The Welsh Transport Strategy
The Welsh Transport Strategy is explicitly based on the principles of multi-generational fairness
In 2015, Wales became the first country in the world to legally enshrine the interests of future persons.
Under the Well-being of Future Generations Act (WFGA), Welsh public bodies must work towards a common set of well-being goals, grounding their decisions in long-term, sustainable thinking. The WFGA has garnered international praise; upon its passage, a UN representative expressed the hope that “what Wales is doing today the world will do tomorrow.”
Airy and utopian as it may sound, the WFGA is having a palpable impact on Welsh transport strategy.
In 2018, the Future Generations Commissioner—whose job is to monitor compliance with the WFGA— reported on the long-mooted M4 extension at Newport. The verdict was that the road's economic and environmental costs would contravene the well-being goals. First Minister Mark Drakeford took note, announcing the following year that the relief road was not to be.
When Wales recently declared a freeze on all new road-building, it was again following the recommendations of the Future Generations Commissioner, Sophie Howe, who praised the decision as “a huge step in the right direction […], showing the difference having a Well-being of Future Generations Act makes.”
That’s ya’ lot. Plans to widen the M4 have been scrapped
In fact, the WFGA is now the central organising principle of transport policy in Wales. The recent transport strategy, Llwybr Newydd, is specifically designed to meet the Act’s well-being goals, which crop up on almost every page.
While light on detail—a more fleshed-out delivery plan is due to follow—the strategy impresses with the clarity of its message: tackling the climate crisis is going to require substantial modal shift from private road vehicles to public and active transport.
That message is supported, moreover, by some sensible and coherent policy.
There’s a commitment to using a clear and defined “sustainable transport hierarchy” when deciding on what new infrastructure to prioritise, and concomitant plans to invest in cycle lanes, buses, and trains.
There’s support for integrated ticketing, and remote working hubs designed to reduce commutes.
There’s even an explicit pledge to “develop a framework for fair and equitable road-user charging in Wales”—a bold stance on what has long been seen as a politically toxic issue.
In comparison, the UK Government’s transport decarbonisation plan reads like an exercise in doublethink.
Oh, it makes noises about modal shift. But it also defends the “ambitious” £27 billion road-building scheme, despite stark warnings about its environmental impact.
In fact, it’s stated from the get-go that the plan “is not about stopping people doing things,” and that our current driving and flying habits could continue unabated—the electric car and future fuel technology, we’re promised, will save the day! (Spoiler: no, they won’t.)
One suspects that encouraging different transport habits really isn’t that high on the agenda.
So while Wales is making bold, sustainability-conscious decisions, the UK Government is more worried about upsetting people by seeming like it might “stop people doing things.”
While Wales listens to expert recommendations—like the often-ignored warning that road-building increases road-use, a key premise in the FGC report on the M4 relief road)—the UK Government ignores advice it doesn’t like, such as the repeated calls to look into the environmental case against the road investment scheme.
But even with the best of intentions, there may be limits to what Wales’ well-being-based transport strategy can achieve.
Because several aspects of Welsh transport—rail infrastructure, for instance—remain reserved to the UK Government, there’s a question as to how far Wales will be able to deliver the integrated, multi-modal system it wants on its own terms.
The devolution settlement is also siphoning funds from the Welsh transport budget. Wales would be better off to the tune of hundreds of millions if rail were fully devolved, for instance. It is also partly footing the bill for HS2, even though the benefits to Wales will be indirect at best.
Without full devolution and a funding settlement, it is questionable whether Wales will have the autonomy or the budget to do what it wants.
And even with full devolution, the interdependence of Welsh and English transport may prove a stumbling block.
Transport-wise, North Wales is better connected to Merseyside, and South Wales to South West England, than North and South Wales are to each other. To deliver on Llwybr Newydd, Wales will need the cooperation of cross-border operators—not to mention that of a UK Government that doesn’t currently share its concern with future well-being.
(A UK-wide WFGA is currently on its second reading in the House of Lords; because it is a private member’s bill, however, its chances of enactment are slim.)
Still, symbols and exemplars can matter in politics. And—especially when compared to the transport decarbonisation plan—Llwybr Newydd is an exemplar of what a well-being-based transport strategy might achieve.
Next Autumn, Glasgow will host the UN Climate Change Conference. Certain delegates may well raise their eyebrows at the UK Government’s road investment scheme and mealy-mouthed decarbonisation plan.
They’ll only need to look west of the Severn for an alternative model—one with intergenerational fairness at its heart.
