Search

Nicola Sturgeon's resignation as First Minister and leader of the SNP has thrown Scottish politics into flux. But beneath the superficial media coverage and frenetic party politics that followed her resignation, the fundamentals of the constitutional debate remain unaltered. One of these fundamentals, the extent to which Scotland is better or worse off being part of the UK political economy, is rarely debated in the depth it deserves. The parlous state of the UK economy and, in particular, the deeply entrenched territorial inequality that results from its extreme core‐periphery structure that safeguards the economic dominance of London and South East England, holds the potential for a surprise shift in the debate over independence to emerge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been widespread interest in the potential for the significant behavioural and policy adaptations rendered necessary by Coronavirus to act as a catalyst for radical longer term policy change in transport. However, this body of work to date has been limited in its consideration of how such policy change might be brought about. Translating the lessons from the Coronavirus response to other ongoing strategic challenges such as decarbonisation requires analysis of what the pandemic has revealed about processes of policy formulation and how institutions responsible for policy implementation actually work. This paper explores the extent to which rapid policy change has actually been possible in the transport sector in England and Scotland during the pandemic, and key examples of how such change has been both achieved and blocked. Two rounds of interviews with senior stakeholders from across the transport sector were undertaken in June and November 2020 to inform the analysis. We find that the pandemic has accelerated some policy commitments that were already planned, but at a time of huge stress on the whole of government and its partner delivery organisations, the potential to deliver radical policy adaptation was limited. However, Coronavirus is recognised as being a potentially path-changing disruption to existing trajectories in terms of the adaptations to business practices, industry structures, ways of working and the public finances. Paradoxically, whilst recognising these uncertainties, decision-makers are yet to deviate from pre-pandemic planning assumptions and policy plans and this risks missing the opportunities to steer how those changes unfold. • Addresses research gap in the study of governance responses during disruptions. • Identifies transport as a distant policy sub-sector in a crisis that affected all parts of government. • Finds that the response to the pandemic has accelerated already planned policies but generated few new policies. • Long-term impacts on the future structure of cities, use of public transport and uptake of active travel could still emerge. • The leading strategic thinkers on transport policy are still unsure what kinds of future demand to plan for. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper highlights the extent to which a future mobility system dominated by Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAVs) poses profound challenges to the 'publicness' of the transport and mobility systems of many cities. This is evident at different policy levels: the regulatory posture of governments, changing notions of the contributions of mobility to wider 'public value', and the underpinning shared experiences of urban life and citizenship or civitas. There is relatively little discussion of how widespread automation might reduce the 'publicness' of transport systems in terms of the range of mobility opportunities they offer, how changing patterns of mobility across neighbourhoods and social groups will contribute to urban restructuring, and the implications of this for public value and the character or civitas of cities. In particular, we note how the huge expansion in mobility choices made possible by CAVs might lead to circumstances in which the outcome of individuals exercising that choice is to change the nature of urban mobility profoundly. We identify a number of key challenges that policy makers will need to address in managing the introduction of CAVs in their cities, and how using the lens of 'publicness' might help them do so. • We explore how the notion of 'publicness' can contribute to debates on how best to manage and govern the impacts of autonomous mobility • Shared and automated mobility could extend or diminish opportunities for citizens, with multiple ramifications for public interests • Policy makers are under intense pressure from varied interests over how best to regulate and govern automated mobility • We conceptualise publicness as existing at three levels of debate: ownership and regulation, public value, and civitas • Effective policy interventions will be required to achieve 'public' goals at each of these levels [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]