Future of transport regulatory review: regulatory sandboxes
Introduction 
 
Thank you for responding to our consultation, your views will assist in the development of surface transport sandbox policy.
The closing date is 22 November 2021.
View all the questions
This survey provides questions based on user choice, a full copy of the questions is available (opens in a new window).
Print or save a copy of your response
When you get to the end of this questionnaire, you will be offered the chance to either print or save a copy of your response for your records. This option appears after you press 'Submit your response'.
Save and continue option
You have an option to 'save and continue' your response at any time. If you do that you will be sent a link via email to allow you to continue your response where you left off.

It's very important that you enter your correct email address if you choose to save and continue. If you make a mistake in the email address you won't receive the link you need to complete your response.
Accessibility statement
Read our accessibility statement for SmartSurvey forms (opens in a new window).
Confidentiality and data protection
This consultation by the Department for Transport is about gathering views to assist in the development of surface transport sandbox policy.
 
We are asking for:
•	your name and email address, in case we need to ask you follow-up questions about your responses (you do not have to give us this personal information, but if you do provide it, we will use it only for the purpose of asking follow-up questions)	
•	whether you are representing an organisation or yourself	
•	the type of work of your organisation in order to better understand your relationship with the issue	
Your consultation response and the processing of personal data that it entails is necessary for the exercise of our functions as a government department. DfT will, under data protection law, be the controller for this information. DfT's privacy policy (open in new window) has more information about your rights in relation to your personal data, how to complain and how to contact the Data Protection Officer.

Your personal data is processed on behalf of DfT by Smartsurvey, with respect that they run the survey collection software only, your personal data will not be shared with any other third parties, even those employed for the purpose of analysis.

We will not use your name or other personal details that could identify you when we report the results of the consultation. Any information you provide through the online questionnaire will be moved to our internal systems within 2 months of the consultation end date. The information will be kept securely and destroyed within 12 months of the closing date, with the exception of information and evidence of the Public Sector Equality Duty.

You 
1. Your (used for contact purposes only): 

name?  	 Neil Roth, Hon. Sec.	

email?  	 neilroth@talk21.com	

 
2. Are you responding: *

  	as an individual? (Go to ‘Surface transport regulatory sandbox’)	
x  	on behalf of an organisation?	
Organisation details 
 
3. Your organisation is in: 

  	academia?	
  	industry?	
  	the public sector?	
  	a non-governmental organisation?	
  	a charity?	
x  	another type of organisation?
 www.futuretransportlondon.org

	
Surface transport regulatory sandbox 
 
We are seeking feedback on the use of regulatory sandboxes to support innovation in surface transport.  
 
Innovation can disrupt the status quo and challenge the way things have been done previously. It can quickly outpace regulation. Regulations then create barriers that prevent the meaningful deployment of new technologies. Innovators and regulators need support to help break new ground in a way that is safe and responsible.  
 
A regulatory sandbox is a defined space where new business models, technologies and policies can be deployed and used in a way that is safe and responsible. Regulators take a leading role to provide guidance, exemptions and regulatory support to innovators.  
 
Sandboxes can:   
•	make more effective use of the existing legislative framework  	
•	reduce the risk of innovative new technologies, allowing their use ahead of legislative changes  	
•	reduce the regulatory burden placed on innovators  	
•	help regulators better understand the impact of new technologies and services  	
•	create opportunities to build new capabilities within local and central government – to understand how innovative new technologies might fit into traditional transport planning and business cases  	
Sandboxes are being considered as part of the wider context of modernising transport legislation to support innovative new modes and technologies. We are asking questions on 3 areas:   
1.	advantages and disadvantages of sandboxing  
2.	roles and responsibilities   
3.	new powers and regulatory flexibility  

Advantages and disadvantages of sandboxes 
The UK has pioneered the use of sandboxing in other sectors, such as aviation and finance, to enable the deployment of innovative new technologies and to build public trust. Sandboxing in surface transport poses new challenges, notably the lack of a single central regulator for all transport and innovation within this space. We are seeking views on the advantages and disadvantages of using sandboxes within surface transport to support innovation and build capability across all levels of government. 

4. What do you see as the: 

advantages of using a sandbox in surface transport?  
	 That good innovative technologies could be developed more quickly and cheaply and benefit the travelling public earlier. Where a short route has been introduced experimentally and successfully, it could be extended in phases (perhaps to serve a developing corridor) without requiring, e.g., a new TWA order each time. 	

disadvantages of using a sandbox in surface transport?  	Contractors playing off one Local Authority against others. Not knowing from where the Local Authorities will acquire the necessary expertise. Inconsistency between standards applied nationally and locally. Time wasted on bad innovative technologies. 	

Roles and responsibilities 
 
As sandboxes are place-based and unique to the challenges of the local area, we expect local authorities (LAs) to take a leading role in managing day-to-day activity. We are seeking views on specific roles and responsibilities within a sandbox and further views on how relationships within a sandbox should be managed.

5. What, in your view, should be the role of: 

central government in a surface transport sandbox?  
	 Ensuring that the LA has the necessary capability.  Accrediting contractors. Avoiding duplication of experimental effort.	

local government in a surface transport sandbox?  	 Acquiring the necessary budget, expertise and managing the project efficiently.	

 

Managing relationships within a sandbox between central and local government, industry, and the public is important. These relationships can provide arrangements for the sharing of data, monitoring performance, and resolving issues.   
 
Gathering evidence to assess the performance of activities within sandboxes will help inform future policy. Views are sought on how to monitor and evaluate deployments within sandboxes. This includes views on data sharing arrangements and partnerships between government and innovators.  
  

6. How, in your view, should relationships between parties be managed within a surface transport sandbox? 

  	Voluntary, non-contractual arrangements	
x  	Contractual arrangements	
  	Another option:

	

Why?  
 If it’s not contractual, the parties might well not do what they are supposed do!

	
Sandbox powers and regulatory flexibility 
 
Sandboxing can help make better use of existing powers through regulatory flexibilities to support new technologies and services. Views are sought on how existing powers might help support current and future innovation.  

We also need to find out if there are any gaps in the regulatory framework that could be usefully employed in future sandbox trials, to stimulate innovation and the development of emerging technologies.  

7. What existing legal powers, in your view, might unlock barriers to innovation in surface transport (including specific examples)? 

Around the turn of the Millennium on the Greenwich Peninsula, I monitored an (ultimately unsuccessful) experiment, which I had suggested, in using electronic guidance for buses: the bus driver would remain responsible for all functions except steering. The aim was to achieve many of the positive features of trams much more cheaply, quickly and flexibly using bus technology. Electronically guided buses should have many advantages over kerb guided buses. The guidance system was supposedly “proven technology” as used 24/24 and 7/7 in the Service Tunnel Transport System of the Channel Tunnel (and without which, for safety reasons, the Channel Tunnel must cease operations). The experiment was conducted on the mile long Millennium Busway built on private land leased long term by LT from English Partnerships. It would have been more difficult to conduct on the public highway. Perhaps any future innovation along a public highway which would otherwise require TWA powers could be at the discretion of the relevant highway authority? The Millennium Busway has now been in intensive operation for 20 years and is used by more than half a dozen bus routes (albeit unguided), some of them 24-hour routes. In accordance with the wishes of the London Borough of Greenwich, the Millennium Busway was designed with passive provision to be converted to tram technology (although LT had not identified a sufficient level of demand on that corridor).  

	

8. What existing powers, in your view, could be transferred or delegated to help support innovation at a local level (including specific examples)? 

 The focus of www.futuretransportlondon.org is on Greater London (and the surrounding commuter area) which has a statutory transport authority as well as two layers of local government. So, any transfer of powers suitable for the rest of the country is unlikely to be suitable for London. We have often wondered whether the proposed Croxley link (whereby the existing Metropolitan line branch to Watford would be realigned to Watford Junction) would have been completed years ago if it had been located within Greater London. 

	

New powers might be required to safely support innovation, given the potentially wide scope for innovation in surface transport and the likelihood of emerging regulatory barriers. We are seeking views on these new powers. 

9. In your view, are new powers required to enable the use of sandboxes in surface transport (including specific examples)? 

 In the case of the electronically guided bus experiment cited above, the Local Authority was the London Borough of Greenwich. I don’t see how giving LBG management powers for a transport project would have helped at all or been an efficient use of resources, given LT’s statutory responsibilities at the time and that TfL now comes under the Mayor of London. However, LBG is the Highway Authority for many of the local roads and might reasonably have been given powers to allow electronic guidance to extend along some of those, if the experiment had been successful. Safeguarding (in the hands of LBG as planning authority) was a major issue for the 10-mile Greenwich Waterfront Transit scheme, the extension of Millennium Transit being planned at the time.   

	
Other feedback 
 
The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) (opens in a new window) requires public bodies to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between different people when carrying out their activities.

As a part of this duty we are asking for any evidence on the potential impacts of these proposals on individuals or groups within society. The Equality Act (opens in a new window) lists the protected characteristics of: 
•	age	
•	disability	
•	gender reassignment	
•	marriage and civil partnership	
•	pregnancy and maternity	
•	race	
•	religion or belief	
•	sex	
•	sexual orientation	
This evidence will be anonymised and retained after the retention period of this consultation information.

10. Supply any data or evidence you have about any of the proposals discussed that you think would positively or negatively impact on individuals with protected characteristics. 

[Attach any evidence you have your response]  

Comments:  
 One of the objectives behind the electronic guidance experiment cited above was to enable buses to draw alongside tram-style platforms and provide step-free, gap-free boarding and alighting which would have been of particular benefit to those of reduced mobility, including wheelchair users. Dwell times would be less for all passengers (including wheelchair users who must otherwise wait for an extendible ramp to be deployed when boarding and when alighting) and journey times consequently that much faster for all passengers.

	
Final comments 
 
11. Any other comments? 

 Regulations need to be constantly under review and any previously unconsidered capability appropriately regulated before it is introduced.