Policy aims - Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain - page 175

in particular constituencies. The largest and most shameless example of this kind
was the go-ahead given in 1967 to the Humber Suspension Bridge by the Labour
Government in the run-up to the by-election in nearby Grimsby (and which left a
legacy of financial losses for decades afterwards). More routinely, issues of political
preference arise in the selection and programming of improvement schemes funded by
both central and local government, although such considerations are never explicitly
acknowledged in any formal policy statement.
Aside from sectional preferences, both the timing and content of Government
announcements will be influenced by concern to gain advantage over its political
opponents and to present the Government's own actions in the best possible light.
Proposals which might provoke delays or campaigns of opposition may be deferred
or quietly abandoned. Conversely others may be rushed forward in order to head off
criticism or to grab media attention. The sudden appearance of the rural transport
element in the March 1998 budget, only a couple of weeks after the mass 'rural lobby'
demonstration in London, is an example of this.
Economic issues
The first, and normally the most important, group of issues under this head is the
contribution to economic performance made by the efficiency of the transport system.
This is either in the form of the conditions experienced by existing or prospective
travellers or of the opportunities to make new or different trips which have additional
value.
For transport industries maintaining and increasing the efficiency of travel - i.e.
with facilitating mobility - is their pre-eminent purpose. Their investment is rewarded
by increased revenues from customers who are prepared to pay for savings in time
(mainly) or from other gains which can be derived from access to wider markets,
consolidated business operations etc. Increased efficiency however is not solely
a matter of increased speed (in-vehicle journey time). Reliability of operation, the
predictability of journey times and arrangements for interchange or transhipment are
also important features.
These issues are incorporated in the appraisal of public investments in transport as
are the savings to be derived from reducing the number or severity of accidents (i.e.
loss of working time, damage to vehicles, costs of medical treatment etc.).
The case for improving mobility amongst the population at large is less
straightforward. The central conundrum is that transport is predominantly a derived
demand and therefore improving mobility by itself is no guarantee of overall benefit.
In some cases, paradoxically, reducing travel time may be perceived as a disadvantage
(Jain and Lyons 2008). More generally, changes in the spatial distribution of
population and facilities over time can defeat part or all of the benefits of transport
improvements - with people simply travelling further and spending more to do much
the same things. Conversely, through telecommunication and information technology,
it is increasingly possible for activities and exchanges to be achieved without recourse
to physical movement. In these circumstances it is not clear that to travel further or
faster necessarily represents a net economic gain, or conversely that to travel less or
slower represents a net loss. Ideally a much wider frame of reference is required (Metz
2008).
In the past, improving transport networks at a sub-regional or regional level was
a major plank of regional development programmes. Public and private agencies