Episode 4: Lee Waters

Lee Waters

Season 1 Episode 4

[00:00:00]

Irene McAleese: Welcome to the Micromobility Report podcast, where we discuss how we can all go further with less. I'm Irene McAleese, co founder of Seasense.

Phil Latz: And I'm Phil Latz, publisher of Micromobility Report.

Irene McAleese: Today, we're talking with Welsh MP Lee Waters, who is renowned for his pivotal role as former Deputy Climate Change and Transport Minister in the Welsh Government. Um, so Lee, thank you so much for making some time to join us today. you're coming to the end of your whirlwind tour in Australia. It's, been mind boggling actually seeing all of the different dates, that you've been speaking at, popping up on, on LinkedIn.

Um, and, uh, Phil and I both had the pleasure to, um, well, for [00:01:00] me, I got to see you speak at one of those events in Sydney. I think Phil Latz has caught you at a couple. but before we go into really what you've been doing in Australia, it would be, really great to hear, I mean, I know you're very well known now as a, as a minister in the Welsh Parliament, but you did have also an amazing career, prior to that.

So if you could lead us, a little bit of background would be super interesting. Just how you first got into that,prior to your election into parliament, what, what were you doing in your career?

Lee Waters: Well, I've done a mix of things because I get bored quite quickly. Uh, so, uh, I, uh, I worked in politics briefly after leaving university, uh, and then I went into journalism, into BBC radio as a producer, and then into television as a political correspondent based at, uh, Westminster and in the senate in

cardiff. Uh, and then I decided that journalism wasn't a job for a grownup, uh, and, uh, fancy [00:02:00] building an organization. Uh, and so, uh, got a job with, uh, environmental, uh, uh, organization called Sustrans. Uh, that's, uh, well known in the UK for, for building cycle tracks and encouraging behavior change. Um, so that was all new to me.

I'd never, I hadn't jumped on a bike since I was a kid and didn't own a bike and wasn't particularly a signed up environmentalist at all, um, but really got into, uh, understanding the transport environment and trying to unpick at some of the assumptions. Uh, I then went to run a small think tank in Wales called the Institute for Welsh Affairs, and then, uh, a chance came up to fight a marginal seat that we were expected to loose Uh, and I thought, well,

and I keep on writing reports saying how crap things are, or I can try and make a contribution, and that's what I did, and got elected, and have been trying to cause disruption within the tent ever since.

Irene McAleese: Wow, that's, that's interesting. I'm certainly [00:03:00] familiar with Sustrans. They're, they're a fantastic organization in the UK. and, I think, was it, you also were involved in the campaign for the, the first Active Travel Act. Was that in, was that in your role before you joined Parliament then?

Lee Waters: It was something I did in Sustrans, because Sustrans, when I joined, was very focused on practical projects. They weren't really interested in, in policy work, and certainly had a neuralgia to describing themselves as a campaigning organization. But coming from politics and the media, uh, and with a sort of a, An instinct, in any event, to try and look at the underpinnings, you know, the strategic, uh, direction of things.

It just struck me that just keeping doing exemplar projects was never going to bring about the shift that we needed to do. And so when the Parliament in Wales had additional powers, um, I used that opportunity to try and suggest a change in the law. And that's where the Active Travel Act came from. [00:04:00] This idea that, uh, cycling and walking should be treated as a mode of transport, not simply as a leisure activity, and that highway authorities should provide a network of routes for people, not just cars.

And so that's what the Active Travel Act was born from. It created a legal obligation on all highway authorities to to map the existing network of walking and cycling routes, and then to identify where the gaps were, and think about what routes were needed to move people to places, not as a leisure pursuit, but as an everyday mode of transport, and then over time to work towards that route.

All future funding would be conditional on, uh, uh, advancing that map, uh, and also the underpinned by, uh, a set of design standards. Uh, that were best practice.

Irene McAleese: Mm. I mean, that, that's a monumental achievement in its, in itself, because the Active Travel Act doesn't exist in, in any other part of the UK, um, [00:05:00] or at that time, you, Wales was the first.

Lee Waters: Well, it showed me the value of legislation, but also the limitation of legislation. So, I think, uh, a law was necessary here because, um, the culture and practice of highways thinking was not to see any of that. active travel as a, as a serious contribution to the transport system. Uh, and that needed to be, uh, disrupted structurally by, by creating a statutory obligation, uh, to plan for it.

But also simply imposing a duty doesn't really get you anywhere other than a dim, minimalist ability to just take a box.

Irene McAleese: Mm. Mm.

Lee Waters: If the local authority doesn't take active travel seriously, then it just, it won't bother them, they won't have any funding, because they didn't want to do it in the first place. It's a good baseline, but you need to do so much more.

You need to have a change of culture, you need to have a, uh, a re an upskilling. You need to, you know, there's a whole system change that's [00:06:00] required that legislation can be the catalyst for. But it's not enough in itself.

Irene McAleese: Hmm. fascinating. but what about, um, since you've arrived in Australia, you've talked about, you know, the importance of legislation, but also, you know, culture, re skilling, all of this stuff that goes around that. Since you've been in Australia, what have been your impressions so far with where we're at and on this journey?

Lee Waters: Um, well, I think Australia is no different, really, to the U. S. or U. K. in that we have a set of assumptions that have rarely been questioned. Uh, and obviously, the fact the size of Australia is the perfect excuse. Not to question that, because, you know, that's one of the chief barriers, I find, is limitations of imagination here.

You know, we do what we've always done, because the manual has always told us, and there's never really been a need to test that. And there's so many vested interests in the system, uh, that it's not in there. You know in their interest to to question that so I think one of the interesting things about coming out has been an [00:07:00] opportunity to Disrupt that and to open up a different conversation and Yeah, so Australia is obviously huge we can fit Wales 360 times into Australia I read Um, but the point is, most journeys are not huge long distance journeys, and inevitably when we are pressed to, uh, question our way of thinking, we immediately think of the most difficult example of why something isn't practical.

Uh, and so I hear that a lot, I hear that in the UK too. But actually, let's turn it on its head. Most car journeys are short local journeys. Over half are under 5 miles. Uh, 10 percent in the UK, for sure, are under 1 mile. And, uh, that applies in a very rural setting or even in a heavily urban setting. Most people live in or close to towns. Uh, and most of the journeys they make are short journeys. And quite a lot of them can be shifted, Not all of them. And again, you hear the examples of, you know, it wouldn't be [00:08:00] practical for me. And of course there's going to be an example where, you know, I have to pick up my Aunty Mary from the hospital and collect a bag of cement on the way home.

And, you know, a car journey is the only practical way of doing that. I'm not disputing that. But that's the principle of most journeys.

Irene McAleese: Hmm. I think, I mean, I think those stats are really that, I mean, they're so important because it helps people realize that it doesn't have to be about us and them, you know, hating cars or necessarily a war on cars. It's really about the right tool for the job. So, a, a, a shorter journey could be done by walking or by by bike, um, rather than hopping in a car.

Lee Waters: Absolutely, and you know, as I'm very aware, this whole debate has become part of the culture wars. All these debates around different modes of transport have been uthered, which is not surprising when we spent 70 years and trillions of dollars in advertising from the motor industry about creating a relationship with your car, seeing as cars are an extension of your [00:09:00] identity and your place in the world.

So it's not just a simple exchange of facts and information, you know, there are emotions and cultural identity tied up, uh, in all of this. Um, and so there needs to be a different framing of this debate, I think, one around choice, um, because a lot of the debate around Promoting sustainable transport is seen as an infringement of people's choice.

And actually, um, I see it very differently. I think it's about giving people choice because at the moment you don't really have a choice in most places other than by driving, because that's the way we've designed our towns and cities to put the car at the center. Uh, and generally public transport is left to people who are, uh, too young or too old or too poor to be able to have full access to the car.

And I think by making sustainable forms of transport. As easy to use as the motor car that's about extending genuine choice, which we we currently deny people So I think there's a whole reframing [00:10:00] needed to this debate

Irene McAleese: Thank you.

Phil Latz: So, through your advocacy work in the Welsh Parliament, you've made global headlines, at least in the transport advocacy world. Uh, for two huge reforms, and we'll just start with one of them, and that is to reduce the default speed limit in Wales on local roads from 30 miles an hour to 20 miles an hour.

Now you probably know, and that's for metric conversion, let's say from 50 to 30, roughly. Um, how did you achieve this? Just given in Australia, we've had a few. Streets, a few suburbs, uh, convert, but we're a long way from making it a national default. So what, what's the secret, if you're an Australian listening to this, what would you do to make us follow the Welsh example?

Lee Waters: Well, we tried that approach too for a long time. We, as I say, we had a default [00:11:00] of 30 miles an hour, but you could apply, uh, to pass, uh, what's called a traffic regulation order to turn a section of the streets into 20 miles an hour. And lots of people Did that it was a very slow and cumbersome process, uh, it was quite expensive to get all the legal orders through and then you had isolated stretches of 20 mile an hour that weren't enforced by the police and weren't largely observed.

Um, so it was a very expensive and ineffective way of trying to deal with excess speeds in built up areas. And so, uh, when we had a new first minister, uh, mark Drakeford, who had an appetite to be, uh, uh, more radical than, uh, his predecessors, uh, I saw that as an opportunity to try and, uh, take this agenda further forward, primarily around road safety, but also with a, with a climate lens.

'cause we know that one of the major barriers to people cycling and walking in local streets is speed. Uh, it puts people off, women [00:12:00] particularly, uh, and so lowering speeds in places where people and traffic are mixing, uh, was a way of helping to bring about modal shift, uh, in our local communities. So, there were sort of two motivations, but the, the main one was, was road safety.

Um, so that approach had its limitations, so, uh, uh, there's a campaign, uh, led by a man called Rod King, uh, the 20 is Plenty campaign, and they'd been campaigning for, uh, Uh, more 20 miles an hour and he made the case to me about, uh, looking at a default option, uh, which I was persuaded by and set up a group of experts led by, uh, an engineer called Phil Jones to bring together all the different interests who would be involved in implementing this to advise on how we might achieve that, uh, in an effective way.

Uh, and they came up with this, uh, idea that instead of. 30 being the default and you apply for 20, you need to make 20 the default. But then you apply for 30, [00:13:00] uh, and that, uh, seemed a coherent argument, and we got that through in principle, uh, the Welsh Parliament, and there's often in these things, when you're talking at a conceptual level, there's quite a lot of support for something, it's only when you start to get towards implementation, uh, that the support starts to drop, and we've certainly seen that in Wales, and it's been a very contentious and difficult change, and there's, I think, you know, much that we would have done differently if we'd, you know, We're to do it again, but nonetheless we've achieved it.

Last September the 17th, uh, uh, 2023 we brought the change in and it applies whole scale right across Wales in all built up areas. So streets that, uh, previously been 30 are called regulated roads and they're marked by street lights and they've all dropped to 20 unless the council had decided to keep some sections at 30.

Phil Latz: Okay, so like you say, it's just coming up to a year by the time this podcast come [00:14:00] out, it'll probably be exactly a year since that was implemented. So I know it's still early days, but you already have some data, don't you, that you presented at the talks that I've done. I saw. So what is that showing?

Lee Waters: Well, we've got six months, uh, of data and it's showing what we expected, which is really encouraging. It's because we, you know, we did base this policy on evidence and, uh, the evidence reviewed we had and the experience in Scotland, London and Edinburgh, where this has been done for a number of years area wide.

And so there's good data behind that as well. And we've seen in the first six months of 2024, uh, uh, falling deaths of over 50 percent, uh, falling casualties of just over a quarter, 26 percent, and overall casualties in total are now lower in Wales than they were during COVID. Um, so, you know, that's a really encouraging, uh, First set of data.

We know clearly we need to do this over a number of years to [00:15:00] be able to properly demonstrate through evidence, but the early signs are encouraging and they're in line with what we expected.

Phil Latz: Can you quantify how many people would that roughly translate to in six months that are alive now that might well not have been alive if you hadn't made this change?

Lee Waters: So, Wales is a small country, obviously with 3 million people in total. We typically see about 90 deaths. uh, per year, about half of them on 30 mile an hour roads. Uh, so a 55 percent fall, uh, in the first six months, uh, is six people alive who otherwise wouldn't be alive. So they were the same time the year before, 11 people were killed, uh, in the first six months of this year.

Five people were killed and then casualties have fallen from 510 to 377. So significant fall, uh, in casualties as well.

Phil Latz: Do you think this will be [00:16:00] strong enough for the legislation to stick or do you think there'll be a backlash still that might see it reversed?

Lee Waters: it's going to take time for this to settle in because it's a significant change in behavior and certainly as a driver, uh, When this first came in, I really didn't like it at all. It felt very uncomfortable and awkward and unnatural and, uh, felt very, very slow. So I completely understand people's frustration with it.

And we know when the people have been previous changes to the rules of the road, when seatbelts were introduced, when the breathalyzer was introduced, there was significant pushback for, uh, some time. Uh, you know, my, I remember my Dear old grandmother, 30 years after the seatbelt law came in, was still holding the seatbelt in her lap rather than click it in.

Uh, it's change is going to be uneven, but when you're talking about local roads, you don't need 100 percent of people to comply because, uh, Many people going slower changes the [00:17:00] overall speed, your ability to go fast. And so, again, anecdotally as a driver, it's very clear that people are driving slower.

They're not conforming to the speed limit, they're not driving at 20, but they were driving at 30 before. Uh, Phil Jones, again, who is also a technical expert on this, makes the point that, you know, if previously the average speed was around 34, 35 in a 30 mile an hour speed limit, now it's about 24, 25 in a 20, 20 mile an hour speed limit.

So it's, it's not, uh, compliant, but it is slower. Uh, and we know that, uh, the evidence suggests that for every one mile an hour drop in the average speed, you can expect to see something like a 6 percent fall in the casualty rates. So, you know, this will save lives and crucially, it starts to change the norm.

And that's what we're seeing already, is that people driving slower, even though it's uncomfortable at first and they don't like it, start to behave differently because they have [00:18:00] greater situational awareness. They're able to be far more alert to dangers and the potential for dangers. And if there is a collision, then they're far less likely to cause harm.

And other side benefits like, uh, quieter streets, you know, less sound pollution, and more civility, like letting people out of side roads or people from side roads being, feeling more confident to come out themselves because the speed of the traffic is slower. All of these things cumulatively, I think, will start to reshape people's norms.

And again, anecdotally, because we're only six months of data in, so we do have to rely a bit on anecdote, uh, I hear people saying, who don't like it, but who aren't doing it. Uh, and where the speed limit remains 30, and they're finding that speed really uncomfortably fast. Um, so, which is really interesting.

So I think it's already started to show signs of nudging behavior in a different way. But it's not popular. This let me, you know, I'm not going to deny that. The opinion polls are not moving in the way we hoped they would. About three years out, [00:19:00] our polling was showing 80 percent in favor. Uh, Uh, the latest poll is showing 75 percent against.

Now, so that's, you know, politically very uncomfortable. It's not where we want public opinion to be. But despite that, in parallel with that, the stats are showing the speeds are down, people are driving slower, and the casualties reflect that. Um, so it does require some political nerve to hold, hold the line, uh, at a time when public opinion is important.

Uh, is lagging, and that's, you know, not easy.

Phil Latz: Just one final, sorry Irene, one, just one final question on that was. I did touch on previously and and you didn't directly answer, which is fine, but about what what we should be doing in Australia to see this implemented. You did briefly mentioned that we could have done some things differently or words to that effect.

So now, with the benefit of hindsight, starting with a relatively blank slate in Australia. What would you say we should do?

Lee Waters: Well, [00:20:00] as a practicing politician, Phil, I reserve the right not to directly answer a question. Uh, old habits die hard. But I think one of the things I would say is there's some false barriers in Australia, and one is, uh, an insistence that before you drop speeds on local roads, you have to bring in infrastructure changes.

And there's a very strong sense amongst the highways professionals that you need to make. You need to put in speed cushions, you need to make engineering changes before you can drop the speed limit, and I think that is a false barrier, because first of all it makes it completely impractical to do at any scale, because it costs a fortune. Anything in the highway is very expensive. There's also a carbon element to it, if you're creating all that embodied carbon through engineering measures, that is taking us in the wrong direction. Direction what we've done in Wales is is not bothered with that at all. We've said we can just drop the speed limits We're not going to put in engineering measures.

We can put signs up. We're going to announce it. We're going to communicate it Um, [00:21:00] but we're not going to reinforce it with engineering measures Instead we'll make the change and when uh, we do some follow up Enforcement we can see there are cases where it does need to be reinforced by engineering measures Uh, then we do that by exception, but not as a, as a precondition.

And I, and I do think that is, uh, an unnecessary barrier, which is hindering the debate in Australia as is this absurd idea. Uh, you hear from the professions that you can't possibly drop the speed limit on the road because the speeds are currently too high, which, you know, is a self-defeating argument. Uh, but it's, it's one that is used, uh, to defend the status quo.

Uh, and that's, I think about, again, about culture. So one of the things I've been talking about is research coming outta Swans University in South Wales, uh, in the uk from the psychology department and what they call motor normativity. It's this, this idea that our norms have been so shaped by 70 years of putting the car [00:22:00] at the center, uh, that our ideas, our ideas have become distorted and we, we have a set of double standards where we ignore.

The adverse, uh, complications and consequences of, of car dominance in a way that we wouldn't in any other part of our lives. So one of the research questions that they pose is around attitudes towards people, people breathing in dirty air from cigarettes. Uh, they've asked the question, uh, if you, uh, are, um, breathing in other people's cigarette fumes, uh, then, uh, that's a bad thing.

So the direct question was people shouldn't smoke in highly populated areas where other people have to breathe the cigarette fumes. 75 percent agree with that statement, uh, 10 percent disagree. But then you ask, The almost identical question with some keywords changed, people shouldn't drive in highly populated areas where other people have to [00:23:00] breathe the car fumes, and 67 percent disagree with that, almost a total flipping, only 17 percent agree that's a bad thing.

And they've got lots of other examples that they've tested with a proper academic survey and sample, which show what they call motor normativity, which is this idea of double standards. So we've. That we've just absorbed, uh, the bad effects as a cost of doing business around cars. And I think that is a, that's a key barrier that's very much present in Australia as it is elsewhere, which stops us being willing to tackle, uh, car dominance in a way that we wouldn't in any other aspect of life.

Phil Latz: Yes, that's an amazing survey. And I think we might put that Global Cycling Network YouTube that was on a while ago about motor normativity. We'll put a link to that in the show notes as well. Irene.

Irene McAleese: I think for me, one of the things that really [00:24:00] stood out in the presentation that I saw you give in Sydney, Lee, was how you talked about taking a bit more of a strategic view, looking at climate change, the role that transport plays in that, um, and that's, and then trying to come a bit top down, and one of the things we talked a bit about, the Active Travel Act and cycling and some of your interest in that, but really, I thought it was impressive how you started looking at top down, how do we stop the demand for this, you know, some of these roads and transport in the first place, the planning applications that go in that, You know, put housing in that, that don't have much sustainable transport.

I wondered if you could just touch on that briefly, um, Lee, a little, a little about the roads review program that actually did see some new, major new road construction projects cancelled in Wales.

Lee Waters: Yeah, I suppose, you know, this goes back to when I [00:25:00] first left journalism and joined Sestrans where I started to think about this stuff because I think one of the issues that strikes me around transport and planning is that most people, particularly those people in politics. don't really reflect on, uh, the join up here.

So I can remember my mother saying to me, uh, about, uh, the out of town development in Llanelli that I represent in south west Wales, and, you know, how great it was, um, but simultaneously bemoaning the state of the town centre, and just hadn't made the connection, the fact that the town centre was in decline because you created this large car dominant free car parking shopping center outside of the town center.

And the same is true I think amongst politicians and decision makers. And we think of transport in terms of new infrastructure and we don't really unpick and challenge the contribution these patterns are having. To other adverse outcomes, which we bemoan, so, you know, we complain about obesity levels [00:26:00] rising or type two diabetes rising or all these adverse health effects, but don't really make the connection with the sedentary behavior that then generates.

Uh, because we are driving everywhere, because we are through land use policy, putting facilities in the area where you have to drive things, so it's fascinating how just these connections are so rarely made, and maybe that's a reflection of the motor normativity you were describing earlier, or just in a policy context.

When confronted with the targets we have to meet on climate change, it seems that, uh, blindness has to be challenged. So Australia has got a stretching target of a 43 percent reduction in carbon emissions by the end of this decade, by 2030, which goes completely against the grain of what's been achieved, uh, in recent decades.

Uh, certainly in Wales our climate advisors are telling us to meet our targets that in the next 10 years we have to cut emissions [00:27:00] Uh more than we have over the course of the whole of the last 30 years so more than three decades worth of cuts in one decade Look at how sectors in society have contributed to Emissions reduction since 1990 which is the global baseline every sector has moved.

We've seen reductions in every sector, even in agriculture, which is also seen as a hard one to shift. But the sector that's contributed the least is transport. And that's, you know, in the context of 30 years of technological innovations. Uh, but we've just eaten up those gains by generating more demand and of rising traffic levels.

And we have this idea of predict and provide, which drives highways policy. Is that car use is predicted to keep on growing, and that seems to be a good thing for the economy. Therefore, it's the role of transport planners just to keep up with that demand by just building more and more. So, that seems to be.

Entirely incompatible with our [00:28:00] carbon targets, not least because even the independent climate advisors say that simply shifting to electric vehicles will not get us to that level. Uh, so we, what we did is, uh, we, we made a change in the structure of our government. So we put transport in the same department as planning and housing and energy and regeneration.

Some of those drivers that were pushing, uh, domestic emissions in the wrong ways. And that allowed a different take and a different conversation to happen around transport. So, uh, I set up a, uh, review of road schemes to test how many schemes we had in our pipeline, uh, were consistent with the headroom that we had for carbon emissions rises, given that we have that 2030, 2040, 2050 target.

So one of the key things we did was put our carbon emissions target into law and then created what we call carbon budgets. These are five year windows. So we work back [00:29:00] from 2050 and say, okay, we're In order to reach net zero by 2050, what do we need to be doing between 2021 and 2025? What do we need to be doing between 2026 and 2030?

When you break it down to that level, you realize how much we have to shift and how fast we have to shift it. The other thing, you know, in transport, if you're an incoming transport minister, you are typically facing a pipeline of schemes that have been in development for about seven years. Lots of money already been spent on them, lots of local expectation and stakeholder buy in.

So it's very difficult then for a politician to come along and cancel that. But that's what we did. We paused all road schemes, we cancelled a major motorway scheme, and then we set up this roads review process to test So it's 50 schemes that were not yet, uh, shovel ready, but were well advanced, uh, and, uh, the, uh, independent panel set a range of criteria for when roads would be the right answers to transport problems in the future.

And to be clear, we will [00:30:00] still keep building roads, we're just going to raise the bar for when the roads are the right answer. Uh, and that then created a very different measurement for when we should go ahead with highways projects.

Irene McAleese: Yeah, yeah. I mean, it's so logical, really, when you think about it, to have targets, break those down, work backwards to see what actually has to be done. And it's, um, not done enough, I think, in lots of other places. So well done for that.

Lee Waters: Well, it's politically hard, so many, uh, industry vested interests that have a stake in keeping things going as they are, and you have the whole orthodoxy of the professions, uh, who just keep on doing what they've always done. You know, they, they build a manual as if a manual is somehow written in a tablet of stone, or they work to a set of treasury funding criteria, which again, are never challenged, but actually these are ideologically driven, uh, processes.

They've been [00:31:00] created and they can be changed. And if we are serious, and this is the point I keep making, if we are serious about change targets, and I must say I'm skeptical whether we are serious, uh, we are serious, you know, the, we shouldn't just be going on with the assumption that transport gets a free pass from the emissions reductions agenda.

It simply cannot. By the end of this decade, the biggest emitter in Australia will be transport sector. So, but yet nobody is questioning. what contribution transport makes other than electric vehicles and you still have this massive road building project going on and on and it's, it's time is called out.

Irene McAleese: Yeah. so taking some, some of the projects, I think, um, you know, obviously when, when you suspend a road or, have some roads cancelled, there was, you know, when, when, when that happens, when you push against the status quo, it's, it is going to push back at you. Did you want to touch [00:32:00] briefly on, maybe some of the media backlash that happens throughout that time and how you dealt with that?

Yeah.

Lee Waters: yeah, there was strong backlash, uh, politically as much as anything. As I say, this is now firmly part of the culture wars. So, you know, we were accused of being anti car, being anti motorist, of banning road building.

None of those things are true. Um, but that almost doesn't matter in politics. This perception is more important than reality. So it did require some determined political leadership. support of my colleagues and the First Minister to stick to our guns on this and rooting it in our determination to meet our climate targets I think really helped because that gave us a a justification. What was interesting though is that, uh, when we made the change the pushback was less severe than we anticipated it to be and we had prepared the ground and we'd made some earlier cuts which signaled a change of direction. But there was an acceptance at one level that change needed to be made, and it was [00:33:00] government's role to lead that change.

Not universal, but, you know, the water was warmer than we thought when we went in. Compare that with the speed limit change, where the reaction was more severe than we anticipated.

Irene McAleese: Wow.

Lee Waters: interesting.

Irene McAleese: Okay. Great. All

Lee Waters: Two of them, significant pushback. But the thing, you know, when you explain it, and I think, for me,

Politics is about as much about making an argument as it is simply, uh, repeating what we've always done. I think once you explain the reason for the change, and make an argument for change, and root it within the need to respond to climate change, you know, change is possible.

It's not easy, but it's possible.

Irene McAleese: And you've been really good at putting together the evidence. I think knitting together, you know, all of pulling, pulling all of these different kind of arguments from different areas, from transport, from health, from planning, being able to knit this together into a coherent argument. I think that's really one of your strengths and definitely bringing in [00:34:00] the evidence and the data to back up what you're talking about.

Yeah. Mm.

Lee Waters: Well, I think that's possibly retrospective, to be honest. You know, it's easy to do that now, looking back and explaining it, and it is the time. Because you're, you're in a fight when you're doing this, you know, the political arena is a crowded one and the media environment, a difficult one for making complex arguments or telling a multifaceted story.

Uh, and so I wouldn't overclaim our success in that regard in the moment, um, because you're always being shouted down. Um, but I do think there is a coherent argument that can be made and, uh, We're trying to continue to make, because this isn't just a one off thing. You have to keep making this argument, keep fighting this battle. And I guess the alternative is also important to state. Because, you know, the main pushback against this is that we're damaging the economy. And there's some really outdated treasury formula that we're obliged to follow, which shows some fantastical figures of economic harm. So, for [00:35:00] example, the, um, The argument on speed limits, we were obliged to come up with a impact on the economy of a loss of journey times as a result of the change.

So on average, a lower speed limit in urban areas. lengthens the car journey by about one minute. So we then had to accumulate every one minute lost by every journey made over 30 years and it came up with this ridiculous figure that this would cost the Welsh economy nine billion pounds every year. Now that just doesn't stack up.

If I'm a minute late going to see my granny that doesn't harm the economy. But these outdated formulas force us to report that. And of course, that is then used as a stick to beat your head with. But we need to challenge these formulas because the economic costs of doing nothing, of allowing emissions to continue to rise, will be devastating.

You know, it's been 20 years since the UK Treasury published a report by Lord Stern, which showed, uh, if we, didn't tackle [00:36:00] the runaway climate change, we'd be facing an annual drop in GDP of 5 percent every year. But we never make, we never make those connections. We simply assume we can just carry on going as we are, that all other things are equal and they are not.

So we allow the critics of this to make, absurd claims about the economic adverse consequences of not carrying on doing what we're doing without the counter being made about unless we change the economic cost of that, very severe indeed.

Irene McAleese: Is this what personally drives you, Lee? is it a, is it the, the environment at your core is the, the main driver that's helping you push through this, um, and make these changes? Is it a, um, tightly held personal value? I'm just trying to think about, obviously it's not easy what you are, what you've done, and some of the challenges along the way.

It could be tough. What, what inspires you to keep going and.

Lee Waters: Well, [00:37:00] I suppose it's a combination of, at an intellectual policy level, a recognition that The science of climate change is serious. When the world's scientists tell us to expect catastrophic climate change, I think we all have a moral responsibility to act on that, and that involves questioning our assumptions.

So, certainly there's, there's that drive of. If we're going to take this seriously, we've got to take it seriously. But also, I suppose, temperamentally, there's a bit of me that just rejects irrational arguments. I just, you know, once I start to unpick something, you know, I need a good reason for changing course.

Uh, and I, the fact that, you know, we've always done it this way, uh, drives me mad, really. Uh, I think that's a bit of a pattern throughout my life. So, it's a combination of both. The evidence is serious and we have to respond to it. And sticking with what we're doing is bloody stupid. The arguments really don't stack up.

Irene McAleese: Love it.[00:38:00]

Phil Latz: So I'm ignorant about Welsh politics. I'm ignorant about many things, and that's one of the long list.

Lee Waters: I'd advise you to, to, to, to nurture that ignorance.

Phil Latz: Okay, I'll take that advice. So from what I understand, you're no longer a minister in the Welsh Parliament, but you're still a member. So was that a personal choice to take a breather from all the vitriol that you direct attacks you got in the media? Or is that involved as a result of some political machinations that we probably don't need to know too much detail about?

Lee Waters: Well, I'd been, I'd been a minister for five years. During COVID, then taking on this massive challenge of trying to get our climate targets taken seriously. I was frankly burned out by it. It's a, it's an exhausting job at the best of times, you know, pushing water uphill takes a lot of energy. Uh, and, uh, I, you know, I'd struggled with the personal consequences of that.

That was definitely a significant driver, but also it was a [00:39:00] political change. We had a change of First Minister. Uh, I'd had support of the previous First Ministers to take this agenda through. Uh, but now the political backlash was quite severe. We were just before a general election in Britain, and I could just, you know, read the room that, uh, this was going to be difficult to sustain, uh, and there needed to be a sacrificial lamb.

So I was, you know, happy to, happy to oblige, because it's, it's the, it's the agenda that matters, not the, not the personalities.

Phil Latz: And one final question from me, what do you see the next steps in your work towards creating a more sustainable transport system in Wales or more sustainable future in general?

Lee Waters: Well, I wouldn't want to give the, uh, idea that we've cracked this, because we haven't. You know, what we've done, uh, is take advantage of, uh, an opening of political space, and we've made progress in it, but, but progress is, is non linear. Uh, you know, there are going to be pushbacks and setbacks. [00:40:00] Uh, and so we've made some significant advances, I think, in the way we've got the machine working, so the, sort of, the wiring of the system.

Uh, as I like to think about it. We've made some significant changes there, which we'll play through in years to come But this is a battle that keeps needing to be fought an argument that keeps So, uh, I don't think we can be, uh, complacent about any of the things that we've managed to achieve in the last few years.

We have to keep the pressure on that because it is a significant change of culture. And, you know, culture eats strategy for breakfast in the same famous saying. Significant change in professional practice and orthodoxy. So there's bound to be lots of behavioral pushback to that. People are going to try and game the system to try and find a way around things.

So I think, you know, keeping an eye on the implementation is key. And not simply think box text on the next thing. We've, you know, we've got to, we've got to, we've got to keep a focus on driving this through.[00:41:00]

Irene McAleese: Um, this has been a fantastic discussion, Lee. And, um, I think just like to hand to you now, just in closing, is there anything you would like to add or share as part of the discussion that, uh, we maybe didn't touch on in the time that we've had already?

Lee Waters: I guess the takeaway lesson for me in all of this is that. What we're trying to do here runs counter to what we've done for 70 years, uh, and is really hard. It's counter intuitive for lots of people, uh, and there are so many, uh, bits of wiring in the system that have been, uh, designed in a way to get the same outcome.

So even where you, so you think you may have fixed one part of the problem, there's another part of the system that will simply revert to type, because that's the way designed to work Uh, that's very powerful. Uh, and so we need to look at the whole, uh, the whole system here from beginning to end of a project and look at the various different points at which the [00:42:00] rules we work to from parking standards, uh, in the buildings to the way the economic formulas used to justify a scheme to the manuals, the professionals use, uh, all of these things.

are essential if we want to change course, and changing course is essential if we want to achieve our climate change targets. And these aren't some airy fairy tree hugger nice to have. You know, the consequences of not doing it will be economic collapse. Uh, and I can't put it more starkly than that. You know, the evidence is very clear on that, and we speak And during COVID thing, let's follow the evidence.

As uncomfortable as that was, politically and behaviorally, let's follow the evidence. Well, we should do the same with this, because the consequences of not doing that, we know, are very severe, and I don't think we'll be forgiven for it. By our future generations, knowing what we know, of then failing to act.

Phil Latz: Well on that sombre note, Lee, thanks for being on the Micro Mobility Report podcast.[00:43:00]

Lee Waters: Thank you.

Irene McAleese: Yeah, thank you, Lee. I think your trip is going to be extremely inspiring for many, many people, um, here in Australia. So, so well worth, um, you coming over for this. So thank you again​

Phil Latz: well, Irene, what an amazing man. What a rare thing for a politician to have such courage. What did you think of that?

Irene McAleese: Yeah, I mean, it was a privilege to speak with with Lee Waters. I'm of in awe about what he's been able to do, relatively young guy, actually, and, you know, listening to his career, he's been able to achieve a lot. And some of the learnings and insights that he shared about You know, how we got there were really fascinating.

Um, particularly when you think about, you know, the Active Travel Act, um, that's the first time that was brought into the UK. That in itself, his campaigning led to that. And the 20's [00:44:00] Plenty campaign, he listened to what other campaigners were saying and brought that in. There's just so much in there, so many learnings and, um, I take my hat off to him really.

Phil Latz: Yeah.

Irene McAleese: I think coming, looking at this with a cycling lens, because, When you reduce the speed of cars, it actually makes it more attractive for cycling and, and walking as well. So it's really, I think for me, the, the key thing is this joined up strategic approach top down, looking at those targets, what has to actually happen, what has to be in place to be able to reach that.

Um, and clearly he really appreciates active travel. So he's, he's looking at things with a lens about. Fundamentally, how you move people, rather than how you move cars, and everything seems to come from that. And I like what he, the term he used was something like, he put the wiring in place. [00:45:00] You know, putting the wiring in place, the legislation and things that are wiring that's making this happen.

But, um, you know, I think it's really his vision of being able to create that top down approach, I think is what sets him apart. And, um, that's something a lot of governments can learn from.

Phil Latz: And it needs to be said, he's so modest and understated, but these are world first initiatives. These really have made world news in transportation circles. And clearly he's been the key driver Um, he had a supportive first minister, as he said a couple of times, but without Lee Waters, they wouldn't have been making these world first.

So it really has been a great privilege to talk to him.

Irene McAleese: An interesting, you know, maybe leveraging a bit on his journalism background, but he talked about the importance of putting together the argument, um, and, and that's what he's really, really impressive, really impressive actually to, [00:46:00] to interview him and just see how articulate and how well he thinks on his feet.

So now we move to the final section of each podcast where we're going to give a brief summary of what we've been up to or things we've heard about since our previous podcast. And we're calling this segment, What's up? What's up, Irene?

Well, um, I'm just back from the ITS, Australian ITS Summit in Sydney, a week before last, which was fantastic. And while I was there, I got to go along and see the Better Streets event, and see, Lee Waters speak, as well as Clover Moore, actually, who I had never had the opportunity to hear speak for, and she was really impressive too.

and, and also Rob Stokes, um, previous Minister for Planning, so great panel, excellent event, and the ITS Summit as well, um, really good to see some more active travel coming into that. and that was certainly about what my presentation was there as [00:47:00] well. I think, yeah, a couple of headlines from Australia.

The big shock has obviously been um, the city of Melbourne voting to break its contracts with a couple of the, the share hire. E scooter companies six months early. so that's for Lime and Neuron. so there the councillors were citing safety concerns that had been raised by residents. General lawlessness of e scooter users, as the reasons for the decision.

so I think they've got about 30 days now to cease operations, but, it's a big shockwave and must be, very difficult times for Melbourne, to do it with e scooters. it'd be very interesting to see how that plays out. Um, and then I think the other thing that, um, I've just sort of come across, and I have to confess, I've not had a chance to go through it in detail yet, but I'm, I'm very interested to, uh, read a [00:48:00] paper called The Path to Net Zero, which is about decarbonizing Australia's transport system.

This is an AI TPM policy issue paper. I believe it's the first one they've done on this topic. but it seems an, it seems an important topic, especially in context of what we've just spoken about with Lee, having that top down approach, looking at how we can break down transport's role to In decarbonisation and of which active travel is definitely going to play a big part in that.

So, yeah, I just wanted to flag that one for people. I know iMove did a really good report on this topic as well for transport decarbonisation and just working back from those From those targets, um, really starts to bring home the enormous magnitude of the shifts that are going to have to happen. and, you know, the role that micro mobility will undoubtedly play, as part of that [00:49:00] modal shift.

Um, so yeah. I'm really,

about, uh, transport, I'm going to throw you right under the bus now, Irene. What does AITPM mean? You just used that big long initial. You've got to explain. so that is the Australian Institute of Transport Planning. I don't know what the M stands for actually.

Phil Latz: I think.

Irene McAleese: Managers. Okay.

Phil Latz: managers,

Irene McAleese: Right. Okay. So forgive me. I'm yeah, new to all the, the different organizations in Australia, but I think they're the key, key transport planner, professional group.

Phil Latz: What you're saying is it's an organization of engineers and road builders who are now saying it's time to take micromobility seriously and that is a very significant development. Would that be a fair summary?

Irene McAleese: I, I think that micro mobility will be a key part of, yeah, this, I have to caveat. I haven't read it in detail yet, Phil, but, yeah, I'm sure that, active travel and [00:50:00] micro mobility will, within that will be a big role. But yeah, it's, it's, I think as Lee said, You know, in his presentation that I saw at Better Streets, and I think he touched on it today, that the professions have a really key role.

In making the shift, you know, they've got policy documents, guidelines, on how to, how to build roads, how to create things. And if they don't actually change those, they're just written by people and they can be changed by people. and so these kind of things are significant shifts at the professional level for transport planners. And that's significant.

Phil Latz: Definitely. And we've seen that in America with the AASHTO versus the NACTO being created and so forth. Just one bit of good news on Melbourne you might not have caught up on. Three of the mayors from other states Uh, councils in Melbourne had a photo op with one of the local papers riding e scooters in their robes [00:51:00] down the streets in their mayoral robes saying, hang on a minute, just because the city of Melbourne.

is banning e scooters. We are actively talking with these companies and we are looking at introducing them in our council areas. So, unlike Brisbane, where a whole greater city of Brisbane just about is one council, like Sydney, Adelaide and Perth, et cetera. The city of Melbourne is really just the city centre and some inner surrounding suburbs.

So while the new mayor of the city of Melbourne has had a brain fade and done what he's done, it doesn't apply to all of urban Melbourne. Now, clearly it's the greatest density and would be the best place for scooters to be. profitable, but nevertheless, it's only one of 33 councils that have at least some part of their council area overlapping with urban Melbourne.

Irene McAleese: Very good. So can I put you on [00:52:00] the spot as well?

Phil Latz: please do go for it. Get me back.

Irene McAleese: Who were the three mayors or which city, um, locations were they from?

Phil Latz: Well, one was definitely Mary Beck, which has been very progressive and that's in the northern suburbs. And the other two that are still in the original program. Uh, the city of Yarra and the city of Port Phillip, which have not pulled out. So those two adjacent cities to the city of Melbourne are still in, as far as anything I've seen.

Now, there were two others in the photo and the short answer is, I can't

Irene McAleese: Okay. Okay.

Phil Latz: Got you've got me. We're one all.

Irene McAleese: well, yeah, well, I didn't know the M in the AITPM. So I think let's, let's call it a draw

there.

Phil Latz: right. We're getting stuck on the end. So my three what's ups for this episode are number one, a blatant plug to say that we're working [00:53:00] on the second annual micromobility report yearbook.

If you haven't heard of that thing, hop on the Micromobility Report website and click on the yearbook link on the top tab. And so the portal is now open for people to update. So any road engineer or anyone that makes bollards or has any, service or, um, physical products that relate to micro mobility can list in the yearbook for free.

The idea of the yearbook is it's a directory everyone can list for free and everyone can access it for free. It's both a flip book online and it's also a print edition available. So I'm not a fan of winter, but I'm heading down to Melbourne. I think it will be safe now, uh, to see a few people about that yearbook.

So that's coming up for me shortly. . The second thing I'd like to talk about in What's Up is that parliamentary friendship group cycling breakfast that I went to last Monday where [00:54:00] Lee Waters was the guest speaker. Now this is an organisation very close to my heart because I'm a co founder of the forerunner of We Ride Australia and founding benefactor of We Ride Australia.

So it's something I've been. heavily involved in, but We Ride Australia, which is based in the parliament, or it's based in Canberra, but it has set up this parliamentary friendship group of cycling, and we run about three or four events a year. And so just the privilege of going there, Hearing both Lee and also Phil Jones who he mentioned in his interview was there.

So Phil runs PGA, a very large consulting firm in the UK, over 120 staff, and they're very significantly involved in active transport micromobility. He was telling me after he presented at that breakfast that something like 25 of his staff in that micromobility space, which is quite a significant number.[00:55:00]

So, the chance to have a chat to them, but also just the chance to shake hands with a few politicians, look them in the eye. And say you, you're doing a good job in particular two that I had that opportunity was Helen Haynes, who's the independent member for Indi, who's one of the co conveners of the Parliamentary Friendship Group and David Pocock, who is the, um, Senator for the ACT or one of two senators for the ACT, also an independent.

I hadn't seen him at a breakfast before, so it was great to see him there and be able to just thank him for all the great work he's doing. And the third and final thing, which I don't know if you're aware of, it's only breaking news and it was a story that's been broken by the Australian newspaper, which I will admit that I don't read.

But the reason I found out about it yesterday, uh, on the weekend was that Neuron Mobility have decided to amplify this story and email their mailing [00:56:00] list to make them aware of it. So then I went to the Australian. And interestingly, I was able to get around their paywall and see the actual story and read it.

And I've actually got a printout somewhere on my desk as we speak. But it's, it's quite a concerning story at face value, but I just want to draw out a couple of points at the end of it. In a nutshell, there's been a whistleblower in Beam Mobility who has leaked a whole bunch of confidential documents, which seem to show pretty condemningly that they've been gaming the system and understating the number of scooters in particular, perhaps bikes and scooters in their share.

System that they've been putting out on onto the streets because they have to pay depending on the council and the deal, so much money per bike or per scooter, per day [00:57:00] in fees. So clearly if they've got a contract to do 1500 scooters and they can have 1800 scooters out there, they can generate more revenue that they're not paying for Now.

The CEO of Beam, the global CEO, the founder. Has come out with a two page statement, which says amongst other things that they're going to do a complete investigation and and along the lines of ready and willing to pay compensation to the councils concerned. There's quite a few councils involved, including the city of Brisbane.

And if it wasn't for the released internal. I think it's WhatsApp communication, which on the surface, it seems pretty damning. Uh, it, it wouldn't be perhaps such a story, but they've run a follow up story I see today in the Australian with more details. I don't think other [00:58:00] media have picked up on the story yet, but, and obviously I'm going to be very careful what I say.

These are all allegations. It's a media story. It could end up being some litigation between the councils and BEAM. I don't know. The, the points I want to make, which I'm sure won't be made in the, the, the press and especially the Murdoch press, uh, yes, this seems at, at, at face value to be, uh, perhaps a, a, a bad misjudgment and perhaps, uh, uh, going to be a damaging loss of trust, but why are there limits in the first place on the number of bikes or scooters in the scheme?

And secondly, why are share scheme operators. Having to pay local government so much per bike or scooter per day for the privilege of running these schemes because it's part of the public transport network and every other aspect of public transport is heavily funded by the government and [00:59:00] subsidized by the government being local, state or federal, depending on where you are and what the item of public transport is.

So in a way it's sad that they've. potentially done this if the allegations prove true, but there's these fundamental questions of why should it even, you know, the temptation be there in the first place. Have you got any thoughts on all of those revelations, Irene?

Irene McAleese: Gosh, um, well you saved that one, Phil, because I, I actually hadn't, I hadn't come across that. That's, um, quite, that's quite surprising. I'm just Googling that as, as you were speaking there, but it's all behind the paywall, paywall. So I don't really know much more than, than what you've just said. But, um, I mean, trust, trust with cities is, is very important.

you know, for, for operating, and, you know, anything that undermines that trust, could, could certainly be issue. [01:00:00] then to your point,some of these rules sometimes, um, uh, are overly onerous perhaps, and, and a bit unfair in terms of what we are asking of micro mobility providers. So, yeah, I don't want to say much more than that at this point, um, but, hopefully, hopefully, more can be resolved and, and I haven't read the, the article or, um, know much more about it than this at this point, but yeah, it seems, um, yeah, I see Neuron have jumped on this and, and gleefully sending it around to, to their contacts, but, um,

yeah.

Phil Latz: interesting,

Irene McAleese: I there's

Phil Latz: not contagion across to the other providers that uh, there's a, there's a, and Ride Report are heavily involved in this, of course, because Ride Report is the U. S. based. Uh, data system that the council is subscribed to and basically, if the allegations are correct, the ride report system has been gained [01:01:00] by BEAM and ride report, uh, clearly in a sort of a loss of face, loss of trust.

Uh, potential situation there and their CEOs already been making comments as part of this story and launching a full investigation as well. So there'll be a lot more of a play out with this, this story. So on that note, I think we'll wrap it up. So thanks everyone for listening. We are recording one Micro Mobility Report podcast per month.

It's available by all of the main podcast platforms, and you sub can subscribe so that you don't miss an episode. And if you'd like to find out more, you can visit the podcast page at www.micromobilityreport.com au. So until next time, keep riding.