Delivering change: making transport work for cities, Centre for Cities
The Centre for Cities launched their report Delivering change: making transport work for cities at an event in central London.
Today (1st May) the Centre for Cities (supported by Mace) launched their report Delivering change: making transport work for cities at an event in central London (to be followed by events in Birmingham and Manchester) with responses to the report by Stephen Joseph (Campaign for Better Transport), David McNeill (TfL), and Barbara Davies (West of England LEP).
The report acknowledges the importance of cities and the challenges they face in delivering change for the better. Five recommendations are made:
- Local regulation of bus services for all transport authorities
- Long-term funding settlements (minimum of 5 years)
- Local funding for local transport
- Single management of transport systems via an Integrated Transport Authority
- Integrating transport into the wider growth agenda, including jobs, and housing.
These have been developed with the benefit of examining where change has been successfully delivered in transport, both in the UK and globally. Inside the UK, while there are successes, it does appear that these are despite the influence of central government rather than because of it: to create change seems to be largely about over-coming hurdles! London is put forward as the ‘least worst’ model in which TfL has control over fare-box revenues which then provides a certain revenue stream against which plans can be made and investment levered, while there is also a connect between planning for transport, the economy, and land use.
It is acknowledged that a London-style solution isn’t always appropriate, so there is emphasis placed on tailored devolution. Nevertheless, greater local control is a common theme, as is the importance of better integration between transport modes, local authority areas, and between transport and other aspects of the economy.
It is hard to disagree with the eminently sensible recommendations being made, though as ever, there is an unresolved issue about how the required changes can be made to happen. One part at least must be to have a clear vision about what a particular city looks and feels like, and what sort of ‘place’ it is. For this, there’s no need to be constrained by funding cycles: some things take decades to have an impact and these long term projects shouldn’t be lost. The benefit of having a common vision is clear to see: it can bring together neighbouring authorities, align land use and transport policies, and provide a level of certainty which attracts private investment as well as helping in the process of bidding for disparate government funding pots.
In this way a vision can help with integration and provide a rationale for particular policies. There will then inevitably be an appraisal process, but one in which there is some clarity on what the policy’s wider impacts are and how it links with other policies. This may in turn support a wider multi-criteria approach which local politicians, people, and employers can buy into.
