Transport Insights

The transport stories you won't see in the industry-friendly media

Author

Chris Ames

  • A triumph of sloganeering

    Alongside the news that the Department for Transport (DfT) has resorted to gaslighting to hide the outline business case for the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC), a new article in an academic journal tells the same story – that the case for the £10bn+ project is largely confected – in a different way.

    A paper in Transport Policy by UCL professor Robin Hickman (and others) Discourses on the Lower Thames Crossing: rationality or rationalisation?:

    examines the Lower Thames Crossing in discursive terms, seeking to understand the multiple socially-constructed realities associated with the project.

    Here “discursive” means an approach that looks at a policy as a product of discourse – something created by language, narratives and social meaning, and in this case

    specifically the dominance of the views and evidence given by National Highways as the project promoter.

    Foucauldian discourse analysis, as used here:

    allows projects to be understood beyond their supposedly ‘objective’ justification, to incorporate elements of subjectivity. This concerns how particular ways of thinking, talking and doing make projects appear to be rational, necessary and legitimate.

    This Foucauldian stuff is way too clever for me, but the article very much strikes a chord when it talks about how transport policy, including under Labour, is mainly sloganeering:

    For example, narratives are given that “traffic delays stifle progress”, “motorways and trunk roads are the economic arteries of our country”, “highway investment will resolve congestion” and “kickstart economic growth” (Department for Transport, 2025a, p.4). The planning system is even put forward as blocking project delivery, requiring more ‘efficient’ project implementation (HM Treasury, 2025).

    (more…)

  • Is Burnham lining up with Khan on robotaxis?

    For those who thought that truly autonomous robotaxis in London were imminent, today’s news that they could still be a way off may be a bit of a shock.

    Earlier this month, it was announced that Transport for London had granted Uber and Wayve (operating together) a licence to offer self-driving taxi rides to paying customers, except that the stipulation was that a safety driver had to be behind the wheel at all times.

    Presumably to take the blame when the technology fails.

    Now the FT reports:

    London’s robotaxi rollout is running behind the ambitious schedule set out by the UK government, with the three main operators now unlikely to launch a fully driverless commercial service this year.

    Alphabet’s Waymo, Uber-backed Wayve and China’s Baidu still face regulatory or technical barriers, or both, before they can take paid passengers without a “safety driver” behind the wheel.

    Unsure whether to frame the news as a consumer story or a business one, the FT says:

    Any delay in London will come as a relief to cab drivers worried about potential job losses, but it could dismay the 100,000 people who have signed up to try Uber and Wayve’s service.

    Ministers, investors and tech executives had also hoped that the launch of robotaxis could help to position the UK as an innovation hub.

    I wonder if “dismay” may be little bit strong here.

    The substantive issue is that:

    Transport for London, the city authority which must give its consent to any rollout, is yet to even publish the guidance that companies must follow to win its approval.

    Jack Stilgoe, “tech professor” at University College London, notes that, as well as doubts as to whether Burnham is as enthusiastic as, for example, transport secretary Heidi Alexander,

    TfL are still asking what problems this would actually solve.

    And, beyond all the hype, it’s very much the question that we should all be asking.

    Leave a comment

  • DfT accused of “state-sponsored gaslighting” over Thames tunnel

    The government seems to have dug itself into a very big hole in an attempt to bury the outline business case (OBC) for the Lower Thames Crossing, a document that was the basis for a decision to take total public funding for the “privately-funded” tunnel to £3.1bn.

    As I reported last month:

    A new report from the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority (NISTA) has shown how the Department for Transport is playing fast and loose with public money over the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) – and basically lying to avoid releasing the mega-project’s business case.

    This relates to a Freedom of Information/Environmental Information Regulations request for the OBC from Becca Lush of Transport Action network, which the DfT refused on the grounds that the document was “in draft”.

    Lush had already sought an internal review of this claim when I pointed out that:

    (more…)

  • Petition calls for M4 junction closures to be taken off the table

    Unsurprisingly, suggestions that the Welsh Government might implement junction closures as one way of addressing congestion on the M4 at Newport has received a degree of pushback.

    The South Wales Argus, which carried the interview with transport minister Mark Hooper in which he declined to take the option “off the table”, now reports:

    A petition urging ministers to keep motorway junctions around Newport open has gained huge momentum in recent days.

    The petition, started by Newport Labour, has received more than 2,600 signatures since it started, with thousands of Newport residents sharing their support for the campaign.

    The position of Newport Labour party is interesting, given that it was the previous, Labour-led, Welsh Government that took the idea of relief road “off the table”, where it remains.

    The Argus reports the local party as saying that “all options that serve the city positively. Rail, roads, public transport, active travel” should be in the mix, “including a relief road, which Newport Labour has always supported”.

    In the meantime, Hooper has met Lord Burns, head of the 2020 South East Wales transport commission, “to share views on the future direction of transport policy and investment across Wales”.

    (more…)

  • Burnham “won’t be changing my tune” on West Yorks Mass Transit

    The saga of West Yorkshire Mass Transit plans rumbles on with new prime minister Andy Burnham perhaps backing the region’s plan for trams – or perhaps not – and another key figure from the combined authority jumping ship.

    The BBC reports Burnham’s answer during a visit to Bradford to the question: Do you support West Yorkshire’s tram plans?

    “I supported her [Tracy Brabin] in my former role, I won’t be changing my tune now,” he said.

    “West Yorkshire needs a mass transit system like Greater Manchester, like the West Midlands and and that is what it will get.”

    He said the proposed scheme would involve extending the tram south of Leeds, connecting areas where a lot of new housing is planned, particularly around South Bank, and potentially continuing towards a redeveloped Elland Road.

    Unfortunately the bit where he actually mentioned a tram is reported rather than direct speech and any reference to “extending the tram south of Leeds” is meaningless as there is currently no tram to extent.

    The plan may have Burnham’s backing but a key supporter, former chancellor and Leeds MP Rachel Reeves, is no longer in a position of influence.

    Meanwhile, the Yorkshire Post (paywall) reports:

    Another top transport official in charge of the West Yorkshire mass transit scheme has left the combined authority, the third in the last six months.
    …
    current head of mass transit place and consents, Stacey White, has left to join Sheffield City Council, after four years on the project.

    As the paper points out, she follows Mike Birch and Simon Warburton out the door.

    A West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA) spokesperson pointed out that it is normal to see senior staff move elsewhere to progress their careers during such a lengthy project but it does seem that senior staff are moving elsewhere more quickly than the project is moving forward.

    As head of mass transit place and consents, there might not have been much for White to do on the consenting front, given that the plan is no longer to run the project development and planning in parallel, following the NISTA report.

    The WYCA has just launched a Regulation 19 (second) consultation on the draft West Yorkshire Mass Transit: Spatial Development Framework joint Development Plan, which looks like part of the spatial planning process.

     Picture by Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street

  • Smart motorway safety tech spend facing cuts, National Highways says

    National Highways has suggested that work to improve the safety of smart motorways might be cut as part of a raid on its funding to pay for increased defence spending.

    The coded admission comes in response to a freedom of information (FOI) request from smart motorway campaigner Claire Mercer, which sought to find out how much the company was planning to spend on the network under the third Road Investment Strategy (RIS 3), which began in April and runs until 2031.

    It’s worth starting with the part of RIS 3 that Mercer cited:

    Over the third road period, we expect National Highways to continue to invest in the technology needed to help increase public confidence when driving on smart motorways, like upgrading CCTV cameras to detect incidents that could have an impact on the safety of users or their journey times.

    There are a lot of weasel words here, including “invest” and “to help increase public confidence”, with the latter reflecting a refusal to admit openly that safety on smart motorways could be objectively better.

    If CCTV is to be upgraded, rather than simply renewed and replaced when life-expired, that could be an investment, but upgrading cameras “to detect incidents” misrepresents what they are used for, which is to allow operatives to view incidents, including those that have been flagged by other technology.

    But, assuming that there were plans to improve technology under RIS3, these are now under threat. After extensive requests for clarification, National Highways responded:

    (more…)

  • But where will all the cars go?

    Returning to the admirable policy of encouraging housing developments near to railway stations and other transport hubs, the BBC has an interesting story that relies on the idea that people in such schemes will still want to use cars.

    Detailed plans for more than 400 apartments have been approved despite concerns residents will only be allocated 22 parking spaces.

    Councillors signed off detailed plans for the development near Cambridge North railway station on Wednesday.
    …
    Richard Thomas, development director at Blocwork, one of the applicants, told councillors that residents would have an “exceptional opportunity” to travel by public transport, walking or cycling.

    The supposed need to provide adequate parking for residents is a constant theme of planning applications but many people, including planners and transport planners, take the view that limiting parking is a good thing as it can reduce car dependency, cutting congestion and emissions; support higher density (as this case shows); improve the viability of public transport; and improve streets and the public realm.

    But:

    Richard Williams, a Conservative councillor for South Cambridgeshire District Council, speaking at the meeting, said he was “extremely concerned” about the parking situation.

    (more…)

  • Heathrow expansion “will wipe out progress on air quality and noise”

    MyLondon has an excellent write-up of the submission from the city’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, to the Commons Transport Committee on the subject of Heathrow expansion, which argues that the additional flights – and traffic – risk wiping out the progress that Khan has made to improve air quality.

    The government’s case to move forward with expanding Heathrow Airport has not been “sufficiently made” and heavily relies on outdated evidence from 2015, the Mayor of London has said.

    The Department for Transport published the Heathrow Expansion National Policy Statement (HENPS) in June to “provide the basis for decision making on any development consent application” for a new runway.

    But City Hall has said that there is a “significant gap between the strategic narrative and the evidence presented”, adding: “Many of the benefits underpinning the government’s argument are uncertain, only partially quantified, outside the core appraisal framework, or require complementary policies beyond airport expansion which are not assessed.”

    That gap between narrative and evidence is very much the DfT’s stock in trade, but Khan also argues that ministers plan to take advantage of environmental improvements unrelated to airport expansion, i.e. to capitalise on the “headroom” created through policies such as the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ).

    Meanwhile, research continues to show what a great success the ULEZ has been.

    MyLondon also notes:

    (more…)

  • On the table, off the table

    The new Welsh Government seems to be moving towards a plan for managing congestion on the M4 at Newport that includes closing junctions as well as public transport improvements.

    The South Wales Argus reports:

    Motorway junction closures could be on the table as part of plans to tackle long-standing congestion problems, as the Welsh Government refuses to rule out any closures.

    Speaking exclusively to the South Wales Argus, Deputy Minister for Transport, Mark Hooper, refused to rule out the closure of M4 junctions around Newport.

    But while he said all options remain under consideration as part of a broader strategy to address traffic issues in the area – that does not include reviving plans for a new relief road scrapped by then First Minister Mark Drakeford, which remains firmly off the table

    In many ways this isn’t any further on from what the paper reported in June, but we seem to be quite close to the announcement of a plan, so not ruling something out becomes more of a hint that it is very much on the table.

    The Argus story notes that Hooper is promising an announcement “in the autumn” and that he will be “working it through over the next couple of weeks”.

    It continues:

    (more…)

  • Taking (some of) the housing to the transport

    Ministers have been trumpeting changes to planning rules in England that aim to build many new houses close to train, tram and underground stations – but without any real plan to improve services or discourage car dependent development.

    In a press release, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government under Angela Rayner has announced “common-sense changes” that aim to build on the principle of ensuring “that planning decisions give proper consideration to the proximity of public transport links”.

    Under the government’s new National Planning Policy Framework, there will be a default ‘yes’ for homes within reasonable walking distance of well-connected stations, alongside new minimum expectations for how much housing should be built in these areas. It will also prevent excessive gold-plating where there are clear national standards already in place.

    Presumably there will be a reasonable level of gold-plating.

    I’m not sure that there is a “default ‘yes’”, as described here, but Transport Action Network (TAN) has warned that the government “risks forcing councils to agree to the first development proposal they receive for these crucial sites, rather than being able to get the best out of them”.

    Chief executive Abby Coften said:

    Councils need the freedom to secure funding from developers for other local transport improvements, and to make walking, wheeling and cycling as easy as possible too. This won’t happen if their negotiating hands are tied behind their backs.”

    Rayner described the policy of “densification” as “unlocking thousands of homes around well-connected transport hubs” – an indication that it isn’t about improving transport but rather making use of existing services.

    It won’t either prevent thousands of homes being built far away from transport hubs, creating more car-dependent communities, particularly as the government’s priority is getting houses built, with the new framework being about removing obstacles, rather than improving quality.

    (more…)

Subscribe

Subscribe to get our the latest stories in your inbox.