Integrated transport delivery - is it working across Government departments?
Chapter 1: CfIT's work on integrated transport delivery
Chapter 2: Desktop review
Chapter 3: Case studies
Chapter 4: Findings
Chapter 5: Recommendations
Annex A: Case study evidence
This Report has also been made available in Adobe Acrobat format for downloading.
The Adobe® Acrobat Reader® can be freely downloaded.
Viewers with visual difficulties may find it useful to investigate services provided to improve the accessibility of Acrobat documents - www.adobe.com/accessibility/index.html
|
Chapter 1: CfIT's work on integrated transport delivery
The role of CfIT
1.1 The Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT) was established by the 1998
Integrated Transport White Paper "to provide independent advice to
Government on the implementation of integrated transport policy, to monitor
developments across transport, environment, health and other sectors and to
review progress towards meeting our objectives."
The Commission's remit is as follows:
Providing policy advice via evidence based reports on:
- Future policy options, so-called "blue-sky thinking" on future strategic issues.
- Policy issues spanning departmental boundaries.
- Best practice amongst local authorities / delivery agencies to encourage improved performance and to highlight barriers to best practice.
- Comparisons with European / International policy initiatives and dissemination of best practice.
- The impact of new technology on policy options.
- Specific issues as requested by the Department for Transport.
Refreshing the transport debate, based on published reports and with a view to
raising the overall level of the "Transport Debate" and where possible to build
consensus among stakeholders.
1.2 CfIT's membership comprises seventeen senior experts on transport and
related subjects, appointed by the Secretary of State, from across the private,
public and voluntary sectors.
1.3 Our projects are steered by Working Groups, which comprise members
experienced in the project area, and outside expertise drawn from CfIT's broad
spectrum of stakeholders, or academic or consultancy frameworks.
1.4 This project working group was composed as follows:
CfIT:
Garrett Emmerson, (Chair)
Baroness Ros Scott
Sir Michael Hodgkinson
Outside expertise:
Stephen Joseph (Transport 2000)
Prof. George Hazel (Hazel McLean)
Dr. Andy Southern (Atkins Consulting)
In addition we consulted a wide range of stakeholders. These are listed in Annex A.
Integration - definition
1.5 CfIT views integration as transport's role in achieving the broad policy
objectives of Government. As defined in the 1998 White Paper[1]:
- Integration within and between different types of transport - so that each contributes to its full potential and people can move easily between them;
- Integration with the environment - so that our transport choices support a better environment;
- Integration with land use planning - at a national, regional and local level, so that transport and planning work together to support more sustainable travel choices and reduce the need to travel.
- Integration with our policies for education, health and wealth creation, so that transport helps to make a fairer, more inclusive society.
- Integration with our policies for education, health and wealth creation - so that transport helps to make a fairer, more inclusive society.
1.6 Governance is what facilitates this, and not necessarily just political governance, but form and function - who does what, over what geographical area, and how the different functions relate to one another.
Why CfIT's interest?
1.7 The provision of policy advice on issues spanning departmental boundaries and
on best practice is a key aspect of CfIT's remit.
1.8 Previous CfIT work (Organisation, Planning and Delivery of Transport at the
Regional Level) identified key problems and issues for the delivery of the 10
Year Plan arising out of current arrangements for planning and transport at the
regional level.
1.9 CfIT's subsequent submission to the DCLG (then ODPM) Select Committee on
the Regional Assemblies Bill in October 2004 put forward the view that the
current structure of local Government may not always be best suited to
delivering the transport agenda, since some local authorities are too small to
cover the travel to work area and, in conurbations, highway and public transport
management may be overseen by different bodies (the PTEs and district
councils).
Rationale for the project
1.10 Despite local Government reform and positive noises from Government at all
levels in terms of joined up thinking across disciplines, the perception of CfIT
members and stakeholders was still one of:
- a lack of joined up objectives and thinking across Government departments, leading to;
- a planning and delivery process which is not well integrated across the disciplines, and therefore fails to deliver effectively on the ground.
As with all CfIT's work, our aim is not to be judgmental or critical of Government, but
rather to assist in taking the debate forward.
Aims and objectives of the study
1.11 The study aims to examine best practice and barriers to transport delivery and
its contribution to wider Government objectives. It aims to identify good,
practical ways to join up and improve the delivery of transport.
1.12 The objectives of the study are to investigate and draw conclusions on the
following:
- How transport delivery is well integrated with the planning process and with economic and sustainable development.
- The objectives of of transport governance and how this is a lever or barrier to delivery of overall objectives in case study areas.
- How transport projects are prioritised and their contribution to wider Government objectives.
- How stakeholders are engaged in the process of delivery.
Approach
1.13 As a tangible way in to what members recognised as a highly complex area.
CfIT chose the Sustainable Communities Plan. The main reasons for this were
that:
- It is a cross Government initiative.
- The growth areas represent a good spread in terms of geographical area, size of location, issues.
- Its success is dependent on the spheres of Government and other key stakeholders working together effectively across disciplines.
1.14 A three phase approach was developed:
Phase 1: defined the project framework and consisted of:
- Desktop review of Government objectives and targets in the policy areas pertinent to the project.
- Review of key initiatives at the national level.
- Brief review of current structural and funding arrangements for transport.
Phase 2: focussed the work on the delivery of the Sustainable Communities Plan, and proceeded as follows:
- Selection of case study areas.
- Definition of key lines of enquiry.
- status quo (desktop) reports.
- consultation (hearings) with key stakeholders in each area.
- Identification of key issues to provide the framework for CfIT's recommendations.
Phase 3: CfIT developed its recommendations based on the case study
evidence and wider experience of the working group.
Scope
1.15 An initial consideration of departmental objectives conducted to define the
scope of this study concluded that the key drivers of policy across government
currently are:
- Sustainable communities
- Economic development
- Social inclusion
- Environment
- Safety
1.16 Of these 5 areas, it was decided that the CfIT work on Integrated Transport
Delivery should focus on both sustainable communities and economic
development since it was felt that the work could be helpful to other work
being conducted elsewhere in Government, (e.g. on productivity). In addition,
the environment block is a separate workstream currently being considered by
the Commission, the safety element is largely addressed by the Motorists'
Forum, social inclusion will be addressed in a future workstream.
The wider debate
Sustainable communities
1.17 The Sustainable Communities Plan was launched by DCLG in 2003 as a long
term action plan for delivering economically, environmentally and socially
sustainable communities in urban and rural areas. Four Growth Areas were
identified as the focus of plans for accelerated provision, primarily of housing,
employment and livable communities. However in the early days the plan was
widely criticised for not securing sufficient funding for the provision of additional
infrastructure, particularly transport, that would be required to deliver its
objectives. Whilst the plan made mention of a number of transport projects that
are underway or planned, these were subject to DfT appraisal and funding
decisions that had not been developed to take account of sustainable
comm unities goals. All this seemingly pointed to the difficulty experienced by
Government [departments] and other stakeholders in joining up and delivering
transport in a way that successfully integrates with other disciplines and
services, at the regional, sub-regional and local levels. In his recent letter to the
Prime Minister (July 06), the Secretary of State for Transport states his
intention to address these issues:
"I will continue to work closely with Ruth [Kelly], Regional Assemblies and local
authorities to ensure that transport and housing plans are properly aligned and
investment plans underpin sustainable growth."
Transport governance in England
1.18 Whilst CfIT concentrated its investigation on the growth areas in order to clearly
focus the study and its resources, the issues go much wider than this
geographically. Local Government organisation and structure across the piece
has been the subject of much on-going debate over the last twelve months, and
has moved on considerably since this project was originally commissioned. The
advent of the DCLG review initiated by the then Minister for Communities and
Local Government, David Miliband, and now being driven by the current
Secretary of State, Ruth Kelly, the expansion of the Lyons Review of local
Government funding to cover form, function and structure, and the expectation
DCLG White Paper published in October, all mean that this is very much a live
issue.
1.19 Transport, and transport governance, is very much at the heart of this debate, a
fact also acknowledged by Secretary of State Douglas Alexander in his letter to
the Prime Minister (July 06). Within the context of this present piece of work
(and the knowledge that CfIT will be undertaking further work in this area in
2006/7), this report only seeks to draw preliminary conclusions as to CfITs
views in this area, based on evidence collected over the course of this study
and building on its work on the subject undertaken at the time of the proposals
for devolution in England in 2004.
1.20 More recently it has emerged that that there might be a new Road Transport
Bill that may include proposals for restructuring the governance arrangements
in PTA areas.
Structure of the report
Chapter 2 documents the desktop review of objectives and targets in the key policy areas.
Chapter 3 documents the selection of case study areas, and the case study process.
Chapter 4 sets out CfIT's findings.
Chapter 5 sets out CfIT's recommendations.
1: A New Deal for Transport, Better for Everyone, DETR, 1998.
[ Previous ]
[ Contents ]
[ Next ]
