National planning - Transport Policy and Planning in Great Britain - page 280

national plan for transport. Hence whether it publicly reviews existing and prospective
conditions and links these to policy statements or strategies is very much at its own
discretion.
The revival of interest in the national planning of transport during the mid/late
1990s can be attributed in part to the 'consensus for radical change' commented on
previously (8.2). However the major planning initiatives undertaken in New Labour's
early years - the 1998 White Paper and the Ten Year Plan - undoubtedly drew also
on the political motivation to be seen to be 'making a difference'. Unfortunately
this political dimension placed disproportionate significance on the presentational
character of these documents which diminished their quality as planning instruments.
Ironically during the very time when the Government was exhorting others - notably
local transport authorities - to demonstrate objective-led planning and stakeholder
consultation as the basis of their programmes the Government found itself unable to
apply these disciplines to its own work. Although the Ten Year Plan was backed up by
extensive technical work no opportunity was afforded to debate this work or its policy
implications. When published much of it was relegated to a background report so that
the main document could focus on 'selling' the physical deliverables. Attention was
thereby diverted from the process to the product.
As explained in section 8.5 the Plan was innovative in establishing 10-year profiles
for the main sectors of transport spending (a feature which has been maintained
following subsequent Spending Reviews). In each sector the Government's broad
intentions and priorities were identified with an indicative outline of the number
and type of major investments. With the exception of London (which was one of the
expenditure sectors) there was no explicitly spatial dimension to the Plan. For the first
time however a selected set of operational objectives and targets were published at
national level.
Good intentions were signalled for monitoring the Plan:
We will monitor closely the performance of the agencies involved in delivering
the objectives and outcomes set out here and take regular stock of progress ….
We will also ensure that the Plan continues to provide the most cost-effective
and efficient means of delivering our strategy and that it takes account of new
pressures and developments. We will therefore review the Plan periodically.
(DETR 2000f paras 10.2-3)
In the event a single Progress Report was published in 2002 but as events proved
not to materialise 'according to plan', the process of explicit, comprehensive reporting
was abandoned thereafter. Hence instead of building an evolving, evidence-based
process through successive reviews of the Plan the Government bowed to the political
imperatives of presentation and published a 'new' strategy in the form of the 2004 White
Paper. Thus began an unfortunate era in which the notion of a national 'plan' (other
than purely a set of spending allocations) was dropped. Initiatives were simply 'layered'
on top of what had been announced previously without any attempt to maintain a
coherent narrative linked to systematic monitoring and updated projections. The
Department's attention focused instead on the narrower set of short-term objectives
and PSA targets agreed with the Treasury (11.6).
The importance of setting shorter-term programmes within a longer-term strategy
now appears to have been accepted and a more considered process is currently being
embarked on in preparation for the programmes to be delivered post-2014 (24.8).