and rail are concerned, the key
pinch points where road and rail are running at capacity, these are the
key areas [where] we’d want to see vast improvements, the M8 is a key
example, and as far as rail’s concerned, we’re getting to the stage
where what businesses demand are faster journey times. What we call for
on behalf of our members are big projects that will improve journey
times, and electrification of the rail network is a key requirement,
and looking at how you can electrify Aberdeen down to Edinburgh, [and]
obviously Glasgow to Edinburgh, faster journey times between key
economic areas around Scotland.”
This is a view shared by Robert Samson, the passenger link manager for
Passenger Focus in Scotland, who says that the review must prepare for
“increasing capacity for a growing railway”.
He said that there is a “whole fleet of improvements” that passengers
would like to see coming from the review, such as faster journey times
and frequency of service is very important as well. “I think the big
challenge going forward for STPR is passenger numbers on the railway
are growing to a large extent year on year, and it’s how you actually
deal with that capacity so that passengers aren’t standing, they get a
seat, that will mean longer trains, improved frequency of service, and
it could even attract more passengers and achieve modal shifts, which
has economic benefits.”
Samson adds: “We’re now living in a 24 hour 7 days a week economy, so
maybe the rail services need to reflect that with earlier morning
services, later night services, but again that’s got to be worked in
co-ordination with Network Rail who need to maintain the lines, but
that should be the aim going forward, a seven-day a week railway, very
early morning and late night running.”
He highlights improvements to the in-journey times between Inverness
and Aberdeen and the central belt as “issues that need to be addressed
going forward,” and in August, First Minister Alex Salmond said that
rail journey times from Inverness to Edinburgh could be cut by 35
minutes. Speaking when the Cabinet met in Inverness, he also said
options to make improvements to the A9 would be part of the
consideration in the STPR.
Does Ferguson feel that there is a tension between the aims of the
review’s strategic outcomes of improving journey times and connections,
if this involves construction projects, and reducing emissions?
“I think you will find there is a strong lobby on both sides of that
fence, for us, obviously, economic growth is the number one priority,
and we welcome the Scottish Government’s acknowledgement that that
would be a key priority as well. I think there is a way you can please
both if you like, but let’s be honest, it is difficult, and I’m sure
the green lobby will be looking for more weight to be given to the rail
network than to the road network, but there is a balance to be struck
on that one, I think.”
John McCormick, the chairman of the Scottish Association for Public
Transport (SAPT), said that the crucial thing for the strategy was
“moving away from oil, which we have to do.”
He said that the timescale of major transport projects meant that the
issue had to be addressed in the time period of this review. “The most
fundamental thing is that, even though the oil prices are going down at
the moment, oil is not going to be the way of getting around, in the
same way that 100 years ago civilisation still managed to exist. That’s
the fundamental thing underlying this. We may be moving to another age,
where oil is not the main fuel. World oil is obviously running out, and
in the timescale of some of these major transport projects, which could
be 10-20 years, we’re talking about getting into the period where oil
will not be the driving force anymore.”
He highlighted one of the review’s two fast-tracked elements, the Forth
Replacement Crossing Study – the other being Edinburgh-Glasgow Rail
Improvements Study – as being “the main thing we are worried about”.
“We’re hoping that if the £4.2bn that the Forth Road Bridge would cost
is taken out of the equation then there could be more money available
for other projects,” he said, and SAPT is proposing an alternative
scheme using the Kincardine Bridge.
He said that the SAPT sees the rail electrification, upgrading lines
like Inverness and Aberdeen to Glasgow and Edinburgh rail services, as
continuing this shift to public transport away from having to rely on
roads, which may be part of any balance between road and rail.
McCormick also calls for the review to be “visionary”, and highlights
new technology, such as tram trains, which could be included. “That’s a
big thing we would like to see in the review, new technology to
overcome the threats, or opportunities, of the future. The only way
this review will be there in the future is if it addresses the problems
of the future, rather than extrapolating road traffic growth from the
past.”
This view is shared by John Lauder, the national director, Scotland, of
Sustrans, a sustainable transport charity. He says that “my view would
be to call for a moratorium on road building”.
“You’ve got to question the idea that you can build your way out of
congestion, there’s lots and lots of evidence that you can’t.”
He shares the view of McCormick that there needs to be innovation,
stressing that he would like to see the active modes of transport –
walking and cycling – included.
“Strategically, we haven’t addressed one of the fundamental issues with
transport, which is that the vast majority of trips, particularly those
by private motorcar, are very short. Half of all car trips are three
miles or less. That’s an awful lot of people making very short journeys
in fairly congested urban and suburban areas, using fuel, contributing
to carbon emissions, and not helping their own physical health or
mental wellbeing.
“The assessment that I make is that we haven’t really changed in our
thinking on what is a strategic transport project in the last ten
years. What people mean when they talk about strategic transport
projects is big building engineering projects, that’s what they really
mean.
What people mean when they talk about strategic transport
projects is big building engineering projects, that’s what they really
mean.
He calls for a statement of an acknowledgment by the Government that “the active modes of transport are seen as strategic”.
“I think that would be very significant, and a greatly increased level
of investment would be a significant indicator that the Government does
actually see these modes as playing a part in the strategic moving of
people in this country. Strategic should not be seen as big, it should
be seen as local, allowing people to make the everyday journeys that
they’re currently making by car or motorised transport, under their own
steam, and that should benefit the economy greatly, because [there’s a]
cost of congestion.
“I think what we’re saying in Scotland is that the active modes of
transport are not seen as strategic, and that’s a fundamental problem.
That suggests to me that congestion, ill health and carbon emissions
are not seen as strategic either – that in a sense, we have to grow the
economy, ergo, we have to invest in transport, and if we emit more
carbon in the process, that’s a necessary evil. I would question that
logic altogether, I think that’s deeply flawed.”
The STPR report will make recommendations on a portfolio of land-based
strategic transport interventions to be taken forward between 2012 and
2022, which will establish the basis for the ongoing development of
Scotland’s transport infrastructure to meet the demands of the 21st
century. One person who has examined numerous transport strategies
across the UK says that “the core problem that you’ve got is trying to
stop the same old things coming forward whatever the weather”.
Stephen Joseph has been the executive director of the Campaign for
Better Transport, formerly Transport 2000, for 20 years. While the body
itself leaves most work in Scotland to Transform Scotland, he has seen
many of the transport reviews pre-devolution, from the Conservative
Government’s ‘Roads to Prosperity’ white paper, published in 1989,
onwards.
He says that surveying the past, there are a number of conclusions that
can be drawn about how to effectively implement a review’s conclusions.
“A problem [is] that whatever the view of the prevailing strategy, the
answer is the Aberdeen Western bypass, or dualling the A9 or whatever
the old strategy was,” he said.
“The Department for Transport has been wrestling with that in England,
and I guess that will be the problem the Scottish strategy has, because
what tends to happen is, and this is true of local transport, regional
transport, what you have at the start [of a strategy] is lots of
[aims]: ‘We’ve got to tackle carbon emissions, promote equal
opportunity and social inclusion, provide for a competitive economy’,
and at the back of the thing you find the same old schemes – and
amazingly, a scheme that was planned in the 1960s to allow for lots
more traffic going through somewhere, suddenly becomes something that
will reduce global warming, because it will speed up traffic that will
otherwise get congested and therefore, reduce emissions.
“I think that’s a problem, and certainly a problem that the Department
for Transport [at Westminster] has got. They had heavyweight support
for this from the Eddington review. What it said is you’ve got to get
back to the roots of the problem, what is the problem you’re trying to
solve and what is the full range of options, and only then you get into
scheme-specific stuff.
“So I think that is the core problem they’re going to have, and the
second problem is trying to match the things that come through from the
public consultation on the corridors, your appraisal has got to fit
your strategy, your target.”
He adds that “the money has to follow the priorities identified in the
studies, is the main lesson from all of this, because otherwise you may
as well not bother,” adding that “delivery seems to be another core
problem with the UK transport strategies”.
The view on implementation is shared by McCormick, who says that
“there’s been a number of transport plans for the future and few of
them seem to have lasted very long.” He calls for this one “to be
sensible”, while Ferguson says that “what our members want to see is
projects being actioned” following the STPR. “There are quite a few
projects being committed to by the Scottish Government, and we welcome
that strongly, but until you put the shovel in the ground and start
work on the projects, then the business community and people more
generally in Scottish society get frustrated.
“There is no point in putting so much time and effort into something
like STPR unless the important projects for the economy are actually
supported, and secondly, if they are actually actioned. There are
always issues around funding where major transport projects are
concerned, but certainly at CBI Scotland, we will continue to keep this
high up the agenda and keep the pressure on so that the projects that
are most beneficial to our member companies are actually actioned.”
Lauder adds that he feels that the NTS itself has “dropped off the
radar a bit”. He says that: “If when it comes out as one of the STPR’s
headlines is a greatly increased investment of public transport, and a
review of how active transport can be better funded and co-ordinated at
all levels of Government, that would be a huge expression by this
Government that it does take active transport seriously.”
Elder says that “ultimately, public investments are about political
decisions, as much as marrying those political decisions to perceived
need, and we simply have to accept that the political cycle is of a
shorter term than the duration of some of these longer transport
investments.”
However, he adds: “It would be good if transport were regarded as being
as important an investment priority as health, education and welfare,
quite rightly and quite clearly, are for Government. And I don’t mean
this to be a facetious link, but you need good transport links to get
to schools and hospitals, and buses, fire engines and ambulances run on
the same roads as goods vehicles and private cars do, so transport
needs to be seen as being at the same level of investment priority.”
No one has commented on this article.
Related news items:
|
Holyrood magazine 
Holyrood magazine is the fortnightly insiders guide to understanding the complexity of Scottish politics and policy developments and is widely regarded as being the leading publication for political news and information in Scotland.
