Nobody is driving the traffic strategy

IT IS a report for which the tone is set from the very beginning.

Clearly, Environment did not think much of being sent away to revise the road transport strategy – indeed, the minister said as much when directed to do so – and it does a remarkable job of blaming everyone else but itself for the strategy's failings.

Instead of coming up with a series of proposals to take things forward, it has opted out and effectively left the whole thing in the hands of the States, so that come the end of this term there will have been precious little progress on this topic – just a demonstration of the ability to side-step States resolutions that may have led to real progress.

'The existing transport strategy is perceived by the States to be ineffective,' said Environment minister Peter Sirett in his opening sentence of the Billet report – the implication must be that the department does not.

'However, the States has never clearly identified the problem or fully committed to clearly defined goals and supported policies and workstreams to deliver those goals. The extent of change and the rate of change desired have never been agreed.'

Now you may be asking yourself at this point whose fault this is.

Well, with much fanfare in 2006, the Environment Department under the ministership of Bernard Flouquet decided to rename the then traffic strategy as the road transport strategy and coin the phrase 'freedom of transport choice' because it felt that the previous Traffic Committee's report was anti-car.

So if anyone is accountable for the lack of clear goals and targets, it is the Environment Department that devised the strategy in the first place.

'The current 2006 transport strategy, including the phrase "freedom of transport choice", clearly attempted to deliver all things to all people rather than driving policy and actions in a clearly

defined direction. Specifically, it sought to remove any perception of "demonising the car" contained in the earlier strategy. As a result, quite widely divergent expectations can be laid at the feet of the current strategy.'

Environment's latest report is the 'start' of a process.

'In preparing this document, it has been suggested that the department should simply make firm proposals for action/change and to cost those proposals accordingly,' said Deputy Sirett in the Billet.

'The department considered this approach very early on but dismissed it. On reading this report, members will realise why. Without a direction or firm indication from the States as to the extent of change and the speed of change required, along with an indication as to which sub-policies and actions are considered acceptable in delivering that change, the department would be undertaking an impossible task. It would be second-guessing the will of 47 individual members, many of whom have their own clear ideas as to what should constitute the elements of a transport strategy.'

This is akin to the tactics being adopted by the Public Services Department with waste, having had its fingers burnt – try and take all members along for the ride every step of the way. But it could be criticised as an abdication of responsibility and questionable in its effectiveness given that the States faces a general election early next year, meaning there will be a whole new class taking this topic and running with it.

Is the department 'working in the dark', as it argues? Given the hours of debates already held on this topic, and the experts it has at its disposal, one would hope not.

The problem with asking 47 people what they want is that they tend to come up with 47 different answers. Environment could come away when this is debated in November with even less clarity – let's hope it does not turn into another States Strategic Plan debate. When members were asked for their thoughts on accountability, tumbleweed swept through the chamber.

This is a problem not just of Environment's making.

It held a workshop on its draft proposals to test the acceptability of them – just 24 members turned up and only nine scored them. Again, it makes you question whether the department would have been better taking longer and coming back with a fully costed report instead of the route adopted.

One of the key arguments with the strategy has been and will be that of funding.

Already there are strong warnings from Treasury that money raised through the strategy will not necessarily be made available to fund it – it would have to compete in the prioritization process like everything else.

Environment does not completely agree.

Now funding would not be such an issue had the farce that has been setting a rate for paid parking not continued for so long.

Environment still, in its preferred options, comes out against it, although it is ironic that under its philosophy the car park at Footes Lane would for all the sports people and students who use it effectively be turned into paid parking: Environment wants it to be used for its park and ride service, with users buying bus tickets.

Another major stumbling block is finding land for a bus garage.

It is clearly an expensive problem given that all parties seem to accept the bus service will be central to any strategy.

Investigations of private and public land have found nothing.

'The options are therefore limited and any solutions are likely to involve both substantial costs and planning issues,' said Treasury minister Charles Parkinson in his department's letter of comment.

There are some eye-opening statistics in the report which to some extent show the task at hand.

Guernsey, with its population of some 63,000, has more than 80,000 cars, vans, motorcycles and commercial vehicles registered.

There are nearly 44,000 active full driving licences and nearly 5,000 provisionals.

The worst-performing bus route runs at 28% occupancy.

It is no easy task to balance the competing philosophies at play – but someone has to show leadership on this issue and that, more than anything, is lacking at the moment.