“One for everybody in the audience” approach for transport in new Programme for Government but clear funding security for roads

— Ringfenced active travel funding removed, roads get more and uncertainty for public transport.
— Making it safer for children going to school needs extra consultation, but motorways don’t.

Comment & Analysis: The Programme for Government for the new government is like the Late Late Toy Show: Everybody gets something — at least on paper.

A lot might depend on exactly who is the transport minister, but the Programme for Government aims collectively to give the impression of something for everybody.

In reality, when it comes to land transport, the incoming government looks set to be far more road-focused than the outgoing Government. As said elsewhere, the Regional Independent group and the Healy-Raes seem to have a good deal of support for this change of approach from both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.

Large-scale new road building is incompatible with climate targets

Transport (excluding international travel) is Ireland’s second-largest sector when it comes to carbon emissions, and there will be large EU fines for not meeting our targets from 2030. How we plan our transport also has wide-ranging implications for other aspects of our systems, planning and life — these wider issues, such as land use, also have climate impacts outside of transport.

After listening to a range of experts, the ‘avoid-shift-improve’ approach was recommended by the parliamentary Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action. The committee said that ‘avoid’ means reducing the need for travel, ‘shift’ means moving to more sustainable transport, and ‘improve’ means improving the efficiency of transport modes.

The climate section of the draft Programme for Government has a transport blurb titled “Accelerating Decarbonisation and Modal Shift in Transport”, which states: “Modal change in Transport is vital to the delivery of our climate change objectives. Policies to deliver this will include accelerating the electrification of the transport system, including electric bikes, electric vehicles, and electric public transport (see further information in Transport section).”

This isn’t quite ‘avoid-shift-improve,’ but it is close.

But it rings hollow when the transport section is reached. There is no mention of modal change and the focus is on “choice”. This is said as if our status quo of car dependency does not limit choices more than a system favouring sustainable transport.

The programme promises something for everybody, but words matter. It only mentions consultation in relation to sustainable transport. It does so three times in three separate points in the short active travel section. It also mentions it on National Transport Authority “engagement”, which seems to be a clear reference to BusConnects, which the authority leads (local councils already lead active travel).

More consultation, for some areas

With both BusConnects and active travel project calls for “more and better consultation” is usually rhetoric — it is code for ‘we didn’t get our own way, so, the consultation does not count’. Of course, consultation is not always perfect, but it’s often said that there was “no consultation” or “not enough” when there was comprehensive consultation.

Improving consultation isn’t mentioned when it comes to large new roads, but where the new government promises to “Expand the Safe Routes to School initiative” it is said that it will be done “in consultation with communities and people of all abilities including the elderly and people with disabilities, making travel safer for young people.”

While the wording is sanitised in the document, this is an echo of the worst rhetoric from people against pedestrian and cycling projects in the last five years — it’s pitting older people and disability rights against the safety of children going to school outside cars.

More secure funding for roads than all other modes

Meanwhile, ‘funding’ and related words appear more frequently in relation to roads than in all other forms of transport (land-based and non-land-based) combined.

We’re also told that “multi-annual funding clarity for roads budgets so agencies can plan accordingly”, and rail too, although not for new projects (just for “protection and renewal of the rail network”). But multi-annual funding isn’t needed for large-scale rail projects, BusConnects or active travel, which are key for modal change and road safety? Isn’t that strange?

The government will “Establish distinct budgets for road maintenance and new road construction starting in 2025 to ensure sustained investment in the network.” But, again, there’s no such clear promise made for new public transport or active travel construction.

Another strange thing planned to change is the delivery method for active travel funding. The government in waiting promises to “Implement necessary changes to ensure local active travel projects are delivered directly by Local Authorities through direct funding from the Department of Transport” — it’s unclear why this function would be removed from the National Transport Authority.

The authority is being given enhanced and new responsibilities in other areas, which means this move makes even less sense than it otherwise might.

Pro-roads but not for protecting national roads when other populism gets in the way?

The housing section also promises to “Support the development of new transport-orientated development towns as necessary, replicating the development of Clonburris and Adamstown”. Transport-orientated housing is built around public transport and active travel. In contrast, the ‘rural housing’ section includes “Review planning and transport guidelines for national secondary roads to facilitate housing, community and industrial development.”

To be clear, building one-off houses along national secondary roads is widely recognised as problematic for road safety and capacity. It’s a populist measure that will annoy road-focused planners and engineers as much as it will anybody who understands road safety.

Ironically, building such one-off houses along high-speed main roads is one reason these roads are harder to upgrade and require lower speed limits, which populists also complain about.

With many elements of the document, it’s unclear which measures will have wide support in the new government and which were inserted to appease independents and backbenchers.

Known unknowns or unknown unknowns?

To me, when you’re driving full speed into the fog on a motorway, it’s more of a known unknown (not an ‘unknown unknown‘). That’s where the new government is positioning itself on transport — pushing down on the accelerator while claiming the problem doesn’t exist.

As well as who will be the Minister for Transport, some other known unknowns are how the planning system and the Courts will slow or block road projects while a growing number of large public transport projects are becoming shovel-ready. Especially after the judgment from Justice Richard Humphreys, who ruled that planners must prioritise climate law, which was reported this week to have “far-reaching implications for all public bodies”.

When polled, most voters also said that they wanted the 2:1 spending on public transport vs roads kept, which the incoming government has rejected.

Only 30% wanted it changed. While that percentage might strongly overlap with a large chunk of FF and FG supporters, as pollster and politics lecturer Kevin Cunningham noted, moving too far from the majority may cause “political stumbling blocks.”

It’s not just about the environment or being “green”. Not providing sustainable transport to the needed level will have huge implications for many things, from housing to the economy to the equity of life.

Active travel funding was also key to improving road safety, especially for vulnerable road users. While a loud minority might complain about cycle lanes, government TDs and Cllrs will find it harder to claim to the public that they “are all for it” when their parties have just cut funding.

ALSO READ: Transport in the Programme for Government in full

1 thought on ““One for everybody in the audience” approach for transport in new Programme for Government but clear funding security for roads”

  1. Also to note is dublin port is activly looking to remove rail movements within its grounds this will mean more trucks on the road as well

    Reply

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.