Wasatch Front Regional Council’s Post

The consultation on the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) proposals for its holding National Highways to account policy from 2025 is now live. Responses should be submitted by 26 September 2024.   The holding to account policy is intended to encourage and support the right behaviours in National Highways. It is used to maintain positive and constructive engagement and to recognise where performance is good, as well as identifying and prioritising action on where targets are at risk and/or the company can improve.   Given this, ORR are not proposing to substantially revise their approach, in particular their investigations and enforcement processes. The core structure of the existing policy is robust and proportionate. However, after almost ten years into the role they want to use this opportunity to engage with stakeholders on their approach. In particular to understand whether the role as set out in the document is clearly understood and if not, where clarity could be improved.     ORR is looking for key stakeholder views on:   -             How the policy can be improved to make its role in holding National Highways to account and its relationship with the Department for Transport on Highways and Roads reform clearer;   -             Where ORR can improve the policy around environmental issues and responsibility of other agencies, regulators, and government departments; and   -             If there are matters in the course of ORR’s holding to account activities where you feel that stakeholder input can be strengthened

https://lnkd.in/exkUCf-i I'm delighted to share that the revised NNNPS was laid in Parliament today as part of the Budget announcement. This is the product of an immense amount of hard work from my team, with lots of helpful input from our stakeholders, the Transport Select Committee, and colleagues across Government. It will now be subject to Parliamentary debate before final designation. For those who don't know, the NNNPS provides the planning policy framework for consenting “nationally significant” road, rail and strategic rail freight applications. This new up to date framework should make the development consent process smoother and reduce uncertainties for those involved, reducing the scope for omissions or unnecessary work and the delays that this might bring. 

Great to see proposed changes to the NPPF which promote a vision led approach and a recommendation that development is only refused if highway impacts are severe in all scenarios. Hopefully this will result in a shift away from the default testing of the worst case scenario to drive better outcomes for communities and the environment.

Great to see proposed changes to the NPPF which promote a vision led approach and a recommendation that development is only refused if highway impacts are severe in all scenarios. Hopefully this will result in a shift away from the default testing of the worst case scenario to drive better outcomes for communities and the environment.

Many have already reported on the consultation on the proposed reforms to the NPPF, and I hope that many fellow professionals will respond to the 106(!) questions asked. My fellow Board members at the Transport Planning Society definitely intend to. A personal view on that all important change to paragraph 113 (was 115): “Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe, in all tested scenarios”. The change will continue to lead to controversy unless we can define and quantify what ‘unacceptable’ and ‘severe’ mean. That’s probably ultimately for policymakers to decide, but we as expert transport planners should be able to help them and inspectors out. Some suggestions, and open for discussion: 1.        an increase in road-based travel times of x minutes (say, 2 minutes) for all road users on the worst affected road or junction 2.       An increase of x% (say 20%) or y (say 120 vph) on the worst affected road 3.       Different values outside schools and other places where road users outside of metal boxes are more vulnerable Modelling can provide inputs and the discussion should focus on exceptions. Can we do this? Do you have alternative suggestions? Should we do this? https://lnkd.in/eVDSDYvG

Back in the early 1990s I was working on risk assessment in bridge management, alongside research on transport policy and I realised that if we applied the same 'systems thinking' to transport policy, that we applied to bridges, transport policy was nearly certain to collapse. I published a paper about this at the time, that you can still read in the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers “Managing Uncertainty in Transport Policy Development”. Glenn Lyons and myself have now been working on these issues for 30 years. Glenn and I have, perhaps strangely, never had more than fleeting conversations about our shared interest in accessibility and society, so a proper conversation seemed overdue. We took the opportunity to record our discussion, and this hour of indulgence is actually a cut-down version of the conversation. If you’re up for the ride, it will take you back to a bygone era when we had a coherent national transport strategy for the UK, journeying through the age of accessibility planning as we come to terms with the current challenges facing society. Transitioning to Net-Zero will be one of the greatest of these current social challenges, so if you want to hear more of Glenn's ideas then come along to the AET Transport and Mobility forum Webinar on 4th January (https://lnkd.in/ePZ6YgAc) where together with Susan Krumdieck, and Elisabete Arsenio we will be discussing how to achieve system change in 2024. Glenn Lyons Susan Krumdieck Association for European Transport (AET) https://lnkd.in/e6beunB6

Will Budget 2024 provide greater clarity on the infrastructure pipeline and will we see expenditure to minimise the impact of disrupted projects? Norm Castles shares some food for thought on what might be revealed for infrastructure on 30 May - https://deloi.tt/4dG2nSE #nzbudget #budget2024

BTN's 25 Most Influential People of 2023 / Day 3: Mark Harbers, The Netherlands Minister of Infrastructure & Water Management. --- The year 2023 was defined by many changes, as industry leaders searched for solid footing on new terrain. Those efforts are chronicled in BTN’s 2023 Most Influential. For the next 25 days, we’re featuring each name on that list one-by-one.

The Utah Legislative Session has wrapped up with some items impacting the UIPA from infrastructure financing (HB13) to enhanced transparency (HB80), legislative self-assessment (SB154), rail infrastructure coordination (SB235), and comprehensive legislative cleanup (SB264), these developments promise to refine UIPA's operations and strategic direction. These bills are not just legislative texts but pathways to sustainable development, transparent governance, and strengthened community engagement for Utah's logistics sector. https://lnkd.in/g5_QhNed

⭐Planing News ⭐ The government plans to review planning policies for 'nationally significant infrastructure projects' (NSIPs) more frequently to boost productivity and economic growth. National policy statements for energy, water, and national networks will be reviewed every five years instead of 10, aligning with a recommendation from the National Infrastructure Commission. The government aims to link NPSs to spatial plans, fostering a geospatial approach in transport, water, waste, and wastewater sectors. The update aligns with the government's broader reforms to the NSIPs consenting process, focusing on pre-application support and increased funding for local authorities. #PlanningReform #InfrastructureDevelopment